The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion
This topic is about
A Study in Scarlet
Arthur Conan Doyle Collection
>
A Study in Scarlet 2012 - Part One
Conan Doyle was a doctor so perhaps he had observed people like those you describe Janice and put those characteristics into Holmes' fictional character, although he would have been more likely to use a phrenological diagnosis than a psychological one, just as Holmes sometimes did:In The Adventure of the Blue Carbuncle he deduces the intelligence of a hat's owner by the size of his head and he deems the highly domed forehead of his arch-nemesis Professor Moriarty, as a mark of his superior intellect. In The Hound of the Baskervilles, Dr Mortimer makes an examination of Holmes' skull, remarking on the dolcicophalic features and the supra-orbital fossa!
Excellent post, Janice. Holmes was always delighted by Watson's praise and admiration even after several decades as friends and associates.I also think Watson was the only person on the planet longsuffering enough to share an apartment with Holmes. The chemical experiments alone would have sent most people running for the door.
The Part 2 discussion starts tomorrow but there has been very little discussion of Part l, perhaps because the other threads are distracting folks: 'There were many marks of footsteps upon the wet clayey soil, but since the police had been coming and going over it, I was unable to see how my companion could hope to learn anything from it....'"If a herd of buffaloes had passed along there could not be a greater mess, No doubt, however, you had drawn your own conclusions, Gregson, before you permitted this?" "I have had so much to do inside the house" the detective said evasively...'
I found it difficult to believe that Lestrade and Gregson had not paid any attention to the outside of the house, to the road outside and to the path, which revealed so many clues to SH, the first being that they did not come by cab but perhaps the murderer did.
Again at the crime scene we have a phrenological description of the corpse: '...this malignant and terible contortion, combined with the low forehead, blunt nose, and prognathous jaw gave the dead man a singularly simius and ape-like appearance...'
A prognathous jaw is one which projects abnormally forward, as characterised by the Hapsburg monarchs:-
http://images.search.yahoo.com/images... .
We therefore have three Victorian prejudices here - apelike meaning primitive, less evolved (a la Darwin), the other two being against the fast expanding Austro-German Empire led by the House of Hapsburg, a catholic dynasty.
Mention of The Decameron being found in the corpse's pocket is also significant as this was considered a 'filthy and disgusting' book then banned in Europe (and the US). This is the first hint that the crime may be of a sexual nature.
http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Ital...
We can perhaps assume from all this that the murderer is not British:).
Janice George wrote: "- Watson: “My companion flushed with pleasure at my words [of praise], and the earnest way in which I uttered them. I had already observed that he was sensitive to flattery on the score of his art ..."Excellent post, Janice - as always, wonderful insight. And I agree, that some people who are exceptionally smart and who have been isolated a bit due to being different enjoy it when finally their intelligence and talents are recognized.
As you said, though, he does share a bit of the blame. I like your word choice - he is petulant. We've all focused at first on Sherlock as "arrogant" but then noted his kinder side, but he definitely can be petulant. And it is annoying when faced with someone who is always right...makes the others feel less than capable. :-)
MadgeUK wrote: "Conan Doyle was a doctor so perhaps he had observed people like those you describe Janice and put those characteristics into Holmes' fictional character, although he would have been more likely to ..."True, Madge. Doyle probably wouldn't have viewed the character through a pyschological lens. And may have been surprised by all the recent interpretations of his character.
But that always leads to the question of whether we as the reader can read the text differently than the way the author intends us to read it.
I always say, yes. There are a number of ways to "read" a narrative (gender, race, historical, and psychological).
And the way readers read an older text changes over the course of time to reflect the changes to society.
MadgeUK wrote: "The Part 2 discussion starts tomorrow but there has been very little discussion of Part l, perhaps because the other threads are distracting folks: 'There were many marks of footsteps upon the w..."
True! We haven't looked at the actual case itself. Since I've read both parts, I've been holding back on it until we have the solution in Part II, but that's probably not a good idea.
The passages on the actual murder that stood out to me was the way Sherlock read the evidence, and as you said, how shoddy the police work was on the scene.
It struck me that the scene seemed a bit staged on the murderer's part. RACHE on the wall, Drebber's body on the table with the gruesome features, the fact that he was poisoned. Obviously, someone making a point.
