Well...
It was an interesting book. And since I have a tendency to get lost in my thoughts and wander of track I'm gonna list what I want to cover in this post.
Similarity to Holmes' Stories
....how plot relates
....The characters relate
....Conclusion (how differ)/loose ends
....Supernatural
The link present between the two.
And overall opinion.
So... the plot.
Typically in a Holme's likeplot there is a evident/puzzling problem. In Hounds it was that someone had died and they were wondering how/what caused it and how to prevent it from happenign on the next heir. In a Study in Scarlet..it was that someone had been killed in a very stange way and they were trying to solve the murder.
In this one however, it was that the main character, Doyle, had been unwittingly been "targeted by a diabolical coven of satanists - the Dark Brotherhood" according to the book jacket. He witnesses a murder, which is what first pulls him into the story... however the plot does not revolve around solving the murder. (Well it vaugely does but that is not the centerpoitn of the story) The main plot revloves around "tracking" the group of Satanists that are practicing dark magic to find out exactly what they are doing and why... because there is no otber option essentially.
Because Doyles life is being atacked by them.. and staying in one place alone will prove fatal... since they are tracking him down.
So they follow these leads and you find out more and more about the group of atttackers. And so they connect the clues. But, though they follow clues and hints that lead them towards discovering what is really happening and though DOyle has the same logical skills that Holmes has... it's almost by chance that they find out what's going on. THere aren't any alternative theories that go on in his head with circumstancial evidence... without strange and uncertain evidence. Everything is pretty straightforward.. .blah blah bought this land... whoever has this job... blank is a very evil and crazy person. the only bit of unsure linking together occurs as the end of the book when Doyle is tryign to save his own life and makes lucky guesses... which he himself admits to. ..."Doyle chanced his most daring leap of the offensive... and you are currently preparin a second attempt becuase your first effort - involving the birth of youyr son... has sadly and tragically failed".... Doyle had gambled and come up aces". --very unHolmesy.
Holmes knows exactly what he's doing
Jumping to how the stories relate... according to Doyle.... Sparks who is a person wiht similar logical skills to him is who he bases the stories of Sherlock Holmes on. But though its interesting to think of it in that way.... besides his keen logical skills, he is very unsimilar to HOlmes. Sparks, who is another main character that helps Doyle out a lot and whom is tracking down these people, doesn't balance theoriesi out liek Holmes, but rather is a man of action and disguise that solves cases by lauching right into them. For example, he pretends to be a patient of a doctor because he's tryign to figure out information on them. Truthfully he also resembles a bit of Dr. Kreizler from the Alienist and the Angel of Darkness because Sparks, like Kreizler retrains/corrects/helps criminals become good citizens again that help him with their skills instead of using them against the law.
For refereces to teh supernatural... I think i already covered some of it in a previous post.... so moving a long. THe conclusion..
A lot of pieces tied together towards the end... and information that made no sense in the beginning makes more sense in the end..
But, i felt there were a lot of things left up in the air. We finally understand a little more of the supernatural forces... of why mummies come back a live. But, I still don't understand about the "grey hoods" which could move at great speeds and power.. blah blah... If tbat's true then how are they formally people?... and more than that... people that have had their souls taken away from them for absolute obedience? If they are lifeless people like that... then how do they have this great spped adn power about them? Maybe I missed something along the way.
What i didn't like about the book also was that there were a lot of different pieces and elements that eventually tied together in some way or another... but a lot of it was almost irrelevant/unnessecary.. The plot would have been simpler, clearer and made more sense if it wasn't so intricate - and the intricate was unnecessary in my opinion.
So.. though this has a lot of allusions to the Holme's stories and is set in Victorian England... I really don't think it has quite the same elements of Holme's storise that I had expected.
In its own sense it was entertaining though.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Deduction and Logic (Hounds)
So... while reading through the Hound of the Baskervilles I read a part talking about deductions that struck me.. now lets just see if i can find it.
Here it is. From early on.. don't know the page number..
. That may point to carelessness or it may point to agitation and hurry upon the part of the cutter. On the whole I incline to the latter view, since the matter was evidently important, and it is unlikely that the composer of such a letter would be careless. If he were in a hurry it opens up the interesting question why he should be in a hurry, since any letter posted up to early morning would reach Sir Henry before he would leave his hotel. Did the composer fear an interruption -- and from whom?"
