"the notable adventure of the empty house"

Pouring myself a stiff glass, I ventured to read 'The Empty House'.

Thankfully, although it can still cause a faint throbbing in the temples, it is much less mind-numbingly confusing than FINA (see previous post). Its main puzzle-points are the obvious ones: Holmes' explanation of his 'resurrection'; the reason for his playing dead in the first place; Watson's bizarrely understated reaction to same; and a few more.

On the whole however I could take this in easy stride and the reason for that is Dr Watson himself. It's a story full of Watson's human qualities: his failing, his fainting and even his "fairy tales" (Holmes' description of the stories!). Its tempo, in contrast with the rollercoaster pace of its predecessor, is set by the resurrected Holmes lighting a cigar and, suitably relaxed, chatting away with Watson - before the return to the 'good old days', a pocketed army revolver, and a midnight stakeout for the second most dangerous man in London...

Watson admits that his personal investigation (a rather half-hearted one) into the murder of Ronald Adair gets nowhere and he confesses himself baffled. Of course this only endears us to him more. His fainting fit is understandable but after he recovers from this it's 'business as usual' - we can well understand the modern TV series Sherlock deciding to have Watson thump him instead. He characteristically refrains from responding to Holmes' description of his own literary efforts...! 

And as for the entire incredible saga of Holmes' supposed wanderings throughout Tibet, Mecca, etc etc, do I detect the vaguest hint of scepticism in both Watson's very conspicuous lack of any interjections?, and in his mystified echo of Holmes' opening words about not being in the Reichenbach ("I never was in it." You never were in it?" "No, I never was in it")?

Rather fanciful? Well I do not insist upon it.