The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion
This topic is about
The Hound of the Baskervilles
Arthur Conan Doyle Collection
>
Hound of the Baskervilles/The Final Problem - Final Discussions
Quotes from The Adventure of the Dancing Men:- Watson describing Sherlock: “His head was sunk upon his breast, and he looked from my point of view like a strange, lank bird, with dull gray plumage and a black top-knot.”
- Sherlock: “Every problem becomes very childish when once it is explained to you.”
- Watson on Sherlock’s methods: “The moment that Hilton Cubitt’s broad back had disappeared through the door my comrade rushed to the table, laid out all the slips of paper containing dancing men in front of him, and threw himself into an intricate and elaborate calculation. For two hours I watched him as he covered sheet after sheet of paper with figures and letters, so completely absorbed in his task that he had evidently forgotten my presence. Sometimes he was making progress and whistled and sang at his work; sometimes he was puzzled, and would sit for long spells with a furrowed brow and a vacant eye. Finally he sprang from his chair with a cry of satisfaction, and walked up and down the room rubbing his hands together.”
- Sherlock on the cipher: “I am fairly familiar with all forms of secret writings, and am myself the author of a trifling monograph upon the subject, in which I analyze one hundred and sixty separate ciphers, but I confess that this is entirely new to me. The object of those who invented the system has apparently been to conceal that these characters convey a message, and to give the idea that they are the mere random sketches of children.”
- On Abe Slaney: “A man was striding up the path which led to the door. He was tall, handsome, swarthy fellow, clad in a suit of gray flannel, with a Panama hat, a bristling black bear, and a great, aggressive hooked nose, and flourishing a cane as he walked. He swaggered up the path as if the place belonged to him, and we heard his loud, confident peal at the bell.”
Perhaps Doyle uses Chicago repeatedly because that city is considered the gateway to the wild and murderous West.
I'm going to put this in two places.In getting things ready for next week, realized that since I had never read the short stories, I didn't connect the stories to the BBC Sherlock well.
So for the week of July 29 through August 4, if you plan on joining the discussion, read the Adventure of the Bruce-Partington Plan as originally planned. But instead of reading The Naval Treaty, read The Five Pips (originally planned for August 5 through August 11).
Then, for the week of August 5 through August 11, read The Naval Treaty and A Scandal in Bohemia.
Sorry about that...I was rewatching The Great Game this evening and realized that I had made a mistake.
If you have already read The Naval Treaty and don't have time for The Five Pips for next week, not a problem. The story doesn't come into BBC Sherlock except for the idea of the five pips (will explain when the time comes).
I'll also adjust and post on the Reading Schedule thread.
BTW - I think that everyone will like The Bruce-Partington Plan - my favorite to date. The Five Pips I can take or leave, but how they connect the story to The Great Game in the BBC Sherlock is quite cool. :-)
In an effort to jumpstart out conversation for the week (not much to talk about with Dancing Men, and I realize that capitalism and unions in 19th century America isn't exciting to everyone), I thought this quote from A Case of Identity might be interesting to discuss.Sherlock claims, "Life is infinitely stranger than anything which the mind of man could invent. We would not dare to conceive the things which are really mere commonplaces of existence. If we could fly out that window hand in hand, hover over the great city, gently remove the roofs, and peep in at the queer things which are going on, the strange coincidences, the planning, the cross-purposes, the wonderful chains of events, working through generations, and leading to the most outre results, it would make all fiction with its conventionalities and foreseen conclusions most stale and unprofitable."
Watson disagrees. What about you? Do you agree or disagree? And why do you think Doyle would make this claim?
It also reminds me of the postmodern argument. Pre-postmodernism, we said that art reflected life. Postmodernism claims that life now reflects art.
Do you think that is true - does life now reflect art? And how could life possibly reflect art?
Lynnm wrote: "In an effort to jumpstart out conversation for the week (not much to talk about with Dancing Men, and I realize that capitalism and unions in 19th century America isn't exciting to everyone), I tho..."I think because we are so bombarded by pop culture, we expect life to imitate/reflect art.
For example, we've all been so bombarded by tv crime shows that we automatically expect the good guys to win all the time and the bad guys to get their proper punishment. There is always the predictable massive amounts of media outrage when the police can't solve a crime or a presumed guilty person goes free.
Doyle actually does a pretty good job of dealing with this issue in the SH stories. SH may be a genius, but he certainly isn't right all the time. Sometimes he makes wrong deductions and sometimes he seems not to care that much about a case.