In the scene where Strangerson is poisoned, Sherlock claims that figuring out the case was easy because of the unique details. "This murder would have been infinitely more difficult to unravel had the body of the victim been simply found lying in the roadway without any o f those outre and sensational accompaniments which have rendered it remarkable. These strange details, far from making the case more difficult, have really had the effect of making it less so."
MadgeUK wrote: "The Part 2 discussion starts tomorrow but there has been very little discussion of Part l, perhaps because the other threads are distracting folks:" I wonder if we're not spreading ourselves too thin. There's not much of an audience for the "fanfic" and clips of old TV shows here. Lynn appears to be the primary contributor ;-) but she's enjoying herself.
Rochelle wrote: "I wonder if we're not spreading ourselves too thin. There's not much of an audience for the "fanfic" and clips of old TV shows here. Lynn appears to be the primary contributor ;-) but she's enjoying herself. "I am enjoying myself. But if others aren't interested, then I will be glad to shut down the other threads, and focus only on the novel itself.
I like to go beyond the text, and was blessed in grad school to have professors that not only went beyond the text themselves and the main themes, but pushed students to do so as well, to look at the texts from different perspectives.
Fan fiction and film/tv have long been a study for scholars, and is to me fascinating. I've done it for years and years with Jane Austen's texts.
And for Sherlock, I think people are only getting a small percentage of the body of work by only focusing on the narratives themselves. But that's my personal humble opinion, and again, will definitely will stop posting in those threads if people aren't interested.
I'll continue on my own because again, I really am fascinated with films and fan fiction. But again, won't post the information if it is too distracting or I'm the only one enjoying myself on those threads.
I wonder if we're not spreading ourselves too thin.I think so. There seems to be little interest in discussing the novel which is, in fact, part of our read this month.
I think people are only getting a small percentage of the body of work by only focusing on the narratives themselves......Fan fiction and film/tv have long been a study for scholars
But we are primarily a reading club and focussing on narratives is what we came here to do. If we wanted to focus on films and/or TV we would surely have joined film/TV clubs? Looking around the narrative in greater scholarly depth is one thing, giving film/TV more emphasis and importance than what an author wrote is another. It is also much easier to watch TV and films than it is to read a book, particularly one from another era, but reading these sometimes difficult books together is what the RR club is (was?) all about.
Lynnm wrote: "I like to go beyond the text, and was blessed in grad school to have professors that not only went beyond the text themselves and the main themes, but pushed students to do so as well, to look at the texts from different perspectives. ..."Might be a generation gap thing. I like going beyond the text, but I have little or no experience with some of the modern offshoots you noted. I wouldn't say to stop if you get enough folks interested in those.
Might be:). Professors of Eng Lit here do not conflate TV, film and literature though and students would be marked down if they critiqued a book on the basis of a TV series or film unless they were specifically asked to make a comparison.
MadgeUK wrote: "Might be:). Professors of Eng Lit here do not conflate TV, film and literature though and students would be marked down if they critiqued a book on the basis of a TV series or film unless they wer..."Dunno. College has changed a lot since you and I were in school. Anyway, Lynn is the "professor" here, and can mix in what she wants. I was just noting that there wasn't a large response at that thread.
I was noting the experience of what my grand-daughter did in EngLit a couple of years back.Anyway, Lynn is the "professor" here, and can mix in what she wants
Yes and No, it is still the Readers Review Bookclub. There are few enough places today where we can discuss books whereas I hear TV and films being discussed all around me every day.
It has occurred to me that SH's lack of emotions and lack of understanding other people's emotions might be what we call Asberger's Syndrome today.
Madge - I'm doing the best I can. I know you aren't happy with the selection or the way I'm moderating this, but really, I'm just trying out some different ideas. If it works, fine; it not, that's fine too, we'll move into another direction. I'm not a "professor" here. Just someone who found a new author that I really like, and who loves the film and fan fiction that goes with it. If I'm being too dominate in the discussions, it's just because I'm excited about the discussions and didn't realize that I was doing so - but I'll be glad to back off. And whatever way the majority here want the discussion to go, I'm all for it.Rochelle - they same point has been brought up in connection with the BBC Sherlock character. I don't know enough about Asberger's to say one way or another, but it's an interesting theory. BBC Sherlock explains Sherlock's lack of emotions and inability to interact with others by calling Sherlock a "highly functioning sociopath." It's definitely something that has captured people's attention, because we see this same idea in other characters.
