Which means Holmes believed in some really batshit ideas. But since the world of Holmes is defined by Conan Doyle, shit like phrenology was real in that world.
Like he could determine cultivars of tobacco from looking at and feeling the ash. And other people never pick up on things that even the reader could. But Holmes does. And then you feel smart, because you even beat Holmes to the punch.
My wife has been watching Bones (again) and I've noticed this a lot there too. It was an episode where the victim was a nine-year-old child. They "digitally reconstructed" the child's appearance and couldn't find a match, but then noticed the hair was dyed, the teeth were veneered, etc. And it's obvious, the child was on the pageant circuit. But they didn't put it together until the answer was given to them. Later on, same thing with a murder weapon. They assumed it was a steel-toe boot, but it's pageant contestants, tap shoes are also available. Etc. etc. And yes, tap shoes were used in the murder.
And there's two reasons for this. This is how smart the writers are. They honestly think this takes significant deductive ability. And making the characters figure it out faster would be implausible. Or. They want the viewers/readers to feel smart. And one way to do that is to make them able to figure out the pieces before the characters. Characters who are the smartest because we're told they're the smartest.
It falls apart due to the sheer probability of the events involved. However, the stories are almost always entertaining, despite that.
i.e. This story: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Red-Headed_League
Summary; Man hired to copy books for a large pay. Lots of things don't add up at all. Turns out, it was a long con to use his shop space (he was gone while copying books) to tunnel into a bank across the street. How Sherlock Holmes found this out is completely improbable. For some reason though, I just love watching all the clues fall together. They're also relatively short stories.
I really like stories like the one you describe too though. I think I just like mystery genre in general and I'm not super picky, haha.
I think almost all stories work like this due to the nature of how you structure a story:
- Introduction - characters and concepts are introduced
- Middle - anything can happen and usually some important new characters and concepts are added
- Build-up - all the pieces are assembled and are being being put together, tension increases
- Climax - the puzzle is completed and shown to the reader/viewer
- Conclusion - payoff for the characters, they lived happily ever after
Detective novels often try to give the reader the opportunity to put the pieces together before the characters do. Other stories can give you a similar pay off though.
Bones is fine television. Sherlock Holmes is a fine read. I have the collected works in two volumes.
But I do notice a tendency among people to use fiction as evidence of reality. So it's good to remind myself that characters are reflections of the author, not of reality.
I think a healthy blend of "fiction for reality" is best. Too little makes life boring, too much makes it unrealistic.
Or they think the characters wouldn't be familiar enough with that topic to easily hit the solution.
Sherlock Bones, Dog Detective?
Ask pretty much any AI model, it still is.