“You see, but you do not observe”: Sensory Manipulation and Sense-Making in the Sherlock Holmes Detective Stories

Abstract

The Sherlock Holmes stories provide excellent examples of how readers of detective stories may be presented with misleading information for the purposes of plot manipulation. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle sometimes presents descriptions at the set-up and investigation stages of these stories which appear credible, but which are actually unreliable, missing key details, or misleadingly focused. Such deficits in reporting evidence in detective stories can serve the purpose of burying key clues. The erroneous or distorted information may be mediated through unreliable (but often supposedly reliable) narrators, detectives, and/or witnesses. In Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes stories, this creates puzzles which may be obscure to the reader and the innocent characters for the main parts of the stories, but which are eventually solved at the end by Holmes.

Holmes’s ability to find solutions is often attributed to his superior sensory observations and the conclusions he draws from those observations through his reasoning skills. Sherlock Holmes says that he is able to see and observe what others see but fail to observe. However, in reality, providing satisfactory solutions may also sometimes depend on a certain amount of rhetorical manipulation of sensory details by Doyle. At the solution stage, the sensory information may be re-presented in a rather different way, so that Holmes’s explanation—the sense-making stage—appears to be credible, even though in reality it may not be fully convincing. Hence, Doyle’s art in these stories lies not only in producing a character who is probably fiction’s most iconic detective but also in carefully handling how the evidence is presented at different stages in the stories. We will examine this by discussing the Sherlock Holmes stories in general, and also by looking at examples from three specific cases: The Hound of the Baskervilles, “The adventure of the lion’s mane,” and “The adventure of the cardboard box.”

1 Introduction

Within the Sherlock Holmes detective stories, Holmes’s superior observational and reasoning skills seem to be crucial to allowing him to formulate solutions to explain baffling crimes and other bizarre puzzles. As the world’s “only unofficial consulting detective,”¹ Holmes appears to be able to notice things that others around him—such as the police, his clients, and Dr Watson—fail to notice.² In the story-world of Sherlock Holmes, it requires considerable expertise for the detective to interpret all the available sensory evidence and to make sense of the relevant points in order to provide apparently coherent and plausible explanations.

There is nevertheless another key skill in these stories, which can be linked to the art of storytelling rather than the special qualities of the detective. Writers of detective stories normally need to present readers with enough information to set up the puzzle and justify the eventual solution without giving the game away until the final stage. This is often done by providing an erroneous, incomplete, or downplayed account in the main part of a story that either completely misdirects the reader, or contains some partial truth that can be reinterpreted at the solution stage. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle makes this point himself in his autobiography:

People have often asked me whether I knew the end of a Holmes story before I started it. Of course I do. One could not possibly steer a course if one did not know one’s destination. The first thing is to get your idea. Having got that key idea one’s next task is to conceal it and lay emphasis upon everything which can make for a different explanation. (Memories and Adventures [1923–4], Doyle 2022, 89)

In detective fiction generally—and in the Sherlock Holmes stories specifically—the act of writing is rhetorically manipulative, relying first on concealment and then on highlighting different factors to create a surprising but supposedly credible solution.

In this chapter, we will examine some of the strategies used to “steer a course,” as Doyle puts it. The way in which Holmes is presented as a great detective is itself a rhetorical strategy and we will examine how Holmes and his methods are described, looking at how his abilities are portrayed by repeated references to observation, reasoning and highly selective knowledge. We will also examine strategies for downplaying or over-emphasising certain sensory information at the set-up and investigation stages in a story, hence disguising key details, which can be reversed later when the detective’s solution is presented. The discussion up to this point will draw on our observations of all the Sherlock Holmes stories. We will then look at three of Holmes’s cases in more detail to show these manipulations: The Hound of the Baskervilles, “The adventure of the lion’s mane,” and “The adventure of the cardboard box.”

As we will see, the skill in detective story writing lies in obfuscation for the bulk of a text, with apparent clarity at the solution stage. By the end of the stories, Holmes supposedly produces reasoned explanations, using his sense-making skills to cast new light on the earlier facts of the case. Nevertheless, there may be an element of sleight of hand, with, for example, new details suddenly appearing at a late stage.

