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
Some quotes that I thought might be interesting to discuss:- Watson on Sherlock: “His ignorance was as remarkable as his knowledge.”
- Sherlock: “I consider that a man’s brain originally is like a little empty attic, and you have to stock it with such furniture as you choose. A fool takes in all the lumber of every sort that he comes across, so that the knowledge which might be useful to him gets crowded out, or at best is jumbled up with a lot of other things, so that he has a difficulty in laying his hands upon it. Now the skilful workman is very careful indeed as to what he takes into his brain-attic. He will have nothing but the tools which may help him in doing his work, but of these he has a large assortment, and all in the most perfect order. It is a mistake to think that that little room has elastic walls and can distend to any extent. Depend upon it there comes a time when for every addition of knowledge you forget something that you knew before. It is of the highest importance, therefore, not to have useless facts elbowing out the useful ones.”
- “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.”
- Sherlock: “There are no crimes and no criminals in these days…what is the use of having brains in our profession?”
- Sherlock: “I know well that I have it in me to make my name famous.”
- Sherlock: “It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence. It biases the judgment.”
- Watson on Sherlock: “As I watched him I was irresistibly reminded of a pure-blooded, well-trained foxhound, as it dashes backward and forward through the covert, whining in its eagerness, until it comes across the lost scent.”
- Watson on Sherlock: “Sherlock Holmes’ smallest actions were all directed towards some definite and practical end.”
- Sherlock: “They say that genius is an infinite capacity for taking pains. It’s a very bad definition, but it does apply to detective work.”
- Sherlock: “There is no mystery about it at all. I am simply applying to ordinary life a few of those precepts of observation and deduction which I advocated in that article.”
- Watson: “You have brought detection to as near an exact science as it ever will be brought in this world.”
- 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 as any girl could be of her beauty.”
- Sherlock: “One’s nature must be as broad as Nature if they are to interpret Nature.”
- Sherlock: “There is a mystery about this which stimulates the imagination; where there is no imagination there is no horror.”
Off we go! I'm going to pick a random quote to start with:
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 as any girl could be of her beauty.”
I think that's just another proof of Sherlock's not being as cold-blooded as people generally believe him to be. Irrespective of his extraordinary genius, there's something utterly normal and human about him: the way he chuckles when he is about to talk about details/clues which others obviously missed. As you suggested, Lynnm, his excitement is childlike – that's the character trait that probably makes me sympathise with him the most. I may come up with more examples later ...
Jo wrote: "Off we go! I'm going to pick a random quote to start with:
Watson: “My companion flushed with pleasure at my words [of praise], and the earnest way in which I uttered them. I had already observed..."
Jo - I'm glad you are the first to post. You were the first one who contacted me about the read. And I always like what you said about it, that a discussion on SH would be an event. :-)
And I agree on your comments that it is a good example of Sherlock's kinder side.
It could be argued that it does show a bit of egotism as well. But who doesn't want to be praised now and again when they know they've done something well or have a particular gift?
The first thing I noticed about Holmes is his confidence in his abilities. He makes a quick decision as to the basic facts of the case. At the beginning of Chapter 4, he states: "as a matter of fact, my mind is entirely made up upon the case, but still we may well learn all that is to be learned." However, doesn't this statement contradict one of his tenets that "It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence. It biases the judgment?” He certainly seems to theorize before he has all the evidence. Does he think this philosophy is applicable to others, but not to him?
Lynnm, I was indeed very eager to start discussing the novels and stories (not to mention the series). My current obsession with SH is rather childish, I guess - not at all childlike, nota bene :)Emily, you're right, that seems quite contradictory, doesn't it? It's something I've never given much thought.
When he says "We may well learn all that is to be learned", he sounds somewhat indifferent and nonchalant ... As if he already knew that any piece of evidence that comes to light would eventually corroborate his theory anyway. He's just so incredibly self-assured ... but with good reason.
Well, so far it looks like he messed up a little with the old woman who came for the ring. Guess I'll have to wait to see if it is a mistake.
Emily - it does seem like a contradiction. Good catch! But it almost seems like part of the Doyle formula - as we get to other stories, Sherlock seems to have a lot of it figured out quickly, but he won't say exactly what the solution is because he says that he is waiting for more details to confirm his theories. Sometimes he is wrong, but mostly seems right.
