Why does Doyle choose to use Watson to narrate The Hound of the Baskervilles instead of having Holmes do it himself?

Watson is a much easier character to relate to than Holmes is. Although Watson is not anywhere as capable at solving mysteries as Holmes is, without Watson, Holmes would be nothing. Watson is in many ways an essential character for Holmes to have, as Watson is his only real friend. Although many people admire and respect Holmes, none of them can really communicate with him, but they can with Watson. Watson is also much easier to relate to than Holmes is, because Holmes is so absorbed in his deduction. "I can still remember your complete indifference as to whether the sun moved round the earth or the earth round the sun.". It would be extremely difficult for Conan Doyle to have Holmes narrate the story, as he is too solitary and eccentric but Watson is a generally very accessible and natural character. Watson narrates all the other Sherlock Holmes novels, which may be the most obvious reason why Conan Doyle Chooses to have Watson narrate the "Hound of the Baskervilles", because it would be inconsistent to change the narrator of all the other books half way through the series.

Throughout the book, there is a large absence of Sherlock Holmes. Holmes dispatches Watson to Baskerville Hall and asks him to report to him if he finds anything suspicious. In many ways this works better in order to develop Watson's character while still giving Holmes the element of mystery. It also gives the chance for Watson to be more of the main protagonist of the story than Holmes."I swear that another day shall not have passed before I have done all that man can do to reach the heart of the mystery." This could only work however if Watson narrates the story, as Sherlock Holmes wouldn't know events had been taking place. Although Holmes does return later on in the story, and it turns out he was in environment the whole time, the absence of Holmes deepens the understanding and relationship of the reader with Watson's character.

One of the great things about keeping Watson as the narrator is that there is still an element of surprise and suspense. As Watson is nowhere near as good at deduction as Sherlock Holmes is, he is never quite as aware as Holmes is as to what events are taking place. This means that when there is a clue to who the felon is or when there is a climax in the story there is much more of a shock. If Holmes were to narrate the story, there would not be such an element of surprise.

There are however some drawbacks of doing this. We only get Watson's opinion on things and his perception of Holmes's character. We don't know what the other characters are feeling.

In conclusion, the main reasons why Conan Doyle chooses to have Watson as the narrator are because Sherlock Holmes is too eccentric, solitary and unpredictable to narrate the story. It is important to preserve the mystique of Holmes's character. The character of Watson is far more humane and easier to relate to. Holmes is absent for too much of the story, therefore he cannot narrate what is going on. There would not be such an element of surprise or suspense. In general, it just makes a lot more sense if Watson narrates the story. Conan Doyle chooses to have Watson as the narrator because it provides the reader with a facility to solve the mystery. The benefits of having Watson narrate the story certainly outweigh the drawbacks.