Throughout A Study in Scarlet, John Watson and Sherlock Holmes act as foils for one another. While both men are intelligent, Holmes possesses uncanny skills of observation and deduction that Watson does not. Watson appears to be more sensitive, describing a “subdued feeling in his heart which the presence of death inspires” and the way his “nerves […] tingled” when seeing a corpse, as well as exercising more tact and humility in his dealings with others than Sherlock does. Watson’s relative cluelessness and emotional sensitivity serve as a foil to Holmes acute analytical skills and aloofness.
In Part 1, Chapter 5, for example, Watson reveals that he is deeply disturbed by the murder of Enoch Drebber, while Holmes appears to regard the case at much more of an emotional remove:
"What's the matter? You're not looking quite yourself. This Brixton Road affair has upset you[,]" [said Sherlock.]
"To tell the truth it has," I said. "I ought to be more case-hardened after my Afghan experiences. I saw my own comrades hacked to pieces at Maiwand without losing my nerve."
"I can understand. There is a mystery about this which stimulates the imagination; where there is no imagination there is no horror. Have you seen the evening paper?"
Here, Holmes observes that Watson has been quiet and distracted because he finds Drebber’s death so disturbing. Despite having seen many deaths while serving as an army doctor in the Afghanistan war, he isn’t “case-hardened”; seeing Enoch Drebber’s corpse still disturbs him.
Holmes, on the other hand, seems unperturbed. He appears to regard the murder not as a disturbing tragedy but rather as something to be aesthetically appreciated, like a painting or a puzzle that he finds great intellectual pleasure in solving. He says the case “stimulates [his] imagination” and muses that “where there is no imagination there is no horror.” However, he doesn’t appear to be feeling any horror himself, and he quickly changes the topic to discuss the evening paper. Unlike Watson, he doesn’t dwell on it.
This contrast can also be seen in Part 1, Chapter 3, when Watson and Holmes first appear at the scene of Enoch Drebber’s murder:
Holmes walked in, and I followed him with that subdued feeling in my heart which the presence of death inspires.
It was a large square room, looking all the larger from the absence of furniture. A vulgar flaring paper adorned the walls [...] Opposite the door was a showy fireplace, surrounded by a mantlepiece of imitation white marble. On one corner of this was stuck the stump of a red wax candle [...]
All these details I observed afterwards. At present my attention was centred upon the single grim motionless figure which lay stretched across the boards, with vacant and sightless eyes staring up at the discoloured ceiling [...] On his rigid face there stood an expression of horror, and as it seemed to me, of hatred, such as I have never seen upon human features.
Here, Watson explains that he doesn’t observe the details in the crime scene right away because he is so focused on the murdered corpse lying on the floor. This stands in stark contrast to Holmes, who immediately takes in all of the evidence around him before going on to investigate the corpse itself. While Watson is preoccupied with the emotions he imagined the man must have felt as he was murdered, Holmes is focused on reading the available evidence and appears to be emotionally unaffected by the death of the man whose murder he is investigating.
In A Study in Scarlet, Sherlock Holmes and Jefferson Hope are foils for one another. They are represented as possessing many similarities with one key difference: while Holmes is driven by logic and reason, Hope is driven by passion and emotion.
Throughout the novel, Holmes is described as being unusually determined and focused. It is this intense focus that allows him to observe things in crime scenes that other people do not and solve murders that stump other detectives. In Part 1, Chapter 3, Watson, who is observing Holmes as he investigates the scene of Enoch Drebber’s murder with intense focus and meticulousness, compares him to a “foxhound:”
[H]e whipped a tape measure and large round magnifying glass out of his pocket. With these two implements he trotted noiselessly, sometimes stopping, occasionally kneeling, and once lying flat upon his face. So engrossed was he with his occupation that he appeared to have forgotten our presence […] I was irresistibly reminded of a pure-blooded well-trained foxhound as it dashes backward and forward through the covert […] until it comes across the lost scent […]
“They say that genius is an infinite capacity for taking pains,” he remarked with a smile. “It’s a very bad definition, but it does apply to detective work.”
