A Study in Scarlet 2017 - Part Two

[Gem , Moderator]

I'm posting this discussion a few days early. I haven't done the reading as yet between fighting bronchitis and being glued to the tv due to having family in Miami and Orlando. Please feel free to discuss Part Two. I'll post some questions as soon as I complete this week's reading.

Note: If you have not read Part Two there will be spoilers in this discussion.

[Rosemarie, Moderator]

I hope you get over your bronchitis, Gem.

[Rosemarie, Moderator]

The switch to the setting in Utah was very dramatic, but it didn't seem to be the right setting for Sherlock Holmes, somehow.(if you know what I mean)

[Gem , Moderator]

Rosemarie wrote: "The switch to the setting in Utah was very dramatic, but it didn't seem to be the right setting for Sherlock Holmes, somehow.(if you know what I mean)"

I did read that chapter, and thought the very same thing. I was discussing it with my love and said, if I didn't know any better I would have thought it was a different book.

[Gem , Moderator]

Rosemarie wrote: "I hope you get over your bronchitis, Gem."

Thanks, I finally got to the doctor, it's been two weeks and I'm not making any improvements. Now I'm loaded up on meds, hopefully that will do the trick.

[Merry]

Rosemarie wrote: "The switch to the setting in Utah was very dramatic, but it didn't seem to be the right setting for Sherlock Holmes, somehow.(if you know what I mean)" - Agreed! Talk about literary whiplash.

[Brian E]

I am so glad I read this as i have no recollection of the Mormon villains when I read this 45 years ago.
I have some knowledge of the Mormon history in 19th century America. Living in Illinois, I have visited the Carthage jail, the site of the murder of Mormon founder Joseph Smith. But for the first Brit Sherlock Holmes murder mystery to use Mormon murderous thugs is just ... Wow!
It reminds me of certain portraits of Jewish characters in Victorian literature. I know one should read and evaluate novels in the context of the times and not with present day sensibilities. And maybe its not so different from Dan Brown stuff. But, still. Wow!

[Piyangie]

I had heard of the Mormons from some other book I have read but didn't know the details about their practices. It is really disturbing to know how they approved of polygamy. I'm not a Christian and do not possess a profound knowledge on the faith, but I do feel that this was something which was not approved by the Christian faith.

And as Brian said, it is quite amazing that Conan Doyle has chosen such a topic and a setting (far away from Brit territories) to set up the first story of a series. I wonder if he intended for a darker setting to kick his series.

[Robin P, Moderator]

This is different from all the other Holmes stories in going totally away from Holmes and Watson to give the back story. Apparently Doyle figured out after this book that Watson's viewpoint was integral to this type of story, so he didn't write this way again. Giving the back story pretty much gives away the mystery. I don't think Conan Doyle ever went to the places he describes.

My understanding is that although Mormons did have polygamy and would probably shun or remove dissenters, they weren't violent vigilantes. I think this is the European romanticizing of the American West in the 19th century. While Americans were fascinated by knights and castles, Europeans often found cowboys and gunslingers thrilling.

[Rosemarie, Moderator]

I imagine that the British reading public would find the desert and wild spaces in Utah very exotic. The story is exciting, but not true to historical facts.

[Piyangie]

Robin wrote: My understanding is that although Mormons did have polygamy and would probably shun or remove dissenters, they weren't violent vigilantes. I think this is the European romanticizing of the American West in the 19th century. While Americans were fascinated by knights and castles, Europeans often found cowboys and gunslingers thrilling. ."

An interesting thought, Robin. Probably that might have been the reason for Doyle's use of Utah and Mormons.

[Brian E]

Robin, you are right about 19th century Mormons and Europeans' fascination with the American Wild West as a source of Doyle's use of the plot device. Buffalo Bill's Wild West tour was very popular in Europe. Nowadays, we Americans also like stories with old Brit country estates, like Downton Abbey and Brideshead Revisited. Just natural fascination with what you don't have in your own country.

[Robin P, Moderator]

My husband is involved in Welsh North American activities. They regularly have performers or teachers from Wales come over, and they are usually interested in anything to do with the old West, or with Chicago gangsters!

[Frances, Moderator]

I agree that it was strange to have what felt like a second book start in part 2, which slowly wound its way back to the original story. While I don't know much about mainstream Mormonism, there have certainly been some concerning stories about some of the breakaway sects both in the US and in western Canada still operating with very closed communities, leaders with multiple wives and occasionally over 100 children, often marrying girls still in their mid-teens to men in their 40s and 50s. Again I want to stress that these are NOT part of mainstream Mormonism of today, however they claim their practices are the original Mormon teachings.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/07/...

