To understand the use and impact that Watson, the narrator, had on the story we must examine the other options commonly used in Doyle's time, for similar stories. The other two narrative structures Doyle could have used were Holmes' first-person narration or the omniscient narrator. The use of an omniscient or omniscient narrator would have the potential for Doyle to choose what to reveal and what to hide from the reader. Additionally, this option commonly allows the reader to witness certain reactions, emotions, and relationships in more than one or two characters. This also means that an author can integrate multiple intertwining plots. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The hugely popular television series Sherlock uses an omniscient narrator, which has helped make it more accessible and compatible with its new platform, television. Although this episode contains many of the ideas and techniques used in the stories, I am struck by the difference in narrative structure. Focusing on the final sequence this difference becomes quite evident. Interestingly, as soon as Watson and Holmes part ways, the focus shifts to Sherlock with only quick shots of Watson sprinkled throughout the action. In the novels, the focus would be on Watson and his attempts to track down and follow Holmes to his destination, ultimately killing the killer. Another difference is the entire plot itself. In the books, Holmes is seemingly always the savior and the x-factor who catches the killer off guard, but in this first episode the roles are reversed and Watson takes on the role of his partner. This Holmes adaptation is one of many and is quite entertaining, with the integration of modern technologies being particularly interesting. However, the narrative style reveals most of Holmes' revelations as they happen, which, in my opinion, is an inferior style to using Watson as the sole narrator. A second potential narrative style that could have been used by Doyle would be first person. This option would allow the reader to only follow Sherlock Holmes for the duration of each story and would ultimately be less effective. If every little detail and observation made by Holmes were revealed, the very common “big reveal” in which Holmes explains his genius to Watson would be ultimately impossible. Instead of using these options, Doyle wisely chose to use Watson as the narrator in his stories. Using this narrator opened up so many possibilities. The relationship between John Watson and Holmes is by far the most consistent and reliable of the stories. Since the first story, this relationship has been the backbone upon which Doyle has been able to build and create each unique challenge for the characters. To most readers, Watson is more relatable and likable than Holmes himself. By choosing this narrator, Doyle skillfully allows prejudices and opinions to slip into the descriptions and hard facts produced by Holmes. Where Holmes excels at observation and general knowledge, he is almost entirely devoid of emotion and opinion. With Watson in the mix, this whole new dimension is brought to light while creating an engaging and compelling dialogue between the housemates. Although the feeling of admiration is almost always expressed by Watson, the most realistic and impressive dialogue comes from moments of weakness. While Watson does his best to avoid comparing himself to his partner, he will eventually have to. “I hope I am no more dense than my neighbours, but I have always been oppressed by a sense of my own stupidity in my dealings with Sherlock.