Jo wrote: "Lynnm, I was indeed very eager to start discussing the novels and stories (not to mention the series). My current obsession with SH is rather childish, I guess - not at all childlike, nota bene :)..."
Not at all. A great book (and film) should capture the reader's/viewer's imagination. Doyle is able to do that (and Moffat as well).
It's all part of the conversation between the author and his/her reader.
I was surprised to learn that the Victorians had sticking plaster for small wounds: ['I have to be careful...for I dabble with poisons a good deal'] '...remarked Sherlock Holmes, sticking a small piece of plaster over the prick on his finger...He held out his hand as he spoke, and I noticed that it was all mottled over with similar pieces of plaster...'Band-Aid is/was advertised as the first adhesive sticking plaster but this was only patented in the 1920s so I wonder what type of plaster the Victorians used?
In Chapter 1 Dr Watson uses the pseudo-science of Physiognomy to determine Holmes' character:-'His chin, too, had the prominence and squareness which mark the man o f determination.'
http://face-and-emotion.com/dataface/...
Both Physiognomy and Phrenology are used by SH to make his 'deductions' - they were popular pseudo sciences in Victorian times:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phr...
This article shows some of the contemporary ideas about phrenology, as outlined by Gall and others, which Conan Doyle was probably using (with a nice animated photo of 'reading' the skull, if you want to try it!):-
http://www.historyofphrenology.org.uk...
http://www.historyofphrenology.org.uk...
Some racist ideas were promulgated by using phrenology, for instance:
'...the well-developed forehead of civilized man was the stamp of intellectuality, as compared to the sloping forehead of his early ancestors. Conversely, overdevelopment at the base of the skull was the mark of primitive man, indicative of unrestrained instinct. A high, large head showed a greater capacity for sentiments than a low, brain-cramping skull'. (Gibson 1964.)
'The skull of the male is larger than the female. The skulls of different races and nationalities differ widely in form, and these differences are found to correspond with the known differences of racial and national character, such as the Italians gaining recognition as lovers and the British for their calmness. In the Caucasian, the forehead is prominent and high, the coronal region is elevated and the back-head (back of head) is moderately projected. The facial angle is approximately 80 degrees. The special organs in which the Caucasian brain most excels are Mirthfulness, Ideality, and Conscientiousness (Leek, 1970.)
I like the flippancy that Holmes applies to "learning." I enjoy that he pushes knowledge of some things out, or disregards them altogether. Yet, I've always taken a bit of an issue with this. In later works he pushes forward great scientific discoveries to help with his detective work- something he could not do without a very sound knowledge in physics, chemistry, or biology. Perhaps Doyle had not expected to expand the character so greatly later on? Still, even if its hard to explain, it makes Holmes' more eccentic.... and everyone loves a good eccentric genius.And Madge thank you for the phrenology links. I absolutely love phrenology as an old literary tool. Its a pseudo-science (I feel like calling it that is giving it too much credit), but it was so frequently used in works of this era. Its just one of those things I get a kick out of.
I think one of the most fascinating things about Sherlock Holmes is just how much the character has evolved indepedently of Doyle over the last century. Its like the first time I read Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, for how much I *thought* I knew from all the different renditions of it (from Bugs Bunny to theater) I was shocked at how short it was. It felt like a premise more than a story, but it was one the media took and ran with making it slightly different with each generation.
And thats the thing, Sherlock is different with each generation. Here he is, he may be eccentric, and he may be arrogant, but he still seems quite prim and proper when push comes to shove. Now, I've not seen any of the old black and white BBC productions of Sherlock, but I might have to go watch them to compare with the modern tv show.
... but it was so frequently used in works of this era.Glad you liked the links. It is one of the things which, as you say, we come across a lot when reading novels of this period and I have posted such links before but folks won't keep them on file so they are probably worth repeating.
MadgeUK wrote: "In Chapter 1 Dr Watson uses the pseudo-science of Physiognomy to determine Holmes' character:-'His chin, too, had the prominence and squareness which mark the man o f determination.'
http://face..."
Madge, thanks for the links. As Becky said, it is really interesting to see in texts from the 1800s.
