I am working with “Retrospective Prophecies: Legal Narrative Constructions”, a chapter written by Peter Brooks, a selection from a larger work called New Directions in Law and Literature. The main problem Brooks identifies with detective novels is the idea of narrative. More specifically, how legal writing inadvertently uses a narrative approach. Brooks writes, “It is rather a science of the concrete and particular that achieves its discoveries through putting particulars together in a narrative chain”(Brooks 94). Brooks approaches this by breaking down our perception of the iconic detective novel. His critique of structure truly gives weight to structuralism. He brings in other critiques of the detective genre through the use of defining deductions, Sherlock Holmes’ most important part of his personality. Or rather, as Brooks calls them “abductions” (Brooks 94). Conan Doyle’s ability to switch between narration and direct dialogue has Brooks categorizing it as the foundation for the detective genre. The usage of direct and indirect focalization throughout the story has Brooks asking if this makes it easier to understand. To understand a Holmes story, you must put yourself into the story, which is fascinating as a reader to hear from a critic of such heavyweight work. By looking at Charles Augustus Milverton through Brooks’ lens, we as readers are able to understand how much structure adds to a story. In my annotations even, I wrote down how much the structure of the story adds to the way it was meant to be read. Brooks writes, “Stories are not events in the world, but rather a way in which we speak the world, and in doing so give it shape and meaning” (Brooks 92). If we look at Conan Doyle’s writing as a way to speak to the world, we can interpret it as a representative of structure and eventful storytelling. As the story unfolds, we see the true detective work happening. Thus, we as readers, truly can ask why Holmes stories can be applied in real life legal issues. I find Brooks’ perspective very interesting. Especially when he brings in the court cases he has taught in his classes. Using Holmes as an example in school is familiar to me. In forensic science class in high school, we read Holmes (more for his deductions) and used that framework for many experiments. I think I find myself more open to this critique than I was with Cleanth Brooks’ interpretation of Keats’ poem. I would take this analysis into other detective novels and see if they lay the same groundwork that Brooks is describing here in The Adventure of the Speckled Band, another Holmes story using “adventure” in the title. Through different understandings, we try to control the narrative in our favor, which through Brooks’ perspective was made possible by Conan Doyle in the Sherlock Holmes stories.