It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I just wanted to explain our three clues that were given, about what Holmes story we would be reviewing first. The 3 clues were:
Crop. Revenge. St. Bart's
Yes, several of you guessed right - it's A Study in Scarlet.
We wanted to give 3 clues that were about this story but not too obvious; that was trickier than we thought at first.
Crop - the most obscure hint, first because it can remind one strongly or a riding crop (which is what Holmes uses in the BBC Sherlock first episode called A Study in Pink, to beat a corpse in order to see how far bruises are produced after death - whereas in the story Holmes used a stick), so that is a veiled reference (through association) to the correct story - but also a crop is mentioned in a less well known part of the story that discusses the Mormans living out west in America ... their wheat crop that they grew for food. Sort of a double hint, albeit rather obscure.
Revenge - this is a tale of revenge as Jefferson Hope tracks two vile men from his haunted past (and revenge figures in several stories, so this wasn't an obvious clue either, yet it is a strong force in this particular story).
St. Bart's - is St. Bartholomew Hospital, where Holmes and Watson so famously meet for the first time (and in the story the hospital is merely called "Barts" without the St.)
Thanks to all for comments. This thread is all about the Holmes stories, so not just the upcoming reviews. Love to hear from everybody who likes Doyle's Sherlock stories. Please share anything you like, favorite bits, characters, and how you first came across Holmes.
As for the mysterious date, May 4th, that we have been chatting about ... well, I will be on the lookout in all the other stories to see how often this one date really pops up. Just an odd bit of triva.
And @Mrcoggins, thanks for your punny good will - ha! May the fourth be with you, too, kind sir.
Ah, I hear the kettle is starting to sing - I am off to a well deserved (if I say so myself) breakfast.
Cheers!
in Chapter V, A Study in Scarlet, spoken by Holmes to Watson.
No 4th of May (8th July or 4th June?) so the game is still afoot, what did that date meant to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle?
in Chapter II (Part II), A Study in Scarlet
“Holmes was certainly not a difficult man to live with. He was quiet in his ways, and his habits were regular. It was rare for him to be up after ten at night, and he had invariably breakfasted and gone out before I rose in the morning. Sometimes he spent his day at the chemical laboratory, sometimes in the dissecting-rooms, and occasionally in long walks, which appeared to take him into the lowest portions of the City. Nothing could exceed his energy when the working fit was upon him; but now and again a reaction would seize him, and for days on end he would lie upon the sofa in the sitting-room, hardly uttering a word or moving a muscle from morning to night. On these occasions I have noticed such a dreamy, vacant expression in his eyes, that I might have suspected him of being addicted to the use of some narcotic, had not the temperance and cleanliness of his whole life forbidden such a notion.“
in A Study in Scarlet by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (Chapter II. The Science of Dedution)
A Study in Scarlet was the first Sherlock Holmes adventure to be published in 1887. It was probably the first one I read and remains, to this day, one of my favourites. The books follows an unusual story line, with a huge part of the book taking place in the past without any intervention from our well-known characters. However I think that is part of the charm of this story, the way we abandon London for the deserts of Utah to come back again and see the end of the story.
Like most of the Holmes adventures this book is actually the memoirs of John H. Watson, M.D., late of the Army Medical Department (ipsis verbis). Watson gives the reader a very resumed tale of his life until this moment, how after having obtain the degree of Doctor in Medicine from the University of London he entered the Army to become a surgeon. He was send to India with the 5th Northumberland Fusiliers but when he got there the Afghan War began and he was sent there. A string of bad luck led him to an untimely retirement from service and his return to England with a small army pension. He settled in London , living under a tight budget at a Hotel in the Strand and it is at this point that we reach the true beginning of this story. At the Criterion bar Dr. Watson meets by chance an old colleague from Saint Bartholomew's Hospital (better known as St. Bart's) and complains that life is not being easy, his small pension is hardly enough to pay for the life style he is living in London and he is searching for reasonably priced lodgings. This is the decisive moment for this man, as his friend Stamford tell him that he is the second person that day to tell him that same thing. Watson, curious, asks his friend to put him in touch with this fellow who is also looking for lodgings but his friend is cautious about it. This fellow, a certain Sherlock Holmes, was rather unusual, he had met him at the chemical lab in St. Barts where he carried strange experiments. His line of study? He had no idea but he heard he beat corpses at the morgue to find the extent of post-mortem bruises. All in all this fellow was a bit too scientific for his taste. Nevertheless he agrees to take Watson to meet him and this is a meeting that would go down in literary history. Dr. Watson arrives at St. Bart's chemical lab to meet Holmes who is consumed by an experiment which, according to him, is of extraordinary importance to forensic science. Holmes has discovered a reagent which detects even minuscule amounts of blood and might be used to catch murderers much after they committed a crime, substituting microscopic evaluation and the guaiacum test (as a biochemist it was interesting to see a reference to the old test I learned while at university in a book over 100 years old). I will leave my introduction here because the rest, my friends, is history! Let's move on to the review per se.
