Reality and Legends

[anamardoll]

Unutterably silly thread time.

I've been listening to the Sherlock Holmes complete colllection from Audible lately because I loved SH as a kid but haven't had time to re-read him lately. I was SHOCKED in the beginning of "A Study in Scarlet" when Watson notes that SH doesn't know the heliocentric theory (i.e., the theory that the earth orbits the sun instead of vice versa). Watson educates SH and SH is dismissive and insists he will forget the information deliberately and immediately because he doesn't want to clutter his mind with unnecessary details. He is claiming that a proper understanding of the solar system isn't necessary for solving crime, so I suppose it's a good thing SH never had an astronomy-based case.

I knew SH wasn't infallibly smart (I was always tickled in one story -- the Five Orange Pips? -- when Watson was the one who knew that "The Lone Star" was a reference to Texas and SH only knew it was something vaguely American), but I was amused by this recent revelation because he's usually considered in modern legend to know EVERYTHING -- a Renaissance man who absorbs knowledge like a sponge; here the reality is that he was written as a man with very narrow interests and deliberately remaining ignorant on all other subjects. Huh!

What other "classics" have you gone back and re-read recently only to find that the *actual* characterization/plot/whatever didn't fit with your recollection or the cultural memory of the work?

[Penforhire]

Ian Fleming's James Bond comes to mind.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Penforhire

Ian Fleming's James Bond comes to mind.

The James Bond of the books is a completely different character from the James Bond of the movies. The Daniel Craig verison is the closest to Fleming's "barbarian with a thin veneer of civilization," but still a very different character. On the other hands, most of the movies are more "based on the title of a popular novel" than actually film adaptations of Fleming's stories.

[glendalekid]

Agatha Christie - especially Miss Marple.

Authors that do pass the test, for me at least, are Arthur Upfield and Emma Lathen.

[jtdolphins]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

Unutterably silly thread time.

I've been listening to the Sherlock Holmes complete colllection from Audible lately because I loved SH as a kid but haven't had time to re-read him lately. I was SHOCKED in the beginning of "A Study in Scarlet" when Watson notes that SH doesn't know the heliocentric theory (i.e., the theory that the earth orbits the sun instead of vice versa). Watson educates SH and SH is dismissive and insists he will forget the information deliberately and immediately because he doesn't want to clutter his mind with unnecessary details. He is claiming that a proper understanding of the solar system isn't necessary for solving crime, so I suppose it's a good thing SH never had an astronomy-based case.

The new Sherlock Holmes from the BBC had this thread running through the 3 tv movies. People reacted with disbelief. They, like us, assumed he knew everything. The joke really fleshed out the character. It worked a lot better on TV than in the book. Or maybe it was the time period.

If you haven't seen the new Sherlock Holmes, you can stream it on netflix now. There will be 3 new movies later this year. The way it was played out seems like a setup to me. Maybe an astronomy based case this year?

[Andrew H.]

I was appalled by the heliocentric bit in Holmes when I read it for the first time in 5th grade - I still remember where I was (school library) when I read that bit because it was so shocking to me at the time.

But, really, I think it's an example of flawed writing by Doyle. The heliocentric model was well accepted by the general public in the 1680's - more than 200 years before Holmes's 1890 world. Anyone in the Victorian era who had been to school knew that the Earth rotated around the sun; it's just not believable that Holmes did not already know this.

[Billi]

Wow, it's interesting to see how differently one can read the same lines.
I've always found these among the funniest and most bragging sentences of Sherlock Holmes. I love this scene!

First, I had the impression that he was teasing Watson, that he was very well aware that the earth is surrounding the sun and not otherwise.
I like his idea (and in that he most probably erred) that the brain can only store a finite amount of information and that he has to set priorities which information. And in his endless wisdom he realised that this knowledge about the solar system won't be useful for his work in any way so he can skip it - ingenious, adorable.

[anamardoll]

I do not think the statement is meant teasingly -- Holmes is extremely proud of his store of knowledge and never misses a chance to show off. It would be very out of character for him to pretend to an almost-stranger (the two are roommates at that point, but not well acquainted) that he lacked a basic point of fundamental knowledge.

The idea that the knowledge would not be useful for detecting is quite startling. Heliocentrism makes a VERY large difference in how one views the travel of stars and planets across the night sky, and it is "little" details like this that usually make or break a Sherlock Holmes case.