2 Sensory Manipulation and Sense-Making in Relation to the Standard Schema of Detective Fiction

Within detective fiction generally, the senses³ provide evidence of crimes, with detectives either collecting this evidence from witnesses or from their own observations. In principle, detectives generally have special abilities, so they should be able to solve the crime from what they observe, but in order to create puzzlement during the investigation and eventual surprise at the solution,⁴ there is usually some suppression of key information throughout the majority of the story.

The standard schema of detective fiction is as follows:⁵

• Set-up and investigation stages—creating the puzzle and attempting to solve it: At the set-up and investigation stages, the participants and the crime are introduced and the crime is investigated—this usually forms the main part of the story, as evidence is collected and checked. The detective examines the crime scene and interviews the witnesses, to build up an account of what seems to have occurred, drawing on whatever sensory information is available. In the process, the reader is likely to be presented with some information that is incomplete or unreliable. Witnesses may be lying due to their guilt or for other reasons, but even when they are trying to be honest, their accounts are likely to be incomplete due to the fact that a witness often only partially witnesses events, or they may misinterpret what they have witnessed. In addition, the narrator of the story may focus attention on the wrong things—playing down key facts and giving special attention to red herrings. Even the detective himself can perpetuate the confusion by making wrong judgements initially or deliberately withholding his conclusions until later in the story. Even when the information provided is correct, the detective needs to sort the relevant facts from the irrelevant in order to solve the crime.

• Solution stage—sense-making: This is the point where the detective normally explains the crime, usually revealing who the criminal is and how the crime was committed. There is usually some surprise as the detective makes sense of the previously puzzling evidence. Rhetorically, the detective needs to create a convincing and plausible account, particularly since the solution is likely to be an explanation that the reader is not supposed to have previously guessed. The detective may often make a speech that brings together a range of evidence from the earlier story, but which may cast it in a new light for sense-making purposes.

This standard schema typically requires a reversal, which comes during the solution stage or in the period leading up to it. The detective may suddenly have a moment of realisation where a fresh perspective is offered. This may be because the detective was previously in error or omitted to see an obvious point. New evidence may be found or existing evidence may be seen to be faulty. Sometimes additional knowledge may be drawn on, which may cast the case in a completely different light. Alternatively, the detective may have known all along how the crime was done, but may have deliberately withheld all or part of the solution from the other characters and/or the reader.

The standard schema for detective fiction is used in the Sherlock Holmes stories, as we will see in the remainder of this chapter. Crowe (2018) has referred to the reversal in the plot details as a “gestalt shift.” In Crowe’s work, this relates primarily to the story itself, and the shift is generally meant to be noticed. Suddenly the real criminal may be revealed or an explanation may be given of how the crime was committed. Often there is a moment of surprise and revelation. Crowe (p. 13) gives the example from The Hound of the Baskervilles of Holmes pointing out to Watson that a portrait of one of the ancient Baskervilles on the wall resembles the neighbour Stapleton, which suggests that Stapleton may be related—this immediately provides a motive for murder since Stapleton would then have a hereditary interest in the Baskerville estate.⁶ Our interest in this chapter is not primarily in these plot twists which are explicitly referred to, but in a second type of shift where the emphasis is on the stylistic/narratological re-working of the clues in a manipulative way—unlike overt plot twists, this type of change is not usually meant to be noticed. There may be a sleight of hand where, although information given at the earlier stages is reintroduced, details are subtly changed or the details are placed in a new context that was not originally there.

Van Dine 1928 has written about supposed fairness in a classic article on the writing of detective fiction, arguing that a detective story should give readers all the information to solve the puzzle themselves:

The detective story is a kind of intellectual game. It is more—it is a sporting event. And for the writing of detective stories there are very definite laws—unwritten, perhaps, but none the less binding; and every self-respecting concocter of literary mysteries lives up to them.

This is stated more explicitly in Van Dine’s 20 rules, in particular in rules 1, 2 and 15 below:

• 1. The reader must have equal opportunity with the detective for solving the mystery. All clues must be plainly stated and described.

• 2. No willful tricks or deceptions may be placed on the reader other than those played legitimately by the criminal on the detective himself.

• 15. The truth of the problem must at all times be apparent—provided the reader is shrewd enough to see it. By this I mean that if the reader, after learning the explanation for the crime, should reread the book, he would see that the solution had, in a sense, been staring him in the face—that all the clues really pointed to the culprit—and that, if he had been as clever as the detective, he could have solved the mystery himself without going on to the final chapter.

