The final problem, is THE FINAL case. Or, it was supposed to be the final case before popular demand brought SherAnlock Holmes back to life.
It's funny that he doesn't die, and it's funny how there are more stories after that, especially since it says "it was the last that I was ever destined to see of him in this world".
There may be a final solution, however, there is no case in this story. There is chasing and suspense and thrill... but none of the deductions that made Holmes the person/detective he is... which i find strange.
Personal Opinion... these stories remind me a bit of comic books. Especially the ones in Japan. They come out every week in magazine like collections, and then they have the entertainment value, and building up aka the final problems and the struggles etc...
It feels as if Sherlock Holmes has lost track a little of what it originally was. Solving mysteries through deductions. Now, there is a bit of arch enemy, great amazing and dangerous plans that have no concrete details.. etc.
This last case feels a little bit like a let down. There isn't even a case for me to attempt to solve.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Sherlock Holmes short stories, in general.
I've read quite a few of these stories now... In the past, a few recently that I still haven't blogged on and etc. I know that Doyle wrote 56 of these short stories and that Holmes was immensely popular. Even now, he still holds an allure and control over our generation. Though, popular opinion of hhim can be different from teh actual portrayal that the book has of him. I had no idea what Sherlock Holmes and those stories were like and would be like until I subscribed to the strand and read them myself.
It's just personal taste, but I don't know if I would like or want to read all 56 or be terribly upset if the series was discontinued. So... it's making me curious and brings back around my original question... what about him is so alluring?
Does it have to do with the time that he was published in? Or is there more... the idea of brilliance, genious, but still being down-to-earth and realistic?
When I was younger, whenever there was an allusion to Sherlock Holmes, it was like an allusion to something amazing and untouchable, however when I started reading it, it didn't quite live up to my expectations and I remember being bored with the stories.
I don't believe that these stories are quite literary (or they might be... I don't know), they seem more for just entertainment.
It's an open question to anyone who'd like to respond..
It's just personal taste, but I don't know if I would like or want to read all 56 or be terribly upset if the series was discontinued. So... it's making me curious and brings back around my original question... what about him is so alluring?
Does it have to do with the time that he was published in? Or is there more... the idea of brilliance, genious, but still being down-to-earth and realistic?
When I was younger, whenever there was an allusion to Sherlock Holmes, it was like an allusion to something amazing and untouchable, however when I started reading it, it didn't quite live up to my expectations and I remember being bored with the stories.
I don't believe that these stories are quite literary (or they might be... I don't know), they seem more for just entertainment.
It's an open question to anyone who'd like to respond..
Silver Blaze - Sherlock Holmes Short Story
Silver Blaze - I forgot where I read it, but there was a comment on the story Silver Blaze that said that Silver Blaze was unbelievable and that half the characters were insane or delusional.
I can't agree.. but I'd just like to put that out there...
So.. about Silver Blaze, there were quite a few hints in the story that would have enabled us to solve it. According to wiki... almost all the cases of Sherlock Holmes are solvable by the reader... though I personally have never been able to solve it.. Maybe it's because I lack the imagination that Inspector Gregory lacks, too.
Anyways the hints like the curious incident with the dog (how he didn't bark), of the expensive dress which a horse trainer could not afford (which we wouldn't be able to understand since the finances of this period are out of our knowledge...), and the knife and curried mutton and the opium powder (again... I don't know much about how opium powder tastes... so that clue would have been unknown by me... )
However, apparently it is enough information. One of the struggles in us being able to solve the crime, too, though is becuase it is being told through the eyes of Watson. Though he can also give us information and observations that we might not have noticed, his obersations and perspectives can somewhat skew our views on it, too, making it difficult to see it for what it really is.
Should we be able to see into the mind of Holmes, I'm sure we'd be able to solve it along the way... however since we don't make the connections, it is quite out of our scope.
I want to try reading a story and see if I can solve it for myself... hmmm...
I can't agree.. but I'd just like to put that out there...
So.. about Silver Blaze, there were quite a few hints in the story that would have enabled us to solve it. According to wiki... almost all the cases of Sherlock Holmes are solvable by the reader... though I personally have never been able to solve it.. Maybe it's because I lack the imagination that Inspector Gregory lacks, too.
