Talk:A Study in Scarlet
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the General Project Discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. | ||
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
|
Tasks you can do:
|
|||
Contents |
[edit] Discussion
why did doyle choose watson to narrate the story insted of having holmes tell the story hself? what are the benefits and drawbcks of doing it this way?
- Many books feature a highly intelligent and skillful protagonist paired with a more-or-less bumbling sidekick. Nowadays, writers probably do this because they grew up with the tradition and don't know any better, but the original motive (back in Conan Doyle's day or earlier) was probably to help the readers relate to the hero's feats of intellectual prowess. Dr. Watson gives Conan Doyle an excuse to explain Holmes's behavior. Poe did the same thing in his Auguste Dupin stories—"The Purloined Letter", "The Murders in the Rue Morgue", etc. You can even find the tradition carried on in Tom Swift books. I haven't read Victor Appleton's grand originals, but the Tom Swift, Jr. series (dating from the 1950s), had the boy genius Tom paired with Bud Barclay, a genial guy who always needed Tom's inventions explained to him. The most recent Tom Swift series—the ones I grew up with—did the same thing with Rick Cantwell, Tom's good buddy who never quite got the science but was always good "testing to destruction".
- If you watch the movie Fantastic Voyage (or, better yet, read Isaac Asimov's novelization), you can see the same thing happening. The strong-jawed secret agent character, Grant, gives the writers an excuse for explaining what all the different organs do, why the ship can only stay miniaturized for so long, and so forth.
- Not all stories, or even all mysteries, follow this pattern. In Murder on the Orient Express, most of Hercule Poirot's deductions go on in his "little grey cells", without his explaining them to anybody else. We don't really discover his mental processes until he presents his solution at the end. Most of Elizabeth Peters's Amelia Peabody books follow this pattern, too: her characters often take pride in not telling each other what they think, so only at the end are all the curtains pulled back.
- The biggest downside I can see is that the Holmes-and-Watson storytelling method makes the Watson character look, well, rather stupid, unless the writer works with care. Many readers come away with this impression, certainly; Jorge Luis Borges wrote an essay that claimed Watson's intelligence was "somewhat inferior to the reader's." (Whether Borges actually believed that is hard to say—the man wrote an awful lot that wasn't serious. Check out his story "Death and the Compass" for a mystery without a Watson.) In The Seven-Per-Cent Solution, Nicholas Meyer had Watson defend himself against these claims, saying that being around Holmes was enough to make anybody feel stupid.
- I suspect that I'm helping Mr. A. Nonymous finish his English homework, but I don't mind. First, because I'm probably too late anyway (by almost two months), and second because I got through AP English by copying passages from the Dada Engine. Who am I to dictate ethics?
- Anville 16:07, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I am in full agreement with Anville, but wish to highlight one point. Doyle wishes to emphasize Holmes' abilities. Clearly, then, he must demonstrate them to someone. This explains the necessity for Watson's presence. Now what? A straight "third person omniscient / God's-eye view" narrator would be forced to constantly interrupt the narrative to explain how astonished Watson is. Having Holmes tell the story would be even worse. Take, for instance, the incident of the retired sargeant of marines. How could Holmes relate this? How could he give Watson's motivation in asking the man his previous occupation? To Holmes, the question would appear to come out of nowhere. And, to even relate it would constitute a most repellent form of bragging. No, it is by Watson expressing his view of Holmes that Doyle convinces the reader of Holmes' extraordinary abilities. B00P 04:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- I think you are both arguing the same thing, although Anville — by focusing too much on the "sidekick" aspect — perhaps unintentionally perpetuates the very myth he seems to be trying to discard: Watson as mentally inferior bumbler. BOOP's discussion in terms of storytelling mechanics is more to the point, but misses a secondary issue. It's also a matter of reader identification. Holmes is a moody eccentric, an arrogant intellectual, a misogynist, someone who conducts odiferous (and possibly dangerous) chemical experiments in his sitting room, fires pistols into the sitting room wall, goes days without sleep or sleeps for days, keeps unsavory habits such as chain smoking and drug abuse, disappears for days at a time, is alternately an absolute slob and a stickler for neatness, is an elegant conversationalist who despises small talk and goes days without speaking, etc., etc. He's a poor roommate and a dangerous