Fiction is littered with detective sidekicks and their lack of memorable lines and background so if they are to be portrayed as dull should why do they still exist?
The recent BBC series 'Sherlock' had the protagonist say of his sidekick, Watson, that his reason for being included was that he, Sherlock always took "the precaution of a good coat and a short friend". In actual fact Sherlock needed Watson. He was the straight man to Sherlock's intensely skilled investigations and was a translator for us, the audience.
In reality detectives generally do not work alone as it is expected that the detective is only human and can miss certain clues or facts and that a fresh set of eyes and ears could notice something crucial that may otherwise have passed without notice.
In literature the detective's sidekick is crucial. The discourse between the protagonist and his trusted chum is where we learn of clues and facts that build and continue the intrigue. If delivered in first person, a detective story would lack the element of surprise. The anticipation is far greater if we have no idea that the detective will still be alive at the end and as silent voyeurs we are almost enveloped by the peril facing the characters we follow. To imagine ourselves as mute observers we are left with the feeling that we too are involved and the onus is on us to ensure the mystery is solved.
At the end of every great detective novel we have a shocking twist and a big reveal and without the sidekick to voice our surprise we would feel unfulfilled and perhaps a little stupid to have missed the clues. The fact that the sidekick was present and missed the clues plays two parts. Firstly, it reminds us that we are not inadequate for missing clues and Secondly, it serves to stir admiration for our conquering hero.
When all is done and they retire to a safe place to discuss their adventure we join them and release the adrenalin.
A detective alone is a show off. A detective with a friend is a thrill.
