Although on a personal level Holmes rarely seems avid, he can become quite fanatical when investigating a case, and seems determined to see justice triumph over misconduct. He appears to find some pleasure in his line of work, being particularly fond the rather ambiguous cases he specialises in, rather than less remarkable crimes - this is shown by his rant at the beginning of The Copper Beeches, in which he says that "...the days of the great cases are past. Man, or at least criminal man, has lost all enterprise and originality." It is also mentioned in The Speckled Band, where, when describing the kinds of cases Holmes has investigated, Watson writes "I find many tragic, some comic, a large number merely strange, but none commonplace..." In such cases, he demonstrates a capability of thinking outside the box and considering even the most bizarre explanations.
In spite of all these factors which may make Sherlock Holmes appear somewhat too perfect to be believable, he is not without his faults. Watson suggests in The Copper Beeches that Holmes was prone to vanity and egotism, when he remarks that he "was repelled by the egotism that I had more than once observed to be a strong factor in my friend's singular character". Holmes, however, subsequently denies or justifies any such vices. He is sometimes prone to temper, such as in the same part of The Copper Beeches, when he lectures Watson about how he has recorded the cases, coming across as rather critical and not showing any gratefulness. In his sophistication, he sometimes comes across as rather snobbish, and he doesn't always respect other people - for instance, in The Red Headed League, upon hearing Wilson's description of the bizarre series of events which had befallen him, Watson and Holmes "both burst out into a roar of laughter". This suggests not only that Holmes has a sense of humour, but also that he is occasionally lacking in tact, making fun of Wilson's confusion.
It is also important to note that Watson, as the narrator of the stories, is responsible for the portrayal of Holmes, and therefore the impression the reader gets of him may be slightly biased due to the pair of them being close friends.
Doctor John Watson, Holmes' reliable sidekick, narrates the majority of the Sherlock Holmes tales, with the exception only of four out of the fifty six short stories, and is necessarily present at each of the cases.
In A Study in Scarlet, Watson recounts the events leading up to how he met Holmes, beginning (after a brief mention of gaining his degree in medicine) with his role in the second Afghan war. He served as assistant surgeon on the British/Indian side (India being, at that time, part of the British Empire) but was later sent back to England an invalid, having narrowly avoided death when shot by the enemy, and then suffered from Enteric fever. Upon reaching England, with nine months to recover, Watson had ended up in London (though he later spoke contemptuously of it as "that great cesspool into which all the loungers and idlers of the Empire are irresistibly drained", even albeit his and Holmes' home) where he found accommodation in a hotel, only to lead a fairly unpleasant life, sinking into financial difficulties. In an effort to rectify this, Watson departed from the hotel, thus ending up at 221b Baker Street, with Sherlock Holmes.
Once they began living together, the two of them most probably grew to be reasonably good friends, accounting for why Watson ending up filling the position of Holmes' assistant and biographer. Therefore their relationship, on the whole, seems fairly stable, yet not without turbulence, as demonstrated in the beginning section of The Copper Beeches where, as mentioned above. Holmes criticises Watson's written accounts of their cases, and Watson secretly detests the arrogant side of Holmes' character. It suggests that he may sometimes have felt slightly jealous of Holmes, and understandably so as Holmes' brilliance may have overshadowed him. Occasionally, Watson attempts to mimic his companion's extraordinary powers of observation, but never to any great degree of success - for example, towards the beginning of The Red Headed League, when he first encountered Jabez Wilson, he "endeavoured after the fashion of my companion to read the indications which might be presented by his dress or appearance", but evidently was nowhere near as skilled at this as Holmes, as he then stated "I did not gain very much, however, by my inspection." Holmes, on the other hand, not only recognised what Watson was attempting to do, but also made a series of much better deductions from Wilson's appearance.
Even though his deduction’s compared to Holmes’ are useless, Watson is evidently of no insignificant intelligence, having gained a medical degree himself. Moreover, he does seem to outshine Holmes in one area - socially. While Holmes appears more concerned with his investigating than with relationships, and likely to remain a bachelor, Watson is married. Arguably, Watson's most important role in narrating the stories is as someone more "human" than Holmes himself, thus enabling readers to empathise with them more than they might if they had been presented the cases through Holmes' eyes.
In The Red Headed League, the villain turns out to be John Clay, who Sherlock Holmes knew about already, although in The Red Headed League he was working under the false name "Vincent Spaulding" whilst posing as Jabez Wilson's assistant. Though each of the villains was mentioned at an early stage in the story, therefore fulfilling Ronald Knox's first rule of detective fiction, Clay appeared to be the only one out of the three who was already a wanted criminal even before the crime in question took place. Besides being extremely clever and seemingly having avoided capture previously, Clay also comes across as rather big-headed, as, upon being captured, he indicates "you may not be aware that I have royal blood in my veins" and requests to be addressed politely, pointing out that despite his planned robbery being foiled, his pride was still whole and he wasn't going to lower himself to struggling, appearing instead to take his arrest rather considerately.
The other two villains appear to be much more similar, along with their crimes. Both were stirred by greed; not wanting their daughters to marry in order not to have to allow the girls money which would otherwise belong to the villains. Both got a taste of their own medicine: Dr Roylott is killed when bitten by the snake he was attempting to set on his daughter, whereas Mr Rucastle was attacked by the mastiff when he freed it. I would consider both Roylott and Rucastle ‘landed gentry’, as they were members of the upper class with large houses, owning their own land but without hereditary title. However, they both have very different personalities.