"We are coming now rather into the region of guesswork," said Dr. Mortimer.
"Say, rather, into the region where we balance probabilities and choose the most likely. It is the scientific use of the imagination, but we have always some material basis on which to start our speculation. Now, you would call it a guess, no doubt, but I am almost certain that this address has been written in a hotel."
"How in the world can you say that?"
"If you examine it carefully you will see that both the pen and the ink have given the writer trouble. The pen has spluttered twice in a single word and has run dry three times in a short address, showing that there was very little ink in the bottle. Now, a private pen or ink-bottle is seldom allowed to be in such a state, and the combination of the two must be quite rare. But you know the hotel ink and the hotel pen, where it is rare to get anything else.
Well here's another example of the deductions... but Dr. Mortimer touched on what I had my complaint about... Guessing and the probabilities he'd get it wrong. Stuff like the hotel pen/ink i can believe because it make sense. And has some more concrete reasoning behind it. However, for the interruption part... though it makes sense too, it seems more like an edcated guess.. Burt yet again that is exactly what he does all the time, make an educated guess based on his surroundings and the evidence presented. He just happens to be right most of the time - which might come from experience or whatever.
I just needed to blog on this... becuase truthfully I'm becoming more convinvced that Holmes knew exactly what he was talking about. First. He had the experience from all his experiments adn cases... and also he had a tendency not to reveal his thoughts to others unless he was positively certain of it. He also didn't lend himself to other people's theories and didn't form any definite ones of his own (with multiple circultating) until there was direct evidence. Little things that escaped us meant were defnite leads to him.
For example... when one of the boots disapear from the Baronet... we don't understand it but Holmes recognizes immediateley that it must be a real hound and not a supernatural one involved. yet he doesn't relate this to Watson.
Alrighte.. of to dinner and Merry Christmas to all since i forgot in the last post!
Here it is. From early on.. don't know the page number..
. That may point to carelessness or it may point to agitation and hurry upon the part of the cutter. On the whole I incline to the latter view, since the matter was evidently important, and it is unlikely that the composer of such a letter would be careless. If he were in a hurry it opens up the interesting question why he should be in a hurry, since any letter posted up to early morning would reach Sir Henry before he would leave his hotel. Did the composer fear an interruption -- and from whom?"
"We are coming now rather into the region of guesswork," said Dr. Mortimer.
"Say, rather, into the region where we balance probabilities and choose the most likely. It is the scientific use of the imagination, but we have always some material basis on which to start our speculation. Now, you would call it a guess, no doubt, but I am almost certain that this address has been written in a hotel."
"How in the world can you say that?"
"If you examine it carefully you will see that both the pen and the ink have given the writer trouble. The pen has spluttered twice in a single word and has run dry three times in a short address, showing that there was very little ink in the bottle. Now, a private pen or ink-bottle is seldom allowed to be in such a state, and the combination of the two must be quite rare. But you know the hotel ink and the hotel pen, where it is rare to get anything else.
Well here's another example of the deductions... but Dr. Mortimer touched on what I had my complaint about... Guessing and the probabilities he'd get it wrong. Stuff like the hotel pen/ink i can believe because it make sense. And has some more concrete reasoning behind it. However, for the interruption part... though it makes sense too, it seems more like an edcated guess.. Burt yet again that is exactly what he does all the time, make an educated guess based on his surroundings and the evidence presented. He just happens to be right most of the time - which might come from experience or whatever.
I just needed to blog on this... becuase truthfully I'm becoming more convinvced that Holmes knew exactly what he was talking about. First. He had the experience from all his experiments adn cases... and also he had a tendency not to reveal his thoughts to others unless he was positively certain of it. He also didn't lend himself to other people's theories and didn't form any definite ones of his own (with multiple circultating) until there was direct evidence. Little things that escaped us meant were defnite leads to him.
For example... when one of the boots disapear from the Baronet... we don't understand it but Holmes recognizes immediateley that it must be a real hound and not a supernatural one involved. yet he doesn't relate this to Watson.
