Every single detective narrative is required to begin with a breach of the social contract, specifically a murder, that the main character or characters is obligated to solve. In the novel The Hound of the Baskervilles by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the crime specified is the death of Sir Charles Baskerville; whose death was initially thought to have been caused by a heart attack, until the footprints of a large canine were discovered not far from the corpse. Along with the unusual footprints discovered, there is also a curse mentioned by Dr. James Mortimer that has run within the Baskerville family for centuries, prompting an investigation to be launched. Throughout this narrative, Sherlock Holmes and his partner Watson display significantly different methods of reacting to evidence or interrogation; with Holmes being incredibly quick to point out observations and Watson typically keeping his to himself.
Sherlock Holmes is a man who seeks only the facts and isn’t one to listen to meaningless statements. His questions are very short and straight-to-the-point when it comes to gathering evidence. One such example of this is during his and Watson’s interrogation of Dr. James Mortimer, after Watson had discovered the footprints of the massive hound near Charles Baskerville’s body. During his questioning, Holmes grows irritated over Mortimer’s reasonings of not calling him upon catching sight of the hound, which consisted of “what was the use?” (Doyle, 13). He very swiftly notices Mortimer’s unease with his constant questions, even stuttering at one point. “I could not call you in, Mr. Holmes, without disclosing these facts to the world, and I have already given my reasons for not wishing to do so. Besides, besides- ““Why do you hesitate?” (Doyle, 15).
Compared to his partner, Watson is much more subtle about noting his observations; opting to make mental notes rather than utilize them as interrogation material. One such example of these mental notes is when he has his first experience at Baskerville Hall as he discussed his hearing of a sobbing woman the night before with Sir Henry Baskerville, the next heir of the Baskerville family. As the men speculate whether or not the sobbing was real, Sir Henry rang a bell for his butler, Barrymore, to throw in his two cents. After Sir Henry asked for his experience, Watson noted that it “seemed to him that that the pallid features of the butler turned a shade paler still as he listened to his master’s questions” (Doyle, 45). As Barrymore recounted that there are only two women in the house and that neither of them could’ve been sobbing, Watson confirmed that “yet he lied as he said it” for by a chance encounter, Barrymore’s wife emerged from the corridor, “her telltale eyes were red and glanced at me from between swollen lids” (Doyle, 45).
In conclusion, Sherlock Holmes’s and his partner Watson have fairly opposite methods of using observation to gather evidence. Where Holmes uses these observations to draw out information from those he questions, Watson tends to keep mental notes and almost completely contain the information for only Holmes to hear. No matter which technique triumphs which, the two partners always succeed in their investigations; their techniques balance each other out, creating an effective balance between the two. Holmes and Watson utilize their respected methods of observation for the greater good, as they have never failed to solve a case.
Comments