Partnership of crime solvers

Again, like the super intendent, Holmes has the great skills of a detective which are showcased as he solves the mystery. He can go a substantial amount of time without sleep (making him less realistic) and can also think to himself for a very long time. The fact he can do this on his own while he is a cocaine addict is ironic in my opinion. You would think that all the cocaine would take a toll on Sherlock Holme's brain and therefore affect his mental ability not allowing him to think as effectively.

As well as this, Sherlock Holmes is a hard worker and enjoys his job as "When he had an unresolved problem upon his mind would go for days, and even a week, without rest". This makes him different from Maggie as she has no real love for her job and is only still a detective because she needs the money. One similarity that I see between Holmes and Maggie is that when they have discovered a new lead they are revitalised, "he sprang out of his chair as if he had been galvanised", as for Maggie, "she seemed to have found fresh energy".

This would imply that new clues are motivation for both detectives. Sherlock Holmes is also a very persuasive man as "It was difficult to refuse" him. Considering all the factors, I would summarise that Sherlock Holmes is quite an unrealistic character but is a great detective with skills second to none. This makes him similar to the detective in "Superfluous Murder" but not as realistic. The final detective story is the "The Reluctant Detective" which actually contains a partnership of crime solvers.

Mr Herring and his girlfriend Dawn decide to set up detective agency in their home town of Frome, just so that they can raise enough money to get a car. I think that this is unbelievable because nobody would set up a detective agency just so that they could get a car. The two detectives are very inexperienced, which is shown by the way that they do not know what to do and in what order everything should be done, "What are we supposed to do about that? " and "What do we do next? ".

They are both poor detectives and whilst reading the story, I do not know how they managed to solve the case. I think that the story is unbelievable and detectives are unconvincing. The detectives are disorganised and are not prepared for the task ahead, as they have too borrow tools and equipment as the case progresses, "We may have to borrow another car". They do not stand up to any of the three other detectives who are well organised. All the information above has allowed me to come to the conclusion that three of the four detectives are convincing.

The three detectives I found credible are, firstly, the detective from "A Wife in a Million", Maggie Staniforth who solves the case in which people are mysteriously being poisoned. Secondly, The Superintendent from "Superfluous Murder" who solves the case involving John Mansbridge and his already dead cousin Felix. And finally the third credible detective is Sherlock Holmes who convincingly cracks the case he has been dealt and shows us the skills that made him so famous. On the other hand, the least convincing detective, or should I say detectives are Fredrick and Dawn who star in "The Reluctant Detective".

These two detectives are terrible in my opinion as they struggle to solve the case. Out of the three convincing detectives, if I had to choose one, I would probably choose the super intendent in "Superfluous Murder" because he solves his case in an exciting fashion and it was enjoyable for me to read the detective unfold the case, bit by bit. None of these detectives are perfectly convincing but for me, the mysterious Superintendent is the most convincing as he is the cleverest and brightest detective and his character is at at least mildly convincing.