I rather disliked the modern movies for making Irene Adler a romantic interest. I think it's very clear from the books that Holmes is very likely asexual. Certainly, he is misogynistic -- he never misses a moment to expound upon how women are not trustworthy or worthwhile, and he frequently (in the books) fails to provide valuable information to his female clients because he assumes they can't handle the truth. Rather annoying, that, since he has no qualms about still being PAID.

[Anke Wehner]

I always thought Peter Pan was a fun little adventure.
When I read the ctual book, the titular hero was bloody creepy.

I rather enjoy going back to fairy tales the Brothers Grim collected, where the Frog King gets thrown agains a wall full tilt, rather than kissed.

[ebusinesstutor]

The drug use by Sherlock Holmes was surprising to me - not something that fit the "legend" as I understood it.

And the original Dracula book was much scarier than the campy vampire horror shows I used to watch.

And the original I,Robot book is NOTHING like the movie with Will Smith. I really don't think they should have even used the I, Robot title. A big disappointment for Asimov fans.

[Hellmark]

For me, my view of Holmes grew from reading the stories at an early age. I read through most of them around first or second grade. I never really was shocked too much by it. When I saw the new movie, I knew they were going to not be faithful, and go more based on legend and add a bit of humor, but most people I knew saw the movie as more inline with what they knew.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by ebusinesstutor

The drug use by Sherlock Holmes was surprising to me - not something that fit the "legend" as I understood it.

And the original Dracula book was much scarier than the campy vampire horror shows I used to watch.

And the original I,Robot book is NOTHING like the movie with Will Smith. I really don't think they should have even used the I, Robot title. A big disappointment for Asimov fans.

I thought the drugs might have been one of the reasons holmes was so good at deduction, or is it induction? A bit of cocaine every now and then can probably do wonders for your neurons.

I do agree about I robot though

Originally Posted by ebusinesstutor

And the original Dracula book was much scarier than the campy vampire horror shows I used to watch.

Must have missed Nosferatu?

Originally Posted by Anke Wehner

I always thought Peter Pan was a fun little adventure.
When I read the ctual book, the titular hero was bloody creepy.

Well when Peter Pan was written books children were still supposed to educate [scare] children into proper behavior. Proper from the point of view of parents and adults. Good things happen to good well behaved children. Bad things happen to rebellious children who misbehave.

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

I was appalled by the heliocentric bit in Holmes when I read it for the first time in 5th grade - I still remember where I was (school library) when I read that bit because it was so shocking to me at the time.

But, really, I think it's an example of flawed writing by Doyle. The heliocentric model was well accepted by the general public in the 1680's - more than 200 years before Holmes's 1890 world. Anyone in the Victorian era who had been to school knew that the Earth rotated around the sun; it's just not believable that Holmes did not already know this.

In fairness to Doyle I have always thought that he wrote this to illustrate Holmes' narrow minded devotion to the business of being the worlds greatest deductive detective. No not realistic.

[Rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Billi

First, I had the impression that he was teasing Watson, that he was very well aware that the earth is surrounding the sun and not otherwise.
I like his idea (and in that he most probably erred) that the brain can only store a finite amount of information and that he has to set priorities which information. And in his endless wisdom he realised that this knowledge about the solar system won't be useful for his work in any way so he can skip it - ingenious, adorable.

Actually, I finished Study in Scarlet, and let me thinking about that, and Homes makes a good point:
Brain is not really elastic; it is a confined and meased space (the size of your inner skull).
Yet, by modern anatomy we know that knowledge (specially memory) is the connection between neurons. The more you reinforce that neuron connection (photographic memory, memorising by heart, etc) the better that knowledge is "burnt" into your brain. The less fragile that knowledge is "burnt" (acknowledge), the more probable is it that we will forget until somethings reminds us of it.
So, it is possible that as Homes said; it is false that the brain is elastic, as our brain is confined in a definite space. That doesn't mean we should stop trying from gathering the most knowledge we can, though.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Hamlet53

Must have missed Nosferatu?



Well when Peter Pan was written books children were still supposed to educate [scare] children into proper behavior. Proper from the point of view of parents and adults. Good things happen to good well behaved children. Bad things happen to rebellious children who misbehave.



In fairness to Doyle I have always thought that he wrote this to illustrate Holmes' narrow minded devotion to the business of being the worlds greatest deductive detective. No not realistic.

Love your picture!