But as you said, it is used for racist purposes. And sexist purposes as well. Sadly, many of these ideas didn't disappear until the 1960s. And I can even remember articles later than that about how women aren't as smart as men because their brains are smaller.
Becky wrote: "I like the flippancy that Holmes applies to "learning." I enjoy that he pushes knowledge of some things out, or disregards them altogether. Yet, I've always taken a bit of an issue with this. In la..."That's one of the passages that stood out to me as well. Sherlock knows nothing about literature, philosophy, etc., but has a great deal of knowledge about chemistry, poisons, soils, etc.
And got a kick out the fact that he doesn't know that the earth revolves around the sun.
He claims that he has to be careful about what he puts in his brain, and that is an argument that is relevant today. The brain can only hold so much and can only concentrate on only one task at a time. Today, we are bombarded with all sorts of information from every direction, but we aren't able to think in-depth about most of them. A lot of scientists today are claiming that are thinking is becoming shallow. We know something about everything, but we're not master of anything.
On the other hand, however, when we only focus on one specific skill set, we miss out on all those wonderful ideas and events that can help us understand the world as a whole.
I teach, and we have this argument all the time. Should students in college have a broad humanities/liberal arts education in addition to the skills they need for work, or do we teach to the skills and only teach some humanities/liberal arts.
Personally, I like a broader education. We don't spend all our time at work, and we need to understand the world around us. So, we need history, literature, philosophy, etc.
And those can also help in solving a case. History teaches what is behind human behavior/action, and literature teaches us to understand human thought. Both are necessary to a detective: understanding the person behind the crime.
Here's the scene from the BBC Sherlock on Sherlock's lack of knowledge about the solar system. I like that Moffat updates the analogy from the mind as an empty attic to the mind as a hard drive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cj9Hua...
Sherlock has a point - we do fill our heads with a lot of rubbish. But while I might not need to know about the solar system, I still think that it is information we should know! :-)
Yes, I think the mind can get overloaded. When I first went out to work my head was very cluttered with telephone numbers because there was nowhere else to store them except writing them down. Now we can store them everywhere I don't remember any - not even my own!!How Sherlock/Doyle would have loved computers! And the progress which forensic science has made. Imagine him tackling a 'cold case'!
Mod
'His chin, too, had the prominence and squareness which mark the man o f determinatio..."
You know I had to address this one. They've done studies that show women have many more cross-brain connections than men do and tend to use both sides of the brain for any task where men use right side only for right sided functionality. Therefore, ours don't have to be bigger to be better ;-)
Mod
The other thing that really jumped out at me was the limiting of knowledge that Sherlock uses. We get exposed to more information in about an hour than most people in 1900 did in their life times. No wonder we're stressed and overwhelmed along with constantly feeling we need to catch up. Like Lynn, I think a broad education is best in developing a well-rounded person, but there has to be a bunch of junk out there that we're still dealing with that we don't need.
While technology brings so much of this too us, it's also amazing that we could have all the research found in the research links at our fingertips no matter where or who we are.
Mod
Deborah wrote: "A few things came to mind while reading Part I. I've been a Sherlock fan it seems forever. I've seen the Jeremy Brett, Basil Rathbone, the current PBS series, and some other oldies. From all of ..."Deborah, I'm feeling the same way. How is it that every single Sherlock tv/film series has a Sherlock who so insulting at times when in the novels, he's not warm and fuzzy, but he's far nicer to Watson and others than the screen adaptations. Maybe that will change as we move along the canon?
And yes, there is a lot of junk out there. I try not to get involved in the junk, but there is so much of it, you can't get away from it sometimes.
And even the non-junk is overwhelming. I love film, and with Netflix, literally, I could watch quality film/tv episode, one after another, and still have tons that I would like to watch. Too much. No wonder everyone is stressed out.
What stands out for me the most is Sherlock's view on knowledge. I liked how he described the brain as an empty attic that should be stocked with the furniture you choose. Our brains are definitely overcrowded with too much knowledge and it's impossible to retain it all. But, I do think it's important to learn about things even if they aren't relevant to your chosen profession or your main interests. I wonder if his knowledge of the violin will prove useful later on in the story? It seems to be the only skill he has that isn't related to his work.Sherlock has quite an ego, but he is likeable and very talented. I wouldn't call him cold-blooded, he's just focused on his job.