These are principles which Doyle claimed to agree with. In an interview in 1929, he stated:

in the old fashioned detective story, the detective always seemed to get at his results either by some sort of lucky chance or fluke, or else it was quite unexplained how he got there […] and that didn’t seem to me quite playing the game. It seemed to me that he was bound to give his reasons why he came to his conclusions. (Doyle 1929)

It is, nevertheless, disputable whether successful detective writers—including Doyle himself—fully play the game. It is undeniable that readers do try to ascertain the solution themselves and much of the pleasure of reading detective fiction lies in this process. The stories are also likely to be more satisfying if the solution seems to be connected to the original clues and is explained in a reasoned way. However, the pleasure of reading detective fiction often lies in being presented with a surprising solution that seems to account for the facts but which the reader was unable to guess. It is potentially risky for the author to give readers all the information from the outset in a way that they can fully interpret, since if readers solve the puzzle too early, it makes reading the rest of the book potentially rather pointless in terms of the core plot and it also undermines the idea that only the great detective can solve the mystery. For these reasons, we suggest that a more satisfactory strategy for detective writers is to give readers enough information at the evidence-collecting stage to make the detective’s subsequent explanation appear to link in with the remembered earlier evidence, whilst in fact ensuring that the evidence is presented in a way that will mystify the reader until that final stage.

3 Sherlock Holmes—Presenting the Great Detective and His Methods

We will look in this section at how Sir Arthur Conan Doyle portrays Sherlock Holmes as being a great detective and how he presents his methods for solving difficult cases before looking in the next section at the sometimes manipulative rhetorical strategies used “behind the scenes” to create these classic detective stories.

As we will see, Holmes is portrayed as having exceptional powers and abilities, generally surpassing those around him in order to find a convincing solution to problems that have baffled his associates and the reader. His abilities are highlighted by showing his achievements in “set piece” reasoning exercises (the classic scenarios where he infers information about a person or object from simple observations⁷) and making insightful observations through his “scientific” method,⁸ but also by his ability to solve cases that the police are unable to solve. These abilities are built up by positive evaluations. Watson, as both the usual narrator and Holmes’s assistant, is repeatedly astounded and impressed by Holmes’s capabilities—Watson’s praise at these points can be superlative.

Watson’s narrative: [Holmes] was […] the most perfect reasoning and observing machine that the world has ever seen.⁹ (“A scandal in Bohemia” [1891], Doyle 1985, 9)

This contrasts with Watson’s inability to see the point himself, so Watson acts as a foil,¹⁰ serving to enhance Holmes’s abilities.

Watson’s narrative: I trust that I am not more dense than my neighbours, but I was always oppressed with a sense of my own stupidity in my dealings with Sherlock Holmes. (“The red-headed league” [1891], Doyle 1985, 43)

Moreover, many of the cases are built up by both Holmes and Watson to be very difficult cases¹¹ that would seem to take someone with special powers to solve, so this also serves to enhance Holmes’s reputation since he is able to solve them.

Holmes claims that his “methods” rely on observation and deduction, with the deductions often facilitated by his knowledge. Holmes draws attention to the importance of these “three qualities necessary for the ideal detective” (The Sign of Four [1890], Doyle 1987, 113).¹²

In more detail, these three factors are as follows:

3.1 Observation: Collecting sensory evidence

Throughout the stories, Holmes is presented as having exceptional sensory powers, which are enhanced by his great observational skills. He is able to collect sensory evidence in a highly skilled way because he notices things that others do not. In addition to his comments about seeing and observing mentioned above, he says:

Holmes to his client: “Perhaps I have trained myself to see what others overlook.” (“A case of identity” [1891], Doyle 1985, 51–2)

This ability to notice things depends on an attention to small details, including items that may not appear at first sight to be important:

Holmes to Watson: “You know my method. It is founded upon the observance of trifles.” (“The Boscombe Valley mystery” [1891], Doyle 1985, 80)

This is highlighted by the contrast with Watson who often appears to miss key details, however hard he tries:

Holmes to Watson: “You did not know where to look, and so you missed all that was important. I can never bring you to realize the importance of sleeves, the suggestiveness of thumb-nails, or the great issues that may hang from a bootlace.” (“A case of identity” [1891], Doyle 1985, 57)

