Regarding the structure of these three stories compared with A Study In Scarlet, I think the main structural feature that first comes to my mind is how A Study In Scarlet was divided up into those two very different sections. With the three stories we have read, all of them more or less stick to the similar structure of a mystery/crime/case popping up and it being presented to Sherlock Holmes, the observing and ‘dogged pursuit’ of clues, facts, and other information, the final piece or pieces of the puzzle, and then the finale involving the catching of the one behind it and Holmes revealing how he came to his deductions regarding that. A Study In Scarlet has this structure too, but it also has that large Part II section that is completely different (other than the last two chapters) from the rest of the book. I admit that it is vital to fully understanding why the crime occurred and making sense of the rest of the book, but it still stands at a great contrast from the more Sherlock Holmes-y parts of the book, as well as these three stories. That is to say, it still forms the novel, but it doesn’t all come together as well as the other three stories. These three stories are each put together in a much better fitting and connected story than A Study In Scarlet– for example, in The Gloria Scott, we have the story of what happened to cause the mystery presented in a much better-fitting manner. It all runs majorly together, and the different parts of the whole story- the beginning, the telling of the incident which caused all of this, and the conclusion- all connect and interact with each other. Because of this, I feel that this helps them to read as much better-written and connected story.