"The Dancing Men" is a good example. SH either can't solve the cipher or he is just being too laid-back about the case. I've always thought he didn't take the case seriously enough. He just thought Elsie was involved in some type of affair. SH does achieve a measure of justice at the end, but it comes at a high price.
Jeremy Brett does a particularly good job with this in the tv adaption. You can see that he has guilt and self-doubt after he hears about the shooting, but you can also see that he has enough self-control to compose himself and continue on with the case.
Amanda wrote: "I think because we are so bombarded by pop culture, we expect life to imitate/reflect art. "Yes, definitely pop culture. I'm reminded of the theories of Jean Baudrillard, a modern French philsopher. He wrote a book called Amerique, where he discusses the ideas of simulacra and simulation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacr...
Basically, he says that Americans allow others to “script” their identities through the sources of mass communications and through of material goods…what they see on the screen and what they own rather than who they are on the inside.
And on a lighter note, I also thought of one of my favorite films, You've Got Mail, that has this same postmodernist idea. Meg Ryan's character, Kathleen Kelly, is typing an email message to Tom Hanks' character, and she writes:
“Sometimes I wonder about my life. I lead a small life. Well, not small, but valuable. And sometimes I wonder, do I do it because I like it, or because I haven’t been brave? So much of what I see reminds me of something I read in a book, when shouldn’t it be the other way around? I don’t really want an answer. I just want to send this cosmic question out into the void. So good night, dear void.”
Yes, it should be the other way around: what we read in a book should remind us of life; i.e., art should imitate life, not vice versa.
Amanda wrote: "SH may be a genius, but he certainly isn't right all the time. Sometimes he makes wrong deductions and sometimes he seems not to care that much about a case."I noticed that too - and I find it a bit odd. Sherlock definitely doesn't fit in the superhero category that swoops in and saves the day.
Although I don't think he doesn't care. He either deduces wrong, needs the time to think, or thinks he has more time than he reallly has.
Lynnm wrote: "Amanda wrote: "SH may be a genius, but he certainly isn't right all the time. Sometimes he makes wrong deductions and sometimes he seems not to care that much about a case."I noticed that too - a..."
Doyle portrays SH as operating like a scientist. He has to have facts before he can make a deduction.
He is very methodical and he will never speculate on a case before he has gathered evidence. He doesn't rush to judgement or make assumptions.
I've always thought that this is one of Holmes' most admirable qualities. His lack of emotions actually serve him well in this regard.
Another admirable quality: Even though Sherlock is quite self-absorbed and fully aware of his extraordinary intellectual powers - he owns up to the fact that his knowledge is limited (the solar system ...!). He's no Mr. know-it-all, and he doesn't really care. I like people like him, he seems to be the complete opposite of a people-pleaser.
BRUCE-PARTINGTON PLAN - Suggestions:- In this short story, we move from domestic criminal activity to international intrigue. In fact, as I read this particular story, I was struck by how it was a precursor of sorts for the spy novel. How does The Adventure of the Bruce-Partington Plans resemble the modern spy novel? How does it deviate from that genre?
- Empire and alliance to God, country, and Queen figure into the story. How? Would those same ideas play well in modern day Britain?
- The reader is introduced to Sherlock’s brother Mycroft in this story. How would you describe Mycroft’s character and how does Mycroft differ from Sherlock? What is Mycroft’s position in the British government? Can we make any inferences regarding Sherlock’s and Mycroft’s relationship?
- Sherlock states, “it is fortunate for this community that I am not a criminal.” Is there a fine line between law enforcement and criminal activity? In other words, does it take the same mindset to catch a criminal or to be a criminal?
- The Diogenes Club – a club that Mycroft belongs to – is a Doyle fictional creation. It was introduced in The Greek Interpreter, and seems like quite the unique place: a place for reading, but absolutely no talking or even coughing. The Wikipedia link in the next post says that even though Doyle never wrote that the Diogenes Club was linked to the British Secret Service, others have made that connection due to this story – the Bruce-Partington Plans. Like the writer of the Wikipedia entry, do you think that is a reasonable deduction?
- Do you think that Mycroft is more intelligent than Sherlock?
- Watson claims that Sherlock is able to turn off and relax when he can go no further with a case. Why is that important? Do you find that it is best to do the same when you are faced with a big problem and are not making any progress? Is there scientific research to prove that point?
- What are the Bruce-Partington plans? What are the details of the case?
- When Sherlock catches Sir James Walter, Sherlock says that Walter isn’t who he thought committed the crime. Who might Sherlock have suspected, if not Walter?
- Who is the “august lady” that Sherlock receive the emerald tie-pin from at the end of the story?
BRUCE-PARTINGTON PLANS - Quotes:- Sherlock: “The London criminal is certainly a dull fellow.”
