In the short stories "Sherlock Holmes and the Blue Carbuncle" and "How Watson Learned the Trick", Sherlock Holmes is the main character with his sidekick-like associate, Dr. Watson. In both stories, a similarity can be seen that Dr. Watson is a cliche; a stereotype of a sidekick. In the first story, he doesn't have any speaking roles longer than 2 sentences, and, in the second, he tries, yet fails, to get inside of Holmes' head using the same technique he uses for his deductions. In each text, he says nothing but contributing lines to Sherlock's "Eureka" moment, and comes up short to Sherlock's level of observation, leading us on until the end, respectively. The authors make Watson seem like an unimportant factor that's just riding along with
…show more content…
However, that doesn't make him as good as Sherlock. It begins with Watson, once again, commending Holmes' on his unethical approach to solving many mysteries. He is even under the pretense that he, too, has become skilled in the art of deductive reasoning, hence being Sherlock's sidekick for so many years. He begins to "dissect" Holmes' by his facial hair, attire, attitude and actions compared to his normal routine, drawing "conclusions", so say. He even goes as far as saying, "I have no doubt that I could find other points, Holmes, but I only give you these few, in order to show you that there are other people in the world who can be as clever as you.” He's embellishing himself, which is understandable for being treated as a non-pivotal character. Then, Sherlock dices also his conclusions to show him he wasn't as observant as he had led on. "Just a little that way, I fear. Let us take the points in their order... But go on, Watson, go on! It’s a very superficial trick, and no doubt you will soon acquire it.” Of course, Watson's spirits would be even more dashed than they already are, and it's clear to see that the author purposely set Watson up to fail, given Holmes' unusual behavior.
In conclusion, both authors write Dr. Watson as a tertiary character, giving him little to no revelry to... revel in. In "Sherlock Holmes and the Blue Carbuncle", Watson views
However, that doesn't make him as good as Sherlock. It begins with Watson, once again, commending Holmes' on his unethical approach to solving many mysteries. He is even under the pretense that he, too, has become skilled in the art of deductive reasoning, hence being Sherlock's sidekick for so many years. He begins to "dissect" Holmes' by his facial hair, attire, attitude and actions compared to his normal routine, drawing "conclusions", so say. He even goes as far as saying, "I have no doubt that I could find other points, Holmes, but I only give you these few, in order to show you that there are other people in the world who can be as clever as you.” He's embellishing himself, which is understandable for being treated as a non-pivotal character. Then, Sherlock dices also his conclusions to show him he wasn't as observant as he had led on. "Just a little that way, I fear. Let us take the points in their order... But go on, Watson, go on! It’s a very superficial trick, and no doubt you will soon acquire it.” Of course, Watson's spirits would be even more dashed than they already are, and it's clear to see that the author purposely set Watson up to fail, given Holmes' unusual behavior.
In conclusion, both authors write Dr. Watson as a tertiary character, giving him little to no revelry to... revel in. In "Sherlock Holmes and the Blue Carbuncle", Watson views