Even though the crime itself was unpredictable and original, and influenced by his time serving in India (as it led to his fondness for Indian animals), Roylott himself comes across as a stereotypical criminal, when he turns up at Baker street shortly after his daughter, and threatens Holmes. Rucastle, on the other hand, appeared at times to be quite jovial and friendly, for instance when telling stories to Violet Hunter. Hunter did, however, pick up on a more sinister undertone to Mr Rucastle when he caught her in the deserted wing, and also to the household with regard to the child's cruel behaviour and the mastiff allowed to wander the grounds by night. Other times, Mr Rucastle came across as strange and unpredictable, when he made bizarre requests to Violet Hunter - such as cutting off her hair.
Helen Stoner and Violet Hunter were two prominent female characters in the three stories. Both of these women were in danger in the stories, and seeking help from Sherlock Holmes. This corresponded with the commonly held beliefs of the Victorian period regarding women being inferior to men and therefore it being the men's duty to protect the women. Despite this, the two women themselves were rather different - although both were portrayed as rather helpless and nervous, Helena Stoner appeared to be more so than Violet Hunter. Helen Stoner visits Holmes in a state of great concern, and presents her case rather dramatically. She also seemed rather meek in that not only did her stepfather abuse her, but she chose not to mention this to Holmes, protecting Roylott. Hunter, on the other hand, appears to be somewhat more competent than Stoner: she seems to be, "A young lady who is very well able to take care of herself." She also has experience as a governess, one of few respectable professions for women in Victorian England. Moreover, she foresaw that something about her new placement wasn't quite right, and had the sense to see Holmes about it.
Personally I think that Conan Doyle did, to some extent, stereotype women, but because of the lack of female characters in his stories and the roles of the few female characters there were is largely attributed to the actual function of women at that time. The fact that there are slightly defined differences between the two female characters suggests that some women at the time may have been similar to Violet Hunter or Helen Stoner, rather than all the female characters in Sherlock Holmes being completely stereotypical.
Holmes frequently takes on unusual cases, which are slightly abnormal and bizarre. This is part of the attraction of the mysteries, as normal cases wouldn’t attract as many readers and there would be less scope for unusual endings or twists. To solve this crimes, Holmes performs a ‘formula’, which is started by the person who the crime has been committed against explains all they have to tell him, he takes in every small detail. He then looks at the victim and can tell many things by the way the sit and hands and small things. We can see this in ‘The Red-Headed League’, where Holmes is talking about what he observed about the victim. “You hands, my dear sir. Your right hand is quite a size larger than your left.” As you can see from that quote, he picked up on very small things but could tell a lot from them. Although he uses conventional detective methods mainly, his ability to notice and catalogue smaller insignificant facts is somewhat unusual, this adds to his power because he alone understands the answer, leaving the reader guessing. After the observation is over, he will usually schedule a visit to the site of the crime to add to his vast amount of information. Then through conjecture, deduction and proof he finally solves the crime. We can see this in the story of ‘The man with the twisted lip’- ‘I am staying there while I conduct the inquiry’. Here is talking about staying at the victim’s house, with the wife of the victim, whilst looking further into the matter.
‘Red herrings’ are used to provide suspense, excitement and tension, making the reader want to read on. Many ‘red herrings’ are used in ‘The Speckled Band’. We are told of a baboon and a cheetah in the grounds, which may have had a link with the deaths. However, when we are told about a mysterious speckled band, we immediately assume that the gypsies with speckled head bands, who also camp on the grounds, could have been associated with the death. Doyle uses these red herrings very effectively, and uses them so it gives the reader the wrong impression of the crime but yet again, Holmes knows the real truth of the crime. It makes Holmes appear as a far superior character because he looks at the facts, whilst the reader can become so involved with these side-plots or ‘red herrings’ that they are blinded to the truth. Also, due to the fact that Watson, as our narrator, falls for these ‘red herrings’ means we believe him, because we are “closer, in a sense, to him.
Conan Doyle uses suspense to keep his reader interested in many various ways. One of these is the opening- some of which can be very dramatic. His description of people are very detailed which builds up a mental picture of the scenario. Sherlock constantly refuses to reveal the answer to the end, but says things that intrigue the reader. In the mysteries, Holmes provides a driving wagon for the cases, solving them whilst also making them seem realistic - rather than a far-fetched idea which could only happen within literature, and not within the modern world. He also concludes each story with a ‘summing up’ of how the plot has developed, and how he has been crucial to the case. In this, we find out the final resolution to the case, which we have been unaware of up until the end. It keeps the reader in suspense and makes people read the entire story just to find out the ending, which is usually different to how they imagined it, due to the red-herrings within Sherlock Holmes’ adventures.
Ronald Knox noted down eight guidelines for authors of detective fiction to follow, and, for the most part, the Sherlock Holmes stories follow these: the culprit is always mentioned at an early stage, the crime is always solved by examining the evidence, secret rooms and passages are sparingly used, the crime is never solved by a lucky accident, Sherlock Holmes himself was never the criminal and he didn’t conceal clues from the reader, and identical twins or doubles were never used. The only one of these rules which Conan Doyle did seem to have broken in these three stories was number four; that stories "should not use any new, undiscovered or undetectable poisons". Strictly the snake's venom in ‘The Copper Beaches’ must fall into this category, as Holmes mentioned that it "could not possibly be discovered by any chemical test".
Doyle’s style was very different to that of many modern writers. Along with the occasional use of outdated words and phrases, Doyle's sentences were longer than they tend to be in more recent writing. Modern readers may find this difficult and may be uncertain of the meanings of some of the words. Yet, the Sherlock Holmes stories have remained popular throughout the century since it was first published. Personally, I enjoyed reading the stories as I like reading detective fiction, especially when it comes to interpreting the evidence and clues, and forming my own conclusions from them.