Hannah Winward

[Professor Name]
2/20/16
Why Watson?

Sherlock Holmes, consulting detective, chemist, actor, and logic reasoner, has captured
the hearts and minds of people everywhere since Sir Arthur Conan Doyle created the character in
1887. The stories have reached across culture and continent until Sherlock Holmes has become
a household name and hundreds of adaptations and follow-up stories have been created trying to
imitate or capture the essence of this mysterious, brilliant man. No character has been known by
so many, across so many borders. How is this done? Many have tried explain the reach of this
seemingly immortal character and his influencewhat makes the detective stories so powerful?
The secret of the Sherlock Holmes stories is that Doyle employs a particular narrative form that
while at first glance appears ungainly and counterproductive (neglecting to use Holmes as a firstperson narrator), produces a brilliant and lifelike character and story.
Perhaps the first reason Doyle did not create the mystery stories from Sherlocks
perspective is simply because the audience could not keep up with the detectives stream of
consciousness. In the stories, Sherlock often examines clues and has an insight long before he
reveals it to anyone else. The reader has no way of knowing whats going on in the logicians
mind as he connects the muddy footprint to the crooked nail to the postmans dog to the criminal,
and neither would they want to as the detectives stream of conscious would probably leave them
with nausea and whiplash. The seemingly unconnected clues also give the mystery a sense of
complete chaos, which makes Sherlocks reveal from his own perspective at the end of the story
all the more satisfying and striking. This reveal would be much less powerful if Sherlock were

Winward 2
telling the story all along as the reader would be getting hints about the connection of the clues
and might be able to solve the mystery themselves before the last page.
A first-person narrator forces Sherlock to slow down and explain his thinking so the
connection of the clues to final accusation makes sense. This person would also be able to
describe Sherlock in a way only a close companion could, as men who had only known the
quiet thinker and logician of Baker Street would have failed to recognize him (321). (Sherlock
also would probably think that a description of his character would not be important enough to
include.) A first-person narrator also traps the reader in that same view. Even though the firstperson narrator may be with Sherlock at the crime scene and sees the same things Sherlock does,
[they do] not know where to look, and so [they] missed all that was important (297). However,
being trapped in the first-person perspective does have its advantages for the development of
Sherlocks character. Because the stories arent shared with us from Sherlocks perspective, his
mind is a mystery to us; it is unknowable and unfathomable. This only adds to the power and
romance of the stories. Knowing exactly whats going on in someones head provides a certain
exactitude to their character, but because the reader never knows Sherlocks thoughts, he remains
a mystery. This leads to further admiration of Sherlock because no one knows whats going on in
his mind, it cannot be criticized, examined, or diagnosed. The character everyone wants to know
more about is forever shrouded in secrets because of the power of the first-person narrative.
Doyle also needed a first-person narrator who could write since he was lending
authorship of the stories to the first-person narrator and stepping behind them in a sense, like a
puppeteer giving one of his characters narrative voice. A talented writer would be vital to setting
vivid tone in each story through textual details as is done in the opening scene of The Five
Orange Pips when we hear that: all day the wind had screamed and the rain had beaten again

Winward 3
the windowslike untamed beasts in a cage (332). Having a writer tell the story also heightens
the sense of verisimilitude of the story. The adventures of Sherlock Holmes are presented as
published case files, real events, not as a novel to intended to help indulge ones imagination for
a few hours. The reality of the stories is also strengthened because the chronicler tends to
embellish so many of [Sherlocks] own little adventures (263). If there is a mistake in the text
then, it can be attributed to the story teller and not to the facts.
Doyle needed this first-person narrator and writer to also be a close companion of
Sherlocks; this would allow them to [know] his every mood and habit (240), and to help
humanize a character whom the reader might otherwise label psychotic and strange. Even the
great Sherlock Holmes said that a trusty companion is always of use (356), and that
occasionally he needs someone to see a spark where all is dark to me (357). This humanization
also redeems Sherlock and makes him more likable, even though he is brusque and occasionally
rude and frustrating to everyone but his Boswell (and sometimes not even then). A close friend
would also be able to recognize Sherlocks shortcomings without destroying the credibility of his
character, which blunders are apparently a more common occurrence than anyone would think
who only knew [Sherlock] through [the] memoirs (522).
This Boswell needed to be someone smart, but not as smart as Sherlock so that Sherlock
appears even more clever than an intellectual. Holmes is meant to be the star of the stories, and
having an intelligent companion only perpetuates that Sherlock is the smartest character in the
stories, and perhaps in any story the reader has ever read. As a first-person narrator and observer,
this intelligent companion would also help offload the shame of not being able to solve the
mystery before or along with Sherlock. Although they are intelligent, their inobservance of some

Winward 4
detail maintains the idea that the reader could have solved the mystery if only they had been a
little more observant.
The perfect solution of course, is Dr. John Watson, MD, military doctor, friend, Boswell,
and narrator. Watsons grand gift of silencemakes [him] quite invaluable as a companion to
Holmes (357). Watsons friendship with Sherlock humanizes the often brash detective in a way
that redeems the protagonist of his often socially queer behavior. From behind Watson, the reader
can admire and be awestruck by Holmes without having to actually deal with him. The doctor
also provides an emotionally close character to whom Sherlock can explain his thinking process.
Though it doesnt happen often, Dr. Watson also assists the logician when all is dark to [him]
(357). Watson also uses his narrative in a certain selection and discretion [of the facts]used in
producing a realistic effect (288). Watson as a narrator then is not only the perfect choice, but
the only choice in order to create the great Sherlock Holmes.