The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion
This topic is about
The Hound of the Baskervilles
Arthur Conan Doyle Collection
>
Hound of the Baskervilles/The Final Problem - Final Discussions
date
newest »
newest »
Jo wrote: "Any historians among us who might give us a little insight into international relations during the author's lifetime?"I wish we did. Of course, that area becomes important later in WWI, but the tensions might have started before that? If I have time this week, I'll try to look into it more.
A Doyle literary scholar would know as well, but we don't have any of those available either. ;) I wonder if Doyle left "foul" papers and notes?
I've been very frustrated in researching Sherlock, and I consider myself to be a fairly good researcher. Most of the scholarly essays seem to be in the Baker Street Journal. Once school starts again, I can look up some books in the library, but by then our read will be completed. But I'd like to know just for myself.
(Sorry, I don't know how to do a proper quote) Lynnm wrote: It seems like in the past, people would come and visit for weeks and weeks. I've seen it in other novels. Now, we would never think of going and staying in someone else's home for more than a couple days. Lynnm, I think a few of the reasons people would go and stay for so long in someone else's home are:
1)People had full staffs back then so company wasn't much of an imposition. Also, many guests brought their own personal maids/valets with them.
2)The upper upper/middle classes didn't really work all that much. Sure, the man may "go into London" every now and then, but the nine-to-five sloggers weren't the ones who were "visiting".
3)There were quite a few "professional houseguests". People who travelled around visiting a month or so with this person, a month or so with that. Was reading a biography about one such person (sorry, cannot remember the name) and apparently he was so entertaining and amiable that his friends considered his free-loading a fair trade-off. (He had a small stipend--enough for clothes and such, but was definitely of "no fixed abode.")
4) (Nearly forgot this one!) Although this may not apply to travel within GB, getting from Point A to Point B wasn't all that easy. If you were coming from Australia/America/Africa/India to visit friends/relatives in Britain, you wouldn't come, stay a week or so, and then head back. You'd probably spend at least a couple of months.
Although even with the ease of travel nowadays, this still holds somewhat. When my in-laws came to visit us in Aberdeen, Scotland, they stayed two months. (No, you do NOT want to hear about it!!!! Suffice it to say no one was arrested or hospitalized.)
Pamela, great post! And wouldn't most of those things be nice: full staffs, not working much? And it seems that we see "professional houseguests" pop up in other novels - and because they are entertaining, people actually want them to be there. (Of course, at this moment, I can't think of any of the other novels.)
But the difficulty in travel definitely wasn't good. I wouldn't think that travel became easier - if you were wealthy - until the early 1900s, with those wonderful ships.
I agree, Pamela. Back then I guess people visit for a long, long time before going, especially when they visit a relative. My favourite part of the Naval Treaty, perhaps, is Holmes' remark on seeing a rose. It's so touching.
According to the annotated edition I have, it is possible that Doyle meant to depict Irene Adler as Jewish. Her name is listed above the name of a Hebrew Rabbi in Holmes index. That reference is probably to a real person, Rabbi Hermann Adler, who was chief Rabbi of the United Congregations of the British Empire.
This has led many Holmes' scholars to speculate on Jewish origins for Irene. As LynnM points out she isn't really portrayed in-depth in the story, so it is almost impossible to tell anything about her background.
One would think she converted at least nominally to Christianity because of her affair with the King and the fact that she was married in church.
How would you describe the King, both physically and intellectually? Is he a sympathetic or comical character?The King of Bohemia is a bit of a comical character. He doesn't appear to be the sharpest knife in the drawer. Irene had all the brains in that relationship.
He seems to be based partially on Queen Victoria's oldest son, Albert Edward, later Edward VII. He was a notorious philanderer. He had affairs with many women, including famous stage performers such as Lily Langtry. Another one of his mistresses was Alice Keppel, who is Camilla Parker Bowles' great-grandmother.
