Kevin Gao

2/24/2016

Nguyen, Lena

ENGL 1147

Hero with No Heroic Purpose

The majority of stories, whether they be classic novels, mysteries, science fiction,

adventure, or any genre of literature, will always have some sort of hero character or heroic

figure whose main purpose is to bring about some form of correction for the imbalance that is

setup in the premise, whether it be a very grand gesture such as stopping an evil empire from

taking over the world, or something quite simple like retrieving someones stolen wallet. Seeking

out justice and equity is almost always a very daunting task, difficult to execute, and the results

usually exonerate the hero for some character flaw or misbehavior that people have to put up

with in the present, or transgression that the hero had from before. In truth, there are so many

ways to describe a hero, and there are a lot of different types as well; the hero can be the

traditional epic hero, or perhaps the war hero, or the underdog hero. Knowing all this, and taking

certain contextual and literary facts into consideration, its my opinion that Sherlock Holmes

cannot be considered a real hero figure based on many of the hero-type characterizations

established in other known media, because he, at the very core, isnt interested in seeking out

justice or correction, or even trying to help the general public out of responsibility or strong

conviction. As we have read from the short story, A Study in Scarlet, Sherlock Holmes doesnt

concern himself with anything he deems trivial, and in the end, he applies all of his knowledge to

solving these cases in the hopes of relieving his boredom and apathy.
 It isnt completely correct to say that Sherlock Holmes doesnt care about the integrity of

people or society, as the story does point out that he has a good practical knowledge of the

British legal system for their time, and he does go to great lengths to get things done, such as

employing the Baker Street Irregulars, a group of dirty street kids; these are kids that, to most

people, would appear revolting and intolerable, have utility and a functioning use for Sherlock

Holmes. This shows that he has a sense of urgency. But as to whether all of these actions are

motivated by a drive to bring justice to criminals is debatable. On many occasions, Sherlock goes

out of his way to get around the police, working independently, even trying to fool them so as to

keep them of the track of clues. When Lestrade deduced that the word RACHE written on the

wall was supposed to be the name RACHEL but incomplete, Sherlock tries to trick him and

Gregson into thinking that theyre wrong and that it is supposed to be the German word for

revenge (though ironically Holmes was correct when suggesting this false answer). When

Jefferson Hope finished telling his story about his origins in Mormon Salt Lake City in America,

the only thing that Sherlock Holmes is intrigued by is the identity of his accomplice who came

back for the ring. Sherlock doesnt miss a moment in testing out the pills on the dog to determine

if Jeffersons pills were legitimate or not, and upon revealing that he figured out who the

murderer was, he pretends to pack his bags for a journey in the taxi and then promptly arrests the

taxi driver Jefferson Hope, instead of rushing to tell the police his identity, which he found out

about much earlier in the book.

It is clear that Sherlocks main goal is not to throw the criminal in jail or take a reward for

cases, or even preserving the well being of others. His one, singular goal is to find out the truth:

to discover who committed the crime and how he or she did it. The fact that he tries to throw

Scotland Yard off the right track shows not only how little he respects them as an investigative
department, but also shows that justice seeking isnt on his mind at all; any regular citizen would

turn to the police to provide with information, but when Sherlock found out about Jefferson

Hope, he tried to play around with the police, almost manipulating them in way, and of course he

doesnt bother to share information so as to make the final reveal all the more dramatic. This

suggests that Sherlock, though he is very motivated to finding out the truth behind criminal

cases, is also after attention, the fact that he was the one who was able to unravel the strangely

complex and bizarre mystery, and that he bested Scotland Yard. Without him, nothing would get

done in terms of detective work. On a deeper level, Sherlock seems to be a very gloomy, dark

character who doesnt even think life is interesting, that is, unless he is solving crimes. To quote

the book: Theres the scarlet thread of murder running through the colourless skein of life, and

our duty is to unravel it, and isolate it, and expose every inch of it. This very line by Sherlock is

a sign that he not just only lives life to solve crimes, but that he acknowledges that his skill set,

though very impressive, is also very limiting in practical, everyday use; it really does appear that

without criminals around to cause trouble, Sherlocks life really does have little to no purpose,

because all hes done with his life is to train himself to study the likes of criminals and criminal

mindsets. Life gets boring really fast, really quick for Sherlock because he is the only one of his

kind, a consulting detective, whose intellectual prowess is unmatched by any other person, so

much so that he becomes annoyed by the fact that other less intelligent people cant think like

him, that they are a waste of brain space.

Sherlock Holmes truly is a complex, multi-layered character. As a practical point of view,

I think its safe to assume that our lives arent driven by drama or story plots; they dont revolve

around earth-altering choices and events, and it is clear life isnt romanticized like it is in some

novels. But for Holmes, his personality is like the ocean that is constantly changing. If hes not
solving a case, hell be playing his violin, or more often sitting at home for days doing nothing

but laying down and contemplating the pointlessness of life. But when hes on a case, he is so

focused on the work and obsessed with finding a resolution that he throws many moral

restrictions out the window.

To me, it seems that both mindsets do not express any seriously notable heroic

characteristics of Sherlock Holmes. While one could argue that Sherlock is doing good work for

the people of England and for Scotland Yard, deeper reasoning would show that Sherlocks good

deeds and all of the great results are merely a byproduct of his unorthodox sleuthing. Sherlock is

just obsessing over what he likes, and as a result (a rather fortunate one), criminals are caught

and arrested, and the citizens are either saved or receive closure/peace. But these things by no

means make Sherlock an intentional hero. If any one little thing were different, where maybe

people did die accidentally or as collateral damage, or even if Sherlock inadvertently assisted in a

crime, that little change would show Sherlock in a much different light, where he embraces more

of the Other aspect in himself rather than the Us part of him; he was already foreign and

weird enough, and it would take just a little bit to turn him from being a virtuous detective into a

crazy psycho or criminal mastermind who would enjoy showing off his intellectual superiority,

but in a much darker, more evil undertone. Uncovering the truths might not be enough to satisfy

him, soon hell turn to propagating the crimes himself . When that happens, itll be nearly

impossible to see Sherlock as the hero anymore. Having the qualities of a hero doesnt

necessarily make you a hero if youre not applying your skills to upholding the greater good, and

in the case of Sherlock, though his actions result in balance being restored to some part of

society, his true motives arent found in justice seeking, but rather in the dramatic, in the acts of

showing off and wanting to be noticed for his wits and smarts.