“The Adventure of the Cardboard Box”

In my opinion, “The Adventure of the Cardboard Box” does not qualify as literature in the traditional sense. Traditional literature that you study throughout higher education has certain internal characteristic as well as multiple perceived qualities. For me, I personally do not hold a positive attitude towards these perceived qualities.

The intrinsic characteristics of literature all contribute to an added level of complexity. While not every piece of literature will contain all the characteristics, to be classified as traditional literature the work must contain at least one attribute. Perhaps the most pervasive quality is that there is a deeper underlying meaning to any surface level quality. This means that what you initially read usually does not cover the complete scope of significance. Therefore, reading literature requires reading to be slow and active. In some cases, it is necessary to reread the text multiple times to extract the underlying significance. Another intrinsic characteristic is the use of advanced literary devices. This includes the use of symbolism, motif, metaphor, allegory, juxtaposition, paradox, theme and many more. A third characteristic is the development of complex characters. High-level literature is closely associated with the use of round characters that are multifaceted and complicated.

These characteristics often make traditional literature very difficult. This level of difficulty can be quite frustrating to the point where it is not fun. Personally, I would never choose to read a piece of traditional literature during my free time for my own enjoyment.

“The Adventure of the Cardboard Box” does not fit the criteria described above in many ways. The reading is surface level making it an easy read. Also, there is no use of any literary devices, further adding to that lower level impression. The predictable identities of the characters make them easy to follow and interpret. This basic writing style allows reading “The Adventure of the Cardboard Box” to be enjoyable. That being said, it is not something that I would expect to read in school.

Doyle’s short story is not hindered in any sense because it is not a traditional work of literature. Literature itself is also not affected by this story. This is because “The Adventure of the Cardboard Box” was never intended to be literature. The fact that it was written for a different purpose keeps this story in the leisure category rather than being a failed work of literature. The success of the Sherlock Holmes series is a testament to the lucrative nature of leisure stories and the series itself.

One thought on ““The Adventure of the Cardboard Box”

  1. I thought this was a very interesting take on the given topic. Seeing as I had a different view on “The Adventure of the Cardboard Box”, it was great to read about another opinion. I agree with your idea behind the lack of literary devices and overall simplicity of the text. I would although like to point out that the character development along with the overall writing techniques used by the author makes this a very interesting read. I would have enjoyed reading this post further if you had looked at more reasons behind it’s failure to satisfy the definition of a literary work. Supporting your argument with more examples would make this a flawless point.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s