The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion

If you have not completed the fist part, this discussion will contain spoilers.

A Study in Scarlet is Conan Doyle's introduction of Sherlock Holmes and John Watson. The story is being told to us from Watson's point of view, through his diary.

As the story opens we learn about John's stint in the Army, his being wounded, becoming ill, and being sent home. Through a mutual friend he meets Sherlock Holmes, as both men are looking for housing within their respective budgets. The two men proceed to share their own shortcomings with each other in order to determine their compatibility. They inspect the rooms at 221B Baker Street and agree to their suitability. We are introduced to Gregson and Lestrade, both detectives at Scotland Yard, when the former requests Holmes' opinion of a murder committed the night before. And thus begins the adventures of Holmes and Watson.

The title of Part One indicates the story is being told from Watson's point of view, through the writings of his dairy. Do you think this is an effective way of telling Holmes' story? What are the advantages/disadvantages of this verses the story being told from Holmes' point of view or a third person point of view?

We learn that Holmes is a master of observation and deduction, he is sarcastic, he mocks, and insults those around him when they cannot the situation see clearly what he can. Are there any circumstances that you can conceive of where his lack of social skills would be desirous or advantageous?

Watson is amazed by the gaping holes in Holmes' knowledge, he is only interested in information that furthers his agenda and makes reference to the brain being an attic only able to hold a finite amount of knowledge. Holmes is obviously good at what he does, does this lack of common knowledge bring with it a cost?

Holmes appears, to me, to be rather anti-social. Do you like the person that the author describes?

The answers to the question below might generate spoilers

I've hesitated to put questions out there regarding the plot of the story if the event that anyone, like me, has not read this story before. At the end of Part One Holmes announced that Mr. Jefferson Hope, the cabman, is the murderer of Enoch Drebber and of Joseph Stangerson. Have you put all the pieces together?

If you decide to answer this question please be sure to mark the spoliers. If you are unsure of how to do that, please feel free to message me and I'll give you instructions. We don't want to ruin it for anyone.

I really enjoy reading Watson's comments. They add atmosphere and colour to the stories.

Rosemarie wrote: "I really enjoy reading Watson's comments. They add atmosphere and colour to the stories."

I agree, I think that if this was written from Holmes' POV it was be either boring or bizarre... I can't imagine the world through the eyes of Holmes. Watson's narrative is grounded in reality.

Yes, Watson is a surrogate for the reader, including being clueless about the case, while Holmes' great mind is working it out.

Some characteristics of Holmes stories are already present here, his ability to analyze people on sight and the presence of disguises (though here not used by Holmes) and the Baker Street Irregulars.

The Holmes and Watson portraits in this, the first book, indicate much younger men than portrayed in the Basil Rathbone days and closer to the ones portrayed in the Guy Ritchie and BBC portrayals.
Of course, Holmes stories extend over a period of 20 plus years, so his age would vary.
(Oops, this should probably be in the TV/movie adaptations thread)

This is the first story in the Sherlock Holmes series and the great Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson meets for the first time. I really enjoyed reading their meet up and their getting know of each other; two starkly different characters. Coming from a narration by Dr. Watson, the account of the story is reliable.

In this part, the murder mystery is solved and the culprit is apprehended. The whole part deals with details on brilliance of Holmes in his analytical and deduction skills. But there are some gaps in this part of the story which will be only answered in the next part.

Robin wrote: "Yes, Watson is a surrogate for the reader, including being clueless about the case, while Holmes' great mind is working it out.

Some characteristics of Holmes stories are already present here, hi..."

Actually, Watson seems more a surrogate (or a device) for the author. Conan Doyle is telling these stories - like Watson a doctor.

The "Watson tells Holmes' story" technique is clever and very effective. Doyle stays out of the narration, and Watson's calm general demeanor is a perfect contrast to Doyle's regular injections of excitement and surprise.

Watson is a quick learner and begins to also observe, but much of the steps are simply explained to Watson by Holmes. This is simply "You know 2+2 is 4, Watson, even if it is hard to explain".

After this novel, Doyle almost never wrote any of the Sherlock stories in the third person again. As a storyteller, Doyle is masterful at bringing the reader into the moment and into the scene, as if we are there in the room, or inspecting the footprints in the walkway, aware of whether there had been rain the night before.

Dan, I also see Watson as a device. While I find this story bizarrely uneven and weak (no spoilers, but wait for it if you're not there . . . the weird is coming!), I did like being able to see Holmes through Watson's eyes. Sherlock as first person narrator would diminish some of the magic inherent in a mind like that, though I do like the inclusion of the "mind palace" concept from time to time in the BBC Cumberbatch version. Easier visualized on screen than written, I think.

It was a treat to have Holmes introduced afresh-so much of what we know about him seems cliched, so I enjoy reading the original descriptions of his appearance, his temperament, his method, his habits, his mannerisms. It's also interesting to see which of the Holmes/Watson traits have been translated to the more modern versions.

I enjoyed watching the two official detectives heading off down the wrong paths, only to have their theories upended. I wonder how often the wrong person was convicted for crimes (as might well have happened in this case) and if these stories helped to make people realize that the police could make mistakes.

Conan Doyle has certainly crafted a complex and quite well-thought out character for his detective-while we know he was modelled on one of his own Medical Professors, I often wonder how long someone would take to "create" such an unusual and idiosyncratic character.

It's an interesting connection, from doctor to detective. Doctors also have to deduce what is happening from clues they can observe with the senses (especially back in the past before all the modern diagnostics.)

It was certainly great fun reading it so far. It got even more interesting when I had Gems original guestions in mind. I agree that the reader gets a much more accurate description of Holmes through doctor Watsons eyes than any other way or directly from the author. I was very amuzed by the different descriptions and conclusions presented after the first murder in the various newspapers.