I'm doing the best I can. I know you aren't happy with the selection or the way I'm moderating this...You are doing fine Lynn and I am doing the best I can to deal with the book selected and to comment upon it. But like Rochelle, I think things are being spread a bit thin over various TV and film productions and there is little here about the narrative. If others disagree, fine - I am only one voice and, as Rochelle has noted, from a different generation.
In the States, at any rate, it is a holiday week. I'm at my sister's farm and have had only limited access to the internet. I've finished the story, but don't expect I'll be able to contribute very much until next week. I don't mind the multiple threads and am looking forward to exploring them when I have a few more moments of online time.
Lynnm wrote: "Rochelle - they same point has been brought up in connection with the BBC Sherlock character. I don't know enough about Asberger's to say one way or another,... "Asberger's (and this will probably not help you) is defined as high-functioning autism. :-)
Rochelle wrote: "It has occurred to me that SH's lack of emotions and lack of understanding other people's emotions might be what we call Asberger's Syndrome today."You certainly have a point there. I don't think it's a coincidence that Sherlock Holmes is Christopher Boone's role model. For those of you who don't know, he is Mark Haddon's autistic teenage protagonist from 'The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time' - the title itself directly refers to a remark made by SH in 'Silver Blaze'.
I personally enjoy discussing both the narrative and all the interesting topics that surface while dealing with it :)
I have enjoyed Lynn's energy and enthusiasm too, lest it be thought otherwise. Thankyou for all your efforts here Lynn. My comments were by no means a criticism of your efforts, which I appreciate.(Surely stating a preference for books over TV or film in a bookclub is not sneering?)
I'm looking forward to discussing Part 2 (a surprising twist), because these two very different story-types illustrate Doyle's excellent writing. I started Doyle's The Lost World months ago but haven't picked it up since then because of overbooking (literally! :)... this reminds me how much I enjoy this author, and I will return to his scifi soon (after our adventures with SH). I'm enjoying the narration and Doyle's writing in A Study in Scarlet as much as, if not more than, the story and detecting. Since I don't remember enjoying his writing style as much in the other stories I've read (years ago), I'm curious now if Doyle's diminishing interest in the series affected his writing.
I have a brilliant son who has Aspergers and I definitely saw many of the same traits in Holmes. Holmes is totally absorbed in learning everything in certain areas to the exclusion of others. He is consumed with details and what I call trivia. My son is called 'The Professor' and, if there is any questions about science or math, he is asked. However, no one who knows him would expect him to read faces, show empathy or expect him to understand another's emotions. I don't think anyone who reads much of SH expects him to be sympathetic to human suffering.
Incidentally, in the USA, there are many literature courses that incorporate film and TV. One of the most interesting was a course at NYU on E. M. Forster. One week we read one of his books and the following week we saw the film version of the book. We always read the book first, and discussed it, BEFORE seeing the film. Studying literature this way enhances both the reading and viewing experiences.
As the inventors of cinema and home of Hollywood films, I think perhaps it is more integrated into your culture than ours. We are more likely to go to the theatre when studying EngLit than to the cinema, although I have no doubt that there are some courses which include it. My grandchildren have been taken to the theatre as part of their English lessons (just as I was) but not to the cinema.
BunWat - thanks so much for your kind words. And I'm glad to see you here. I enjoy reading your posts; you have tremendous insight into the narratives.Madge - not to worry - I completely understand your concerns. I think you've been a great sport, reading a series of novels/short stories that you aren't interested in, joining in the discussion, doing research, etc.
And a lot of educators are on Madge's side about not mixing the texts with the visuals. Personally, I think it is good in some cases; others, it isn't relevant.
But as Emily just posted, there are a lot of lit classes in the U.S. that use both film and TV, and mentioned a course at NYU. I also went to grad school in NYC and my professors were very open to using film to enhance their classes. I would say it is a NY thing, but I teach in CT, and many teachers here use both as well. But as Emily said, text first, film second!!!
