Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

[ravenus]

@Conn:
I am unable to understand what exactly your problem with Watson in the TV/film adaptations of Holmes is, and I doubt you are making these observations after actually seeing how Watson has been portrayed in the Granada TV series because they DO achieve a terrific balance there, which to me feels more natural and believable in several instances than even in the source books. They show him as someone who is obviously not as clever/thorough as Holmes but in being his constant companion and a self-proclaimed "student of his methods" having learned to ask some intelligent questions.

I would like to know what your ideal representation of Watson on TV or film would do since obviously to just show him taking notes or writing drafts of his stories would be an incredibly stupid and boring thing to see.

The fact is Conan Doyle's own representation of Holmes and Watson is not devoid of errors and inconsistencies. In the first novel Holmes is described by Watson as someone whose knowledge of literature and politics is negligible. Yet Holmes is shown to quote from literary sources and in stories like "The Priory School" or "The Bruce-Partington Plans" appears to be reasonably well-updated in politics as well. Watson mentions keeping a bull pup but we never see any indication of it at Baker Street. We even have glaring errors like Watson knowing nothing about Moriarty before Holmes describes him in "The Final Problem" but in another story "The Valley of Fear", which is set before the timeline of TFP, Watson already knows the infamy of Moriarty.

 

[Connavar]

@Conn:
I am unable to understand what exactly your problem with Watson in the TV/film adaptations of Holmes is, and I doubt you are making these observations after actually seeing how Watson has been portrayed in the Granada TV series because they DO achieve a terrific balance there, which to me feels more natural and believable in several instances than even in the source books. They show him as someone who is obviously not as clever/thorough as Holmes but in being his constant companion and a self-proclaimed "student of his methods" having learned to ask some intelligent questions.

I would like to know what your ideal representation of Watson on TV or film would do since obviously to just show him taking notes or writing drafts of his stories would be an incredibly stupid and boring thing to see.

The fact is Conan Doyle's own representation of Holmes and Watson is not devoid of errors and inconsistencies. In the first novel Holmes is described by Watson as someone whose knowledge of literature and politics is negligible. Yet Holmes is shown to quote from literary sources and in stories like "The Priory School" or "The Bruce-Partington Plans" appears to be reasonably well-updated in politics as well. Watson mentions keeping a bull pup but we never see any indication of it at Baker Street. We even have glaring errors like Watson knowing nothing about Moriarty before Holmes describes him in "The Final Problem" but in another story "The Valley of Fear", which is set before the timeline of TFP, Watson already knows the infamy of Moriarty.

My bad im not talking about tv representation overall but the latter Jeremy Brett series, where Watson barely adds anything to the eps i have seen. They dont show the contrast between them well.

The ideal would be anything better than that. Jude Law version was pretty good. Not too much or too little.

I know errors and inconsistencies Doyle writing of them both. Frankly i dont care too much for Holmes tv,film versions often to really have much trouble with Dr.Watson. He is almost impossible to translate well to tv,film. He is the narrator mostly.

I only like Brett and new modern Sherlock series. 99% of the times i care only for written series.

Thats why i created this thread and not tv,film thread.

 

[Connavar]

I wanted to bump this thread so people like Soulsinging who are reading Sherlock Holmes or other Doyle works can see this thread.

Myself I just read second story in the collection Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes, "The Yellow Face" says a message of racial tolerance that's remarkable for a work published in 1893.

 

[chongjasmine]

I had read the first book of his sherlock holmes series, and I think it was quite good. I am looking forward to reading more of his books, after I had finished reading some of the fantasy series in my to-read list.

 

[steve12553]

I wanted to bump this thread so people like Soulsinging who are reading Sherlock Holmes or other Doyle works can see this thread.

Myself I just read second story in the collection Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes, "The Yellow Face" says a message of racial tolerance that's remarkable for a work published in 1893.

Aas many times as I have gone through the complete series, I always notice something different each time. My last time through I did catch seem to read the Yellow Face for the first time. There were definitely some attitudes that didn't seem to be consistent with Victorian England. Another instance where Doyle was way ahead of his time.

 

[Connavar]

Aas many times as I have gone through the complete series, I always notice something different each time. My last time through I did catch seem to read the Yellow Face for the first time. There were definitely some attitudes that didn't seem to be consistent with Victorian England. Another instance where Doyle was way ahead of his time.

I have read his biography he fought for many social,radical issues for his times.
I was surprised to see a social issue like that dealt with in Sherlock Holmes story. Usually in my fav 1800s literature you have to accept the old ways, a writer being a product of his times.

