Vivian Darkbloom wrote “Holmes is Where the Heart is” to delve into the unusual behaviors in Sherlock and Helen. However, the fault in her arguments are the assumptions and false information that back up her assertions. Darkbloom assumes that Helen is relevant to the story. She takes advantage of the lack of information and attempts to correlate the missing pieces of the miscellaneous characters together in disarray. The surviving step daughter is simply the catalyst that puts the story and the plot into motion. Also, Darkbloom drives her case by finding flaws in the snake committing the crime such as “snakes can’t hear whistlers”, “snakes can’t climb up bell-ups” and pointing out the inconsistencies in how Julia Stoner and Dr. Grimesby died
…show more content…
By desperately finding multiple faults in the snake, Darkbloom discredits her argument and gives the impression that she is twisting information in her favor. Lastly, Darkbloom discusses trust the reader places on the narrator such as “Helen’s word that there was a Percy Armitage” or the fact that Watson never mentions the death of the late sister to argue that parts of the story are misconstrued in Watson’s point of view (14). In spite of the lack of context, the story is not centered around Percy Armitage or the past two years of crime. The story is about the suspicious activities occurring similar to those the night of Julia’s death. The story does not add any substance if Doyle devotes all his time answering the minuscule questions that completely tie the story together. In conclusion, Vivian’s theory that Sherlock and Helen are or were a married union reflects her underestimated view of Doyle’s ability to write a successful detective short …show more content…
The family story Helen developed was made up as a means to convince Sherlock to accuse Dr. Grimesby Roylott of murder. Watson introduces the reader with the pretense that this tale “occurred in the early days of [his] association with Holmes” (39) to imply that Sherlock is a novice at best. Sherlock has never heard of the peculiar death pertaining to Julia Stone because it never happened and Sherlock is too new in the game to see through her lies. Furthermore, this explains why the death of Dr. Grimesby and the fake sister do not correlate. The swamp adder didn’t kill Julia because Dr. Grimesby “died within ten seconds of being bitten” while, in comparison, Julia was able to get out of her bed, walk down the hall, and warn Helen about a speckled band (44, 57). On that note, Helen has been purposely leaving clues like the “speckled band” to suggest that Dr. Grimesby has a means of killing the woman indirectly while still being to blame (44). Helen’s deceiving nature is what makes the story so compelling. Helen’s fear for her life along with Watson and Sherlock’s comment on Dr. Grimesby as “a clever and ruthless man” who was evil enough to find untraceable poison are clear indications on how the projected attitude of Dr. Grimesby was adopted by the pairing (58). Secondly, Helen’s fiancé is also not mentioned because he does not exist, at least not as Percy Armitage. Armitage is old
By desperately finding multiple faults in the snake, Darkbloom discredits her argument and gives the impression that she is twisting information in her favor. Lastly, Darkbloom discusses trust the reader places on the narrator such as “Helen’s word that there was a Percy Armitage” or the fact that Watson never mentions the death of the late sister to argue that parts of the story are misconstrued in Watson’s point of view (14). In spite of the lack of context, the story is not centered around Percy Armitage or the past two years of crime. The story is about the suspicious activities occurring similar to those the night of Julia’s death. The story does not add any substance if Doyle devotes all his time answering the minuscule questions that completely tie the story together. In conclusion, Vivian’s theory that Sherlock and Helen are or were a married union reflects her underestimated view of Doyle’s ability to write a successful detective short …show more content…
The family story Helen developed was made up as a means to convince Sherlock to accuse Dr. Grimesby Roylott of murder. Watson introduces the reader with the pretense that this tale “occurred in the early days of [his] association with Holmes” (39) to imply that Sherlock is a novice at best. Sherlock has never heard of the peculiar death pertaining to Julia Stone because it never happened and Sherlock is too new in the game to see through her lies. Furthermore, this explains why the death of Dr. Grimesby and the fake sister do not correlate. The swamp adder didn’t kill Julia because Dr. Grimesby “died within ten seconds of being bitten” while, in comparison, Julia was able to get out of her bed, walk down the hall, and warn Helen about a speckled band (44, 57). On that note, Helen has been purposely leaving clues like the “speckled band” to suggest that Dr. Grimesby has a means of killing the woman indirectly while still being to blame (44). Helen’s deceiving nature is what makes the story so compelling. Helen’s fear for her life along with Watson and Sherlock’s comment on Dr. Grimesby as “a clever and ruthless man” who was evil enough to find untraceable poison are clear indications on how the projected attitude of Dr. Grimesby was adopted by the pairing (58). Secondly, Helen’s fiancé is also not mentioned because he does not exist, at least not as Percy Armitage. Armitage is old