Holmes’s observational skills seem to be partly a natural ability since he tells us that he has “an abnormally acute set of senses.”¹³ He can also have “every sense on the alert”¹⁴ at key moments. The sensory evidence relates to observations made by using all the five classical senses—not just the fact that witnesses have heard and seen things, but Holmes’s forensic study of every aspect of the crime scene. He uses his magnifying lens to look in more detail,¹⁵ notices unusual sounds,¹⁶ studies the pressure exerted to create certain types of thumbprint¹⁷ and footprints,¹⁸ tyre tracks and animal tracks,¹⁹ as well as sniffing for unusual smells²⁰ and considering what type of food might disguise the taste of poison.²¹ Beyond his own examinations, Holmes extends his sensory range by employing the Baker Street boys as his eyes and ears in London (they “go everywhere, and hear everything”²²), and he uses the dog Pompey’s superior sense of smell in order to track criminals.²³

Throughout the stories, the reader does not have direct sensory experience but is always dependent on the narration or direct speech to convey the information. This gives Doyle—as for all detective writers—the scope to control what is reported and how much detail is given. Readers are presented with a highly sensory account, where the sensory evidence is crucial, but where it is not always possible to believe what we are told or understand whether or not it is significant to solving the mystery.

3.2 Knowledge: Selective and relevant to detection

Holmes uses his knowledge to interpret the sensory evidence and seek out new information to use in his investigations:

Holmes to a man: “It is my business to know what other people don’t know.” (“The adventure of the blue carbuncle” [1892], Doyle 1985, 130)He has an astonishing (although highly selective) knowledge²⁴ for obscure facts, writes his own monographs on forensic matters, and also has access to his index of case histories, his files, and a garret “stuffed with books.”²⁵ In addition to the information he gains from the Baker Street boys, he uses newspaper advertisements and telegrams to acquire further knowledge.

Holmes accumulates knowledge which is likely to be relevant to his investigations, so he ignores key information such as astronomical facts.²⁶ His knowledge enables him to sift the evidence in order to focus on what is important to the case, guiding him to see what is most relevant and providing the basis for his reasoning.²⁷

From a plot perspective, it can be useful to have a solution depend partly on expert knowledge. Not only does this give the detective a special way of solving a mystery but also if the knowledge is provided late in the story, it can explain why the solution was not provided earlier and hence can facilitate a reversal. However, readers could feel that a solution hinging on esoteric knowledge not reasonably available to them is somehow “unfair” in terms of their expectation of being able to work out the solution to the mystery alongside the story-world detective.

3.3 Reasoning: Deductions and sense-making

Holmes is famed for his powers of deduction, and uses his powers to draw conclusions from his sensory observations and knowledge.²⁸

Watson’s narrative: I had no keener pleasure than in following Holmes in his professional investigations, and in admiring the rapid deductions, as swift as intuitions, and yet always founded on a logical basis. (“The adventure of the speckled band” [1892], Doyle 1985, 137)

The most famous reasoning exercises are the classic examples where Holmes observes small details of a person or object and draws stunning conclusions about that person or object, such as ascertaining a new client’s profession from tiny features of their appearance²⁹ or inferring a hat’s owner from its wear and tear³⁰). In these “set piece” reasoning exercises, usually taking place at the very start of a case, the basis of the inference is often withheld—the conclusion astounds the hearers but appears obvious when the observation and any relevant knowledge are revealed.³¹

As Doyle himself pointed out in his autobiography, these reasoning demonstrations are often rather peripheral to the main plot, functioning more as showpieces of Holmes’s general abilities rather than necessarily being central to solving the crimes:

He shows his powers by […] clever little deductions, which often have nothing to do with the matter in hand, but impress the reader with a general sense of power. (Memories and Adventures [1923–4] Doyle 2022, 90)

These “set piece” reasoning exercises are sometimes strategically placed at the start of stories before the main problems are presented, so they are fronted but may not relate to the essentials of the case itself. Even when Holmes’s conclusions contribute to solving cases, he may sometimes resort to more conventional means of catching criminals, such as placing advertisements in the newspapers, adopting disguises, and organising vigils where he lies in wait in order to expose the criminals. Hence, Holmes’s reasoning skills may not always be quite as central as we are led to believe.