Like the King of Bohemia, he married a Scandinavian Princess, Alexandra of Denmark.
His affairs were all over the newspapers at the time, so Doyle probably drew from them for his story.
Amanda wrote: "According to the annotated edition I have, it is possible that Doyle meant to depict Irene Adler as Jewish."Thanks for the information, Amanda! As it seems, my suggestion hasn't been all too far-fetched. Think I'll look into the matter some time. Maybe I'll find some scholarly literature yet ...
In 19th century literature, Jews were either negatively depicted (i.e., Dickens' Fagin) or were portrayed as exotic. Irene Adler would fit the second category.Doyle may be hinting in that direction, but I wonder why he wouldn't just state it.
Something else to research. :-)
Amanda wrote: "How would you describe the King, both physically and intellectually? Is he a sympathetic or comical character?The King of Bohemia is a bit of a comical character. He doesn't appear to be the shar..."
He is comical, and I got a kick out of Sherlock's comments to him. Sherlock has such a dry sarcasm at times. :-)
King: "I am the King. Why should I attempt to conceal it?"
Sherlock: "Why, indeed?" murmured Sherlock.
King: "What a woman--oh, what a woman....Did I not tell you how quick and resolute she was? Would she not have made an admirable queen? Is it not a pity that she was not only my level?"
Sherlock: "From what I have seen of the lady she seems indeed to be on a very different level to your Majesty," said Holmes coldly.
:-)
Lynnm wrote: "King: "What a woman--oh, what a woman....Did I not tell you how quick and resolute she was? Would she not have made an admirable queen? Is it not a pity that she was not only my level?" Sherlock: "From what I have seen of the lady she seems indeed to be on a very different level to your Majesty," said Holmes coldly"
The scene that always makes me laugh. I agree. The king is comical and simple-minded.
From the Scandal in Bohemia, I like the conversation when Sherlock tries to convince His Majesty that such concern would be too much for a single woman. But Sherlock stops when the royal says, "We were both in that photograph." I almost continue, "Photoshop-ped." The curse of technology.
I do that when reading a lot. Why didn't Watson call Holmes...oops, no phones. They did have several mail deliveries a day though!
I loved the character of Irene Adler, I dont think Sherlock was infatuated with her, but only admire her inteligence (which is saying a lot, cause he didnt seem to admire the inteligence of a lot of characters). She was smart and determined, there are not so many women like that in SH stories.I remember at the end of the story that Watson said something like "Holmes never made a joke about women´s inteligence after that" (sorry if the quote is not literal, my copy is in spanish).
I´m just posting now, but I´ve been reading the SH stories in chronological order for a few weeks now. I read the novels like 8 years ago and didnt liked them that much, but for some reason I am really enjoying them now. Loving your comments.
BTW, I also loved the Irene character in the BBC series. Irene entering the room naked will stuck in my head, That´s a way to make an entrance, haha.
Karel wrote: "I loved the character of Irene Adler, I dont think Sherlock was infatuated with her, but only admire her inteligence (which is saying a lot, cause he didnt seem to admire the inteligence of a lot o..."I agree. Remember that Watson says Sherlock never really believes in women's intelligence. He is kind to the sex, but that's just it. Most of his adversaries and rivals are men. Moreover, Sherlock has too much confidence in himself when he accepts the king's commission. Therefore, he is quite bewildered when he encounters "the woman", whom he underestimates but later outwits him.
As for love, even though it's true that Sherlock even say that she is "a lovely woman, with a face that a man might die for," I don't think he is attracted with the physical beauty. The beauty of her mind, well, that's another thing. However, Irene apparently moves Sherlock only to the level of admiration, not love.
Karel wrote: "I´ve been reading the SH stories in chronological order for a few weeks now. I read the novels like 8 years ago and didnt liked them that much, but for some reason I am really enjoying them now."Sometimes you have to be in the right mood when you pick up a book or watch a film. I've read a number of books that the first time I've picked it up, I had to stop after a couple of chapters, but then went back to it years later, and loved it. Recently, in film, I watched a couple of epsidoes of Mad Men when it first came out, but about two years, I started watching again, and it is definitely one of my favorite shows.
