Sherlock Holmes: Knowledge is Good and Bad
I am obsessed with watching crime shows, especially the ones with the FBI who think like the killers to bring justice on them. The FBI are heroes in my eyes. They do the job defeating the devils of the country and yet, are still not seen as angels because of their deep dark conscience of being so close to their suspects. I can’t help but think that Sherlock Holmes in 20th century England, is today’s FBI in the crime shows.
In every crime show, the different partners bring different aspects to the crime creating an understanding atmosphere. Dr. John Watson is Sherlock Holmes’ sidekick in all their mysteries. What does Dr. Watson bring to the table to help solve the cases? Watson’s knowledge is relatable. In the Hound of the Baskervilles, Holmes calls him a “humble commoner” suggesting that the knowledge is understandable between everyone. The perspective of Watson is limited. Dr. Watson is always in the moment of the mystery where he sees the surface of what is happening. Relatable knowledge connects the reader to Watson more than Holmes because the reader can understand and connect with Watson.
“And now I come rapidly to the conclusion of this singular narrative, in which I have tried to make the reader share those dark fears and vague surmises which clouded our lives so long and ended in so tragic a manner.” (115)
While Watson is figuring out the mystery, the reader is as well. Therefore, Dr. Watson brings a knowledge that is related in terms of understanding. In Criminal Minds, AJ Cook is the girl who brings all the team members to work on the case. Although she is very smart, she works with the press to help spread the word to the people. Dr. Watson does similarily the same thing with the reader.
While Watson is of the people, Sherlock is of the killer. Holmes is only in the beginning and end of the novel; yet, his knowledge is more than Watson’s during the case. Sherlock’s knowledge is information explosion because Holmes has “the power of detaching his mind at will”. Holmes posseses so much knowledge that he detaches human interactions because he cannot share with others. Holmes has a mind that cannot pick and choose what he wants to know, instead it is all presented to him. This causes Holmes to push Watson away from London and himself.
Since Sherlock has an overwhelming amount of information as a hero then his nemisis should have the same amount. So, if Sherlock and Stapleton, who was the killer of the Baskervilles, have the same knowledge, then what makes Sherlock different from Stapleton? It is not with what knowledge is but what to do with the knowledge presented.
Sherlock and Stapleton contain the same level of knowledge accessible. Yet, they are opposing characters through their actions. Stapleton is not the narrator because his knowledge is morphed into a killer. The book would be like reading the novel from an inside perspective of the killer’s thoughts and movements. Therefore, the reader would already know the killers plans and thus, make it an execution novel instead of a mystery. His persuasion towards other people could potentially lead to an unreliable narrator in which a reader would not trust the narrator with the information given, thinking that there is something not being said.
Sherlock possesses the same persuasion of people but does not use it in hostile situations. This is what makes him different from Stapleton. Sherlock has a mind of a killer but does not act on it. He “detaches his mind at will” which in this case, makes it beneficial and different from a criminal because Stapleton cannot control his mind. Holmes also acts on his knowledge in the beneficial way of saving people instead of killing people.
Knowledge is good and bad. It depends on what is done with that knowledge. The actions of Holmes is different from Stapleton. Holmes pushes Watson and Henry Baskerville to keep them safe from the knowledge of London. Holmes’ knowledge is only to have a mind like a killer in order to catch the killer; thus, this knowledge is being used for good. Stapleton does not have control of his knowledge because it is consistently persuading his sister in doing bad actions. These actions between these two characters makes up a big difference in knowledge because knowledge is good and bad.