- Sherlock: “Suppose that I were Brooks or Woodhouse, or any of the fifty men who have good reason for taking my life, how long could I survive against my own pursuit? A summons, a bogus appointment, and all would be over.”
- Sherlock: “It is well they don’t have days of fog in the Latin countries—the countries of assassination.”
- Sherlock on Mycroft: “It is as if you met a tram-car coming down a country lane. Mycroft has his rails and he runs on them. His Pall Mall lodging, the Diogenes Club, Whitehall—that is his cycle. Once, and only once, he has been here. What upheaval can possibly have detailed him?”
- Sherlock on Mycroft’s position in the British government: “His position is unique. He has made it for himself.”
- Sherlock on Mycroft: “He has the tidiest and most orderly brain, with the greatest capacity for storing facts, of any man living. The same great powers which I have turned to the detection of crime he has used for this particular business…All other men are specialists, but his specialism is omniscience.”
- Sherlock on Mycroft: “Again and again his word has decided the national policy.”
- Description of Mycroft: “A moment later the tall and portly form of Mycroft Holmes was ushered into the room. Heavily built and massive, there was a suggestion of uncouth physical inertia in the figure, but above this unwieldly frame there as perched a head so masterful in its brow, so alert in its steel-gray, deep-set eyes, so firm in its lips, and so subtle in its play of expression, that after the first glance one forgot the gross body and remembered only the dominant mind.”
- Mycroft on the case: “A most annoying business Sherlock…I extremely dislike altering my habits, but the powers that be would take no denial. In the present state of Siam it is most awkward that I should be away from the office.”
- Mycroft to Sherlock: “Give me your details, and from an armchair I will return you an excellent expert opinion.”
- Sherlock: “I’m afraid…that all the queen’s horses and all the queen’s men cannot avail in this matter.”
- Watson on Sherlock: “One of the most remarkable characteristics of Sherlock Holmes was his power of throwing his brain out of action and switching all his thoughts to lighter things whenever he had convinced himself that he could no longer work to advantage.”
- Sherlock to Watson: “You can write me down an ass this time, Watson…This was not the bird that I was looking for.”
- Watson on Sherlock: “Some weeks afterwards, I learned incidentally that my firend spent a day at Windsor, whence he returned with a remarkably fine emerald tie-pin. When I asked him if he had bought it, he answered that it was a present from a certain gracious lady in whose interests he had once been fortunate enough to carry out a small commission. He said no more; but I fancy that I could guess at that lady’s august name.”
BRUCE-PARTINGTON PLANS - Research:Pall Mall lodgings:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pall_Mal...
Diogenes Club:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diogenes...
Whitehall:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehall
FIVE ORANGE PIPS - Suggestions:- There really isn’t much to say about The Five Orange Pips. I only selected it because it was used (nicely) in the BBC Sherlock.
- The KKK figures into the story. I think that any elementary school child in the U.S. would have know what those letters meant as soon as they read them in the story, but the group isn’t known to Watson as a Brit. It is another example of secret societies by Doyle (the freemasons in The Valley of Fear is the other secret society we’ve read about). And yet again, negative Americans! ;) Question: Sherlock claims that the KKK sent orange pips as a warning. Is that historically accurate? (To be honest, I can’t find the answer – hoping someone else can.)
- Sherlock sends John Openshaw out alone even though he knows he is in danger. That’s something that seems to happen a lot in these stories: Sherlock doesn’t seem to get the information all connected until it is too late for some of the victims. It does serve a purpose in this story. How?
- Sherlock isn’t able to bring Openshaw’s murderers to justice, but they get their just reward in the end anyway. What do you think Doyle is saying?
FIVE ORANGE PIPS - Quotes:- Sherlock: “The ideal reasoner…would, when he had once been shown a single fact in all its bearings, deduce form it not only all the chain of events which led up to it but also all the results which would follow from it.”
- Sherlock: “To carry the art…to its highest pitch, it is necessary that the reasoned should be able to utilize all the facts which have come to his knowledge; and this in itself implies, as you will readily see, a possession of all knowledge, which, even in these days of free education and encyclopedias, is a somewhat rare accomplishment. It is not so impossible, however, that a man should possess all knowledge which is likely to be useful to him in his work, and this I have endeavoured in my case to do.”
- Sherlock: “I say now, as I said then, that a man should keep his little brain-attic stocked with all the furniture that he is likely to use, and the rest he can put away in the lumber-room of his library, where he can get it if he wants it.”