Sadly, I never read the SH stories before. But then again, now it is like a nice treat.
Listra wrote: "Remember that Watson says Sherlock never really believes in women's intelligence. He is kind to the sex, but that's just it. "Sherlock always says that, but in reading the short stories, there are a number of women besides Irene that Sherlock has admired (I just read the Cooper Beeches, and that's another example).
The people that Sherlock tends to mock are the police and the aristocracy/upper classes. So far, I can only thing of a couple of instances where he has had a good thing to say about either.
I´ve just read The Solitary Cyclist, and in this one Sherlock also agrees that Violet Smith is a beautiful and brave woman. He is very accurate pointing out the virtues and fauls of the diverse people he met, but I dont think he often points out the inteligence of another person, just now and from the top of my head I remember Mycrof, the villain and "the woman".I´ve grown very fond of the character of Sherlock, I really think that he is not just brilliant but also righteous and ready to help the "little people" (by this I mean not-arystocrats). In this story of the lonely bycicle, Watson says that Holmes is a lot of things but not rude (I dont know which word is used in english), so he listens to Violet even when he is too busy to work on her case. I think that says more of his character than the occasional joke he made at the expense of the police =)
Karel wrote: "I´ve just read The Solitary Cyclist, and in this one Sherlock also agrees that Violet Smith is a beautiful and brave woman. He is very accurate pointing out the virtues and fauls of the diverse pe..."I liked the Violet Smith character - she had courage.
And I'm really fond of Sherlock too. He's definitely up there is one of my favorite literary characters. And I like your point that he is always ready to help the common people. And he doesn't care about money - isn't that a refreshing viewpoint!
I’m going to put up limited suggestions for both the Hounds of the Baskervilles and The Final Problem this week. Two reasons: one, I found that the Hound of the Baskervilles doesn’t have much to discuss, and two, we only have a handful of people left in the discussion.I’ve really enjoyed this read though. So much so that I’m reading through all the other stories as well, and I see others are doing the same.
It was nice to read something different, and a series of novels/short stories that – as many have pointed out – that defined the way we see detectives today, from other detective stories to modern day detective television shows.
And now on my own, I hope to look into other genres and novels/short stories that have been overlooked as not “serious” enough, but still are incredibly important to the way we write and read those genres today. I did that with The Magic Ring buddy read and now with the Sherlock Holmes stories. Next, I think I’m going to tackle science fiction and read The War of the World and The Time Machine, along with some Doyle stories – he’s known for science fiction as well.
HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES - SUGGESTIONS:- Sherlock as legitimate scientist vs. a type of mad scientist, who uses his knowledge of science for “bad” rather than “good”? The taking of a regular hound and transforming it into something terrifying for one’s own gain? This subject isn’t my area of expertise so I will have to rely on all of you. My first take is that while science is gaining prominence, there is still a lack of confidence in science, and of course, the debate between science and religion (which isn’t applicable here). People know that science can do wonderful things, but there is also a bit of fear (i.e., Frankenstein).
- Setting the novel in the moors gives the story a primitive flair. How?
- A major theme in the novel is greed that will stop at nothing – including murder – for monetary gain.
- We also see domestic abuse in the novel. How? Also, we see a negative depiction of women who will do almost anything for a man, until they feel that they have been cheated on.
- Another theme is loyalty. Who and how?
THE FINAL PROBLEM - SUGGESTIONS:- Moriarty only shows up briefly in the short story, but Doyle does a wonderful job in setting a tone that shows how dangerous Moriarty is. And in doing so, he shows us another side of Sherlock. How can we draw both Moriarty and Sherlock from this story?