Holmes – We get our first contact with him, his great intellect and his unusual personality. Although he doesn't solve the case in one go and someone manages to fool him (and we never get to know how) I would say he's still in good shape.
Watson – Our physician friend is also in good shape. His first times with Holmes and his descriptions are priceless. He is witty, smart (though, let's face it, not a match for Holmes), charming and dependable. All the features that we will learn to love about Dr. Watson are displayed in this first adventure.
Villain – This is a tricky one, who is the true villain in this story? I would say the villains should include the two initial victims: Stangerson and Drebber. In the middle part of the book, which explains to us what chain of events led to the revenge we witness at the beginning, we meet a series of strange characters with less than honourable intentions. Jefferson Hope, the assassin Holmes is looking for, is revenging the death of two innocent people. While I found Hope to be an extremely interesting character, Stangerson and Drebber are shown (I think intentionally) in a less than flattering light.
Supporting characters – A lot of characters in this one. Scotland Yard's finest, Lestrade and Gregson will be recurring characters in following adventures and there is not much to be said about them. They are investigators of limited intelligence but not at all bad folks as we will see in the future. The Baker Street Irregulars, a group of street kids working for Holmes, will also show up again in the future and are a colourful addition to the cast. Drebber and Stangerson are the two victims in the case at hand, as a reader I didn't feel much for them. John and Lucy Ferrier appear in the second part of the book and are very lively and well rounded characters that we learn to love and respect. Their death will be ultimately set in motion the chain of events culminating with Holmes' case. Jefferson Hope, the “villain” in Holmes' case, a revenge-driven man with little to lose that the reader ends up rooting for. His telling of the story in the end is emotional. He is a man true to his word, strong-willed and capable, who ultimately gets what he wants. There are a few other characters but they didn't leave me much an impression.
Atmosphere – Typical Sherlock Holmes in the first and in the third (and last) parts. This is Victorian London at its best. Dr. Watson manages, as always, to describe the surrounding very well. Unusually, the middle part of the book takes us far away from London and Europe, to Utah in the USA. I've never been to the Alkali desert but it is so well described that I could really see the description taking form inside my head.
Suspense – A good deal of it. I have read this story several times over the years and it still manages to surprise me and keep me interested. There are several twists in the story that grab the reader's attention to the very end.
Violence – A lot of it, and not always physical. In fact there is a good deal of psychological violence in this book. The story of John and Lucy Ferrier is the best example. The kind of violence that is not described but can be imagined is worst in my opinion.
Humour – Dr. Watson always manages to have a wicked sense of humour. The description of his cohabitation with Holmes is nothing short of priceless. This is, however, a subtle and intelligent form of humour – just like Watson himself. Gregson and Lestrade are amusing because of their incompetence and Holmes makes good use of that fact.
Cleverness – Holmes manages to fully display his deductive powers but I'm afraid this is not the smartest Holmes we will get. In one occasion someone gets the best out of him leaving him flabbergasted.
Case – Emotional and intriguing one because it spans so many years and two different continents. In the end we feel for the assassin and against the initial victims after knowing what led to the crimes. This is a case of pure revenge.
Doyle – In his first approach at Holmes he masters the genre. From the foggy London to the deserts of Utah he revels his clean and unaffected style. It is interesting to note how well he deals with the romantic side of the story.
Final verdict – this is one of my favourite Sherlock Holmes adventures, it sets the tone and establishes the characters extremely well. We get the description of Holmes' extravagant ways and Watson's adventurous character (how badly he was displayed in so many screen adaptations) right from the start. It is always a joy to read this story, although it is unusual by the standards of the series because it completely leaves our well-known characters for a huge part of the book to focus of an apparently unrelated story. This is, in my opinion, one of the great classics of literature that everyone without exception should read at least once.