I was curious about the London fogs described by Doyle as well as other English writers. Doyle describes it as "a dense yellow fog," and then he refers to it as "the greasy, heavy brown swirl" which was "condensing in oily drops upon the window panes." What caused such a disgusting scene? Were these fogs confined to London or did the countryside have them too? I seem to remember Dickens stating the fogs decreased in intensity as one left London. Does London still have these types of fogs? If so, can we expect them during the Olympics?
☯Emily wrote: "I was curious about the London fogs described by Doyle as well as other English writers. Doyle describes it as "a dense yellow fog," and then he refers to it as "the greasy, heavy brown swirl" whi..."Coming from a coastal state, I've been in these types of fogs - although the "yellow" fog and "brown swirl" doesn't apply to my experiences - more of a thick gray soupy muck. I can remember driving through New Haven once at night, and literally, we alternated through complete stop and about 1-2 miles an hour because we couldn't see the car in front of us until we were about a few inches behind them.
Doesn't happen very often, but when it does, it's a unique experience.
I would think that London gets them because of the Thames.
The reader is introduced to Sherlock’s brother Mycroft in this story. How would you describe Mycroft’s character and how does Mycroft differ from Sherlock? What is Mycroft’s position in the British government? Can we make any inferences regarding Sherlock’s and Mycroft’s relationship?Mycroft comes off as having greater intellectual powers than Sherlock, but he also seems to be rather lazy. Sherlock seems to be the brother with all the energy and ambition.
I've always thought that Mycroft was being more than a little deceptive about his energy level. Surely anyone who "is the British government" would have to possess an enormous amount of ambition. Either that, or being the British government is a pretty easy gig.
Like any upper-echelon government administrator, Mycroft does know how to delegate the dirty work. He just lets his little brother and his doctor friend run all over London, while he sets in his armchair at the Diogenes.
Mycroft does deserve some credit for venturing out not once, but twice in "The Bruce-Partington Plans." It must have killed him to cut into his Diogenes time in order to save the British Navy. The scene at Caulfield Gardens where he absolutely refuses to climb the stairs is hilarious.
Amanda - That scene where Mycroft refuses to climb the stairs was funny. He is lazy - obviously doesn't exercise, sitting at a desk all day, his club at night, and is overweight.
And for us in the late 20th/early 21st century, it is a far different vision of an Empire man that deals with spies.
But, I also found it amusing the way Sherlock described Mycroft's daily routine: "It is as if you met a tram-car coming down a country lane. Mycroft has his rails and he runs on them. His Pall Mall lodging, the Diogenes Club, Whitehall—that is his cycle. Once, and only once, he has been here. What upheaval can possibly have detailed him?”
Is Sherlock really any different? He's on a case...or he's bored. No friends, except John. No other activities except solving cases. Yes, he leaves 221B Baker Street, but it's only on a case.
They are both on different rails, moving in different directions - but both on are rails, never moving off of them.
I was interested to see Sherlock's reaction to serving his country by helping Mycroft. He seems to make it seem as if it isn't important to him, and even seems to mock the idea of the British Empire's power when he says that all the Queen's horses and all the Queen's men couldn't help. But at the end, he is obviously proud that he is honored by the Queen who gives him a pin.I'm so used to the modernists who seem to claim that the British Empire was a bad idea but who continually weep in their tea because Empire is collapsing around them. ;)
And the post-modernists who criticize the British Empire or any type of superpower.
But at this time, Empire was something to be proud of.
On one hand, I would say that wouldn't work today, but after seeing the Olympics opening ceremony, everyone is proud of their country and its history. And leave out the negatives - one of my friends comments that they noticed that the Olympic opening ceremony conveniently left out colonization. :-)
True, but most of our colonising was done before the Agricultural revolution which was the period the 'history' started. Slavery was left out too. All Empires do some good and all Empires have their day. I don't think SH was mocking the Queen. It may be an allusion to the riddle contained in the nursery rhyme Humpty Dumpty, or some foreshadowing:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humpty_D...
MadgeUK wrote: "True, but most of our colonising was done before the Agricultural revolution which was the period the 'history' started. Slavery was left out too. All Empires do some good and all Empires have the..."True enough.
And good point about the allusion to the line in Humpty Dumpty as foreshadowing.
Lynnm wrote: Is Sherlock really any different? He's on a case...or he's bored. No friends, except John. No other activities except solving cases. Yes, he leaves 221B Baker Street, but it's only on a case.Yes, Mycroft and Sherlock are more alike than either of them would like to admit.
Your comment reminds me of the scene in the BBC Sherlock where SH solves a case via laptop because he's "not leaving the house for anything below a seven."