Anyways the hints like the curious incident with the dog (how he didn't bark), of the expensive dress which a horse trainer could not afford (which we wouldn't be able to understand since the finances of this period are out of our knowledge...), and the knife and curried mutton and the opium powder (again... I don't know much about how opium powder tastes... so that clue would have been unknown by me... )
However, apparently it is enough information. One of the struggles in us being able to solve the crime, too, though is becuase it is being told through the eyes of Watson. Though he can also give us information and observations that we might not have noticed, his obersations and perspectives can somewhat skew our views on it, too, making it difficult to see it for what it really is.
Should we be able to see into the mind of Holmes, I'm sure we'd be able to solve it along the way... however since we don't make the connections, it is quite out of our scope.
I want to try reading a story and see if I can solve it for myself... hmmm...
Sherlock Holmes and the Greek Interpreter.
I chose to blog on this story becuase it seemed different from the other Holmes stories that I've read.
Mainly in the form that the deductions of Holmes aren't the focus of how the story is solved.
Anyways, Mycroft is introduced in this story as the older brother with the much more acute observation skills. However, not much of him is mentioned... he is apprarently a recluse and doesn't actively engage in detective work, which is contrary to the image that is presented of him in the other book I read, the Italian Secretary.
There is evidence again of Sherlock and Mycroft's amazing deducing skills in the beginning of the story which is reminiscent of Sherlock and Watson's introduction in the study of scarlet.
HERE IS THE PASSAGE EXCERPT...
" The two men had stopped opposite the window. Some chalk
marks over the waistcoat pocket were the only signs of billiards
which I could see in one of them. The other was a very small,
dark fellow, with his hat pushed back and several packages
under his arm.
"An old soldier, I perceive," said Sherlock.
"And very recently discharged," remarked the brother.
"Served in India, I see."
"And a non-commissioned officer."
"Royal Artillery, I fancy,'' said Sherlock.
"And a widower."
"But with a child."
"Children, my dear boy, children."
"Come," said I. laughing, "this is a little too much."
"Surely." answered Holmes, "it is not hard to say that a man
with that bearing. expression of authority, and sun-baked skin. is
a soldier, is more than a private, and is not long from India."
"That he has not left the service long is shown by his still
wearing his ammunition boots, as they are called," observed
Mycroft.
"He had not the cavalry stride, yet he wore his hat on one
side, as is shown by the lighter skin on that side of his brow. His
weight is against his being a sapper. He is in the artillery."
"Then, of course, his complete mourning shows that he has
lost someone very dear. The fact that he is doing his own
shopping looks as though it were his wife. He has been buying
things for children, you perceive. There is a rattle, which shows
that one of them is very young. The wife probably died in
childbed. The fact that he has a picture-book under his arm
shows that there is another child to be thought of."
Though we ourselves cannot make these observations since we cannot see them. And from the description that Watson provides, it is impossible for us to make these deductions. However, like always they seem reasonable.
However, that is the end of the deductions by Holmes basically... the solution to the story is essentially done by Watson indicating that it is a simple case.. .and simple it is since there are no further deductions, only following, action and saving people/letting them run away.
I didn't enjoy reading this one as much since everything was obvious and there was not as much suspense.
... It seemed like just a regular crime/police story becuase despite the seemingly strange cirucumstances the solution was rather ordinary.
Mainly in the form that the deductions of Holmes aren't the focus of how the story is solved.
Anyways, Mycroft is introduced in this story as the older brother with the much more acute observation skills. However, not much of him is mentioned... he is apprarently a recluse and doesn't actively engage in detective work, which is contrary to the image that is presented of him in the other book I read, the Italian Secretary.
There is evidence again of Sherlock and Mycroft's amazing deducing skills in the beginning of the story which is reminiscent of Sherlock and Watson's introduction in the study of scarlet.
HERE IS THE PASSAGE EXCERPT...
" The two men had stopped opposite the window. Some chalk
marks over the waistcoat pocket were the only signs of billiards
which I could see in one of them. The other was a very small,
dark fellow, with his hat pushed back and several packages
under his arm.
"An old soldier, I perceive," said Sherlock.
"And very recently discharged," remarked the brother.
"Served in India, I see."
"And a non-commissioned officer."
"Royal Artillery, I fancy,'' said Sherlock.
"And a widower."
"But with a child."
"Children, my dear boy, children."
"Come," said I. laughing, "this is a little too much."
"Surely." answered Holmes, "it is not hard to say that a man
with that bearing. expression of authority, and sun-baked skin. is
a soldier, is more than a private, and is not long from India."