I suspect that what you are calling rude and insulting is just bluntness. Conan Doyle was a Scot and like most Scots and north country people (me!) he would probably 'call a spade a spade' and be 'blunt' in his conversation. Or as the Free Online Dictionary puts it 'Abrupt and often disconcertingly frank in speech'.
Deborah wrote: "We get exposed to more information in about an hour than most people in 1900 did in their life times. No wonder we're stressed and overwhelmed along with constantly feeling we need to catch up."As you say, we get exposed to so much information, in the course of time it's going to be increasingly difficult to separate the relevant from the irrelevant. So - would 19th century/early 20th century Sherlock have liked the idea of (almost) unlimited access to all kinds of information? I doubt it. I love how he always has some almanac or encyclopedia near at hand, providing him with the input just necessary for solving a case.
Kate wrote: "I'm reading the old annotated version of Sherlock Holmes, and they do point out some mistakes that Doyle made (for example, Holmes' discovery about blood when he first meets Watson is not actually correct), "I need to find the annotated version - a couple posters are using it, and it sounds interesting.
Doyle does make a lot of mistakes. He didn't edit - or obviously research - much.
There are quite of few fans who have catalogued all the mistakes. We don't have to go that far, but it is nice to note them when we find them.
Leanne wrote: "I wonder if his knowledge of the violin will prove useful later on in the story?"Not so far, but he does mention music in the story. I put the quote in the BBC Sherlock series thread:
"Do you remember what Darwin says about music? He claims that the power of producing and appreciating it existed among the human race long before the power of speech was arrived at. Perhaps that is why we are so subtly influenced by it.”
Sherlock is very aware of his emotional state. I wonder if music helps to calm him or helps him to gather his thoughts.
MadgeUK wrote: "I suspect that what you are calling rude and insulting is just bluntness. Conan Doyle was a Scot and like most Scots and north country people (me!) he would probably 'call a spade a spade' and be '..."Could be. :-) Although it plays to his character quite well. So focused on the case that he doesn't have time for people's feelings.
Or he thinks that folks shouldn't be so touchy in the first place:) My father would say 'stop pussyfooting around'!
Regarding Lynnm's discussion questions 1 and 2 above, reading "A Study in Scarlet" is quite a revelation for me!
Mod
I bought my annotated version (which I haven't been using) at Barnes and Noble.
Mod
"It was one of four which stood back some little way from the street, two being occupied and two empty. The latter looked out with three tiers of vacant melancholy windows, which were blank and dreary, save that here and there a "To Let" card had developed like a cataract upon the bleared panes. A small garden sprinkled over with a scattered eruption of sickly plants separated each of these houses from the street, and was traversed by a narrow pathway, yellowish in coulour, and consisting apparently of a mixture of clay and gravel." (chapter 3)
It is amazing how still the area feels to me with this description, yet violence is captured through the eruption of plants. Evil captured through the growth of the sign in the window which clouds the windows, the sickly plants, and the strange color of the pathway. Pretty evocative.
Good catch Deborah! I like the descriptive passages much more than the story or the deductions:)
I've checked my local libraries and the college's library, and no one has the annotated Sherlock. Bummer.
I just went to my library to see if I could find a couple of stories that I was missing. Guess what I found? The two volume annotated Sherlock. It is wonderful, but will make the readings much longer if I read all the notes.My son opens up a volume and comes across a note that Doyle was incorrect in stating the moon rose around 9:00 in the evening. It actually rose at 5:15 on that day. It treats the Holmes's stories as documented events that actually occurred.
Deborah wrote: "We haven't talked much about the atmosphere that Doyle creates. Here's one of my favorite quotes re atmosphere:"It was one of four which stood back some little way from the street, two being occ..."
I love that passage. It does set the scene; as you said, the reader knows that the murder scene is going to be particularly gruesome. From what I've read, Doyle is good at creating atmosphere in the text.
But Doyle balances it with some humor - Sherlock's interaction with the bungling police officers.