What makes Doyle such an exciting writer for me is that in his very first story you have all the elements that has kept us captivated for more than 100 years, and especially his ability to so succinctly describe people and places. It is a sharply drawn, easily imaginable world. As you say, his clean and unaffected style. What an enjoyable writer, who gave us such memorable characters, and what an excellent review from you, sister Baker Street Bibliophile.
Cheers! And remember, all Sherlockian comrades and readers of this thread, your comments are very welcome even if you do not do a full review.
Time for tea now ..
A Scandal in Bohemia, A Case of Identity, The Red-Headed League, The Boscombe Valley Mystery, The Five Orange Pips, and The Man With The Twisted Lip.
Re Scandal in Bohemia - any of you Holmes experts. Is that the definitive Irene Adler story? The general parallels with the BBC series episode were quite apparent.
I've always loved Red-Headed League, and Twisted Lip was real interesting too.
Next I'm going to read the Final Problem which is last story in Memoirs and the story that was supposed to put the whole thing to bed. Then, The Empty House, which follows as first story in "The Return." I want to read these two, to see if they can help me solve the mystery of Holmes survival in the BBC series. No doubt when BBC S3 picks up, they will draw somewhat on Empty House to follow-up the end of S2.
Then no more screwing around, I'll go to the start and read A Study in Scarlett.
As for Final Problem and Empty House
Also, Sherlockian Comrades, I have something I'd like to share that I have enjoyed. My review is still being finished, but I wanted to post a quote from an introduction to a volume of Holmes stories (Bantam books; my reissue is from 2003).
I usually do not pay much attention to the kind folks who write introductions to stories, but this writer really caught my imagination and wrote a lovely piece. His name is Loren Estleman and he writes his own variety of detective series and westerns. His website is lorenestleman.com. Anyway, in his introduction/essay, entitled On The Significance of Boswells, he writes piercingly and lovingly of Holmes and Watson, and focuses on Watson in particular (as you can guess from the title of this piece). I just want to share with you the concluding paragraph of his essay. I think it captures the romance and atmosphere of Holmes. Indeed the last sentence says much about why we are still captivated by these characters more than 100 years later.
(Keeping in mind as you read this, that Watson kept the Holmes tales, his notes on his cases, in a battered tin box ...)
Estleman concludes his piece:
If there is a Valhalla for superhuman sleuths and their all-too-human compatriots, it will allow them freedom at night to catch the racing hansom cab in the mustard fog and provide them a cozy cluttered place by day to feast upon cold pheasant and tales from the tin box. If the detective should suffer overmuch from the artistic temperament and his fellow lodger should dwell overlong upon the fairness of a wrist or the timbre of a feminine voice, so much the better, for us and them. Literature never produced a relationship more symbiotic nor a warmer and more timeless friendship.
But I also love the way Doyle has Watson make a list about his new flatmate. By doing that, he draws us in to take stock of Holmes, too - we join in and our curiosity grows stronger. Little touches like that make us relate strongly to Watson and Watson's viewpoint. We can see he is bored with his own life, trying to make a new start in London, and is naturally curious about his new flatmate. We can more easily seem to be in Watson's place as we discover more about this strangely interesting and mysterious person named Sherlock. Things like the list, or their banter over breakfast, lend a very personal involvement of the reader that I enjoyed a lot.
I think Doyle's writing has some interesting touches like that, along with his strong ability to describe something or someone distinctly in so few words.
"You appear to be astonished," he said, smiling at my expression of surprise. "Now that I do know it I shall do my best to forget it."
"To forget it!"
"You see," he explained, "I consider that a man's brain originally is like a little empty attic, and you have to stock it with such furniture as you choose. A fool takes in all the lumber of every sort that he comes across, so that the knowledge which might be useful to him gets crowded out, or at best is jumbled up with a lot of other things so that he has a difficulty in laying his hands upon it. Now the skilful workman is very careful indeed as to what he takes into his brain-attic. He will have nothing but the tools which may help him in doing his work, but of these he has a large assortment, and all in the most perfect order. It is a mistake to think that that little room has elastic walls and can distend to any extent. Depend upon it there comes a time when for every addition of knowledge you forget something that you knew before. It is of the highest importance, therefore, not to have useless facts elbowing out the useful ones."
"But the Solar System!" I protested.
"What the deuce is it to me?" he interrupted impatiently; "you say that we go round the sun. If we went round the moon it would not make a pennyworth of difference to me or to my work."
