The Filipino Group discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
Buddy Reads
>
A Study in Emerald ni Neil Gaiman
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Charles
(new)
May 03, 2012 10:43PM
Sa mga gustong mag-discuss...
reply
|
flag
Is this the same as A Study in Scarlet? If yes, you can put it in the Specific Book folder. Or if you want to discuss Sir Arthur, re-title this with his name and put it under Specific Author folder. That way you can discuss all of his books.
Kuya, A Study In Emerald is a short story by Neil Gaiman. It's the first story in his Fragile Things compendium. It's different from A Study In Scarlet. :)
Forgot to post the link: http://www.neilgaiman.com/mediafiles/...Pero K.D., don't worry, iba siya.
Hindi ko naman icocompromise ang possible discussion topic for 2013 :)
Monique, thanks. I God, how misinformed I am.Charles, still, my message applies. I can participate in discussing "American Gods" if it is under the Specific Author folder.
Thanks, Charles. I put this under "Specific Book" based on your edited title.
I think Jzhun will like this story! :D For me it's the perfect example of what a good pastische should do. Get the flavor of the original content but through a more contemporary lens.
Kristel: could you articulate the elements that make it "contemporary"?
First of all my comments will contain plot points in the story. Fair warning, read the story from the link because SPOILERS AHEAD.Things that make it contemporary:
1. Language - Gaiman takes pains to provide the flavor of Conan Doyle's writing style but he doesn't go with the Victorianesque tendency to shield the reader's delicate sensibilities from the gore associated with murder. Notice the casual phrases such as: "After what seemed like a hundred years I looked down at the body, opened like a rabbit on a butcher's slab..."
2. Good Guy/Bad Guy Switcheroo - We are deliberately misled regarding the narrator's real identity. Readers assume that they are Holmes and Watson since their meeting correspond with the events in a Study in Scarlet. A typical narrative trick that authors use is to start the story with the character they want the characters to sympathize with. That's why 1st person POV is popular in pre-modernist novels. In this case, the readers implicitly trust the narrator, and we find out how wrong we are by the end.
3. Breaking the fourth wall, kind of - Somewhere in the beginning of the novel, the "friend" tells the narrator that: "I have a feeling that we were meant to be together. That we have fought the good fight, side by side, in the past or in the future, I do not know." I see this as a wink to the readers, referencing the various incarnations of Holmes, Watson, Moran, and Moriarty through the years. There is also a similar wink with the mention of the name "John (or James) Watson)." A famous bit of Sherlockiana is that Conan Doyle (well, Mary) mistakenly referred to Watson as James in a story.
3. Critique of a (tentacle-y) monarchy - I think it's kind of novel that Neil Gaiman used the structure of the detective story (which I argue is a historically imperialistic story form) to critique the this brand of monarchy as a sham that people are forced to swallow. Of course, the royalty here are not of the human sort but still, I find it clever.
@Charles: You also linked me to another clever Sherlock Holmes pastiche, right?
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
