Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes stories exhibit various inconsistencies, which can be analyzed from two perspectives:

Doylist Perspective
1. Authorial Oversight: Doyle wrote over decades, often without revisiting previous stories, causing inconsistencies. For instance, Watson’s war wound moves from shoulder in “A Study in Scarlet” to leg in “The Sign of Four.”
2. Publication Order vs. Internal Chronology: Stories were published non-sequentially, leading to chronological issues.
3. Character Details: Watson’s marital status fluctuates without clear explanation, reflecting Doyle’s evolving storytelling.
4. Literary Trends: Doyle adapted to audience tastes, resulting in shifting story styles and details.

Watsonian Perspective
1. Human Error: Watson, as the narrator, might misremember or misrecord details.
2. Deliberate Obfuscation: Watson could alter facts to protect clients or himself.
3. Holmes’ Manipulations: Holmes might mislead Watson or encourage altering details for secrecy.
4. Fragmentary Documentation: Watson’s accounts are based on incomplete notes, leading to inconsistencies.

Example: Watson’s shifting wound location (shoulder to leg) can be seen as either Doyle’s oversight (Doylist) or Watson’s error (Watsonian). These perspectives provide a richer understanding of the beloved but imperfect canon.