As for Holmes and Watson, this section did start the ongoing theme of the borderline incompetent policeman taking credit for the discoveries/solutions at which Holmes arrives with his science of deduction.

[Inger]

The detour was certainly very long and I don't guire understand why it was necessary to make it so detailed. Easy to lose interest since it took so long to get back to the connection to the murdercase. But on the whole I an very happy I read the first Holmes novel with such a good introduction to the characters. I got interested in finding out more about the mormons of today so thanks for the link.

[Nicola]

This book was different to his other stories and I can't remember now if I found the change in scene and narrators jarring the first time I read it as it was so very very long ago. Long before I knew anything about Mormonism as I was probably about 8 or so.

I grew up on reading Sherlock Holmes stories and I used to love them as a child. I had to re-read some for a group a year or so ago and was surprised to find that going back to them I found the short stories rather irritating with the same format of Holmes showing off his miraculous powers of deduction before the awed and impressed Watson or Client 'My dear fellow, do sit down. I see you have just come from the theatre where you played the role of a one-eyed hunchback and the single ham sandwich which your wife gave you for lunch will not be enough to sustain you.' Queue gasps of amazement and a depreciating comment from Holmes, as he says that his deduction was so simple that a child could have done it.

I thought that going off of my memories of his works that I would probably now prefer the longer books rather than a continual run of short stories which follow the above pattern so slavishly simply because you get the whole 'I am a marvellously clever detective - gasp in amazement at my great powers of deduction' far less times overall than when you read 12 short stories. And I did enjoy reading this again. I'm old enough now to appreciate how lacking in Political Correctness it is which I rather like. I don't believe the story, conveniently given out after Doyles death, that he had apologised for the depiction of the Mormons and that it was all lies or something of that nature. I call phooey on that. I think Doyle meant every word he said; I'm very dubious of these convenient retractions which come out after the person in question has died and with absolutely no evidence to back them up.

[Gem , Moderator]

Thank you to everyone who participated in this week's discussion in spite of the lack of questions. I've spent a week in bed, sleeping the days away. I'm wishing I was doing that on vacation rather than being sick.

[Rosemarie, Moderator]

It was a fun book to read, Gem. I hope you feel better soon.

[Suki]

I love Sherlock Holmes, and the group read was a great excuse to reread Scarlet. The thing I love most about the Holmes stories is the gloomy, mysterious Victorian London setting. I still really like this book, but the jarring change of scenery into the American Wild West knocks me out of the story every time, and as a result it is probably my least favorite of the Holmes stories.

In response to the question about whether the stories are more effective through Watson's eyes or through Holmes: I love Agatha Christie, but I find myself feeling put off and growing impatient as Poirot's references to his "little grey cells" pile up. I think the stories told through Holmes' eyes would have the same problem-- long-winded burblings about his superior intellect and deductive abilities. It is easier to swallow through the star-struck eyes of Watson.

[Alicia]

I hope you feel better soon Gem.

[Frances, Moderator]

Suki wrote: "I think the stories told through Holmes' eyes would have the same problem-- long-winded burblings about his superior intellect and deductive abilities. It is easier to swallow through the star-struck eyes of Watson. "

Although Watson still gets annoyed by Holmes' self-praise and we start to see his annoyance as well as his admiration.

[Christopher]

Hate to be so far behind the group. This was a short enjoyable book to read. I'd read it over a decade ago and liked it then.

The "Western" part was pretty good, except for some corny and unrealistic "Americanisms." Not the quasi-biblical talk of the Mormons, which I thought was pretty good. The whole thing reminded me of Edgar Rice Burroughs, who was clearly indebted to Conan Doyle, the difference being that it's his English characters who say ridiculous things.

I was half-expecting a little wrinkle regarding the 'pill challenge,' where the guy giving the pills had a secret way of telling the poisoned pill from the safe one... but I guess that wrinkle was from the TV show, not the book.

I turn the page in my e-book, a right there is the start of The Sign of Four, with Holmes shooting cocaine into his arm, and Watson a bit put off. Then Holmes telling Watson that "A Study in Scarlet" wasn't very good.

Pretty awesome kick-off to a sequel.

[Rosemarie, Moderator]

I noticed that when I read The Sign of Four. I enjoyed that one as well.

[[deleted user]]

When I had finished part 1, I wanted to know the motive of Jefferson Hope; having no idea the backstory could be a bit jarring if not stereotypical. I must admit, it was disappointing after the steady anticipation of part 1.
I liked the end though, Holmes has the personal satisfaction of unearthing the case, regardless of public opinion which is what matters truly to him.