Also i liked the story because it showed it is one of several cases mentioned where Holmes theories was incorrect. Holmes has this unfair reputation of being machine like always correct, too brilliant in his ways. I have read stories where he wasnt quick enough in his work to catch the criminals, where they escaped him. Where he was wrong and missed his criminal.

It makes him even more interesting, human and it makes his scientific way of detecting more realistic when he is wrong in half dozen cases.

 

[Extollager]

I can read many of Doyle's stories again and again. Is there even one Sherlock Holmes story that is just a "completists only need read this one" affair, even if many of the best ones were written early? I also like two of the Professor Challenger stories, The Lost World and The Poison Belt quite a bit. "The Captain of the Pole Star" is a fine ghost story. "The Lost Special" was a good puzzle story.

On the other hand, there were a couple of mummy stories, I think, that weren't so great!

 

[j d worthington]

Yes, "Lot No. 249" has some wonderful stuff, but I must admit that, as a whole, it left me rather cold....

 

[Connavar]

I can read many of Doyle's stories again and again. Is there even one Sherlock Holmes story that is just a "completists only need read this one" affair, even if many of the best ones were written early? I also like two of the Professor Challenger stories, The Lost World and The Poison Belt quite a bit. "The Captain of the Pole Star" is a fine ghost story. "The Lost Special" was a good puzzle story.

On the other hand, there were a couple of mummy stories, I think, that weren't so great!

Im starting to feel the same every new book,collection i read of Holmes im impressed by the consistent level of the stories. Great,good or at worst decent detective stories. Stories full of historical detail,vivid characters. I almost forget Sherlock himself when i read the stories i like how he builds detective stories of urban crime, social problems of his times.

I have only read Grenadier Gerard story or two other than Holmes stories. I have The Lost World to read when i finish Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes collection.

 

[Extollager]

JD, isn't "The Ring of Thoth" also a mummy yarn?

 

[soulsinging]

I'm also a fan of some of his Lost Worlds fiction and didn't mind his historical novel Sir Nigel.

What are these? I read the novel the Lost World and loved it, didn't know it was part of a series?

I'm enjoying the Adventures so far. I probably should've read the first two novels first, but it doesn't seem to have been a problem so far. I have read Baskervilles before and enjoyed it, even if I the ending/resolution gave me a bit of a laugh for recognizing it as the solution to almost every mystery Scooby and the gang ever solved.

I was initially thrown off by my first few Holmes stories, thinking they'd play out like a parlour mystery I suppose, or Encyclopedia Brown... where the reader is given all the clues and can try to best the detective and solve along with him. Holmes really isn't like that and often pulls off his deductions by knowing some arcane or obscure bit of information most people would never have been able to guess.

So once I stopped trying to spot clues on my own I enjoyed them a lot more. It's really much more about the action and his interplay with those around him. I was surprised at how vibrant they are despite, as some have noted, the slower pace of some of the detecting conventions like carriages and couriers. Holmes is often donning costumes, involved in stakeouts, laying ambushes and various other proactive things. It's not the Christie-esque people standing around chatting until it's sorted that I was anticipating, which makes it a lot more fun.

As to Watson, I don't think he comes off as dim. Obviously, he's not as sharp as Holmes, but he seems less the standard devoted sidekick and more a bright albeit deliberate doctor that simply can't resist tagging along on his eccentric friend's adventures. In a way, it's Watson that makes Holmes a success by providing, in comic terms, a straight man to play off Holmes' more vibrant character. Holmes himself can often be arrogant and unlikeable and on his own would probably wear thin. Seeing him through Watson's eyes makes it easier to see past his faults and through to the excitement at the core of the stories.

 

[j d worthington]

JD, isn't "The Ring of Thoth" also a mummy yarn?

Indeed it is, but I've not yet read that one, so have no opinion on it one way or the other. (Though it is set aside as part of my reading/rereading of Doyle in the -- relatively -- near future.)

soulsinging: Here's the Wiki entry on the stories in the Challenger series:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor_Challenger#By_Arthur_Conan_Doyle

 

[GOLLUM]

What are these? I read the novel the Lost World and loved it, didn't know it was part of a series?

Oh Yes there were a few novels and stories that fall into Doyle's Lost World canon starring Professor Raymond Chandler..and before you ask No I haven't read all of them and to date I like the original novel the most although Land Of Mist isn't bad. I've taken this off Wikipedia as it was handy to do so...in fact there is a list of several authors who have written Lost World fiction featuring Chandler if you look up the article on wiki. Lost Worlds it should be noted is a sub Genre of its own including fiction by other well known authors e.g Burroughs' The Land That Time Forgot.

