A Literary Analysis of A Study in Emerald

Originally written by Neil Gaiman

Rarely do we see the point of view of the villain being told in a story. In every single book

I’ve read, it is always the protagonists who narrate their experiences to the readers. May it be

Katniss Everdeen from The Hunger Games trilogy, Percy Jackson from the Percy Jackson series,

Greg Heffley from the Wimpy Kid novels, or Jonas from The Giver, only the main character’s

perspective is described and recounted. From the beginning of A Study in Emerald, readers would

be placed under the impression that it was the same case: the narrator and his friend are the good

guys trying to find and defeat the bad guys. But as one continues to read the Neil Gaiman classic,

only then will they realize how wrong they are.

Before we tackle the actual content of the narrative, first we must understand the setting. By

noting the manner of speaking of each character, it can be deduced that the story is set in the past.

Using the word “astonishing” to express shock, “ajar” to describe an open door, “ergo” to say

therefore (Gaiman, 1-2), and many more olden words can imply that these characters are not

modeled in modern times. In current day-to-day conversations, one would not use the mentioned

words but instead use simpler terms. Additionally, the narrator saying “there was no telegraph”

(Gaiman, 2) gives evidence that the events of the story is situated in the past, since the telegraph

is a communication system that was only widely used from the 1840s until the mid-20th century.

In addition, a majority of the story is written with an air of suspense present in the atmosphere.

Situated in 1840-1950s London, the narrative reflects this time period as crime, pollution, and

immoral activities were rampant in the city. Depicting St. Giles as a rookery filled with criminal

intent, and also mentioning theatres and brothels, of which both were widely present in Victorian

London, help build the world in which A Study in Emerald takes place.
 The 2003 short story began with the encounter of the narrator and his friend. Without any

names being stated, traits of each character are described as the story progresses. The narrator is

curious and observant, asking for explanations and being able to describe his experiences with

precise detail:

“The body, what was left of it, was still there, on the floor. I saw it, but, at first, somehow, I

did not see it. What I saw instead was what had sprayed and gushed from the throat and chest

of the victim: in colour it ranged from bile-green to grass-green. It had soaked into the

threadbare carpet and spattered the wallpaper. I imagined it for one moment the work of

some hellish artist, who had decided to create a study in emerald.” (Gaiman, 3)

Based on his past as a tortured war veteran, I believe that this checks out. As a soldier, one must

be observant of his surroundings so he can properly react during unexpected scenarios. Being able

to have as much information as possible in his arsenal shows his alertness and vigilance with

regards to his surroundings. His simple manner of speech, as evidenced in his conversations with

his friend, provides a nice contrast to both his own profound descriptions and his friend’s articulate

style. With regards to the contrast of his speech and descriptions, even though he mentioned that

he was not “a literary man” (Gaiman, 1), the statements that he used to describe the scenes were

full of colorful imagery: “I shall not forget the mirrored surface of the underground lake, nor the

thing that emerged from the lake, its eyes opening and closing, and the singing whispers that

accompanied it as it rose, wreathing their way about it like the buzzing of flies bigger than worlds”

(Gaiman, 1). Meanwhile, the friend speaks in the manner of an educated man, supplemented by

his superior deductive reasoning, and gives the idea that he is an intelligent, rational thinker. Being

able to produce accurate deductions throughout the story speaks volumes of his intellect and wit:
 “You did not hear the clatter of a brougham several minutes ago? It slowed as it passed us –

obviously as the driver identified our door, then it sped up and went past, up into the

Marylebone Road. There is a crush of carriages and taxicabs letting off passengers at the

railway station and at the waxworks, and it is in that crush that anyone wishing to alight

without being observed will go. The walk from there to here is but four minutes...” (Gaiman,

2)

In this quote, he was proven to be correct when Inspector Lestrade arrives at the door.

Unsurprisingly, a few moments later, it is revealed that the friend was the only consulting detective

in London, in which he is approached by police officers and detectives alike to consult with him

regarding their individual cases. With these archetypes as the main characters, one would be led

to think that they are the heroes of the story, especially when they are approached by a police

inspector from Scotland Yard. After all, would the police really ask for the help of the villain?

