Once the mystery is solved in The Adventure of the Speckled Band, the story ends quickly. Is this a sound literary device? Why or Why not?

According to the great American genius Edgar Allan Poe,
what is important in a short story is to create a "single effect." Poe uses the term
"effect" a lot. What he means is a feeling or an emotional effect. It seems obvious that
once this effect is achieved, the author should terminate the story as quickly as
possible so as not to dilute the emotional effect with extraneous data. The reader
should be left with a "feeling." That is the purpose of a short
story.

In the case of "The Adventure of the Speckled Band,"
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle very artistically and adroitly provides much of the follow-up
information at the beginning rather than after the final effect has
been achieved with the sight of Dr. Roylott having died an agonizing death and still
having the speckled band wrapped around his forehead. Doyle moves the ending to the
beginning as follows:

readability="14">

Of all these varied cases, however, I cannot
recall any which presented more singular features than that which was associated with
the well-known Surrey family of the Roylotts of Stoke Moran.The events in question
occurred in the early days of my association with Holmes, when we were sharing rooms as
bachelors in Baker Street. It is possible that I might have placed them upon record
before, but a promise of secrecy was made at the time, from which I have only been freed
during the last month by the untimely death of the lady to whom the pledge was given. It
is perhaps as well that the facts should now come to light, for I have reasons to know
that there are widespread rumours as to the death of Dr. Grimesby Roylott which tend to
make the matter even more terrible than the
truth.

The real facts of the
case did not come to light at the time they occurred. Roylott's death was explained as
having been caused by careless handling of a pet snake. There was no need to taint the
family reputation by accusing him of attempted murder of his stepdaughter Helen. It
would be impossible to prove, anyway. As far as the murder of Julia was concerned, that
was a closed case and Roylott had gotten away with it. But he was appropriately punished
two years later by being killed by the same snake he had used to kill Julia. There would
have been no point in reopening that case in order to convict a dead man, and it might
have been impossible to connect him to Julia's death after all that
time.

Helen will get all the money rather than only
one-third and will soon be happily married.