The nature of Holmes’s reasoning has also been disputed. Some researchers (e.g. Carson 2008, and Sebeok and Umiker-Sebeok 1979) argue that what he calls deductions are actually examples of abductive reasoning. In deductive reasoning, if the premises are true and the process of inferencing is logical, the conclusions must be true. This would lead to greater certainty, but deduction does not yield new knowledge since it simply makes explicit the implications of the premises. By contrast, in abductive reasoning (Peirce 1992 and 1998), there is no guarantee that the conclusions are true, and they can be classed simply as guesses. Although Holmes claims that he never guesses,³² it is clear that many of his so-called deductions, such as the classic “set piece” reasoning exercises, involve a fair amount of speculation (see Carson 2008 and Sebeok and Umiker-Sebeok 1979 for examples) and sometimes he draws wrong conclusions.³³ The reason that Holmes’s reasoning is generally described in the stories as deduction³⁴ may be to make his conclusions appear more certain than they actually were, but perhaps it is simply that Doyle may not have been aware of Peirce’s notion of abductive reasoning or may anyway have preferred not to make this technical distinction in a popular work. Although Holmes admits that he is sometimes utilising the balance of probabilities,³⁵ his skill lies in drawing on his detailed observations, his considerable specialised knowledge and his superior reasoning abilities in an attempt to find the best possible hypothesis to help solve the problems he encounters.

4 Rhetorical Strategies and Sensory Manipulation

Although Holmes has considerable abilities in detection, there is also a manipulative rhetorical aspect to Watson’s and Holmes’s narrations. This manipulative rhetoric can make the solutions at the end of the stories seem convincing even when the details have previously been presented in an incomplete and hence baffling way. Holmes himself points to this in relation to Watson’s story-telling:

Holmes to Watson: “The same may be said, my dear fellow, for the effect of some of these little sketches of yours, which is entirely meretricious, depending as it does upon your retaining in your own hands some factors in the problem which are never imparted to the reader.” (“The adventure of the crooked man” [1893], Doyle 1985, 352)

There are a number of possible strategies in play in the Sherlock Holmes stories to ensure that either information is withheld from the reader or that its significance is not made clear until later. We will provide a general list here and then illustrate these points with examples from specific cases in the following section.

• 1. Unreliability and false inferences—The witnesses, detective or narrator may be unreliable. A witness may be lying or there may be genuine misunderstandings about the nature of the evidence. In addition, the detective may draw inferences that are not warranted. The narrator usually knows the outcome of the investigation but may allow erroneous information to circulate as the case is presented.

• 2. Misdirecting attention 1—from low significance to high significance—This is the classic strategy of burying key information or suggesting that information has little significance until the final denouement shows that it was significant all along.

• 3. Misdirecting attention 2—from high significance to low significance—Another classic strategy is the red herring, where the change in significance is in the opposite direction to the strategy above. Much emphasis is placed on information that subsequently is found to have little or no relevance to the mystery.

• 4. Omitting key details at the set-up stage—Relevant evidence may be presented and may be clearly of significance, but key facts or inferences related to this evidence may be withheld until the solution stage so that the details needed to solve the crime are not available to the reader until then.

• 5. Including superfluous information at the set-up stage—Again, relevant evidence may be presented as significant, but may be partly masked by additional details that distract from its true meaning and suggest a different solution.

• 6. Strategic placement of information—Key information may be kept separate at the set-up and investigation stages so that the reader is not able to bring relevant facts together easily. This can then be reversed when the detective brings these points together.

When the solution is presented, the detective needs to make links with the previous clues, without necessarily keeping the details the same, and rhetorical techniques are used to make the solution seem more convincing, as follows:

• 1. Explicitly calling on a memory of previous events—This device³⁶ may be used to make a connection. Even if the details of previously presented information have been subtly changed, this makes the link and may therefore make the explanation seem more convincing.

• 2. The detective’s credibility—As already discussed in Sect. 6.3, the authority and skills of the detective are continuously stressed throughout the stories and this makes it seem more likely that he has the ability to solve the crime.

• 3. Making the solution seem obvious—If the detective says that the solution is said to be obvious,³⁷ then the reader may be less likely to question it. This may be done partly by the detective claiming that he knew the answer all along, or that he should have guessed the answer earlier. In addition, logical expressions such as “thus” may be used to indicate that the solution appears to follow naturally and be rational.