- In order to end the Sherlock Holmes series, do you think that Doyle changes the Sherlock character?
- How would you describe the encounter between Sherlock and Moriarty?
- Sherlock claims that Moriarty is one of the most dangerous men in London, and the public knows nothing about him. Also, in The Valley of Fear, Scotland Yard also doesn’t know much about Moriarty, and it is Sherlock who has to give them the information. What does that say about Moriarty? What does it say about the police? What does it say about the media?
- Also, in The Final Problem, we see a rarity: Sherlock leaving England. But instead of pursuing Moriarty, he is running from Moriarty. Does that add or detract from Sherlock’s character?
- Were you surprised that it was Mycroft that played the role of coachman for Watson?
- Sherlock and Watson often talk about commonplace criminals vs. the crimes of masterminds such as Moriarty. From the novels/short stories that we have read, Doyle often threads the needle between the two. How?
- Sherlock claims that he has never used his “powers upon the wrong side.” In our discussions over the past weeks, we discussed Sherlock’s many flaws. Does his speech in this paragraph and short story change or confirm your perception of Sherlock, despite his many flaws?
- Do you think that Doyle gives Sherlock the great homage he deserves given that this was originally supposed to be the last Sherlock Holmes story?
THE FINAL PROBLEM - QUOTES:- Moriarty only shows up briefly in the short story, but Doyle does a wonderful job in setting a tone that shows how dangerous Moriarty is. And in doing so, he shows us another side of Sherlock. How can we draw both Moriarty and Sherlock from this story?
- In order to end the Sherlock Holmes series, do you think that Doyle changes the Sherlock character?
- How would you describe the encounter between Sherlock and Moriarty?
- Sherlock claims that Moriarty is one of the most dangerous men in London, and the public knows nothing about him. Also, in The Valley of Fear, Scotland Yard also doesn’t know much about Moriarty, and it is Sherlock who has to give them the information. What does that say about Moriarty? What does it say about the police? What does it say about the media?
- Also, in The Final Problem, we see a rarity: Sherlock leaving England. But instead of pursuing Moriarty, he is running from Moriarty. Does that add or detract from Sherlock’s character?
- Were you surprised that it was Mycroft that played the role of coachman for Watson?
- Sherlock and Watson often talk about commonplace criminals vs. the crimes of masterminds such as Moriarty. From the novels/short stories that we have read, Doyle often threads the needle between the two. How?
- Sherlock claims that he has never used his “powers upon the wrong side.” In our discussions over the past weeks, we discussed Sherlock’s many flaws. Does his speech in this paragraph and short story change or confirm your perception of Sherlock, despite his many flaws?
- Do you think that Doyle gives Sherlock the great homage he deserves given that this was originally supposed to be the last Sherlock Holmes story?
I loved the Hound of the Baskervilles. Doyle used a mysterious background to create a scary and eerie environment. Using the landscape from an ancient people which is sprinkled with their remnants adds an additional aura. I really enjoyed reading more about Dr. Watson and less about Sherlock Holmes. Watson is a brave 'everyman' who reacts to situations much as we would, but with more courage and more trust in Sherlock than I know I would have.
I thought Holmes acted with rash arrogance when he left Baskerville ignorant of the potential dangers of his walk home. The trauma to Baskerville was unnecessary. I don't really see the necessity to always keep Sherlock's companions or clients in the dark. He did that in the "Pips" story and the client ended up dead.
Doyle tries to make Holmes a Christ-like figure who dies saving the world from the machinations of an evil man in the Final Problem.
I have always loved the Sherlock Holmes stories. When taking university courses in the detective novel, Doyle is always the author given credit for the development and popularity of this genre. Every course instructor uses a different Holmes' novel or story to prove his greatness.
Emily - that was the one thing that surprised me as I am reading the novels/short stories: that Sherlock makes quite a few mistakes.In the BBC Sherlock, I remember one scene where Sherlock complains that John writes about his mistakes, and John replies that the readers like to see that Sherlock is human.