"That he has not left the service long is shown by his still
wearing his ammunition boots, as they are called," observed
Mycroft.
"He had not the cavalry stride, yet he wore his hat on one
side, as is shown by the lighter skin on that side of his brow. His
weight is against his being a sapper. He is in the artillery."
"Then, of course, his complete mourning shows that he has
lost someone very dear. The fact that he is doing his own
shopping looks as though it were his wife. He has been buying
things for children, you perceive. There is a rattle, which shows
that one of them is very young. The wife probably died in
childbed. The fact that he has a picture-book under his arm
shows that there is another child to be thought of."
Though we ourselves cannot make these observations since we cannot see them. And from the description that Watson provides, it is impossible for us to make these deductions. However, like always they seem reasonable.
However, that is the end of the deductions by Holmes basically... the solution to the story is essentially done by Watson indicating that it is a simple case.. .and simple it is since there are no further deductions, only following, action and saving people/letting them run away.
I didn't enjoy reading this one as much since everything was obvious and there was not as much suspense.
... It seemed like just a regular crime/police story becuase despite the seemingly strange cirucumstances the solution was rather ordinary.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Appeal of the Old
Why is it that everytime there is an "alternate" story, it ends up being tied to the past? What allure does it hold?
I understand that the reason for an alternate plot/story is that we need something else to "intellectually challenge" since solving the actually crime based on following clues and making deductions is no longer necessary. The puzzles provide that "intelligence" that we amaze at and are fascinated by. It's amazing how Kreizler can predict or follow the movements of the serial killer...and quite amazing how Langdon can solve the next riddle in the Code... We are amazed by his deducing powers (connection back to Holmes).
In the Rule of Four, the Hypnerotomachia Poliphilli is tied back to a mystery/secret of the burning of art. The Da Vinci code is tied back to the masons and the Holy Grail while the Dante Club is tied back to Dantes Inferno. These are all old european mysteries.
Why does it always go back to these locations?
Yet again, it doesn't always. But... I don't find myself comparing the Deception Point to Holme's either. It is very similarly written to the Da Vinci Code or Angels and Demons...but I don't include it at all in the discussions.
This might be because the "historical thiller" part of this blog is limiting it.
The old ties back to ancient mysteries gives a tying-together factor with the other texts, which actually are older.
But, I must still continue with the point... --why do these 3/4 books have alternate story lines that end up tying back to post-renaissance, or renasissance period, etc. Even more so, some of these "mysteries" are entirely fabricated, with a historical background only....so why these specific time periods? What does it hold? Opinions are greatly welcome.
I understand that the reason for an alternate plot/story is that we need something else to "intellectually challenge" since solving the actually crime based on following clues and making deductions is no longer necessary. The puzzles provide that "intelligence" that we amaze at and are fascinated by. It's amazing how Kreizler can predict or follow the movements of the serial killer...and quite amazing how Langdon can solve the next riddle in the Code... We are amazed by his deducing powers (connection back to Holmes).
In the Rule of Four, the Hypnerotomachia Poliphilli is tied back to a mystery/secret of the burning of art. The Da Vinci code is tied back to the masons and the Holy Grail while the Dante Club is tied back to Dantes Inferno. These are all old european mysteries.
Why does it always go back to these locations?
Yet again, it doesn't always. But... I don't find myself comparing the Deception Point to Holme's either. It is very similarly written to the Da Vinci Code or Angels and Demons...but I don't include it at all in the discussions.
This might be because the "historical thiller" part of this blog is limiting it.
The old ties back to ancient mysteries gives a tying-together factor with the other texts, which actually are older.
But, I must still continue with the point... --why do these 3/4 books have alternate story lines that end up tying back to post-renaissance, or renasissance period, etc. Even more so, some of these "mysteries" are entirely fabricated, with a historical background only....so why these specific time periods? What does it hold? Opinions are greatly welcome.
The Dante Club - Revisiting - How does the setting affect it.
"The detective bureau...had been established in Boston with the aim of providing intimate knowledge of criminal's whereabouts, and therfore most of the chosen dectivies were former rogues themselves... detectives revereted to old tricks (thier favorites being extortion, intimidation, and fabrication) to secure thier hsare of arrest and warrant thier salaries... The last problem in the world he needed now would be his detectives trying to connive money from the wealthy Healeys' grief. pg 25
This immediately sets up the inefficiency of the police system. It has not reached teh sophisticated level of today and is not of much consequence. Though there are a few good "cops" like Officer Rey and Chief Kurtz, the rest are mostly useless, narrowminded and easily bribed. Thus, most of the police force is of no use in this investigation.