After correctly deducing the case and the scene of the crime, the friend goes to Shoreditch,

accompanied by the narrator and Inspector Lestrade. The observant nature of the narrator is

depicted when he notices how his friend is inspecting the doorstep, the cuts on the victim’s body,

some mud, and the ash in the fireplace. When the friend concludes the investigation after figuring

out that the victim is of royal blood, he and the narrator take a walk and are subsequently invited

to meet with the Queen. Inside the palace, they are tasked to find the individuals who committed

the crime. Again, this implies that these two characters are the protagonists of the story. Often

enough, the heroes are the ones who find and catch criminals, further solidifying the idea that the

narrator and his friend are good. Being trusted by royalty, the Queen nonetheless, clears them of

suspicion of being evil and so, readers are led to believe that the narrator and his friend are the

heroes who aim to find the criminals responsible for the murder.
 Following the events of their visit, the friend showcases his talent in disguise by appearing

as different people, which did not go unnoticed by the narrator. Observant as ever, he was able to

distinguish noticeable traits of each disguise and managed to deduce their backgrounds, “an elderly

Chinese man, a young roué, a fat, red-haired woman of whose former profession there could be

little doubt, and a venerable old buffer, his foot swollen and bandaged from gout” (Gaiman, 5).

The duo then went to a theatre at Drury Lane and watched a three-act play, in which the last act

retold a story of the Old Ones and their coming. A notable event during this act was the murder of

the priest who claimed that the Old Ones were monsters and should be destroyed. This is important

because it gives the idea that society condemns this sort of behavior, and believes that the Old

Ones should rule over mankind. After the play, the narrator and his friend approached the leading

actor Sherry Vernet. Introducing himself as “Henry Camberley” and the narrator as “Mister

Sebastian” (Gaiman, 6), he bonded with the actor over an idea that continued upon the third act of

the play that was just performed. Assuming the role of a theatrical promoter, he then invited the

actor and his playwright friend to come to his house and discuss the details of this play, promising

that the ensemble would perform in the New World and would be very successful among the

audience. Afterwards, in the carriage ride home, the friend discusses his deductions with the

narrator, explaining that Sherry Vernet, described as the “tall man,” and his playwright friend,

called the “limping doctor,” were the murderers of Prince Franz Drago of Bohemia. It becomes

apparent that the invitation to talk about a play was only a trap to capture their quarry, and the

good guys would finally be able to catch the bad people.

The next day, the narrator, his friend, and the police all prepare for the arrival of Vernet

and the playwright, aiming to arrest them both. It is in this part where the Restorationists were first

mentioned, being described as vile people who seek to force the Old Ones to “leave mankind in
the darkness” (Gaiman, 8). However, their plan was foiled when a young boy delivers a letter from

the actor. Contained in the letter are the praise for the friend for his rightful deductions, advice for

his future investigations, the motive behind the crime, and the mention of his escape with his

partner. Once the police leave in pursuit of the criminals, the friend explains that their efforts would

be in vain because he believes that Vernet and his partner (thought to be John or James Watson)

are only hiding in the rookery of St. Giles, an area notorious for being lurked with criminals. The

story ends with a narrative of how the narrator has not yet burned the letter and observes that his

friend is still searching for the criminals, noting how they would not stop until the other is dead

(Gaiman, 9). He then signs the story with “S_____ M_______ Major (Ret’d)” on the last page.

After reading the story, it may seem like the good guys have failed in their mission and the

bad guys have escaped. But after further analysis, one may assume the question “Are the narrator

and his friend really the good guys?” The Restorationists were explained to be against the coming

of the Old Ones, rejecting them with the hope of mankind having its freedom to choose its own

destiny. However, after branding Vernet as a Restorationist, the actor justified his actions in the

letter by revealing that Prince Franz was lured in with the thought of a young girl waiting for him.

