Sherlock Holmes and the Hound of the Baskervilles

The book "Sherlock Holmes and the Hound of the Baskervilles" by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is about a talented detective named Sherlock Holmes set in London, trying to figure out the culprit behind Sir Charles' death, the master of the Baskerville household. The story is set in the perspective of Sherlock Holmes's sidekick, Dr.Watson.

I find this book very challenging because of the specific words used in the story - some that I learned this year through a vocabulary book, and others that I simply assume is what it is. So far, I find the book confusing - there's no one that I am 100% clear as for the culprit, and I am halfway towards finishing.

So far, I am predicting many assumptions - one that the culprit to Sir Charles' death is the workers who left the mansion because of such. I say this because, first, the fact that they've served for generations and are already prepared to leave is a huge factor; plus, the fact that they want to leave afterward may be because they've tainted their hands in Sir Charles' blood.

Another assumption is Sir Henry of the Baskervilles, which I find surprisingly suspicious as well. It was possible that he killed Sir Charles himself to gain his position as master, and acting innocently in order to remain safe from Sherlock Holmes's hands.

Lastly, my least favorite assumption is Dr.Mortimer. Similar to Sir Henry, it may be possible that he killed him and is helping Sherlock Holmes playing innocent.

What a mystery! Who knows what it'll be.

Sherlock Holmes and Perspectives.

Whose perspective is missing? In Sherlock Holmes, oh, it's everything. Every single person in a chapter, usually.

In the book, the beginning starts with both Sherlock Holmes and Dr.Wattson's perspectives, each voice starting at a fresh, new chapter. However, around the middle of the book, you only hear Dr.Wattson speaking. This leaves with Sherlock Holmes out, and Wattson with more thinking. This then leaves with Sherlock Holmes' perspective missing.

In my opinion, I think that Conan Doyle, the author of this text, excludes Sherlock Holmes' voice because Sherlock Holmes is the one who solves every case! He's the one figuring out about 90% of his cases. If you add his perspective back in the story, the solution to the case will be there before he even explains it! It also seems like the author wants to exclude his part in the story to give readers more deeper thoughts and chances for theories.

Because Sherlock Holmes' perspective is missing, the one that stands out, Dr.Wattson's perspective, gives a more normal start. Dr.Wattson is often curious and wants to know more about Sherlock Holmes. This is much like Curious George, only the settings are different and George is...a monkey.

Current points of view are better than having Holmes' perspective around because it'll lessen the spice and adventure, and adding Holmes' thoughts is much like a spoiler that's occurring in the book.