#sherlockanalysis

[ogsherlockholmes]

The Valley of Fear was published after The Final Problem.

So, either the events of Valley happened before FINA because the timeline was always messy or Moriarty didn't die in the end of FINA.

Which one is it?

Well. 

The simple answer is, yes, the timeline is messy, ACD needed classes on chronology (Tolkien could teach him a thing or two) and we can just leave it at that. We’ll just ignore all the details (very un-Sherlock of us) and say that it’s not that important when it happens, more just the enjoyment of reading the stories. 

However, that’s boring. 

Moriarty not dying is not a particularly unpopular theory, and I’m not just talking about BBCSherlock. When Sherlock comes back in The Empty House, his explanation to Watson is pretty unsatisfactory, so much so that it’s not widely believed. I’ll insert the quote of how Sherlock describes Moriarty’s death:

“I walked along the pathway, Moriarty still at my heels. When I reached the end I stood at bay. He drew no weapon, but he rushed at me and threw his long arms around me. He knew that his own game was up, and was only anxious to revenge himself upon me. We tottered together upon the brink of the fall. I have some knowledge, however, of baritsu, or the Japanese system of wrestling, which has more than once been very useful to me. I slipped through his grip, and he with a horrible scream kicked madly for a few seconds and clawed the air with both his hands. But for all his efforts he could not get his balance, and over he went. With my face over the brink I saw him fall for a long way. Then he struck a rock, bounded off, and splashed into the water.” 

I mean, sure, it could happen, which is why some do believe Sherlock. But Moriarty? Apparently Sherlock’s greatest foe and the smartest man alive? Just throwing himself at him? 

I don’t have all the answers, I’m not an expert, so I’m not going to be able to give a direct answer as to if Moriarty survived. Perhaps Sherlock was telling the truth, but Moriarty managed to paddle away at the bottom of the waterfall and wasn’t seen. Or, Sherlock’s fibbing and Moriarty escaped in an early version of an airplane with Sebastian Moran. Who knows? It’s anything you want: we can fill in all the plotholes or add our own mini plotlines to help the canon, but we’ll never know for certain. 

I will say this, however: you mentioned The Valley of Fear, another story which Moriarty features. In it, it implies that Moriarty was involved in the deaths at the end of the story, and Sherlock intended to go after him. Canon inconsistencies aside, if Moriarty was involved in one of the cases, what’s to say he wasn’t involved in any others?

I haven’t really answered your question, and I’m sorry I can’t be of much help, but if you have an idea, and you have evidence to back it up, no one can tell you wrong. Really, you don’t have to have any evidence, you could say whatever you like and there’s probably at least one person out there who agrees. 

[ogsherlockholmes]

Unusual question, but how would you interpret the relationship between Sherlock Holmes and Inspector Stanley Hopkins?

Hi! Sorry for the late reply, but I’m happy to answer this question. 

Before I begin, I actually find it kind of ironic that you ask me this, because I began creating this story involving a female Sherlock with Stanley Hopkins as her ‘Watson’, if that makes any sense. However, the Stanley Hopkins is not at all based on the one from the stories, he’s practically just...John Watson. (There’s a lot more detail on that story but I’m sure no one really wants to listen to that.)

Anyway, on to the question. 

I think Stanley Hopkins is an interesting character because, unlike the other detectives, he willingly asks for Sherlock’s help in a way that isn’t resentful. Basically he doesn’t feel ashamed to do so; other detectives such as Gregson and Lestrade are very reluctant to come to him and, when they do, they doubt his methods and his theories, often opposing him. 

In The Abbey Grange, Sherlock receives a telegram from Hopkins saying “I should be very glad of your immediate assistance”, then Sherlock goes on to say that he’s consulted him on other cases, which means that he isn’t afraid to ask for his help. 

There are a lot of other quotes I could pick out from the canon, but I generally believe that Hopkins looks up to Sherlock and probably admires him like a child would of  a superhero, if that makes sense. He wants to be like Sherlock ‘when he grows up’, and tries to follow his methods, even though he is slightly restricted due to the rules of the police force. He has good knowledge of how Sherlock works, and allows him to do what he thinks best whilst being able to follow along. 

I think Sherlock thinks of Hopkins as his student, like he’s training him up or preparing him for his later life as a detective. Since Hopkins seems very honoured to be taught by him, he doesn’t have to fight against him or force his knowledge on him. We know that Sherlock loved to teach others about what he knew, though unfortunately most didn’t want to listen because he had an unconventional brand of expertise (you know like the different types of cigarette ash or perfume profiles). Sherlock uses Hopkins as an outlet for imparting his skills, and, compared to the rest of the police force, finds him ‘promising’ because of his willingness to learn new things. 

Also, Sherlock seems to follow this pattern where he will ‘adopt’ any character that is younger than him but shows intelligence and skill (other examples are both Violet Hunter and Violet Smith) and Hopkins is definitely included in this. I wouldn’t go as far to say that Sherlock is a parental figure to Hopkins, but maybe Hopkins is like a son to Sherlock (I know, contradiction, but for some reason it sort of makes sense). 

If we look even deeper into Stanley Hopkins as a character, we can suggest that he represents the improving Scotland Yard of real life. Not only was ACD’s Sherlock Holmes famous for the literary world, he was an inspiration for detectives and criminologists. I read a book called Forensics: The Anatomy of Crime (I recommend if you’re interested in things like that) and Sherlock was mentioned so many times because of his influence on criminal investigation. Hopkins, because of his willingness to take on Sherlock’s methods and the fact he is younger, represents this. 

Stanley Hopkins isn’t an exact copy of Sherlock Holmes, but if someone was to replace him, Hopkins would definitely be suited for the job. 

I hope this makes sense, I have a tendency to ramble and not make any sense. But thank you for the question :)