Sherlock Holmes mysteries

[stop__dreaming]

Am I the only one to find the Sherlock Holmes mysteries a little overrated?

I appreciate the writing is kind of dated, which wasn't the problem for me, I just didn't find the stories, A Study in Scarlet and A Scandal in Bohemia, inspiring at all.

[Mike L]

I see you headed your comment "Sherlock Holmes Mysteries" (my italics). Maybe that's part of the issue. The Sherlock Holmes stories are not intended to be mysteries. They're not like Agatha Christies or Raymond Chandlers, where a crime has been committed, and the reader is invited to choose the culprit from a short list of suspects.

Rather, they're meant to offer an insight into the character and methods of Holmes himself. In fact, in many of the stories (more than half, I think), there is no crime at all, or, if there is, the perpetrators are never brought to justice.

That said, I agree with you that some of the stories are uninspiring. That's especially true of the later ones (say, those in the Case-book of Sherlock Holmes), which can almost be described as pot-boilers. In many of those later stories, you get the impression that Conan Doyle was writing them only because he felt he had to. He had clearly lost interest in Holmes long before.

Mike

[stop__dreaming]

Originally Posted by Mike L

I see you headed your comment "Sherlock Holmes Mysteries" (my italics). Maybe that's part of the issue. The Sherlock Holmes stories are not intended to be mysteries. They're not like Agatha Christies or Raymond Chandlers, where a crime has been committed, and the reader is invited to choose the culprit from a short list of suspects.

Rather, they're meant to offer an insight into the character and methods of Holmes himself. In fact, in many of the stories (more than half, I think), there is no crime at all, or, if there is, the perpetrators are never brought to justice.

That said, I agree with you that some of the stories are uninspiring. That's especially true of the later ones (say, those in the Case-book of Sherlock Holmes), which can almost be described as pot-boilers. In many of those later stories, you get the impression that Conan Doyle was writing them only because he felt he had to. He had clearly lost interest in Holmes long before.

Mike

Thanks for the feedback!

Maybe I'll run through a couple more. Have you read The House of Silk by any chance?

[Tony Richards]

Seriously, try The Hound of the Baskerville's. That might capture your attention.

[Mike L]

I agree with Tony about The Hound of the Baskervilles. It's definitely the best of the full-length stories.

As far as the short stories are concerned, I think the very early ones are the best - the ones that were re-published as The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes. They include the Speckled Band, the Twisted Lip, Red-Headed League - all the classics.

Re The House of Silk: I haven't read it yet. I did download the sample on my Kindle, but it didn't grab my attention for some reason. I might try it again some time.

Mike

[purple_fishy]

I checked out The House of Silk from the library and it did not grab my attention either. The allotted three weeks went by without me reading past chapter 1.

That being said, I LOVE Sherlock Holmes.

[stop__dreaming]

Originally Posted by Mike L

I agree with Tony about The Hound of the Baskervilles. It's definitely the best of the full-length stories.

As far as the short stories are concerned, I think the very early ones are the best - the ones that were re-published as The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes. They include the Speckled Band, the Twisted Lip, Red-Headed League - all the classics.

Re The House of Silk: I haven't read it yet. I did download the sample on my Kindle, but it didn't grab my attention for some reason. I might try it again some time.

Mike

I have those mentioned. I'll put them on standby.

Thanks, Mike.

[CallOfCth'reader]

I was introduced to Sherlock Holmes by Basil Rathbone's portrayal of him in film, so when I read any of the stories I always see Rathbone's Holmes; it makes the literary character much richer for me, and engages me with the stories.

If I'd have seen first seen Holmes as Jeremy Brett, for instance, I would not have even bothered reading the stories at all; I didn't like him as Holmes, and my reading would have been ruined by the portrayal.

[alanHd]

Originally Posted by CallOfCth'reader

I was introduced to Sherlock Holmes by Basil Rathbone's portrayal of him in film, so when I read any of the stories I always see Rathbone's Holmes; it makes the literary character much richer for me, and engages me with the stories.

If I'd have seen first seen Holmes as Jeremy Brett, for instance, I would not have even bothered reading the stories at all; I didn't like him as Holmes, and my reading would have been ruined by the portrayal.

+1.

[pwalker8]

Certainly I can understand that some don't care that much for the Sherlock Holmes books, different strokes for different folks and all that. On the other hand, there is a reason that Sherlock Holmes is so popular and such a cultural icon. I have been a Holmes fan ever since I read the set way back when I was either in grade school or early high school (somewhere in the 10 to 14 year old range) and still read them on a regular basis.

I never saw any of the Holmes movies before reading the stories, so my view was not colored by the movies. Personally, I prefer the Brett series of movies to the Rathbone series, I thought the characters were closer to the book characters. I'm not a purest by any stretch (really liked the two new movies which is about as far from the book as you can get), but the bumbling Watson in the Rathbone movies got on my nerves. Seriously, Holmes never suffered fools gladly, it was unbelievable to me that Holmes would put up with such a buffoon.

[CallOfCth'reader]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I'm not a purest by any stretch (really liked the two new movies which is about as far from the book as you can get), but the bumbling Watson in the Rathbone movies got on my nerves. Seriously, Holmes never suffered fools gladly, it was unbelievable to me that Holmes would put up with such a buffoon.

I totally agree about Nigel Bruce's portrayal of Watson; the bumbling nature of the role was fine for the tone of the films, but definitely did not fit with the Watson of literature (as with Inspector Lestrade). My view of Rathbone as Holmes comes from the mannerisms, the vocal tones and accent, the intelligence, the liveliness of spirit (and low moods), and definitely Rathbone's physical looks.

I found Brett to be the opposite: drab, boring, seeming almost perpetually sombre, with little spark of life.

The attraction for me of the Holmes stories was not as mysteries or detective stories. As others have already stated most of the mysteries were rather obvious and some of Holmes' methods were far fetched. I just liked the characters; Holmes of course, but also Watson and how they interacted. The predictability of that made each story like putting on a new shoe that might be of slightly different appearance, but was assured to be comfortable. That and I liked how the stories were very much set in a certain time and place.

I never liked the Basel Rathbone films. Rathbone's portrayal was pretty good, but Nigel Bruce's Watson made me want to throw things at the television screen. I also preferred the series starring Jeremy Brett.