Alrighte.. of to dinner and Merry Christmas to all since i forgot in the last post!
The use of the Supernatural (Hounds and List)
So... I finished reading the Hounds of the Baskervilles, and after having finsihed everything clicks together and makes sense.
But, I can't say that I liked the book very much. It took several reads for me to finish it, unlike other books like the Alienest which kept me addicted til the end. Similarly the List of 7, which I'm reading at the same time, isn't enrapturing me as much - probably because of the supernatural forces involved (which are creeping me out).
But, now I understand why the Italian secretary ended up not being too mysterious/supernatural - and why it was so similar to the Hounds of the Baskervilles. That is becuase, although there exists the possibility that supernatural forces are involved, like ghosts and enourmous hounds, they really do not exist, and thus there are logical explanations for them- which is what a lot of Sherlock Holmes is based on - though there are strange and almost impossible cases, there always exists a logical explanation for it.
In the list of 7, that's not the case. (Which i do not like because there are supernatural forces that are not explanable through logic and reasoning, which are the trumping forces of the hero--so how do they end up winning? Reasonign and logic fail and are inferior when talkign of supernatural forces like magic) It kind of ruins the faith we have in the power of the hero to triumph. It makes the stories more like a Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings one where the hero has to rely on aid, or faith in oneself... instead of something as definite as logic.
So, although the List of 7 includes Doyle (whose reasoning skills are as sharp as that of Holmes) Ex. "Your vivid imagination leads me to believe you were invalid in childhood - during which you entertained yourself by reading ovoraciously, a habit you m,aintain to this day....my family did travel regularly through Europe, particularly Germqany.... you bear the natural confidence and ambition of an eldest and only child...
These little observations adn the conclusion drawn from them are very similar to those of Holmes. But the fact that it's almost Sci-Fi and Magical draw a fine line between the two, in my opinion. The style/plot reminds me more of, like i said before a HP story.... Dealing with Holmes'ish stuff, I didn't expect for the supernatural (what other word is there for that?).
My thoughts are getting disorganized and I think I'm done talkign bout Supernatural... so next post.
But, I can't say that I liked the book very much. It took several reads for me to finish it, unlike other books like the Alienest which kept me addicted til the end. Similarly the List of 7, which I'm reading at the same time, isn't enrapturing me as much - probably because of the supernatural forces involved (which are creeping me out).
But, now I understand why the Italian secretary ended up not being too mysterious/supernatural - and why it was so similar to the Hounds of the Baskervilles. That is becuase, although there exists the possibility that supernatural forces are involved, like ghosts and enourmous hounds, they really do not exist, and thus there are logical explanations for them- which is what a lot of Sherlock Holmes is based on - though there are strange and almost impossible cases, there always exists a logical explanation for it.
In the list of 7, that's not the case. (Which i do not like because there are supernatural forces that are not explanable through logic and reasoning, which are the trumping forces of the hero--so how do they end up winning? Reasonign and logic fail and are inferior when talkign of supernatural forces like magic) It kind of ruins the faith we have in the power of the hero to triumph. It makes the stories more like a Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings one where the hero has to rely on aid, or faith in oneself... instead of something as definite as logic.
So, although the List of 7 includes Doyle (whose reasoning skills are as sharp as that of Holmes) Ex. "Your vivid imagination leads me to believe you were invalid in childhood - during which you entertained yourself by reading ovoraciously, a habit you m,aintain to this day....my family did travel regularly through Europe, particularly Germqany.... you bear the natural confidence and ambition of an eldest and only child...
These little observations adn the conclusion drawn from them are very similar to those of Holmes. But the fact that it's almost Sci-Fi and Magical draw a fine line between the two, in my opinion. The style/plot reminds me more of, like i said before a HP story.... Dealing with Holmes'ish stuff, I didn't expect for the supernatural (what other word is there for that?).
My thoughts are getting disorganized and I think I'm done talkign bout Supernatural... so next post.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Italian Secretary: The Plot/Excitment
So. Plot. Of Course.
Sherlock Holmes would be nothing without his ingenious plot. Why? Because if what he solved were just ordinary random murders/or burglaries - there'd be no fun in it becuase one, it is ordinary (SO it won't grab our attention) and two ordinary and solved a gazillion times already murders don't showcase the intelligence and ability of our genius mastermind.