About Mycroft being more intelligent than Sherlock. That's the part I love best from Mycroft. He's so smart. In the Greek Interpreter case he and SH had a sort of deduction competition and Mycroft won. Also the statement "I knew it from the start that it was Adams" or something similar. I think Doyle wanted to tell us that although SH is extraordinarily smart, there's someone who is above him.
MadgeUK wrote: "Does this plot line sound familiar?!:-http://news.yahoo.com/skyfall-trailer..."
lol! Just a little bit. Don't want to say how because it is a spoiler for one of the stories yet to come. :-)
And just as we said before - most of these shows today ripped off everything from Doyle. Which despite some of the flaws of the stories is why it's been nice exploring his works.
Of course, the good vs. evil "angle" goes all the way back to the Bible: God vs. Satan.
BTW - the film looks good. Not a Bond film fan myself, but with Judi Dench in there as well as Javier Bardem, it looks like it is worth watching. Really like Javier Bardem - he played such a great villain in No Country for Old Men - quite scary.
Amanda wrote: "Your comment reminds me of the scene in the BBC Sherlock where SH solves a case via laptop because he's "not leaving the house for anything below a seven.""I loved that comment in A Scandal in Belgravia.
And it does show how much he's like Mycroft. Unless he thinks it is "important," he's not moving.
Listra wrote: "About Mycroft being more intelligent than Sherlock. That's the part I love best from Mycroft. He's so smart. In the Greek Interpreter case he and SH had a sort of deduction competition and Mycroft ..."Thanks for that headsup - I'll have to read the Greek Interpreter next, even though we aren't reading it here.
I think Sherlock and Mycroft are probably equally intelligent, but with somewhat different thinking styles. At the beginning of this thread Lynnm referenced a discussion of two aspects of creativity: There are two ways – according to the author – that we are creative. Basically (and I’m simplifying here), one, we get creative flashes of revelations from the workings of our brains in the right hemisphere. The right side of our brain is able to put together informational links—even of elements which appear dissimilar—and seemingly in a flash, we have something new. Or two, the left side of our brain focuses in on the details to figure out a solution, persistently grappling with the details. It takes a lot of work, diligence, and focus. If I’m reading it right, we need both to create something new—the new ideas, but then we have to make sure that we get all the details right so that it is a quality idea.
I think Sherlock may be more right-brain and Mycroft may be more left-brain. I have two very bright adult children, and when they were little I spent some time learning about siblings and relative intelligence. One thing I learned was that siblings usually score within five to ten points of each other on IQ tests, but that it is common for parents and others to perceive the elder sibling as "smarter" than the younger one.
☯Emily wrote: "I was curious about the London fogs described by Doyle as well as other English writers. Doyle describes it as "a dense yellow fog," and then he refers to it as "the greasy, heavy brown swirl" whi..."I believe a great part of the "London Fog" was due to the coal fires used to heat so many homes. Mix this with the fog coming off the river, and it would definitely make for a greasy, yellow, noxious cloud. Coal burning fireplaces (much smaller in size than those used for wood) were banned at some point--I don't remember when. I do know that when we lived in London in our house and all our friends' houses, the coal burning fireplaces had been purposefully made inoperative.
Yes 'smog' was caused by burning coal in open fireplaces, in factories and in rail engines. After the Great Smog of 1952 (which I remember well:() only smokeless fuels could be burned, which cut down some of the pollution but the Clean Air Act of 1993 banned coal altogether for domestic consumption and factories had to make a great many changes to furnaces, chimneys etc. London is now pollution free except for carbon emissions! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/25...
This is how the painter Claude Monet and others saw London through fog at the end of the 19C - much the same as those portrayed by Doyle:-
http://images.search.yahoo.com/images...
http://artsunlight.com/artist-NT/N-T0...
Casceil wrote: "I think Sherlock may be more right-brain and Mycroft may be more left-brain. "When I read your post this afternoon, I agreed with you but didn't have time to post.
But after dinner, I read The Greek Interpreter, and now I'm not so sure. I don't want to give spoilers, but the B-P plans says somewhat the same thing: Sherlock claims that he and Mycroft are the same, but Mycroft is smarter. But that he is lazy and won't run around to get answers.
I have no aptitude for science, but love reading sciency type books, and just loved the book "Imagine." As a writer, I found it really interesting to read about how creativity works. It would be nice if we had a scientist on board for our discussion who could really dissect the way Sherlock (and now Mycroft) think.
