A Case Of Identity

Nearly all the plot action (the exception being when Watson describes going off to work the next day) occurs through dialogue, that is, conversation between two or more speakers. The story’s two major middle sections both take the form of conversations between Holmes and Miss Sutherland and then between Holmes and Windibank, and the story is bookended by conversations between Holmes and Watson. Moreover, nearly all the dialogue occurs within the apartment.

This elevation of dialogue recalls the Socratic method, an ancient Greek mode of discourse used by philosophers like Plato and Aristotle. The extent of this allusion is also the extent of yet another irony: The Socratic method presupposes that knowledge is better generated through relationship than when a person is alone—and this contrasts with Holmes’s individualism.

The Socratic method is not only inductive but famously one of history’s first refined examples of inductive reasoning. While Holmes is most famous for deductive reasoning, he uses inductive reasoning most often. Naturally, he is eager to talk to Miss Sutherland when she arrives; in listening, questioning, and voicing reactions, he can generate much useful knowledge through inductive reasoning: He gathers evidence and arrives at conclusions. By entering the narrative, the reader, too, may join in the dialogue, following the back-and-forth between Holmes and Miss Sutherland or Holmes and Watson. The reader thereby takes the role of listener and can discern revelatory clues.

Upon meeting Miss Sutherland, Holmes immediately comments on how difficult it must be to work as a typist when she has shortsightedness. Miss Sutherland is taken aback and assumes Holmes read up about her before her arrival, because (she believes) he couldn’t have known these things otherwise. Holmes’s reply is: “Never mind; it is my business to know things” (227). The ensuing narrative shows how Holmes, from a mere glance, inferred Miss Sutherland’s occupation and her shortsightedness; even Watson, later in the story, is trained in Holmes’s methods. Readers may wonder why Holmes doesn’t explain it to Miss Sutherland. Instead of revealing his thought process to her, he dismisses his skills with understatement.

Understatement—downplaying a reality with indifferent, dismissive, or minimizing speech—comes in two forms: ironic and unironic. Ironic understatement uses underemphasis to (ironically) emphasize, while unironic understatement genuinely intends to downplay or dismiss. Holmes’s remark to Miss Sutherland is ironic—especially to the reader, who knows of Holmes’s prowess. Ironic understatement can also work in a roundabout way to increase anticipation and suspense. Holmes often uses understatement, and here it draws great interest from Miss Sutherland, Watson, and presumably the reader—all of whom cannot wait to learn how the detective did it. Conan Doyle once again elevates intelligence and logic as a life skill; by understating it, he actually calls more attention to it.