And we are keeping with tradition in "arguing" these types of questions. Socrates disliked immensely the introduction of written text, claiming that an oral transmission of ideas was the best. Plato said that Socrates was wrong - written text had many benefits over oral text. Fast forward, we've had the arguments between text and visuals, and now, arguments over the role of the digital world.
The SH stories were written first so Madge is right, we should focus on them more. But SH is very much pop culture, and immediately came the SH plays, then the SH silent film, then SH talking films, now SH on televison, now SH on video/art on the internet.
To me - it's all good.... :-)
BunWat wrote: "Looking at Sherlock, does he read social cues well and just not care about the feelings of others(sociopath) or does he read them badly and would be caring if he had any notion that caring was in order(asperger)? I can see evidence for both. "BunWat and Emily - thanks for all the information on Aspergers. And BunWat- sociopathy as well.
And I can see SH both ways as well. And a third way - we discussed earlier the SH we've met in A Study in Scarlet - while certainly not warm and fuzzy - is a far cry from the cold representations of Sherlock in many films. He's a very blunt person who just can't be bothered with anything except his work solving cases.
I think as we read more books, his character should become clearer.
Janice George wrote: "I'm looking forward to discussing Part 2 (a surprising twist), because these two very different story-types illustrate Doyle's excellent writing. I started Doyle's The Lost World months ago but h..."I definitely have Doyle's scifi on my "to read" list as well.
And good question about whether Doyle's lack of interest in the SH stories will affect his writing. We'll have to keep that in mind as we move forward.
There has been a lot of research into Aspergers and Autism in recent years and I suspect that modern film/TV interpretations use that research as an aid to portraying SH's character whereas in the old films they just made him somewhat detached.
I'm late to the (for me) overnight discussion and want to add my voice in support of your enthusiasm, Lynn, and the concept of going outside the text. I agree that examining a text from different points of view, including film and television adaptations and fan fiction, can lead to a deeper understanding of and appreciation for the text itself. Madge, I suspect that even in the UK, consideration of the text through the medium of film and television is now not at all unusual. My daugher's former flatmate has a degree in English literature from Manchester University (coincidentally she was in the same year as Benedict Cumberbatch and was in student theatre productions with him) and I understand from her that looking at both the text and adaptations of the text was standard.
I am new to this group, and I am enjoying the way LynnM is moderating the group read. No need to change anything in my opinion. Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson have become pop culture icons. To me, it is fascinating to study how they have transcended the Doyle stories and how their portrayal has evolved through the years.Personally, I haven't commented on the actual mystery itself because we haven't read part 2 yet. I didn't want to put in any spoilers.
Now, on to A Study in Scarlet. I agree that Holmes is not nearly as antisocial in "Scarlet" as he is portrayed in the film and TV adaptions, especially the BBC Sherlock. However, when he wants to solve a case he can be pretty cold-blooded.
I know the Victorians weren't as touchy-feely about animals as we are today, but every time I read about Holmes poisoning the terrier I cringe. The poor animal was sick and he doesn't seem to suffer, but Holmes disappointment when he doesn't die and his relief after the second pill worked illustrate how focused he could be on a case. He was concerned about being proved right whatever the cost.
To me, that's a little scary. It certainly leads me to question how far Holmes will actually go to solve a case so he can be perceived by everyone around him as a master of deduction. This subject is wonderfully dealt with in the recent BBC adaption.
The last chapter in Part 1 also illustrates that Holmes can be a master of melodrama as well as a master of deduction.Watson often remarks that Holmes would have made a fabulous actor and the arrest of Jefferson Hope is a good example of Holmes picking the most dramatic way possible to solve a case.
There must have been easier ways to arrest Jefferson Hope (i.e. just let the boys at Scotland Yard do their job) but Holmes can't resist the urge to slap the handcuffs on Hope himself. The resulting window-smashing brawl is unintentionally hilarious.
MadgeUK wrote: "The Part 2 discussion starts tomorrow but there has been very little discussion of Part l, perhaps because the other threads are distracting folks: 'There were many marks of footsteps upon the w..."
Very perceptive post, MadgeUK. In some ways, Doyle had very typical middle-class Victorian attitudes, including a sense of British superiority, which flows over into his treatment of German characters. There is hardly a "good German" to be found in the stories.
A commentary I have points out another alleged blind spot. The Scot Doyle gave Holmes' arch-nemesis the very Irish name of Moriarty. I don't know whether the Irish name was deliberate or subsconscious slip.
