Alfred Romero
9/17/2022
Professor Frank
Introduction to Literary Theory & Criticism
QCQ#2
From Arthur Conan Doyle’s short story “The Adventure of Charles Augustus Milverton”, Watson formed an understanding when Holmes stopped him from interfering with the murder of Milverton. As soon as Holmes grabbed a hold of his wrist, Watson realized that the situation that was occurring in front of them wasn’t their business. It was okay for them to let it happen as “justice had overtaken a villain” (Doyle 7).
I found this quote, really this whole situation very interesting as I feel it deals with this concept of moral-based perception. From the actions of Watson and Holmes, I can’t even say with certainty whether I agree or disagree with what they did. From a focalization standpoint, this story can be read through the lens of Watson’s eyes. And with Watson, he believes that Holmes had the right idea of letting nature take its course. I feel like this dilemma can be applied as a general concept to a wide variety of different scenarios. Either way, it came as a surprise to me when they let the murder happen, even despite Watson mentioning how much of a thrill it was to be on the “other side” of their work.
The situation that Watson and Holmes were put in brings me to wonder. I question where the line is drawn. Sometimes it’s okay to let nature take its course and in this case, it was letting a major criminal die by the hands of an individual that they’ve wronged in the past. But, at what point does the bystander ever become worse than the “villain” for letting actions against the villain, which could have been prevented, go? Can this perceived notion of justice ever be considered unjustified?