I was on the point of asking him what that work might be, but something in his manner showed me that the question would be an unwelcome one. I pondered over our short conversation, however, and endeavoured to draw my deductions from it. He said that he would acquire no knowledge which did not bear upon his object. Therefore all the knowledge which he possessed was such as would be useful to him. I enumerated in my own mind all the various points upon which he had shown me that he was exceptionally well-informed. I even took a pencil and jotted them down. I could not help smiling at the document when I had completed it. It ran in this way—
SHERLOCK HOLMES—his limits.
1. Knowledge of Literature.—Nil.
2. Philosophy.—Nil.
3. Astronomy.—Nil.
4. Politics.—Feeble.
5. Botany.—Variable. Well up in belladonna,
opium, and poisons generally.
Knows nothing of practical gardening.
6. Geology.—Practical, but limited.
Tells at a glance different soils
from each other. After walks has
shown me splashes upon his trousers,
and told me by their colour and
consistence in what part of London
he had received them.
7. Chemistry.—Profound.
8. Anatomy.—Accurate, but unsystematic.
9. Sensational Literature.—Immense. He appears
to know every detail of every horror
perpetrated in the century.
10. Plays the violin well.
11. Is an expert singlestick player, boxer, and swordsman.
12. Has a good practical knowledge of British law.
When I had got so far in my list I threw it into the fire in despair. "If I can only find what the fellow is driving at by reconciling all these accomplishments, and discovering a calling which needs them all," I said to myself, "I may as well give up the attempt at once." "
Chapter II. The Science of Deduction
:D
Interesting that Irene figured so briefly in the Conan Doyle Canon, but gets such a high profile in both the Downey Jr movies (Rachel McAdams) and the powerful part she got as portrayed by Lara Pulver in the BBC episode. I guess she is that intriguing a character, that she warranted some serious fleshing out on screen.
Finished Final Problem and Empty House. I do think there is plenty in Empty House that creative writers could channel in the BBC series, at least in terms of how Watson reconnects with Holmes and how Holmes continues his clean-up of Moriarity's gang, but yes there isn't much to work with in terms of Holmes actual escape.
The BBC presents a much different scenario than Conan Doyle did.
On to Scarlett.
That can be said about all the minor Holmes characters from Mrs. Hudson and Irene to Mycroft and Moriarty of course. Sir Arthur never really added on to the foundations of some of his now most famous characters, and instead gave some a big featuring role in a story and then only gave them mere mentions later on. Thanks to various film and TV adaptions, the characters Doyle only featured once or twice are now staples of any Holmes adaption, so much so that Moriarty has become the quintessential villain and is always the main archenemy to Holmes. If not for the various adapters of the characters, we wouldn't get such great performances for characters like those I listed.
Thanks for reminding us @ggl007
<:-P Happy birthday to the man who started it all, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
^:)^
22nd of May 1859... A date to remember...
Cheers!
(I am so fond of this emoticon ...)
I was walking past Baker St tube station (by The Great Detective statue) and a family stopped me to ask directions to "Sherlock Holmes' house." I gave them rough directions to the 221b Baker St Museum and told them it was very good and they would enjoy it. The lady then asked "and is that where he actually lived?" I told her that it's where 221b Baker St is now but probably not where it was during the time the books were written. She looked a bit disappointed, "so it's not the actual house he lived in?"
It was only then that I realised what she was getting at. "He wasn't real person," I said. She looked at me as if I was a bit simple, looked up at The Great Detective statue, and then back at me. "Sherlock Holmes," she said, thinking that I had perhaps misunderstood our entire conversation thus far. "Yes," I replied, "he's a fictional character. He didn't actually exist." Her husband chipped in and said, "not the one on telly. We're talking about the real Sherlock Holmes." "Well, that's my point," I replied, "there isn't a real Sherlock Holmes." The husband chuckled at this, as though I were good-naturedly pulling his leg, thanked me for my time and walked off in the direction I had given them.
I imagine that they have spent the rest of the day fondly reminiscing about the young man they met in Baker St who didn't know that Sherlock Holmes really existed...
Come to think of it. I used to have a very nice tea with scones and clotted cream at the Sherlock Holmes Hotel (I was there in '96), and that place had no connection with Holmes other than the name. But I bet they have had people turn up asking to sleep in the room Holmes had stayed in. ;)
I'll share with you a funny thing I bumped into when I was in Barcelona