I know the Victorians weren't as touchy-feely about animals as we are today...The Victorians generally believed in the Genesis led idea of man's dominion over animals and in their own superiority but in 1824 twnety-two men got together to form the first animal welfare charity, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, later to become a Royal society (RSPCA) under the patronage of Queen Victoria. 'When the SPCA was first set up its primary focus was to investigate animal welfare at markets, knackers yards (where horses that were unfit for work were killed and their meat and bones used) and the welfare of the pit ponies that were used in coal mines. Animals in entertainment were also in need of charity and the SPCA did all they could to make dog pits – in which dogs fought each other to the death whilst onlookers made bets and watched – illegal, as well as other blood sports such as bear-baiting and bull-baiting. An Act of Parliament was passed but ignorance of it caused Richard Martin MP to take matters into his own hands, and he prosecuted Bill Burns, a costermonger, for cruel treatment of his donkey. But this was not all; Richard Martin knew that the magistrates would not convict Bill Burns, and so sent for the donkey to be brought to court. Incredibly, his request was allowed and Bill Burns’ donkey was brought in to the astonishment of the magistrates who observed the wounds and injuries on the animal.' Richard Martin’s ‘stunt’ was a success – not only was Bill Burns fined, but the case garnered a lot of publicity in the press and engendered a painting:-
http://theedwardians.blogspot.co.uk/2....
The first Vegetarian Society, formed in 1847, also arose out of Victorian sensibilities about the welfare of animals, as did the National Anti Vivisection Society formed in 1870 and as a result of all this lobbying on behalf of animals a wide ranging Cruelty to Animals Act was passed in 1876.
As Study in Scarlet was published in 1887 we might have expected Conan Doyle to have shown more sensitivity in SH's treatment of the terrier dog, which was probably unlawful under the terms of the 1876 Act. Perhaps this attitude is something we will see change in future books.
Trivia: One of the founders of the SPCA, Lewis Gompertz, was an eccentric man. He was an inventor and always maintained that he would do nothing in his life to cause suffering to animals. This belief was such that not only was he a vegetarian, but also refused to ride in coaches because he believed that pulling coaches and carts caused suffering to horses and donkeys. 'To alleviate the need for such quadruped power for transport, in 1821 he came up with his most notable design; a hand-crank to be applied to a small cart which the driver used to propel his vehicle, thus removing the requirement for a horse or donkey to pull it. He applied the hand-crank design to Baron von Drais’ bicycle design, and came up with the vehicle below':-http://www.fotosearch.com/IST502/1151...
MadgeUK wrote: "He applied the hand-crank design to Baron von Drais’ bicycle design, and came up with the vehicle below':-"
I don't see any pedals.
No, it is hand cranked (for cranks:))
Amanda wrote: "A commentary I have points out another alleged blind spot. The Scot Doyle gave Holmes' arch-nemesis the very Irish name of Moriarty. I don't know whether the Irish name was deliberate or subsconscious slip. "Now that's interesting! Maybe some day we can discuss Doyle's views on other nationalities (e.g. Americans, Germans ...). His writings can surely give us hints, be they obvious or subtle.
As you suggest, Amanda, perhaps he wasn't even aware of his biased portrayals of certain characters ... So that would be quite an interesting starting point for a discussion. Not here and now, necessarily.
Conan Doyle was very patriotic and had some pretty prejudiced views about the Boers at the beginning of the Boer War (where he served as a doctor) and about the Germans at the beginning of WWI. He wrote recruiting pamphlets for both wars, for which he was knighted (not for his literary achievements). However, he revised his views later and helped to found a pacifist movement during WWI.
Mod
'There were many marks of footsteps upon the w..."
Thanks Madge. I didn't pick up the sexual innuendo.
Mod
Unless you live in California where film is king and reading is looked down upon.
Mod
It makes me sad BunWat to hear that you are considering leaving the group. I always learn so much from your posts and really enjoy them. I, for one, would miss you terribly. I have a simple Bachelor's Degree in business and never got to explore my love of literature until now. I learn so much from all of you, and know that my experience would be diminished by any of your abscences.
Mod
You certainly have a point the..."