BTW - I have to say that I am now a bit annoyed with Mr. Moffat and Mr. Gatiss for their depiction of Mycroft's and Sherlock's relationship. :-) They get along fine in the canon. There is no sibling rivalry. And another BTW, if you just read the first paragraph of The Greek Interpreter, you will chuckle. Watson says that he thinks of Sherlock sometimes as a "brain without a heart." Well, at least I chuckled, but that could be because I was having a glass of wine as I was reading the short story. :-)
Pamela wrote: "I believe a great part of the "London Fog" was due to the coal fires used to heat so many homes. Mix this with the fog coming off the river, and it would definitely make for a greasy, yellow, noxious cloud. Coal burning fireplaces (much smaller in size than those used for wood) were banned at some point--I don't remember when. I do know that when we lived in London in our house and all our friends' houses, the coal burning fireplaces had been purposefully made inoperative."Great point.
And Madge, thanks for the links.
Lynnm wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: "Does this plot line sound familiar?!:-http://news.yahoo.com/skyfall-trailer..."
lol! Just a little bit. Don't want to say how becau..."
Thanks for the link, MadgeUK
Yes, we've seen this before. I even got a hint of the BBC Sherlock, when Bond was standing on the rooftop.
I always liked to think that M was Ian Fleming's subtle tribute to Mycroft, but in this film it looks like M is more like Moriarty.
I just noticed that we have over 1,000 comments for the SH read. Yeay for us!! :-)
For the books/stories?
MadgeUK wrote: "For the books/stories?"For books/stories and also the background/resources and reading schedule (we had a big pre-reading conversation).
In other words, everything.
Mod
With respect to Mycroft, I'm not sure I would consider him smarter than Sherlock, but I am struck by the idea of someone who simply stores up massive amounts of information, holding it in his brain and ruminating upon it, making all sorts of linkages that might or might not be helpful to someone someday. I am reminded of the role of academics or philosophers of old, who would read and discuss and ponder and read some more and then after letting it all percolate for a while would come up with a brilliant new scientific or mathematical theory or would produce some magnum opus which would profoundly change how we think about something. I worry that in todays busy busy world where academics are expected to be constantly publishing and presenting papers and there are so many distractions that we might be losing that capacity for "deep thought". The idea of paying someone to think initially seems ludicrous, but in fact it seems as if he provided a uniquely valuable service to the government. How do you think most people would respond on hearing someone was drawing a government salary to do what Mycroft does?
In the B-P plans I am particularly struck by both Sir James Walter's and Cadogen West's sense of duty to their government-that CW leaves his fiancé to go racing after a perceived traitor, rather than simply reporting it to his seniors the following day, that JW feel so ashamed of his brother's betrayal and the scandal to his department that it essentially kills him.
Finally, I really envy those Victorian men their clubs-oh to have somewhere to go where I could meet with like-minded people and discuss the events of the day over a meal someone else prepared and will clean up and where I could sit in a comfortable chair and read in peace and quiet . Do the clubs still exist in the same form? Who belongs to them?
Frances wrote: "Hello everyone, I'm just getting back into the reads so am jumping in with the current stories, having read the entire SH canon in my youth. It is wonderful rereading some of the stories and having..."Frances, excellent post.
I worry about people's capacities to think deeply today as well. I've read a number of books about it, primarily the idea of whether digital technologies are changing our brains (Nicholas Carr's The Shallows and William Powers' Hamlet's Blackberry). We really are playing into our primitive states - one of distraction. In the past, we had to be distracted - it was a matter of survival. If a person was in deep thought, they might not notice that bear coming up behind them about to maul them. :-)
But today, we don't need that, and we really began to become civilized as a people when books became available to the average person. The Gutenberg press changed everything.
Reading isn't a natural state - again, our primitive state is one of distraction. We have to discipline ourselves to focus on the text.
And part of it, as you said, it that ability to be able to think deeply - allowing ourselves that quiet time to think and ponder without distractions. If someone sees a person sitting thinking, they think that the person isn't working. As if action is the only way to be production. But we need both - and it is the deep thought process where we come up with creative new ideas.
Sadly, between technology and general busyness, we don't read deeply and we don't think deeply.
SUGGESTIONS FOR A SCANDAL IN BOHEMIA (AUGUST 5-11):- The Woman. Why was Sherlock so attracted to Irene Adler that he would put her above all women?
- How would we describe Irene Adler, both physically and intellectually? How does her profession – a singer – add to her allure? What does the King call her profession, and how does he describe her character? Why does she keep the photo? And how does she change the way Sherlock views women?
- How would you describe the King, both physically and intellectually? Is he a sympathetic or comical character?
- Doyle uses a fictional royal family from a real country. What country is Bohemia today? Does anyone have any theories about why Doyle would select this particular country (I have no idea)?
