lvijay

Mine is easily the first one. The Sign of the Four is a close second. Somehow I've never enjoyed the latter two so much, I don't know why. More than anything in particular, they never stick in my mind.

I forgot to respond to this one earlier. There are two possibilities Sebastian Moran knew who Holmes really was, in the last 2 years of Holmes's disappearance, Moran has become the kingpin and with Holmes's return he feels threatened and wants to take him out. Holmes foils Moran's plans. Moran didn't know who his real boss was. Remember, Holmes said "the central power which uses the agent is never caught — never so much as suspected," It's possible Moran read Watson's public reply to Col. Moriarty's letter, came to believe Moriarty was his boss and Holmes his enemy. When he hears Holmes is back he decides to take revenge.

I'm merely quoting from the story. Furthermore, we don't know exactly when Holmes (allegedly) discovered Moriarty's identity. Here's how Holmes describes it, in The Final Problem For years past I have continually been conscious of some power behind the malefactor, some deep organising power which forever stands in the way of the law, and throws it shield over the wrong-doer. Again and again in cases of the most varying sorts—forgery cases, robberies, murders—I have felt the presence of this force, and I have deduced its action in many of those undiscovered crimes in which I have not been personally consulted. For years I have endeavoured to break through the veil which shrouded it, and at last the time came when I seized my thread and followed it, until it led me, after a thousand cunning windings, to ex-Professor Moriarty of mathematical celebrity. [my emphasis] Thanks Vijay

Thanks for reading! Surely you aren’t saying that just because Moriarty only made a brief comment on Holmes’ appearance that he didn’t know what he looked like? They met in Holmes sitting room and the meeting lasted a for a few minutes. They were face to face so Moriarty would have known exactly what Holmes looked like. Yes, that was my point. Until then, just a few days before Holmes's trap was set, neither of them knew what the other looked like. (Or so Holmes claimed.) As for being able to ‘invent a perfect story,’ well he knew that Watson was a doctor and that he would feel obliged to go and help a potentially dying woman. But look at the phrasing! "was impossible to refuse the request of a fellow countrywoman dying in a strange land" (my emphasis). Holmes also reassured him that he should go and that they would meet up later. Holmes wanted to escape from all this so it's natural he would direct Watson to leave. Because only if Watson were away could Holmes effect his deception and disappear. I’d also find it impossible to believe in a criminal Holmes because of his close relationship to Watson I cite Watson's insight into Holmes's criminal instincts (The Sign of the Four). I also say "Okay, so Watson was fooled. This is hardly surprising because in the stories Watson is always fooled." More tellingly we would expect his brother Mycroft to have had suspicions if Holmes was up to anything untoward as he knew him intimately. We know next to nothing about Moriarty. Perhaps he was in on it with Holmes. Perhaps he didn't want to tell on his brother. Who is to know.

I liked "Mastermind: How to Think Like Sherlock Holmes" by Maria Konnikova

Hi I joined this forum today. I recently took up blogging and wrote a Sherlock Holmes related post last month. The month earlier I discussed with family and friends and put it up on my blog. Today, I thought maybe I should get inputs from fans of Holmes and found this forum via Google. I'm not much of a TV fan so I haven't watched the movies or the TV shows. But I've read the stories and I love them. While researching for my blog I even read parts of Conan Doyle's autobiography. Since this is a self-introduction, I'll stop with this. Cheers ~v

Great question! I wrote a post with my theory about this and similar. In short, Moriarty was innocent, Sherlock Holmes was the criminal mastermind. Would appreciate thoughts and feedback. All my arguments only use as source Arthur Conan Doyle's works. The post is available at https://medium.com/galileo-onwards/moriarty-was-innocent-e39610eab8bc Thanks Vijay