Watson is very sociable and friendly, while Holmes is independent. "I confess, my dear fellow, that I am very much in your debt. He had never said as much before, and I must admit that his words gave me keen pleasure." This proves my point because it shows that Holmes is not used to people helping him out. This is probably because he locks himself away in his room smoking a pipe thinking about the crime, when Watson goes to socialise. He also likes doing things on his own merits, so when Watson helps he feels amazed and wants to owe him something. Meanwhile Watson takes his compliment and is astonished beyond belief.
Two other personality differences are that Holmes is arrogant. "It may be that you are not yourself luminous." This says that Holmes is arrogant because he is praising Watson but at the same time making himself look bright and important. This also shows that Watson is not as clever and helps the readers along with the story, because he asks the same questions the audience would, making him down-to-earth and likeable rather than someone to admire.
He becomes likeable because he is a solid and reliable character. "Then my reports have all been wasted!" My voice trembled as I recalled the pains and pride with which I had composed them. Holmes took a bundle of papers from his pocket. "Here are your reports, my dear fellow, and very well thumbed, I assure you. I made excellent arrangements, and they are… extraordinary difficult case." This shows that Watson is a reliable character because he wrote to Holmes on a regular basis and felt disappointed that his work had been a waste of time. Another useful quote is "My dear fellow, you have been invaluable to me in this as in many other cases…" This proves that Watson has been a solid and very reliable helper over a long period of time. I don't think that Sherlock Holmes would be able to succeed in solving the crimes without Watson, because he helps pointing out simple clues and helps with undercover detective work.
Dr Watson is a good narrator to the story because he cannot make sense of the clues, just as the reader can't. Watson suggests, "There is the friends of the CCH. I should guess that to be the something Hunt, the local hunt to whose members he has possible given some surgical assistance, and which has made him a small presentation in return." Holmes replies "I would suggest, for example, that a presentation to a doctor is more likely to come from a hospital than from a hunt, and that when the initials 'CC' are placed before that hospital, the words 'Charing Cross' very naturally suggest themselves." This is a useful example of Holmes understanding the clues and Watson not. So because he didn't understand, Holmes had to spell out the clues easily, using language that the reader would be able to understand. Dr Watson comes in useful when having to decode the clues from Holmes' deductions. He does this by listening to and reporting regularly, the significance of the earlier clues. " Baskerville Hall, Oct. 13th. My Dear Holmes, my previous letters and telegrams have kept you pretty well up-to-date as to…" This shows that Watson is very faithful, listens to clues and writes to Holmes. This helps in decoding clues because he writes in language that the reader would be able to understand. So because he writes up all the clues together, we are more able to solve parts of the mystery ourselves.
The benefits of having Dr Watson as the narrator rather than Sherlock Holmes, are that the audience wouldn't feel patronised and they might find that it is too scientific if the storyteller was Holmes. " From my small medical shelf I took down the Medical Directory and turned up the name. There were several Mortimers, but only one who could be our visitor. I read his record aloud. Mortimer, James, MRCS, 1882…. The readers would find this quite boring and too complicated to understand if it was like this all the way through it because they do not have the skills and information they might need to solve the crimes.
Another reason I think that Watson would be better at being the narrator because, I think that Holmes wouldn’t be able to write a story to the readers as he would be too interested in solving the murder or crime. He would also be more interested in just writing the facts down, so the audience would just become clueless about piecing the facts together as it would probably just be clues dotted around on the page.
The last but most no means least reason to me, why Watson is the suited character is that, when Holmes had worked out the murder and the villain, he would tell you straight away. This would be unexciting for the reader because it would end up more like a documentary rather than a thriller because there would be a lack of suspense for the finale.
In conclusion to what I have written, I think that Dr. Watson is best suited to the part of narrator. He helps us understand the novel because he does not use scientific words, that ordinary people would not understand. Pointed out how Holmes and Watson are different. Like Watson being a solid, friendly, reliable and useful. While Holmes would come across arrogant, patronising and too scientific. Overall I think that I have met my aims because I have proven all my points with a quote and an explanation or comment.