• 4. Evaluations—If the other characters positively evaluate the solution,³⁸ this may make it more believable and may make it appear more convincing. Holmes himself recognizes that evaluations may add extra value to the narrative:

Holmes’s narrative: I miss my Watson. By cunning questions and ejaculations of wonder he would elevate my simple art, which is but systematized common sense, into a prodigy. (“The adventure of the blanched soldier” [1926], Doyle 1985, 940)

We will see all these strategies at work in the examples from specific cases below. Overall, the strategy is to create a story where details are subtly changed or re-interpreted, and make it appear to be consistent and convincing. To do this, the author can generally rely on the reader’s lack of precise memory over an extended text, the presence of distracting information, and the weight of authority of the great detective.

5 Examples from Specific Cases

5.1 The Hound of the Baskervilles [1902]

This novel (Doyle 1987, 201–352) provides a good example of sensory manipulation where there is a clear discrepancy when the set-up stage is compared to the solution stage, but when the passages appear over a hundred pages apart in the original text, the difference may not be obvious to readers.

The context at the set-up stage is that Holmes has, by the time of the example below, been discussing a letter with his clients and Watson, looking exclusively at the visual aspects of it, including the fact that the words pasted on it have been cut out of a specific newspaper—this discussion has been spread over a couple of pages (pp. 230–231). In the example below, this visual emphasis continues with the text explicitly stating that Holmes holds the letter up to his eyes (and this is also shown as an illustration (p. 233)). In addition, Holmes’s conclusion is that it is of no significance.

Verse

Verse “Halloa! Halloa! What’s this?”  He was carefully examining the foolscap, upon which the words were pasted, holding it only an inch or two from his eyes.  “Well?”  “Nothing,” said he, throwing it down. “It is a blank halfsheet of paper, without even a watermark upon it. I think we have drawn as much as we can from this curious letter.” (p. 232)

At the solution stage, in Holmes’s final explanation to Watson, there is enough similarity to make the link with the previous episode, but there are also significant differences, showing that some information has been withheld from the reader at the earlier stage. The information that the paper was held a few inches from the eyes is still there, but now the sensory focus shifts to smell with the mention of the faint scent of white “jessamine” (what we would now call “jasmine”).

“It may possibly recur to your memory that when I examined the paper upon which the printed words were fastened I made a close inspection for the watermark. In doing so I held it within a few inches of my eyes, and was conscious of a faint smell of the scent known as white jessamine. There are seventy-five perfumes, which it is very necessary that a criminal expert should be able to distinguish from each other, and cases have more than once within my experience depended upon their prompt recognition. The scent suggested the presence of a lady, and already my thoughts began to turn towards the Stapletons. Thus […] I had guessed at the criminal before ever we went to the West country.” (pp. 348–9)

Smell was not mentioned in the previous example and now this is elaborated on with the added discussion of Holmes’s knowledge of the seventy-five perfumes. Furthermore, there is an inference—that this may be linked to a lady—in contrast to the fact that Holmes had said in the earlier example that there was no further conclusion to draw. The link between the two examples is reinforced by telling Watson that this information may recur to his memory, but in fact the connection is only for part of this scenario, with the emphasis having shifted from vision to smell. The link between the scent of a lady and the Stapletons seems rather tenuous, but the “Thus” signals a conclusion that was supposedly drawn at the earlier stage.

The above discrepancies can be seen as a stylistic manipulation, but Holmes’s behaviour also has some credibility at the plot level, since, in the stories generally, Holmes frequently withholds information until the final stage of explanation.

5.2 “The adventure of the lion’s mane” [1926]

This story (Doyle 1985, 942–955) is narrated by Holmes. At the story level, Holmes is wrong in his initial assumptions and only changes his mind when he accesses extra knowledge. He is, therefore, an unreliable narrator throughout most of the story. The rhetorical trick is one of over-interpretation. In spite of his supposed reasoning skills, Holmes not only dismisses key evidence but also draws a wrong conclusion at the set-up stage.

In this story, Holmes finds a man dying on the beach and hears his last words, “the lion’s mane,” which Holmes disregards, partly because he believes these words to be irrelevant but also because he is unsure if he has heard correctly.

He was obviously dying […] he uttered two or three words with an eager air of warning. They were slurred and indistinct, but to my ear the last of them, which burst in a shriek from his lips, were “the lion’s mane.” It was utterly irrelevant and unintelligible, and yet I could twist the sound into no other sense. Then he raised himself from the ground, threw his arms into the air, and fell forward on his side. He was dead.