Throughout the novel, Holmes and the other detectives Lestrade and Gregson, are compared to hounds, foxhounds, and bloodhounds, highlighting their ability to “follow the scent,” so to speak, of the murderers they are hunting down. In Holmes’s remark at the end of the passage, he suggests that detective work doesn’t require any particular “genius” so much as it necessitates an intense level of focus, determination, and patience, which he refers to as “an infinite capacity for taking pains.”
In Part 2, Chapter 5, Doyle’s description of Jefferson Hope hunting down Drebber and Stangerson for years, seeking revenge, is remarkably similar to his earlier description of Sherlock Holmes investigating a crime scene. He highlights his unwavering focus and dedication to his goal, calling him a “human bloodhound:”
Many a man, however vindictive, would have abandoned all thought of revenge in the face of such a difficulty, but Jefferson Hope never faltered for a moment […] he traveled from town to town throughout the United States in quest of his enemies. Year passed into year, his black hair turned grizzled, but still he wandered on, a human bloodhound, with his mind wholly set upon the one object upon which he had devoted his life.
Here, the description of Hope indicates a similarity between him and Holmes. It also suggests that he himself is a “genius” according to Holmes’s definition of the word, since his determination and patience give him the ability to accomplish whatever goal he sets his mind to. However, while Holmes is motivated by an intellectual interest in the crimes he solves, Hope is driven by his intense emotions and desire for revenge.
After his confession, Hope explains that he was driven by his sense of justice to commit the murders, telling the detectives that he sees himself as “just as much an office of justice as [they] are.” His focus on serving justice is a foil to Holmes’s own apparent indifference toward the idea of justice. Holmes appears to be drawn toward detective work not so much out of a desire to enforce the law as out of an intellectual and aesthetic appreciation of mysteries. Although the reader might expect the murderer to be driven by evil motives and the detective to be motivated by his innate sense of justice, Doyle inverts these expectations, complicating any overly neat categorizations of what’s “good” and what’s “evil” and encouraging the reader to interrogate the concept of justice itself.
Throughout A Study in Scarlet, John Watson and Sherlock Holmes act as foils for one another. While both men are intelligent, Holmes possesses uncanny skills of observation and deduction that Watson does not. Watson appears to be more sensitive, describing a “subdued feeling in his heart which the presence of death inspires” and the way his “nerves […] tingled” when seeing a corpse, as well as exercising more tact and humility in his dealings with others than Sherlock does. Watson’s relative cluelessness and emotional sensitivity serve as a foil to Holmes acute analytical skills and aloofness.
In Part 1, Chapter 5, for example, Watson reveals that he is deeply disturbed by the murder of Enoch Drebber, while Holmes appears to regard the case at much more of an emotional remove:
"What's the matter? You're not looking quite yourself. This Brixton Road affair has upset you[,]" [said Sherlock.]
"To tell the truth it has," I said. "I ought to be more case-hardened after my Afghan experiences. I saw my own comrades hacked to pieces at Maiwand without losing my nerve."
"I can understand. There is a mystery about this which stimulates the imagination; where there is no imagination there is no horror. Have you seen the evening paper?"
Here, Holmes observes that Watson has been quiet and distracted because he finds Drebber’s death so disturbing. Despite having seen many deaths while serving as an army doctor in the Afghanistan war, he isn’t “case-hardened”; seeing Enoch Drebber’s corpse still disturbs him.
Holmes, on the other hand, seems unperturbed. He appears to regard the murder not as a disturbing tragedy but rather as something to be aesthetically appreciated, like a painting or a puzzle that he finds great intellectual pleasure in solving. He says the case “stimulates [his] imagination” and muses that “where there is no imagination there is no horror.” However, he doesn’t appear to be feeling any horror himself, and he quickly changes the topic to discuss the evening paper. Unlike Watson, he doesn’t dwell on it.
This contrast can also be seen in Part 1, Chapter 3, when Watson and Holmes first appear at the scene of Enoch Drebber’s murder:
Holmes walked in, and I followed him with that subdued feeling in my heart which the presence of death inspires.