It does add that human element. And if Sherlock was always right, it wouldn't seem real either. Plus, it would make him obnoxious - rather than endearingly arrogant, he would be unlikeable.
I'll have to think about whether or not Sherlock is a Christ-like figure in The Final Problem. I'll get back to you on that. ;)
And jealous - would have loved to take a college level course on detective novels.
Lynnm wrote: "I'll have to think about whether or not Sherlock is a Christ-like figure in The Final Problem. I'll get back to you on that. ;)"I do agree with Emily that there are a certain amount of passion play elements in The Final Problem, although I don't think this was intentional on Doyle's part.
Most of the time SH is certainly not a Christ-like figure, but the Reichenbach Falls episode is a type of martyrdom. Holmes deliberately sacrifices himself in order to rid the world of Moriarty. He allows John to go back so he can't interfere with his mission.
About the Final Problem, I found strange the paranoic behavior of Holmes at the begining, since he always was very brave, but since he was alledgely killed, I guess you cant call paranoia if the danger was real haha.When they were at the falls I found the letter requering Watson to go back for the sick lady such a poor excuse, I mean, even I saw that one coming!!!!
Also, when Holmes said that his life work is complete because he always root for the inocent I though that was accurate, I dont think he was Christlike figure, but he was certainly righteous and a seeker of the truth.
In my edition, it says that Doyle was so sick of Sherlock Holmes and wanted to killed him for years, but I guess he didnt want it to be so conspicuous (in the case he wanted to revived again, as it happened eventually) so all the scene at the fall was adecuate, but I found that ending so... I dont know, anticlimatic, I guess.BTW, I have a question about the story The empty House which is written 10 years later, but I dont want to spoil anything for anyone, can I ask here or in other place???
Amanda wrote: "Most of the time SH is certainly not a Christ-like figure, but the Reichenbach Falls episode is a type of martyrdom. Holmes deliberately sacrifices himself in order to rid the world of Moriarty. He allows John to go back so he can't interfere with his mission. "Now that I've thought about it, I'm ready to respond. :-)
I'm not sure if it is either, a Christ-like figure or martyrdom.
Maybe I have too much of the BBC Sherlock in my mind, but I think that Sherlock sent Watson away because he was trying to save Watson, knowing how dangerous Moriarty was. I don't think that Sherlock definitively knew that he would die, and I would think based on what we've read of Sherlock in the other stories, he wouldn't have gone down without a struggle. The note served two purposes: if he did die, it was his good-bye to Watson; if he didn't die, it was his cover because Sherlock would know he would have to go underground until he would root out Moriarty's men.
The reason that I don't think that it was Christ-like or martyrdom was that Sherlock knew that he had to face Moriarty at some point. He couldn't run his entire life. Yes, he did go after Moriarty to keep the citizens of London safe, but as the BBC Sherlock Moriarty would say, that's what detectives/police officers DO! lol! And I wouldn't go as far to say that all detectives/police officers are Christ-like or martyr figures.
Just my humble opinion though. ;)
Karel wrote: "In my edition, it says that Doyle was so sick of Sherlock Holmes and wanted to killed him for years, but I guess he didnt want it to be so conspicuous (in the case he wanted to revived again, as it..."Yes, Doyle was tired of the SH stories - and he wasn't able to pursue more serious literary work.
I posted this before, but when Sherlock was first brought to the stage by Gillette, Gillette asked Doyle, "May I marry Holmes," and Doyle said, "You may marry him, or murder or do what you like with him." So even though he brings Sherlock back, he does so a bit under duress.
And he did leave an opening in the text for that to happen. They both go over the falls, but there are no bodies.
You can "hide" your question. Before the question, type in <>, and inside the <>, type the word spoiler. After the question, type in <>, and inside the <>, type the following: /spoiler.
