Quote:
Originally Posted by issybird
So, an amusing story but faulty as a detective story and as literature.
|
I agree with Issybird, but then so would have A. Conan Doyle. His later stories are more polished. It is because of Holmes' popularity in those days before movies, television, and radio, as well as his later mythological status that he is worth reading.
There is no way to deduce the killer before Holmes exposes Ball which violates a cardinal rule of mysteries, but a rule that did not exist at the time A Study in Scarlet was written.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orlok
As an aside, I agree with fantasyfan that they did a marvellous job of updating this story with A Study in Pink, and in fact the scene where Sherlock is being forced to choose between the poison or a harmless pill was better played and much more suspenseful than in the original story.
|
I thought Benedict Cumberbatch's portrayal in the BBC series caught the spirit of Holmes more successfully than anything I've ever seen set in Holmes' historical time.
Holmes is a fascinating character. He is concerned with solving puzzles, but has no interest in the great questions that have always plagued humans since he sees no way of solving them. He is obsessive about solving problems that can be scientifically proven. When no problems come to him he attempts to cure his boredom by shooting cocaine into his veins. Even when he eventually kicks his habit he never deals well with monotony.