Rather, they are incapable themselves of solving the crimes, because these crimes are more intellectual and logic based than science and dna and fingerprinting, since these techniques obviously weren't devleoped before the 1900s.
So, by setting up an ineffective police station(which is actually an apt description of it), Pearl makes this "mystery/murder" one that needs to be solved solely through the intellect of the Dante Club, and those they choose to include.
Even more interesting, though is that this seems a combination of a Holmes' and Brown story.
Though it is set in the 1800's, and thus before the invention of technology, enabling it to be a mystery solved by deductions and logic - which it does have some of the time, it is also a mystery/thriller like Brown's novels. There are continual murders throughout the book which keep you interested and "spooked/scared/interested", but at the same time, there is also the translating of Dantes Inferno, and the solving of that which they believe is the key to the murder.
So, while it is a book based in looking for clues, interviewing suspects, and making deductiosn like a holme's story, it also includes the murders, thrills, and alternate story line of Dante's Inferno, much like that of Brown's Da Vinci Code.
This immediately sets up the inefficiency of the police system. It has not reached teh sophisticated level of today and is not of much consequence. Though there are a few good "cops" like Officer Rey and Chief Kurtz, the rest are mostly useless, narrowminded and easily bribed. Thus, most of the police force is of no use in this investigation.
Rather, they are incapable themselves of solving the crimes, because these crimes are more intellectual and logic based than science and dna and fingerprinting, since these techniques obviously weren't devleoped before the 1900s.
So, by setting up an ineffective police station(which is actually an apt description of it), Pearl makes this "mystery/murder" one that needs to be solved solely through the intellect of the Dante Club, and those they choose to include.
Even more interesting, though is that this seems a combination of a Holmes' and Brown story.
Though it is set in the 1800's, and thus before the invention of technology, enabling it to be a mystery solved by deductions and logic - which it does have some of the time, it is also a mystery/thriller like Brown's novels. There are continual murders throughout the book which keep you interested and "spooked/scared/interested", but at the same time, there is also the translating of Dantes Inferno, and the solving of that which they believe is the key to the murder.
So, while it is a book based in looking for clues, interviewing suspects, and making deductiosn like a holme's story, it also includes the murders, thrills, and alternate story line of Dante's Inferno, much like that of Brown's Da Vinci Code.
The openings of the books.
There are some aspects I want to address in the opening of "Mystery/Detective/Thriller" novels.
How do they open? -- I always feel myself comparing them to Brown's novels... I have no idea why.
The Dante Club - 2 openings (which is the same as the Rule of Four). An article opens that is seemingly disconnected, but we later realize it is the beginning of the introduction of the "worms" used to kill in the opening murder. And then, it opens with a police chief investigating a murder scene. There are two different openings for this book, but it essentially opens with a murder that needs to be solved. And, being of the 19th century, it is perfectly fine to use "reasoning" rather then scientific knowledge to solve it.
The Rule of Four - 2 openings. The first occurs centuries before and is the death of two messengers. It sets quite a morbid and "adventurous/exciting" outlook for the book, which it does not uphold. It then reopens with the introduction of the college students and another murder soon after.
The DaVinci Code and Angels and Demons - opens very similar to the Rule of Four in the descriptions of the initial murder, however it is more connected to the mystery that needs to be solved. This opening is effective because it immediately begins the novel with a mystery and begins it high-paced and intriguing, which the rest of the builds off of and continues.
The Holme's stories. These typically open with HOlmes still in his apartment and being introduced... with the mystery brought to him. As in, someone comes asking for his help, whether it is a client or the police, and then he investigates the scene. It is a much less dramatic and anticipation packed beginning when compared to the DaVinci Code.
The Alieniest and the Angel of Darkness i remember opening in slightly different ways. It's similar to the Holme's story in the sense that the characters are awoken and then brought to the scene of the crime. However, at the same time it's similar to a Brown novel because it opens with a murder which is analyzed and described.