To go off from that to a discussion on description in the novel, what role do the descriptions of London play in the novel? The usual - the fog and the rain. But also, I think of Sherlock as being very much a creature of London. The crime of a big city. The young Street Arabs - they almost seem like something out of Dickens. Sherlock as a bit cold, a character trait that works better in a character from the city rather than the country, etc.
Although I don't see London as a character. I think of something like Paul Auster's New York trilogy (City of Glass, etc.) where the city has a persona. (A fun example, Sex and the City where NYC also has a persona - the City as a close beloved friend.) Of course, that is a bit postmodernist.
Jessie wrote: "Regarding Lynnm's discussion questions 1 and 2 above, reading "A Study in Scarlet" is quite a revelation for me!"Yes, there was more to the novel than I thought I would find going into it. After watching the BBC Sherlock, I knew there would be some in-depth ideas in Doyle's novel, but I was pleasantly surprised at just how many there actually are in the text.
Hello all, I'm Amanda from Ohio, a first-time poster who is enjoying all your comments on Sherlock Holmes.
I just wanted to comment on Holmes' self-professed limitations of knowledge. I think he was teasing Watson to some extent, especially his comment about not knowing or caring whether the earth revolved around the sun. According to a Sherlock Holmes commentary I have Holmes was "pulling Watson's leg" and in later stories he showed a fairly advanced knowledge of some of the subjects he claimed to have little or on knowledge of, including astronomy, botany and politics.
I'm sure the ever-perceptive Holmes quickly realized that Watson could be a little gullible.
Happy Fourth to all!
Yes, the 'pulling of legs', or teasing, is a very north country trait:)
Hello Amanda!That is really interesting. I hadn't read that before, but it makes sense. I've been going ahead with the readings, and not giving any spoilers by saying that I've noticed that Sherlock has knowledge in many areas. Or knows where to find the information he needs, which is just as important.
And yes, happy 4th of July to all the Americans on the forum!
Watson compares Sherlock to Poe's Dupin at the beginning of the book but SH retorts 'Now in my opinion Dupin was a very inferior fellow...' etc. Gaboriau's Lecoq is also mentioned. My Introduction says that Dupin had been one of Doyles heroes since boyhood and that he also admired the 'neat dovetailing' of the plots in Gaboriau's novels.Although Poe is credited with the creation of the first detective, it has been said that the stories lack 'real drama, tension and characterisation' Dupin has been called 'a cipher, not a fully rounded character, and his companion is featureless...These tales intrigue the mind but do not engage the emotions or generate strong enthusiasms in the way Sherlock Holmes was destined to do. In essence it is Conan Doyle who is the real begetter of detective fiction as we know it.'
Is this a very English p.o.v.?
Mod
I don't think it's a very English p.o.v. I just read Murder in the Rue Morgue yesterday. While there are a lot of similarities between Dupin and Sherlock, I felt like I was reading a case study of something with the way it was written. It almost felt to me like Poe took the easy way and did flesh out the characters as he should have. I've always enjoyed Poe, but in reading Doyle then Poe, I'm finding Doyle a much better writer. So, this American completely agrees with the English p.o.v. ;-)
MadgeUK wrote: "Watson compares Sherlock to Poe's Dupin at the beginning of the book but SH retorts 'Now in my opinion Dupin was a very inferior fellow...' etc. Gaboriau's Lecoq is also mentioned. My Introduction..."Not especially an English attitude. SH is still being read, interpreted, analyzed and filmed, with hundreds of fan groups all over the world. While Poe's Dupin...
BTW--you remarked at one of these threads that "pulling his leg" is a North Country thing. Not so; it's universal.
The phrase is an English one dating back to when thieves used wires to trip people up, making them stumble and look comical. Yes, it has been adopted universally but it is nevertheless a strong north country characteristic to frequently 'pull people's legs', to torment them. A characteristic which Doyle, a Scotsman may well have had. It is the opposite of today's 'bigging people up'.
It's been so long since I read The Purloined Letter that sadly I can't contribute to this discussion. I was hoping to be able to read The Murders in the Rue Morgue before we started, but alas, just didn't have time.
Mod
Lynnm wrote: "Deborah wrote: "We haven't talked much about the atmosphere that Doyle creates. Here's one of my favorite quotes re atmosphere:"It was one of four which stood back some little way from the stree..."