My companion was paralysed by the sudden horror of it, but I, as may well be imagined, had every sense on the alert. And I had need, for it was speedily evident that we were in the presence of an extraordinary case. (p. 943)

The mistake that Holmes makes at this stage, in addition to ignoring the dead man’s final words, is to see this death as the result of human agency when in fact it is a death caused by being attacked by a jellyfish. Even though he seems to be genuinely mistaken in his role as a character, Holmes the narrator must be aware of the outcome, so he is deliberately holding back. Holmes’s false conclusion is there to mislead the reader at the set-up stage, but the rhetorical trick becomes evident if we know the ending and look back at a series of comments made by Holmes (as a narrator and speaker) throughout the text:

• (a) Holmes’s narrative: His back was covered with dark red lines as though he had been terribly flogged by a thin wire scourge. The instrument with which this punishment had been inflicted was clearly flexible […] (p. 943)

• (b) Holmes’s narrative: My first task naturally was to note who was on the beach. (p. 945)

• (c) Holmes’s narrative: Who had done this barbarous deed? (p. 945)

• (d) Holmes to Harold Stackhurst: “Some human hand was on the handle of that scourge, if indeed it was a scourge which inflicted the injuries.” (p. 947)

• (e) Holmes to Maud: “You use the word “they.” You think that more than one was concerned?”

Maud to Holmes: “[…] No single person could ever have inflicted such an outrage upon him.” (p. 948)

In (a), the act of flogging with an instrument and the mention of this being a punishment seems to imply some sort of human agency, whereas in fact this has been caused by the tentacles of the jellyfish. In (b) and (c), the emphasis on “who” (rather than “what”) again suggests a person. In (d), there is an explicit mention of human agency and the handle of an instrument. In (e), readers may infer that if there is not just one person involved, there may be two or more people.

Holmes’s wrong conclusion is only abandoned by adding in some information which is part of his “vast store of out-of-the way knowledge” (p. 950). It might seem rather late to draw on this information, but it is explained within the story-world by Holmes having eventually remembered the significance of the phrase “the lion’s mane,” which he claims has “haunted” his mind (p. 954) throughout the investigation, that is, that it is the name of a jellyfish. In addition, Holmes provides the reason for this delay by saying that he was “slow at the outset—culpably slow” (p. 954). Nevertheless, underlying this story is a sustained manipulation to keep the reader puzzled as a result of being presented with an erroneous conclusion at the start. This wrong assumption is easy to go along with because readers expect a detective story to be a “whodunit” rather than a “whatdunit.”

5.3 “The adventure of the cardboard box” [1893]

In this story (Doyle 1985, 257–274]), Holmes’s solution brings together three clues that have been presented at separate points in the story, eventually juxtaposing them in Holmes’s final explanation so that they make a powerful case together. In addition, manipulation is present since there are discrepancies between the amount of information that is given at the early stage and the amount given later. We will examine each of the clues in turn, then look at how they are re-worked when the solution is produced.

The first clue relates to the possible source of a box that has arrived in the post and which contains two severed human ears. Here, the location is mentioned as Belfast and the suggested source is the three young medical students who previously lived in the recipient’s house, one of whom was from Belfast.

Clue 1

[Extract from a newspaper article headed “A Gruesome Packet.”]

The box had been sent by parcel post from Belfast upon the morning before. There is no indication as to the sender […] Some years ago, however, when [Miss Cushing] resided at Penge, she let apartments in her house to three young medical students, whom she was obliged to get rid of on account of their noisy and irregular habits. The police are of the opinion that this outrage may have been perpetrated upon Miss Cushing by these youths, who owed her a grudge, and who had hoped to frighten her by sending her these relics of the dissecting-rooms. Some probability is lent to the theory by the fact that one of these students came from the north of Ireland, and, to the best of Miss Cushing’s belief, from Belfast. (pp. 259–60)

This theory is given credibility because it comes from the police and also there is mentioned the probability of this theory being correct.

The second clue relates to a piece of string attached to the parcel. We learn from Holmes’s discussion with Lestrade, the police officer, that it is a piece of tarred twine. Holmes also says that it is important that the knot is of a peculiar character, and we are told that overall it is “exceedingly interesting.” We do not learn why Holmes feels that it is peculiar, but Lestrade makes the further observation that it is neatly tied, which he appears to think is significant enough to write in his notebook.