I think the reason why the Holme's stories open the way they do is because Holme's needs to be able to analyze the character's/clients more than the other novels do. A lot of his solving of the crimes is based on his own observation skills. Also, the novel isn't based on the psychological mind of the killer or how he killed but rather WHO the killer is. For this reason, the time before when the clients are introduced or background information provided is essential. Also, since Doyle sets the scene as Watson looking back and describing the crimes, it makes more sense to start it off with background info, and start it as it occurred and as they knew of it. That means... sitting in their house waiting for the call to action.
Most of these other books open with a murder, but some are more effective than others. The opening for the rule of four was intriguing and different, but later seemed almost random since it didn't connect very well to 2 college boys trying to solve the riddles of a book. The Alienist and the DaVinci code are different - the opening murders are effective in capturing the attention of the readers and setting the mood and pace for the rest of the book. In the Alieniest, the mutilation fo the bodies served to show there was a deeper pyschological reason for the murder, while the murder and position of the curator in the daVinci code was used as a starting clue to the rest of the code. These "murders" are effective because they are part of the "mystery" that needs to be solved, and therefore are important to the novel. This wasn't the same for the Rule of Four, as I already said in a previous post.
(I almost felt as if the opening was a copy of the style/opening of Brown... but just not nearly as effective when considering the book as a whole) -- in general it opened well, with great mysteries and interest and then died towards the end because of "lame" answers/connections"....
And that concludes my "openings" for now.
Thinking about it, I wished I had compared the Italian Secretary to a real Holme's novel a little more... maybe i will.
How do they open? -- I always feel myself comparing them to Brown's novels... I have no idea why.
The Dante Club - 2 openings (which is the same as the Rule of Four). An article opens that is seemingly disconnected, but we later realize it is the beginning of the introduction of the "worms" used to kill in the opening murder. And then, it opens with a police chief investigating a murder scene. There are two different openings for this book, but it essentially opens with a murder that needs to be solved. And, being of the 19th century, it is perfectly fine to use "reasoning" rather then scientific knowledge to solve it.
The Rule of Four - 2 openings. The first occurs centuries before and is the death of two messengers. It sets quite a morbid and "adventurous/exciting" outlook for the book, which it does not uphold. It then reopens with the introduction of the college students and another murder soon after.
The DaVinci Code and Angels and Demons - opens very similar to the Rule of Four in the descriptions of the initial murder, however it is more connected to the mystery that needs to be solved. This opening is effective because it immediately begins the novel with a mystery and begins it high-paced and intriguing, which the rest of the builds off of and continues.
The Holme's stories. These typically open with HOlmes still in his apartment and being introduced... with the mystery brought to him. As in, someone comes asking for his help, whether it is a client or the police, and then he investigates the scene. It is a much less dramatic and anticipation packed beginning when compared to the DaVinci Code.
The Alieniest and the Angel of Darkness i remember opening in slightly different ways. It's similar to the Holme's story in the sense that the characters are awoken and then brought to the scene of the crime. However, at the same time it's similar to a Brown novel because it opens with a murder which is analyzed and described.
I think the reason why the Holme's stories open the way they do is because Holme's needs to be able to analyze the character's/clients more than the other novels do. A lot of his solving of the crimes is based on his own observation skills. Also, the novel isn't based on the psychological mind of the killer or how he killed but rather WHO the killer is. For this reason, the time before when the clients are introduced or background information provided is essential. Also, since Doyle sets the scene as Watson looking back and describing the crimes, it makes more sense to start it off with background info, and start it as it occurred and as they knew of it. That means... sitting in their house waiting for the call to action.
Most of these other books open with a murder, but some are more effective than others. The opening for the rule of four was intriguing and different, but later seemed almost random since it didn't connect very well to 2 college boys trying to solve the riddles of a book. The Alienist and the DaVinci code are different - the opening murders are effective in capturing the attention of the readers and setting the mood and pace for the rest of the book. In the Alieniest, the mutilation fo the bodies served to show there was a deeper pyschological reason for the murder, while the murder and position of the curator in the daVinci code was used as a starting clue to the rest of the code. These "murders" are effective because they are part of the "mystery" that needs to be solved, and therefore are important to the novel. This wasn't the same for the Rule of Four, as I already said in a previous post.
(I almost felt as if the opening was a copy of the style/opening of Brown... but just not nearly as effective when considering the book as a whole) -- in general it opened well, with great mysteries and interest and then died towards the end because of "lame" answers/connections"....
And that concludes my "openings" for now.
Thinking about it, I wished I had compared the Italian Secretary to a real Holme's novel a little more... maybe i will.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)