I think not
Sherlock Holmes, both in BCC and the novel, seems to approach the idea of coincidences differently than Dupin and Poe's narrator. We have already discussed the belief presented in "Murders in the Rue Morgue" that coincidences happen all the time and we should not assume that concurrent events are related. With this in mind, Sherlock's claim in "Hounds of Baskerville" (TV) that "There are no coincidences" surprised me. He says this when he meets Stapleton and accuses her of killing her daughter's luminescent rabbit. At the start of the episode, the mystery of Bluebell the rabbit and Henry's mystery seem completely unrelated, but Sherlock thinks to look for a connection and is able to find that the same people caused both mysteries. His superpower is that after observing every minute detail he can find connections between different pieces of evidence, such as when he relates Liberty, In to be the location of project Hound.
In The Hound of the Baskervilles (book), Sherlock uses a similar thought process to determine the relationship between Laura Lyons and Charles Baskerville's death. When Laura insists that it is only a coincidence that she planned to meet with Charles on the night of his murder, Holmes states, "In that case the coincidence must exceed an extraordinary one. But I think that we shall succeed in establishing a connection after all." He proves to be correct when we discover that Stapleton had Laura plan the meeting to create an opportunity for Charles to die. When Sherlock follows his instinct to believe that the seemingly related events truly are related, he reaches an accurate conclusion and solves the crime.
"Murders in the Rue Morgue" rejects the assumption of causality and shows that coincidences are always likely. If either version of Sherlock investigated the deaths of the L'Espanayes and learned that they had withdrawn gold three days before the murder, would he have thought that the money was a motive for the crime? Conversely, would Dupin have assumed that Laura's correspondence was unrelated and would he have failed to discover how Stapleton planned Charles's murder?
Each of the three detectives is adamant about their opinion on coincidences as it is useful to their specific investigations. is either idea more believable or applicable to the real world?
In The Hound of the Baskervilles (book), Sherlock uses a similar thought process to determine the relationship between Laura Lyons and Charles Baskerville's death. When Laura insists that it is only a coincidence that she planned to meet with Charles on the night of his murder, Holmes states, "In that case the coincidence must exceed an extraordinary one. But I think that we shall succeed in establishing a connection after all." He proves to be correct when we discover that Stapleton had Laura plan the meeting to create an opportunity for Charles to die. When Sherlock follows his instinct to believe that the seemingly related events truly are related, he reaches an accurate conclusion and solves the crime.
"Murders in the Rue Morgue" rejects the assumption of causality and shows that coincidences are always likely. If either version of Sherlock investigated the deaths of the L'Espanayes and learned that they had withdrawn gold three days before the murder, would he have thought that the money was a motive for the crime? Conversely, would Dupin have assumed that Laura's correspondence was unrelated and would he have failed to discover how Stapleton planned Charles's murder?
Each of the three detectives is adamant about their opinion on coincidences as it is useful to their specific investigations. is either idea more believable or applicable to the real world?
There's a quote from later on in Sherlock (Series Three) and it dismisses coincidence because "The universe is rarely so lazy." In my opinion, it makes more sense not to say something is a coincidence because you could be ruling out a possible solution, event etc.
ReplyDelete