A short synopsis: title, main characters, general plot
The Red-Headed League relates the case of the red-headed pawnbroker Wilson, who became a client of Sherlock Holmes after a chain of bizarre events occurred to him, leaving him baffled. The assistant of Mr. Wilson, Vincent Spaulding, who spends a lot of time in the cellar of his pawn shop, told him about the job advertisement that was hiring only males with red hair. The job was easy and well-paid and Mr. Wilson easily landed the job, as the color of hair satisfied the interviewer from the Red-Headed League. Mr. Wilson had to work only four hours a day in the afternoon and was paid £4 per week, copying the Encyclopaedia Britannica. One morning, after 8 weeks of working, Mr. Wilson came to the office and faced a sign that announced dissolution of the Red-Headed League without any explanation. Perplexed Mr. Wilson found out that his interviewer Mr. Ross rented the office under another name and his whereabouts could not be discovered. The strange case interested Sherlock Holmes and the appearance of Vincent Spaulding, described by the pawnbroker, seems to be familiar to him. Later, Holmes and Watson go to see Spaulding and Holmes notices that trouser knees of Wilson’s assistant are dirty. In front of the pawn shop Holmes beats the pavement with his stick and observes other buildings located at this area, in Saxe-Coburg Square. Having all the information that he needed to solve the case, Holmes goes with Dr. Watson, a police inspector Jones, and a director of the bank located in Saxe-Coburg Square, Mr. Merryweather to the bank cellar, where French gold is stored and waits for thieves. It turns out that in reality Mr. Spaulding is a criminal John Clay and Mr. Ross of the Red-Headed League is his accomplice. They invented the Red-Headed League in order to get rid from Mr. Wilson for some time, while they dug a tunnel from his cellar to the bank vault.
What are the ways that Holmes uses on you to help you understand his thinking? How does inductive and deductive reasoning influence the way Holmes solves his case? How does Holmes use evidence to come to a conclusion?
In the beginning of the story, Holmes surprises his client by stating some facts about him that he has deduced from his appearance. For instance, having noticed the fish tattooed above Mr. Wilson’s hand in clearly Chinese manner, Holmes deduces that Mr. Wilson has been in China (Doyle, n.pag.). Here, the chain of reasoning is following: Holmes has a proficient knowledge about tattoo marks and can recognize a tattoo, made in China; he observes this kind of tattoo above Mr. Wilson’s wrist and deduces that the pawnbroker must have been in China. This argument is based on two types of evidence: first, personal experience, as Holmes has conducted a study on tattoos; second, observation, as Holmes notices all sorts of details that help him form an opinion about a client or a situation.
What are some of the ways that Holmes uses and doesn’t use to arrive at the correct answers that he does?
Holmes says that “as a rule, when I have heard some slight indication of the course of events, I am able to guide myself by the thousands of other similar cases which occur to my memory” (Doyle, n.pag.). Therefore, one of the main methods that Holmes employs is personal experience of skilled detective and ability to analyze and compare an issue in hand to other cases from his professional practice. Another significant method that helps him solve cases is a skill of observation. Holmes is detail-oriented and attentive detective and notices things that other people usually miss out. He sees different unrelated pieces of a puzzle and puts them together so that a picture becomes logical and coherent.
In your opinion, what could Holmes do to help you understand the path he is taking so you aren’t as “lost” as you are when watching him solve a problem? How could he make it easier for you to solve the problem along with him?
In this particular case, Holmes provides enough clues in the course of the story to help a reader to solve a puzzle along with him. Before readers know the answer, they have a few pieces of information: Spaulding spends time in a cellar and knees of his trousers are dirty, he is the one who urges Mr. Wilson to take the job, the bank is located next to the pawn shop, and Holmes recognizes the appearance of Mr. Spaulding from the pawnbroker’s description. Have Holmes mentioned that Mr. Spaulding looks like a famous criminal, it would be easier for readers to follow his logic. Have Holmes mentioned that, when he tapped the pavement, the sound was hollow, it would have been easier to link dirty knees of Spaulding’s trousers and location of the bank. However, in this case, the story would have become too predictable and lost its tension.
What separates you personally from thinking just like Sherlock Holmes?
In my opinion, thinking like Sherlock Holmes requires several skills that I lack. First, his focus on details has developed with practice and training. He consciously thinks about all minor details and forms hypotheses based on observation. Second, his professional practice and excellent memory allows him to memorize the facts that can be used in the future. I am not a detective and cannot judge the situation in Doyle’s stories based on my professional knowledge. And last, the ability to analyze and link all evidence in only one possible way, when all the pieces fall into place and a full picture becomes clear and evident – this is the ability that can be developed, and I personally work on it to become a better analyst.
Reference:
Doyle, A.C., (2016). The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes (Kindle Edition). Wisehouse Classics. Available at https://www.amazon.com/Adventures-Sherlock-Holmes-Wisehouse-Classics-ebook/dp/B01BTITH82/ref=sr_1_2_twi_kin_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1469182504&sr=1-2&keywords=adventures+of+sherlock+holmes#nav-subnav