- This is the first time we see Sherlock uses disguises to solve the case. How do they allow him to get close to Irene Adler?
- The King claims that Irene Adler will do anything to keep him from marrying, including sending the photo to the King’s fiancée. Yet, Irene Adler is in love with another man and marries him. She says at the end that the King has nothing to worry about from her with regard to the photo; she only keeps it to protect herself. Who is lying?
- Sherlock mocks the King twice. How?
- Watson is willing to break the law and risk arrest to help Sherlock, and yet, when he sees Irene Adler aiding Sherlock, he has second thoughts. How does Watson justify his actions in the ruse against Irene Adler?
- Sherlock uses a “fire” to get Irene Adler to betray where she has hidden the photo. It’s a device used by others to get people to think about what is important to them. If you were faced with a fire, what/who would you immediately go to?
- Sherlock fails in his quest to retrieve the photo. However, why is including Sherlock’s failures as well as successes important?
QUOTES FROM A SCANDAL IN BOHEMIA:- “To Sherlock Holmes she is always the woman…In his eyes she eclipses and predominates the whole of her sex.”
- “It was not that he felt any emotion akin to love for Irene Adler. All emotions, and that one particularly, were abhorrent to his cold, precise but admirably balanced mind.”
- “He was I take it, the most perfect reasoning and observing machine that the world has seen, but as a lover he would have placed himself in a false position. He never spoke of the softer passions, save a gibe and a sneer. They were admirable things for the observer—excellent for the drawing the veil from men’s motives and actions. But for the trained reasoned to admit such intrusions into his own delicate and finely adjusted temperament was to introduce a distracting factor which might throw a doubt upon all his mental results.”
- “Yet there was but one woman to him, and that woman was the late Irene Adler, of dubious and questionable memory.”
- “Holmes, who loathed every form of society with his whole Bohemian soul, remained in our lodgings in Baker Street, buried among his old books.”
- Watson on Sherlock’s process of deductions: “When I hear you give your reasons…the thing always appears to me to be ridiculously simple that I could easily do it myself.”
- Sherlock on Watson’s inability to make correct deductions: “You have no observed. And yet you have seen.”
- “A man entered who could hardly have been less than six feet six inches in height, with the chest and limbs of a Hercules. His dress was rich with a richness which would, in England, be looked upon as akin to bad taste. Heavy bands of astrakhan were slashed across the sleeves and fronts of his double-breasted coat, while the deep blue cloak which was thrown over his shoulders was lined with flame-coloured silk and secured at the neck with a brooch which consisted of a single flaming beryl. Boots which extended halfway up his calves, and which were trimmed at the tops with rich brown fur, completed the impression of barbaric opulence which was suggested by his whole appearance.”
- The King describing Irene Adler: “You do not know her, but she has a soul of steel. She has the face of the most beautiful of women, and the mind of the most resolute of men.”
- “She is the daintiest thing under a bonnet on this planet. So say the Serpentine-mews, to a man.”
- Watson on Sherlock’s disguises: “It was not merely that Holmes changed his costume. His expression, his manner, his very soul seemed to vary with every fresh part that he assumed. The stage lost a fine actor, even as science lost an acute reasoned, when he became a specialist in crime.”
- Watson’s regrets: “I know that I never felt more heartily ashamed of myself in my life than when I saw the beautiful creature against whom I was conspiring, or the grace and kindliness with which she waited upon the injured man.”
- Sherlock on his ruse: “When a woman thinks that her house is on fire, her instinct is at once to rush to the thing which she values most.”
- “Good-night, Mister Sherlock Holmes.”
- “And that was how a great scandal threatened to affect the kingdom of Bohemia, and how the best plans of Mr. Sherlock Holmes were beaten by a woman’s wit.”
THE NAVAL TREATY:I'm interested in hearing what others thought about the story. I really liked it, but I didn't think that it had as much depth of some of the others.
It starts off as if it might be a proto-espionage type story, but ends up being an ordinary crime, a man who screws over his own sister and her fiancee to save himself financially.
The only thing I thought odd was Miss Harrison staying in one room and not moving without questioning it. I realize that she wanted to help and thought Sherlock could vindicate Percy. And no one else thought to ask, why? :-)
Frances wrote: "I really envy those Victorian men their clubs-oh to have somewhere to go where I could meet with like-minded people and discuss the events of the day over a meal someone else prepared and will clean up and where I could sit in a comfortable chair and read in peace and quiet . Do the clubs still exist in the same form? Who belongs to them?"I would love that too. I've always been very jealous of the people in Victorian England with their intellectual clubs and societies. There isn't anything like it today outside of universities, but even there, it is more about job skills rather real learning.
