The Valley of Fear

Want to read this along with me? This essay is part of The Valley of Fear, published in 1915. I used the epub version found on Feedbooks.com.

Since this is the final novel, I’m going to tackle this in multiple parts like I did the previous novels. I’m not going to use this essay to dwell on how utterly identical this novel is to A Study in Scarlet, but know that I’m thinking it really hard until I get to that one. No, this time I’m going to start as I usually do, with focusing on how Holmes and Watson fare as characters in this novel.

Through the story we get quite a conflicted picture of Holmes. Near the start of the book there are a couple of good exchanges about humor. Holmes at one point explicitly calls out Watson’s sense of humor, saying “You are developing a certain unexpected vein of pawky humour, Watson, against which I must learn to guard myself.” And yet Holmes is certainly not above his own sense of “pawky humor,” like when he says “Perhaps there are points which have escaped your Machiavellian intellect.” Further, Watson says that Holmes is warmed by genuine admiration, and Holmes even admits to being dramatic:

Holmes laughed. “Watson insists that I am the dramatist in real life,” said he. “Some touch of the artist wells up within me, and calls insistently for a well-staged performance. Surely our profession, Mr. Mac, would be a drab and sordid one if we did not sometimes set the scene so as to glorify our results. The blunt accusation, the brutal tap upon the shoulder—what can one make of such a denouement? But the quick inference, the subtle trap, the clever forecast of coming events, the triumphant vindication of bold theories—are these not the pride and the justification of our life’s work? At the present moment you thrill with the glamour of the situation and the anticipation of the hunt. Where would be that thrill if I had been as definite as a timetable?”

But despite that, Holmes is also the emotionless, calculating detective, as Watson likens his reception of horrific news to a “chemist who sees the crystals falling into position from his oversaturated solution.” Holmes also reiterates his negative stance on women (“I am not a whole-souled admirer of womankind, as you are aware….”) and seems uncomfortable with Watson’s bluntness (“There is an appalling directness about your questions, Watson….”).

None of these facts come across as directly contradictory, but in the space of the novel we have more opportunities to see Holmes, and we can appreciate what a complicated and nuanced personality he has. Here is a man that is harsh with his criticism and yet craves admiration, one who fights fiercely with his best friend one moment and gently jokes with him the next. He can speak eloquently on the beauty of a particular mystery as easily as he can read one of the many ciphers he uses to amuse his intelligence. He is a temperamental artist inside the shell of a soulless scientist, and yet neither extreme would make him the masterful detective that he is. This is Holmes in his prime.

(Also, apparently Holmes’ eyebrows are “bushy,” although it’s only mentioned in this novel.)

Watson, while he doesn’t have nearly as large a part as he did in Hound, still manages to reinforce his character and provide some new elements. His humility crops up, causing him at one point to ask leave to remove his “own insignificant personality” from the narrative. Further, though Holmes chides Watson about his knowledge of women, Watson cools quite quickly to the beautiful Mrs. Parker when he believes her to be part of the conspiracy. He doesn’t love women any less, but he’s not as easily swayed by them as he was in the earlier cases.

Holmes’ relationship with the police is very different than in previous stories, or at least less fractious. Holmes’ fame has spread to the point that even the provincial police force in Sussex knows of Sherlock Holmes, even though depending on the timing of the case (which I’ll get into in another essay) Holmes would barely be known. Admittedly, White Mason is a friend of MacDonald, and MacDonald is very keen on Holmes, so it’s possible that MacDonald mentioned Holmes to Mason in passing before. However, the positive esteem that the official officers hold Holmes in (and the positive impression that both men make on Holmes) is very different from the sometimes positive, sometimes negative relationship that a character like Lestrade has with Holmes.

Further, MacDonald and Mason are both quite bright. Holmes brings up points during Mason’s deconstruction of the possible events, and Mason takes them in stride. Clearly, he’s keeping up with Holmes. It really brings home the fact that, as we go deeper into the later canon, the official detectives are just as often intelligent men that Holmes respects as ignorant men that he rails against.

Next essay, I’ll go into more about the other canonical parts of the novel, including the repeated references to Dr. Moriarty.