Novels

• 1912 - The Lost World, which describes an expedition to a plateau in South America where prehistoric creatures including dinosaurs still survive.
• 1913 - The Poison Belt, in which the earth passes through a cloud of poisonous ether.
• 1926 - The Land of Mist, a story of the supernatural, reflecting the strong belief in Spiritualism Conan Doyle developed later in life.

Short stories

• 1928 - When the World Screamed, on Challenger's World Echinus theory.
• 1929 - The Disintegration Machine, concerning the potentially-dangerous new invention by a scientist named Theodore Nemor.

 

[GOLLUM]

soulsinging: Here's the Wiki entry on the stories in the Challenger series:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor_Challenger#By_Arthur_Conan_Doyle

HMM..looks like someone else beat me to it...

I'll have to revisit my wonderful collection of Doyle's Weird Fiction published by Ash Tree press before too long. It includes The Ring Of Thoth amongst many other pieces.

 

[Connavar]

What are these? I read the novel the Lost World and loved it, didn't know it was part of a series?

I was initially thrown off by my first few Holmes stories, thinking they'd play out like a parlour mystery I suppose, or Encyclopedia Brown... where the reader is given all the clues and can try to best the detective and solve along with him. Holmes really isn't like that and often pulls off his deductions by knowing some arcane or obscure bit of information most people would never have been able to guess.

So once I stopped trying to spot clues on my own I enjoyed them a lot more. It's really much more about the action and his interplay with those around him. I was surprised at how vibrant they are despite, as some have noted, the slower pace of some of the detecting conventions like carriages and couriers. Holmes is often donning costumes, involved in stakeouts, laying ambushes and various other proactive things. It's not the Christie-esque people standing around chatting until it's sorted that I was anticipating, which makes it a lot more fun.

.

Thats what i thought too before i read the books,collections. I think its the fault Holmes early films, people assuming Holmes must be like parlor detectives like you see in english detective stories after him. He is nothing like Christie,Sayers type detective. He uses more his learned knowledge, criminal sciences he has learned to solve his cases. Its just that the obscure knowledge of his is fantastic to Watson POV, others. My penguin Holmes introduction,notes says CSI, criminal sciences in detective stories fell out of style after Holmes stories. It became more psychological and less criminal sciences,evidence chasing. Thats why Holmes is the only british classic detective stories i really like. The others are too cozy mystery, lack of deduction that isnt just made up by the writers to make his/hers detetive know more than he really does.

Second Holmes collection im reading focuses more on cases Holmes failed with his theories because he didnt have enough facts. His reputation for perfection, always knowing the impossible is a myth you dont see in the actual stories. Sherlock Holmes way of chasing the facts and making theories to fit with the facts is more like real detective writer like Hammett, The OP than Hercule Poirot and co.

 

[j d worthington]

Second Holmes collection im reading focuses more on cases Holmes failed with his theories because he didnt have enough facts. His reputation for perfection, always knowing the impossible is a myth you dont see in the actual stories. Sherlock Holmes way of chasing the facts and making theories to fit with the facts is more like real detective writer like Hammett, The OP than Hercule Poirot and co.

Well, for an example of the latter's failings, there's always "The Chocolate Box"....

 

[Vertigo]

I have just recently read the Lost World and The Poison Belt and loved them. They are simply so easy to read that the story just flows in a way that I haven't often seen with modern writers.

I am thinking about getting into the Sherlock Holmes stories (I read some many, many years ago - long forgotten) and was wondering if there is any particular reading order I should go with?

 

[j d worthington]

There are at least two different "preferred" methods of reading the tales: the order of publication, and the order in which they occur in Holmes' and Watson's lives... and the latter is not entirely clear, with their being a lot of argument over where certain stories fit. However:

http://blog.smartmemes.com/2010/03/sherlock-holmes-a-complete-chronology/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock_Holmes#The_original_stories

 

[mosaix]

Maybe it's a generational thing but, for me, no actors come close to Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce in portraying Holmes and Watson.

Interestingly Conan Doyle turned detective himself to prove the innocence of one George Edalji. Edalji had been arrested, prosecuted and sentenced to seven years hard labour - an early example of racism in the British criminal justice system.

Julian Barnes recounted the tale in his novel Arthur and George.

 

[clovis-man]

I am thinking about getting into the Sherlock Holmes stories (I read some many, many years ago - long forgotten) and was wondering if there is any particular reading order I should go with?

I've always thought the novel, A Study In Scarlet, was the best place to start because it chronicles the point at which Holmes and Watson first meet.