Doyle's reluctance to carry on with the Sherlock character reminds me of Fleming's wanting to be done with James Bond after From Russia With Love. In both cases, the public and the publisher demanded the character's return, and in both, there's a difference after the character's ressurection. Bond was harsher, very much less infatuated with M, and just that much more heartless. Sherlock post-ressurection seems to be less enthusiastic, perhaps even a bit jaded. Or is this just me?
Ok, I´ll try the spoiler thingy:In The Empty House (view spoiler)
I hope that worked out =) Ha, it did!
Karel wrote: "Ok, I´ll try the spoiler thingy:In The Empty House [spoilers removed]
I hope that worked out =) Ha, it did!"
Don't know! I'll have to look into it.
Good catch!
(And yeay - yes, it did work!)
Pamela wrote: "Doyle's reluctance to carry on with the Sherlock character reminds me of Fleming's wanting to be done with James Bond after From Russia With Love. In both cases, the public and the publisher deman..."Interesting!
I'll have to think about this one as well before I reply.
Lynnm wrote: The reason that I don't think that it was Christ-like or martyrdom was that Sherlock knew that he had to face Moriarty at some point. He couldn't run his entire life. Yes, he did go after Moriarty to keep the citizens of London safe, but as the BBC Sherlock Moriarty would say, that's what detectives/police officers DO! lol! And I wouldn't go as far to say that all detectives/police officers are Christ-like or martyr figures .."Thanks for the post, LynnM. Excellent points. I never really thought of it that way before. Your reading is probably the way Doyle intended the story to be read when he first wrote it.
He never intended to write "The Empty House," which really does make Holmes look like a superhuman figure.
Holmes has really evolved beyond Doyle's stories to be a much more mythic character than Doyle ever imagined. For example, I think the BBC Sherlock presents Holmes as being much more accurate in his deductions than he was in the stories.
I don't know which one I like to write about first, the Hound or the Final Problem. Okay, the Hound first. Not really my favourite, though many people argue that it's the best. I like some quotes from the book, for example, "The devil’s agents may be of flesh and blood,may they not?"
Watson proves himself to be a loyal, devoted friend of the sleuth. Holmes uses him a lot during the years they work together. Sometimes Watson is the valet, the bait, the distraction, and partner-in-crime, of course. In this novel too, Watson is sent to Dartmoor, without knowing that SH actually goes as well. That's charming.
For the Final Problem: I think of Moriarty as one of those Godfather of crime who sits in shadow, concealed from the eyes of law. As Sherlock says, he's a spider at the center of his webs. He's depicted as an old man with calm and consoling eyes, like a priest that would make you feel comfortable. No one ever suspects him.
As he says, "It is stupidity rather than courage to refuse to recognise danger when it's close upon you." IMHO, He's trying to be wise, and not a coward when he leaves England.
I'm not surprised that Mycroft is the coachman. SH says he cannot trust anybody, so his choices are very limited.
I really think that even if Doyle didn't resurrect Sherlock Holmes, he would still be an icon in detective literature. The mourning fan is the proof of it. (Funny how such an annoying detective like him gets so much love from people. :D)
The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910
Books mentioned in this topic
A Scandal in Bohemia (other topics)Good Night, Mr. Holmes (other topics)
One th..."
I just put Good Night, Mr. Holmes on my "to read" list.
Which brings up a complaint of mine of these stories. Some of the characters in the stories deserve further exploration. Doyle creates them, and them just drops them. Irene Adler is a prime example, but I've been reading some of the other stories, and there were a couple more that I liked, and would have enjoyed seeing pop up again. And of course, Moriarty, who as a villain should get more ink.
But that's just my humble opinion. :-)
It seems like in the past, people would come and visit for weeks and weeks. I've seen it in other novels. Now, we would never think of going and staying in someone else's home for more than a couple days.
In one way, it seems strange, but in another, how nice to have those deeper relationships where people felt comfortable doing it.