Valley of Fear (up to Darkness Reading Log) -- Hope I'm Doing this Properly
Evidence in Sherlock Holmes - Free-write (?)
The opening 4 chapters in Valley of Fear describe the traditional Sherlock Holmes-style mystery: a murder victim, random pieces of evidence scattered around the room, unwitting police, a developing locked-Birlstone-castle situation, and no obvious means and motive for the murder itself. Even at this early stage of the novel, Doyle has already shown how the best evidence is not plainly seen or handled at the crime scene, but rather the result of extraordinary meticulousness and deductions of mundane objects. It is the small, seemingly insignificant details that tell all about the crime scene; one just needs to be observant enough to understand them.
Holmes's faculty of deducing everything from almost nothing is what makes him such a famous detective. When Holmes discusses Professor Moriarty with Inspector MacDonald, he reveals that Moriarty has an expensive Jean Baptiste Grueze painting in his otherwise humble office. Moriarty has crafted such a distinguished and respected persona for himself that calling him a criminal amounts to "uttering libel in the eyes of the law"(769). Even the inspector was bamboozled by Moriarty's persona, but it was this one mistake of having such a painting combined with Holmes's own esoteric knowledge of arts that undid the facade and let Holmes and MacDonald understand Moriarty for who he truly is. Regarding the Birlstone crime itself, it was Holmes (and Watson I guess) who studied the Birlstone coded message so carefully to be able to deduce not only the almanac it was based off, but exactly what the message itself said. To any other, a cipher without the key would be a lost cause, even to Porlock who thought Holmes ought to burn the cipher due to its uselessness. But Holmes's meticulousness and logic turned this paper into an extremely useful evidence tying (hopefully) Moriarty to this crime. Even within the investigation, Holmes focuses not on the obvious pieces of evidence like the body or the gun, but rather takes the time to notice more obscure anomalies: the victim's shaving cut, the dumbbell, the actual ink on the V.V. 341 letter rather than the actual V.V.341 meaning. Sherlock Holmes golden rule with investigations captures the essence of his idea of evidence: "the temptation to form premature theories upon insufficient data is the bane of our profession." When Holmes hears the crime from the police, he is only receiving the big, obvious pieces of evidence the police found. But since Holmes understands that the small, insignificant pieces of evidence can change everything and become the best, he holds off on making any theory until he himself can visit the crime scene and discover the little pieces of evidence that, eventually, will reveal the true nature of the crime.
The Sherlock Holmes novels as a series and franchise, however, may corrupt its "moral" that small evidence is supreme when we try applying it to the real world. Ostensibly, Sherlock Holmes novels are written by Watson, who wants to document the incredible powers of Holmes through the cases. Doyle, the real author, wanted to create good detective stories to make a living. Therefore, the situations presented Valley of Fear and the other Sherlock Holmes novels are slightly unrealistic; they are crafted and told so that Sherlock Holmes can showcase his deductions in the best light possible ... interesting readers and enticing them to buy more books. Since the small-evidence deductions show Holmes at his best, it is probable that Doyle overemphasizes the role that small, insignificant evidence can play in crimes, which should make we, the readers and students, wary of the lessons on evidence we take from this novel. Nonetheless, while maybe exaggerated, Doyle is developing Valley of Fear into a novel where the best kind of evidence comes from thoughtfully analyzing the most unlikely/mundane of sources
The opening 4 chapters in Valley of Fear describe the traditional Sherlock Holmes-style mystery: a murder victim, random pieces of evidence scattered around the room, unwitting police, a developing locked-Birlstone-castle situation, and no obvious means and motive for the murder itself. Even at this early stage of the novel, Doyle has already shown how the best evidence is not plainly seen or handled at the crime scene, but rather the result of extraordinary meticulousness and deductions of mundane objects. It is the small, seemingly insignificant details that tell all about the crime scene; one just needs to be observant enough to understand them.
Holmes's faculty of deducing everything from almost nothing is what makes him such a famous detective. When Holmes discusses Professor Moriarty with Inspector MacDonald, he reveals that Moriarty has an expensive Jean Baptiste Grueze painting in his otherwise humble office. Moriarty has crafted such a distinguished and respected persona for himself that calling him a criminal amounts to "uttering libel in the eyes of the law"(769). Even the inspector was bamboozled by Moriarty's persona, but it was this one mistake of having such a painting combined with Holmes's own esoteric knowledge of arts that undid the facade and let Holmes and MacDonald understand Moriarty for who he truly is. Regarding the Birlstone crime itself, it was Holmes (and Watson I guess) who studied the Birlstone coded message so carefully to be able to deduce not only the almanac it was based off, but exactly what the message itself said. To any other, a cipher without the key would be a lost cause, even to Porlock who thought Holmes ought to burn the cipher due to its uselessness. But Holmes's meticulousness and logic turned this paper into an extremely useful evidence tying (hopefully) Moriarty to this crime. Even within the investigation, Holmes focuses not on the obvious pieces of evidence like the body or the gun, but rather takes the time to notice more obscure anomalies: the victim's shaving cut, the dumbbell, the actual ink on the V.V. 341 letter rather than the actual V.V.341 meaning. Sherlock Holmes golden rule with investigations captures the essence of his idea of evidence: "the temptation to form premature theories upon insufficient data is the bane of our profession." When Holmes hears the crime from the police, he is only receiving the big, obvious pieces of evidence the police found. But since Holmes understands that the small, insignificant pieces of evidence can change everything and become the best, he holds off on making any theory until he himself can visit the crime scene and discover the little pieces of evidence that, eventually, will reveal the true nature of the crime.
The Sherlock Holmes novels as a series and franchise, however, may corrupt its "moral" that small evidence is supreme when we try applying it to the real world. Ostensibly, Sherlock Holmes novels are written by Watson, who wants to document the incredible powers of Holmes through the cases. Doyle, the real author, wanted to create good detective stories to make a living. Therefore, the situations presented Valley of Fear and the other Sherlock Holmes novels are slightly unrealistic; they are crafted and told so that Sherlock Holmes can showcase his deductions in the best light possible ... interesting readers and enticing them to buy more books. Since the small-evidence deductions show Holmes at his best, it is probable that Doyle overemphasizes the role that small, insignificant evidence can play in crimes, which should make we, the readers and students, wary of the lessons on evidence we take from this novel. Nonetheless, while maybe exaggerated, Doyle is developing Valley of Fear into a novel where the best kind of evidence comes from thoughtfully analyzing the most unlikely/mundane of sources
Your take on evidence in Sherlock Holmes novels is interesting! I didn't even think about how Doyle really emphasizes minute details. But I think that emphasis is what really makes the novel all the more interesting. If I had walked in on Douglas dead, I most likely would not have noticed the missing wedding ring in between two other rings or the shaving cut. It's details like such that make the reading so much more interesting, at least that's what I think. It makes me wonder why in the world his wedding ring is gone!! Or why the shaving cut is so important! Also, I love your vocab (hope that's not weird) and your thought process...it's really reflected in your writing. I look forward to reading more of your responses!
ReplyDeleteYour thesis on how Doyle uses all of the small evidence to make the story more interesting and highlight Sherlock Holmes' skills is very well-written and thought out! I agree that the deductions and the stories may be slightly unrealistic, but they definitely do serve a large purpose in creating some suspense and interest for the readers. I'm not sure I quite understand what you mean by the series/franchise corrupting the moral that small evidence is supreme, though.
ReplyDelete