The said criminal explained that “the Prince would have feasted on the girl”, and also grimly

reveals that “he has seen them do this and worse things, believing that this was not the price they

pay for peace and prosperity” (Gaiman, 9). This means that the Old Ones and the royal bloodline,

previously thought to be rightful rulers, are actually monsters. This reflects back on the third act

of the play that the narrator and his friend watched in Drury Lane, in which the priest claimed that

the Old Ones were demons and monsters that needed to be destroyed. It is also worth mentioning

that in the play, a symbolic event occurred that can represent the evilness of the royal bloodline:

“The moon rose in the painted sky, and then, at its height, in one final moment of theatrical magic,
it turned from a pallid yellow, as it was in the old tales, to the comforting crimson of the moon that

shines down upon us all today” (Gaiman, 6). From this imagery, it was said that when the Old

Ones arrived, the pale-yellow moon turned red. Normally, the moon is of a pale-yellow or white

shade. But when the Old Ones returned, it turned crimson red, which is a color widely used to

represent evilness. In Gothic literature, this color can symbolize danger, war, and strength. In

conclusion, the scene of the moon turning red is a metaphor for the blood that will be shed to

satisfy the hunger and desire of the Old Ones. Based on the same play, society condemns people

who believe in that ideology, as seen when the main lead killed the priest. Additionally, during the

friend’s explanation of the Restorationists, Inspector Lestrade’s reaction spoke volumes:

Lestrade coughed. “If you're talking about what I think you're talking about,” he said,

“perhaps we should leave it there. Enough's enough.”

“Too late for that,” said my friend. “For there are those who do not believe that the coming

of the Old Ones was the fine thing we all know it to be. Anarchists to a man, they would see

the old ways restored – mankind in control of its own destiny, if you will.”

“I will not hear this sedition spoken,” said Lestrade. “I must warn you —”

“I must warn you not to be such a fathead,” said my friend. “Because it was the

Restorationists that killed Prince Franz Drago.” (Gaiman, 8)

From this interaction, one can assume that Inspector Lestrade, or the society as a whole, is strongly

against the Restorationists’ beliefs and ideas, which means that mankind believes that they should

be ruled by the royal bloodline. However, due to Vernet’s description of the royalty in his letter, it

can be stated that the Old Ones and their family are actually the monsters. By worshipping and

following them, the people are blinded from the truth and are led to believe that those who seek to
diverge from society’s ideas are the evil ones. As opposed to what the readers were first led to

assume, the Restorationists are the good-natured people who aim to overthrow the horrific rule of

the Old Ones and free the society from their grasp. Since the narrator and his friend aimed to arrest

Sherry Vernet and John Watson, they should be the ones characterized as the bad guys because of

their goal to oppress the ones trying to do good.

All in all, the short story entails a narrative of how good and evil are relative. The mystery

of the unknown killers provides a shadow that the main characters are chasing to shed a light on.

By describing the adventures of two individuals as they try to solve a crime, Gaiman hides the fact

that the narrator and his friend are the real antagonists, thus proving that good and evil are not too

different from each other. From one perspective alone, one can fall under the false assumption that

a person is good, but looking from another point of view can disprove this claim. There are two

sides of a single story, and the protagonist of one could very well be the antagonist in the other.

That is the case with A Study in Emerald, which teaches us to keep our minds open and urges us

to look in different perspectives because mystery is ubiquitous. It is everywhere, which is why we

must be vigilant to look in different stances to find out the truth. “It began in mystery, and it will

end in mystery, but what a savage and beautiful country lies in between” (Ackerman, 200).
 Works Cited

Ackerman, Diane. A Natural History of the Senses. Random House, 1990.

Collins, Suzanne. The Hunger Games. Scholastic Press, 2008.

Gaiman, Neil. A Study in Emerald. Del Rey Books, 2003.

Kinney, Jeff. Diary of a Wimpy Kid. Amulet Books, 2007.

Lowry, Lois. The Giver. Houghton Mifflin, 1993.

Riordan, Rick. The Lightning Thief. Miramax Books, 2005.