If you have heard of John Elder Robson (brother to Augusten Burroughs), he and his son both has Asp. Syndrome. He has written two books about it (and lives 4 houses away from me ;-) )
Jo wrote: "Now that's interesting! Maybe some day we can discuss Doyle's views on other nationalities (e.g. Americans, Germans ...). His writings can surely give us hints, be they obvious or subtle. We are definitely going to discuss that when we read The Valley of Fear with regard to Americans. If we had read The Sign of Four, we could have discussed his depiction of people from India...maybe we can sneak it in when we discuss his portrayals of Americans during The Valley of Fear weeks.
MadgeUK wrote: "I know the Victorians weren't as touchy-feely about animals as we are today...The Victorians generally believed in the Genesis led idea of man's dominion over animals and in their own superiority..."
Thanks for the information.
The mid to late 1800s were a wonderful time for the beginnings of many societies that helped people and animals in need, as attitudes changed.
You and I had talked about The Children's Book by A.S. Byatt, and she outlines some of the societies in her books, although she focused primarily on political and philosophical societies.
Mod
It reminds me of those carts with the bar that two people used to push down on the bar to propel the cart along the railroad line.
Amanda wrote: "There must have been easier ways to arrest Jefferson Hope (i.e. just let the boys at Scotland Yard do their job) but Holmes can't resist the urge to slap the handcuffs on Hope himself. The resulting window-smashing brawl is unintentionally hilarious."That was a great scene - one of the few times we see Sherlock get a bit physical - at least in this story.
One thing that we haven't talked about are the Street Arabs. They play a role in many of the Sherlock tales."“During the first week or so we had no callers, and I had begun to think that my companion was as friendless a man as I was myself. Presently, however, I found that he had many acquaintances, and those in the most different classes of society.”
Aside from the fact that I have a bit of a problem with them being called Street Arabs, I like that Holmes uses people who lack a voice to help him. It shows his lack of respect for the abilities of people in authority because he doesn't think that most of the people with the power have much intelligence.
It's a rather powerful statement by Doyle that seems to go unnoticed.
'Arab' was a common expression for naughty children when I was young. My father often called me a 'little Arab'! It was part of the prejudice against dark skinned people of course, who were always deemed to be dirty - although my father was not at all racist, he just used a Victorian expression. Incidentally, some English people put the emphasis on the first
a
.Doyle's use of a child street gang rather reminded me of Dickens' Oliver Twist and Fagin's gang.
MadgeUK wrote: "'Arab' was a common expression for naughty children when I was young. My father often called me a 'little Arab'! It was part of the prejudice against dark skinned people of course, who were always..."Thanks for that information.
Many of the expressions that we think of as politically incorrect today were entirely acceptable in the past.
And the child street gang reminds me of Dickens as well. :-)
When I first read this in the story I had a sort of aha! moment when the character of Holmes fell into place for me in a way I had never thought before.
I've known people like Holmes -- some of them are computer programmers, some are artists, some are scientists -- and all are geniuses of a particular sort. They are people who have been isolated and alienated all their lives because of their "differentness" which usually expressed itself in types of obsessive thinking, maybe a little OCD quirkiness, and almost always in unusual thinking patterns and behavior. Some loose definitions of autism might have been applied to their behavior in the past.
One of the behaviors these people all shared without exception was a blushing and childlike delight in being recognized and acknowledged as being bright and special. All of these people had the confidence and ego necessary to believe in themselves and their own gifts and talents -- and that ego can be a little hard to take, especially when it hasn't been properly socialized -- but none of them have had enough of the kind of affectionate approval from a respected source that Watson offers Holmes (which makes Holmes so childishly happy).
Imagine Holmes as a child... poor kid. Even at the very start of the story, Stamford tries to prepare Watson for Holmes's eccentric and difficult personality, and then washes his hands of the responsibility of introducing them. I can imagine ordinary people would not get along well with Holmes, partly because of his arrogance, partly because of his petulance (his complaining that nobody appreciates him), and partly because of his ability to make anyone look foolish whenever he wants (and he often does).
While I think that Holmes's analogy of the attic for his brain was probably genuine, I also agree that claiming not to know the earth travels around the sun was Holmes pulling Watson's leg... Holmes is a master of trickery, why not use some of this mastery to keep people off-guard, never letting them take him for granted or perhaps get too close.