I enjoyed the descriptions too. I think Watson’s character and reactions also add to the creepy atmosphere. One of the initial discussion questions asked whether Watson’s reactions were a bit extreme consider his experience in Afghanistan ... and Watson himself notes this several times.
I suppose it’s obvious that he’s guiding the reader’s response, representing the readers’ perspective, but I think it’s worth noting how important Watson’s ‘frayed nerves’ are to creating the gruesome atmosphere through his reactions and ruminations:
"I lay down upon the sofa and endeavoured to get a couple of hours’ sleep. It was a useless attempt. My mind had been too much excited by all that had occurred, and the strangest fancies and surmises crowded into it. Every time I closed my eyes I saw before me the distorted, baboon-like countenance of the murdered man. So sinister was the impression which that face had produced upon me that I found it difficult to feel anything but gratitude for him who had removed its owner from the world ..."
When Watson explains that he’s spooked by this case, even though he’s seen worse violence in combat, Holmes remarks:
“I can understand. There is a mystery about this which stimulates the imagination; where there is no imagination there is no horror. Have you seen the evening paper?”
It’s a great line! One that sums up Watson’s role as an observer, and Doyle’s role as a writer ...
And then that line towards the end of Part 1, which certainly produces horror through imagination:
“ ... [I] was about to go downstairs again when I saw something that made me feel sickish, in spite of my twenty years’ experience. From under the door there curled a little red ribbon of blood, which had meandered across the passage and formed a little pool along the skirting of the other side.”
Mod
Enjoying all your insightful posts about the atmosphere created by Doyle's writing in A Study in Scarlet.I have always thought Doyle is a somewhat underrated writer. Not all of the Holmes' stories are created equal, but when he is at the top of his game -- as he is in this book -- he is an excellent prose stylist.
Watson's descriptions are written the way good journalism should be written. They are clear, direct and simple but they also provide such good description and atmosphere that readers feels like they are experiencing exactly what Watson is experiencing.
Watson's description of the crime scene (quoted by Valerie) is pretty darn good for a bored doctor who was writing these things for money while waiting for patients.
Deborah wrote: "I just finished Rue Morgue and put a long post out there in the Victorians club comparing Holmes and Dupin if that will help."Read your post this morning, Deborah - excellent post. After reading it, I now must read Rue Morque.
Valerie - excellent post. And I agree with Deborah that it sounds like PTSD. Of course, mental health issues due to combat weren't recognized until WWI. And then they said that the men's symptoms were much like female hysteria. Not sure when they began calling it PSTD and really taken seriously.Amanda - I agree that Watson's text is "the way good journalism s/b written." Watson's narrative is like gonzo reporting - an eyewitness account where the journalist is part of the story.
Mod
PTSD became recognized when the mental health world started to work with adult children of alcoholics. They learned enough from that to enable them to use their knowledge to help the Vietnam Vets to a certain extent.
- Our perceptions of the Sherlock Holmes character may be skewed due to the many film/television adaptations of the Doyle novels/short stories. Using only the novel as our guide, how might we characterize Sherlock’s true personality and temperament (i.e., his “cold-bloodedness,” his almost childlike excitement when involved in detective work, his emotional ups and downs, etc.).
- Sherlock is always considered to be a genius. Yet, he appears to have a very limited education and lack of overall knowledge, except as it relates to detective work. Is Sherlock a genius? Or is he just highly skilled in one profession?
- What is the science of deduction? How does Sherlock use that science in the actual case? Also, how does Sherlock deal when faced with his own incorrect deductions?
- Look at the structure of the novel. Once we’ve read a couple of the novels and short stories, do we see a formula begin to emerge?
- How does Sherlock relate to those around him (i.e., the police, Watson, etc.)? Does he have friends or acquaintances? How does Sherlock feel about women? Are his acquaintances only from his own class?
- How does Watson’s participation and injury in the Afghanistan war affect his character? Were you surprised that he seemed overwhelmed by the appearance of the murdered man (Drebber) given that he is a doctor and seen the horrors of war?
- Does the city of London become a character in the novels/short stories? How do the descriptions of London enhance the story?
- Where does the title of the story come from?