Logic vs. Superstition

Most people either consider themselves logical or superstitious and there are those who flirt with the line in between. In all of the stories about Sherlock Holmes and his mystery-solving skills, the reader sees how much Holmes is more willing to use logic and facts to solve the mysteries rather than giving into the superstition of everyone else around him. The reader watches Holmes go to his “mind palace” and become quite superstitious when it comes to certain aspects of the mysteries he is solving in Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s stories and the television and film adaptations. In the book, Hound of the Baskervilles, Holmes is trying to solve the mystery of all of the Baskervilles being murdered and he is drawn to the facts of the case to find the answers. Doyle is showing the gothic side of literature in this sense because he shows everyone else’s superstitions of Baskervilles, but that in the end, Holmes’ logical thinking and conclusions are what really solved the mystery.

            In comparison, Guy Ritchie’s movie, Sherlock Holmes, shows almost every aspect of various murders performed by Lord Blackwood, in some way, in a superstitious way. For example, when Holmes goes to visit Blackwood in jail, a man is seen seizing on the ground, which is supposedly done by dark magic. This causes a series of other superstitious events to unfold before Holmes and his partner in crime, Dr. John Watson. However, in the end, Holmes proves to everyone that all of these superstitious events can be proven by logic and facts of the matter rather than by the supernatural that everyone is so quick to believe. In this adaptation, the audience is shown that Holmes will always come to the conclusion that logic and scientific facts solve mysteries rather than the supernatural. I think Holmes also proves to everyone that superstitions stem from scientific facts and logic to begin with.