So, the plot is always essential. So, for the aforementioned reasons, it must be "different", "weird", and well, original. Weird, in particular, because it makes it difficult for ordinary people like the police at Scotland Yard, but easier for someone like Holmes because it holds an indication towards something else/can lead him to the right trail.
But anyways....
back to the plot. The Italian Secretary had quite a longer amount of time to develop the characters and introduce the plot - since it was well, a novel with over 300 pages. The Holmes stories are much less, probalby less than half or even 1/3 of the size sometimes-yet they still achieve the same appeal, ingeniouity and etc.
Ok... to start again.
The plot involves the murder of two people under the employment of the Queen to renovate the castle. It's strange because there is seemingly no logical answer to what the motive is.... and because there is a fear of ghosts. There's some info on the murder of a secretary and ect. that they believe haunt the castle where the two people were killed.
But anyways, part of the "weird" was the fact that every bone in the body was broken, yet no blood had flown out?? Something like that.. Essentially it was strange that every bone was broken. And there was great confusion on how it was humanly possible.
Then they uncover a motive and find someone that tells them a lot of info... Then we're still lost but Holmes gets it. And then he arranges stuff and we're off to find/meet the killer. That done, we have the final showdown (Which i think is actually more of a Celeb Carr thing then Doyle... tell me what you think from what you know about it).... where there's big risk of people dying - and actually some people do die, just not the important ones.... and other's are at teh risk of dying ... etc. etc.
But, of course, admiss the fighting and all they continue alive, and end up winning and the villains captured/thier plot foiled.
Part of the thriller aspect (which I'm not sure if its included in Holme's stories...or at least to the extent of Carr)... is the risk of thier lives all the time and the final climax where everything is solved and everything is on the line.
So... anyways. I think that's part of the plot and excitment...
I'll have to check on HOlmes and being Thrillery though.
Comments would be greatly appreciated...
Thanks.
Sherlock Holmes would be nothing without his ingenious plot. Why? Because if what he solved were just ordinary random murders/or burglaries - there'd be no fun in it becuase one, it is ordinary (SO it won't grab our attention) and two ordinary and solved a gazillion times already murders don't showcase the intelligence and ability of our genius mastermind.
So, the plot is always essential. So, for the aforementioned reasons, it must be "different", "weird", and well, original. Weird, in particular, because it makes it difficult for ordinary people like the police at Scotland Yard, but easier for someone like Holmes because it holds an indication towards something else/can lead him to the right trail.
But anyways....
back to the plot. The Italian Secretary had quite a longer amount of time to develop the characters and introduce the plot - since it was well, a novel with over 300 pages. The Holmes stories are much less, probalby less than half or even 1/3 of the size sometimes-yet they still achieve the same appeal, ingeniouity and etc.
Ok... to start again.
The plot involves the murder of two people under the employment of the Queen to renovate the castle. It's strange because there is seemingly no logical answer to what the motive is.... and because there is a fear of ghosts. There's some info on the murder of a secretary and ect. that they believe haunt the castle where the two people were killed.
But anyways, part of the "weird" was the fact that every bone in the body was broken, yet no blood had flown out?? Something like that.. Essentially it was strange that every bone was broken. And there was great confusion on how it was humanly possible.
Then they uncover a motive and find someone that tells them a lot of info... Then we're still lost but Holmes gets it. And then he arranges stuff and we're off to find/meet the killer. That done, we have the final showdown (Which i think is actually more of a Celeb Carr thing then Doyle... tell me what you think from what you know about it).... where there's big risk of people dying - and actually some people do die, just not the important ones.... and other's are at teh risk of dying ... etc. etc.
But, of course, admiss the fighting and all they continue alive, and end up winning and the villains captured/thier plot foiled.
Part of the thriller aspect (which I'm not sure if its included in Holme's stories...or at least to the extent of Carr)... is the risk of thier lives all the time and the final climax where everything is solved and everything is on the line.
So... anyways. I think that's part of the plot and excitment...
I'll have to check on HOlmes and being Thrillery though.
Comments would be greatly appreciated...
Thanks.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)