neighbor or tenant. This isn't someone many mainstream readers could identify with, and at the time the stories were published many readers of propriety would have been appalled. However, by seeing him through the annoyed-yet-sympathetic eyes of an everyman narrator, the reader can be removed from the necessity of identifying with such a character and is allowed to see the creature in situ, as the effective genius that Watson sees. Holmes thus becomes an eccentric but romantic hero rather than an alien and unsympathetic being. He could not be the Holmes we know if he had to narrate the stories. He would have to be more of an everyman, and his genius would therefore not be as convincing. Canonblack 15:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Is it really that surprising that Watson's 'Bull Pup' is not brought up again in the other books. He says "I have another set of vices when I'm well, but those are the principal ones at present" - kev
I thought that the "bull pup" Watson mentioned was the one that they poisoned, both to test the pills and put it out of its misery. If that was the dog he was referring to, then no wonder it wasn't in later books, it was dead! --Trevheg 09:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- The dog that they poisoned was not a "bull pup." "Now would you mind going down and fetching that poor little devil of a terrier which has been bad so long … ." (Chap. 7) However, according to Owen Dudley Edwards, in the Oxford Sherlock Holmes, a bull pup is a pistol that is small and similar to a "short-barrelled revolver of large caliber," not a dog at all.Lestrade 00:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)Lestrade
[edit] Plot holes?
I think it's fun to see if one can find plot holes in the Sherlock Holmes stories -- actually, "a mystery within a mystery" to find the logical fallacies in the stories of the infallable. (So to say.) Anybody know if there is a website dedicated to this idea? -- Syzygy 08:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I can think of another plot hole, but I don't want to contribute to a negative view of this work of art. Many readers have had many hours of pleasure in reading this story. The author has succeeded in creating a world and it inhabitants that live in the reader's imagination. Doyle didn't know London or Salt Lake City. He created his own version and did a fine job of it.Lestrade 13:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)Lestrade
-
"The book violates what would later become one of the cardinal rules of detective fiction" - I find the concept of violating a rule which does not exist yet questionable! Thermaland
[edit] Criticism for the second part
I was wondering if anyone knows there having been any criticism coming from the Mormon church,regarding the second part of the book (The Country of the Saints)...--Padem 10:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I've added a line about this in the plot summary, together with an external reference. --Quywompka 11:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Inconsistencies...
I have just edited the inconsistencies section of this article, and deleted the passage which talked about Watson's "bull pup." This is because I am certain, and I have looked it up in the novel, that the dog is actually mentioned later on.
In the final chapter of the first section of the novel, Holmes asks Watson to fetch the dog, which is apparently very ill. The landlady, according to Holmes, has been trying to convince Watson to get rid of the dog for several days. He then uses the dog to test the pills (that he suspects to be poisonous), which have been found as evidence, and Watson then describes how the animal dies.
Unless Holmes is refering to a completely different dog here, it seems very evident to me that this is a satisfactory explaination for what happens to Watson's pet, and why it is no longer mentioned in any later stories.
-
-
-
-
- Dear Anonymous Editor, the following is included in the "Discussion" section above. It may be of interest to you, Anonymous Editor. If a bull pup is a dog, it is certainly not a terrier.
-
-
-
The dog that they poisoned was not a "bull pup." "Now would you mind going down and fetching that poor little devil of a terrier which has been bad so long … ." (Chap. 7) However, according to Owen Dudley Edwards, in the Oxford Sherlock Holmes, a bull pup is a pistol that is small and similar to a "short-barrelled revolver of large caliber," not a dog at all.
Lestrade 00:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)Lestrade
-
- My mistake. I was unaware of the Bull terrier breed, which includes the notorious Pit bull.Lestrade 22:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)Lestrade
[edit] The plot summary is wrong
The description of how Hope was arrested is simply wrong. Did the writer actually read the book?
-
-
- It certainly seemed an odd summary; it may have been based on a filmed adaptation instead of the book itself. I've done a very quick tidy up of the summary of the first part. --Quywompka 11:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
-