We have a lot of information and chatter today, but not a lot of intellectual thought and conversation.
The Naval Treaty must not have had as much depth as the others because I was able to figure out who stole the treaty when I heard that the bell was rung. There was only one logical reason why someone would ring the bell and then disappear with the treaty.
☯Emily wrote: "The Naval Treaty must not have had as much depth as the others because I was able to figure out who stole the treaty when I heard that the bell was rung. There was only one logical reason why some..."I figured it out too. :-) And I haven't figured out any of the others.
Plus, I was disappointed - I thought it was going to be more espionnage, and it wasn't. :-(
Lynnm wrote: "I figured it out too. :-) And I haven't figured out any of the others."Erm ... I didn't. I'm still waiting for the day when I'll be able to solve these kind of mysteries (my deductive reasoning skills are quite poor, I'm afraid).
By the way: The Naval Treaty is one of my favourite stories so far, along with The Bruce-Partington Plans (to which it bears a slight resemblance) and a few others. I loved the story especially for its atmosphere and the town that is featured in it - I've got family there :)
Don't feel bad, Jo. I think the only reason I figured this one out is because I watched the Brett episode first and they made it obvious. The brother just seemed guilty and then I reasoned backwards. One of the few times because I have zero deduction ability. If I had read it first, I never would had figured it out.And I did like the story, but just had hoped it would be espionage.
Mod
One thing that has always puzzled me about the story is why the fiancée and her brother were living with Percy's family in the first place and, if it was a coincidental visit, how the brother managed to stick around for a further 9 weeks without rousing suspicion in the family. Perhaps it was simply different social habits at the time, with lots of long visits to friends and family elsewhere.
I have not yet reread A Scandal in Bohemia but but it was always one of my favourite stories, and the Irene Adler series by Carole Nelson Douglas which begins withGood Night, Mr. Holmes is a pleasure.
I also liked A Scandal in Bohemia (while A Scandal in Belgravia is my least favourite BBC episode). Doyle uses a fictional royal family from a real country. What country is Bohemia today? Does anyone have any theories about why Doyle would select this particular country (I have no idea)?
Very interesting question. Why did he choose this country? I don't have a clue, either. As far as I know, Bohemia was part of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy at the time and now belongs to the Czech Republic. It has always been an ethnically diverse region; I think German was the language of administration when Doyle wrote his story, so it's not surprising that both the King and Irene Adler are German native speakers - if I'm not mistaken ... It's been a while since I read the story. I've also been wondering if Irene Adler was Jewish; the Jewish population in Bohemia was quite large.
And how does Doyle depict people from the Austro-Hungarian Empire as compared to Germans? Any historians among us who might give us a little insight into international relations during the author's lifetime?
PS: Lynn, I don't feel bad ... don't take it too seriously :)
The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910
Books mentioned in this topic
A Scandal in Bohemia (other topics)Good Night, Mr. Holmes (other topics)
Some discussion suggestions:
- Some of the other short stories start off with a philosophical discussion. Sadly, this one does not. It starts with Sherlock showing off on how he figured out Watson decided not to invest in South African securities. I found it interesting though because I’m also reading a book called “Imagine” regarding how creativity works. I’m certainly not an expert after reading 75 pages, and I’m not a scientist. But it has affected the way I’m reading Sherlock’s deductions.
There are two ways – according to the author – that we are creative. Basically (and I’m simplifying here), one, we get creative flashes of revelations from the workings of our brains in the right hemisphere. The right side of our brain is able to put together informational links—even of elements which appear dissimilar—and seemingly in a flash, we have something new. Or two, the left side of our brain focuses in on the details to figure out a solution, persistently grappling with the details. It takes a lot of work, diligence, and focus. If I’m reading it right, we need both to create something new—the new ideas, but then we have to make sure that we get all the details right so that it is a quality idea.
Does Sherlock seem to replicate either of those types of creative thinking when solving cases in any of the novels/short story we’ve read so far?
- Regarding the case: How does Sherlock break the cipher? How does the interviews with the servants play into solving the case? How do the door and the window figure into solving the case?
- Why do you think that Elsie Patrick doesn’t just confide in her husband? Or bring in the police? Obviously, her past has arrived at her new home. They are in danger. She should know that it won’t just go away, even if she does try to buy her way out of the problem.
- Again, Chicago is part of the story. Why does Doyle continually use Chicago?
- Yet more Americans figure into the story. I’m beginning to get a complex. How does the description of Abe Slaney connect to the image of Americans by those outside of the country? Do you think that Doyle gets the American dialect right for the American characters?