It was a large square room, looking all the larger from the absence of furniture. A vulgar flaring paper adorned the walls [...] Opposite the door was a showy fireplace, surrounded by a mantlepiece of imitation white marble. On one corner of this was stuck the stump of a red wax candle [...]
All these details I observed afterwards. At present my attention was centred upon the single grim motionless figure which lay stretched across the boards, with vacant and sightless eyes staring up at the discoloured ceiling [...] On his rigid face there stood an expression of horror, and as it seemed to me, of hatred, such as I have never seen upon human features.
Here, Watson explains that he doesn’t observe the details in the crime scene right away because he is so focused on the murdered corpse lying on the floor. This stands in stark contrast to Holmes, who immediately takes in all of the evidence around him before going on to investigate the corpse itself. While Watson is preoccupied with the emotions he imagined the man must have felt as he was murdered, Holmes is focused on reading the available evidence and appears to be emotionally unaffected by the death of the man whose murder he is investigating.
In A Study in Scarlet, Sherlock Holmes and Jefferson Hope are foils for one another. They are represented as possessing many similarities with one key difference: while Holmes is driven by logic and reason, Hope is driven by passion and emotion.
Throughout the novel, Holmes is described as being unusually determined and focused. It is this intense focus that allows him to observe things in crime scenes that other people do not and solve murders that stump other detectives. In Part 1, Chapter 3, Watson, who is observing Holmes as he investigates the scene of Enoch Drebber’s murder with intense focus and meticulousness, compares him to a “foxhound:”
[H]e whipped a tape measure and large round magnifying glass out of his pocket. With these two implements he trotted noiselessly, sometimes stopping, occasionally kneeling, and once lying flat upon his face. So engrossed was he with his occupation that he appeared to have forgotten our presence […] I was irresistibly reminded of a pure-blooded well-trained foxhound as it dashes backward and forward through the covert […] until it comes across the lost scent […]
“They say that genius is an infinite capacity for taking pains,” he remarked with a smile. “It’s a very bad definition, but it does apply to detective work.”
Throughout the novel, Holmes and the other detectives Lestrade and Gregson, are compared to hounds, foxhounds, and bloodhounds, highlighting their ability to “follow the scent,” so to speak, of the murderers they are hunting down. In Holmes’s remark at the end of the passage, he suggests that detective work doesn’t require any particular “genius” so much as it necessitates an intense level of focus, determination, and patience, which he refers to as “an infinite capacity for taking pains.”
In Part 2, Chapter 5, Doyle’s description of Jefferson Hope hunting down Drebber and Stangerson for years, seeking revenge, is remarkably similar to his earlier description of Sherlock Holmes investigating a crime scene. He highlights his unwavering focus and dedication to his goal, calling him a “human bloodhound:”
Many a man, however vindictive, would have abandoned all thought of revenge in the face of such a difficulty, but Jefferson Hope never faltered for a moment […] he traveled from town to town throughout the United States in quest of his enemies. Year passed into year, his black hair turned grizzled, but still he wandered on, a human bloodhound, with his mind wholly set upon the one object upon which he had devoted his life.
Here, the description of Hope indicates a similarity between him and Holmes. It also suggests that he himself is a “genius” according to Holmes’s definition of the word, since his determination and patience give him the ability to accomplish whatever goal he sets his mind to. However, while Holmes is motivated by an intellectual interest in the crimes he solves, Hope is driven by his intense emotions and desire for revenge.
After his confession, Hope explains that he was driven by his sense of justice to commit the murders, telling the detectives that he sees himself as “just as much an office of justice as [they] are.” His focus on serving justice is a foil to Holmes’s own apparent indifference toward the idea of justice. Holmes appears to be drawn toward detective work not so much out of a desire to enforce the law as out of an intellectual and aesthetic appreciation of mysteries. Although the reader might expect the murderer to be driven by evil motives and the detective to be motivated by his innate sense of justice, Doyle inverts these expectations, complicating any overly neat categorizations of what’s “good” and what’s “evil” and encouraging the reader to interrogate the concept of justice itself.