Clue 2

“The string is exceedingly interesting,” [Holmes] remarked, holding it up to the light and sniffing at it.“What do you make of this string, Lestrade?”“It has been tarred.”“Precisely. It is a piece of tarred twine. You have also, no doubt, remarked that Miss Cushing has cut the cord with a scissors, as can be seen by the double fray on each side. This is of importance.”“I cannot see the importance,” said Lestrade.“The importance lies in the fact that the knot is left intact, and that this knot is of a peculiar character.”“It is very neatly tied. I had already made a note to that effect,” said Lestrade, complacently.“So much for the string then,” said Holmes, smiling; “now for the box wrapper.” (p. 261)

Holmes’s final words in this example suggest that his observations about the string have been completed as he moves on to the next item. Nevertheless, he has omitted to explain why he regards these features as so important.³⁹ This explanation will only appear at the denouement.

The third clue relates to the ears themselves, one female and one male. They are described by Holmes and both are said to be pierced. The only conclusions that Holmes draws from them are that both these people are dead and he assumes that it is a double murder.

Clue 3

“for my part I shall set about it by presuming that my reasoning is correct, and that a double murder has been committed. One of these ears is a woman’s, small, finely formed, and pierced for an earring. The other is a man’s, sunburned, discoloured, and also pierced for an earring. These two people are presumably dead, or we should have heard their story before now.” (p. 263)

At the final stage, these three clues are brought together and re-worked. Suddenly, facts that were presented separately and were not seen to be connected as clues are linked by Holmes under a single topic of the sea. This involves making inferences that were not previously drawn, even though Holmes says that this was the objective.

Solution stage

“We were simply there to observe and to draw inferences from our observations […].

“[CLUE 2] The string was of the quality which is used by sail-makers aboard ship, and at once a whiff of the sea was perceptible in our investigation. When I observed that the knot was one which is popular with sailors, that [CLUE 1] the parcel had been posted at a port, and that [CLUE 3] the male ear was pierced for an earring which is so much more common among sailors than landsmen, I was quite certain that all the actors in the tragedy were to be found among our seafaring classes.” (pp. 266–7, our added annotations in square brackets)

For clue 2, we had not previously been told that the string was that used by sail-makers or that the knot was one that was popular with sailors (just that it was “peculiar”), so this is additional information. For clue 1, Belfast is re-cast in its role as a port, a fact that was not mentioned at the earlier stage of presenting the clue and which would have been irrelevant to the spurious theory of the three young medical students. In addition, for clue 3, attention is now focused specifically on the male ear (both female and male ears were mentioned previously) and the observation not previously made is now presented that this piercing is more common among sailors. The amalgamation of all these points together is intended to show a coherent argument and the modal expression “I was quite certain” reinforces this as a credible solution, which comes from the authority figure of the famous detective.

So in this case, the manipulation takes place by adding conclusions about the sea at the solution stage to the three clues, which are now presented together but were previously separate. In addition, Holmes’s explanation drops the earlier red herring of the three medical students and ignores Lestrade’s point about the neatness of the knot. We might wonder why Holmes did not tell us about the connection with the sea earlier, but this can be explained by his general habit of withholding information until the denouement.

6 Conclusion

The success of the Sherlock Holmes stories is undeniable since he is probably the most iconic detective in fiction. Much of the appeal lies in Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s presentation of the detective himself and his methods. Nevertheless, the cases themselves need to have satisfying plots. We suggest that they follow the standard detective story schema by baffling the reader at the set-up and investigation stages and then revealing the solution at the denouement. Generally, a reversal of some type is needed in order to shift from an unclear or erroneous theory to the final explanation. This may involve an explicit plot statement and an indication of changed perception, as discussed by Crowe (2018) in his study of “gestalt shifts,” but the reversal may also occur in a more subtle way, which is not overtly signalled. In the examples we have examined in this chapter, this is achieved by changing the details of the sensory evidence in order to manipulate the reader, making information seem irrelevant or insignificant at one stage in the story and reversing this at a subsequent stage. The revised version is incorporated into the sense-making rationalisation of Sherlock Holmes, enabling the solution to provide a satisfying surprise ending that aims to convince the reader of its validity.