The Speckled Band - Discussion Post
This week, gentle readers, we have damsels in distress (and in need of coffee), very large men, and a constant suspicion that Samuel L. Jackson is about to make a cameo.
DISCUSS.
courtesy of tea_devotee
1. Snakes. Your feelings and thoughts, if you will (Holmes = Indiana Jones, y/n?)
2. Dr. Roylott is huge. Holmes is less huge. Note they can both bend iron pokers like they're made of rubber. Does this say something about the sort and level of deception Holmes is capable of, overall?
3. Were you fooled at all by the mention of the Gypsies? Do you think the Victorian audience would have been more, or less likely to be so?
4. Why doesn't Watson tell the audience what he thinks is going on when he figures it out? What does this suggest about other possible omissions? (More specifically, how often does he leave out a clue that would make everything obvious to the reader? Although most Sherlock Holmes mysteries can be solved, some of them fall into the trap of false difficulty because of a missing clue. What's the deal?)
5. Holmes just basically killed a man. Watson seems to be okay with that, which suggests that the reader should be okay with it. Are you okay with it? If this was (or is) your first experience reading the canon, does it change your perception of Holmes?
Bonus: What 'more cheerful' things did Holmes and Watson turn their minds to during their two hour wait?
As always, anything else you care to add is also awesome.
DISCUSS.
courtesy of tea_devotee
1. Snakes. Your feelings and thoughts, if you will (Holmes = Indiana Jones, y/n?)
2. Dr. Roylott is huge. Holmes is less huge. Note they can both bend iron pokers like they're made of rubber. Does this say something about the sort and level of deception Holmes is capable of, overall?
3. Were you fooled at all by the mention of the Gypsies? Do you think the Victorian audience would have been more, or less likely to be so?
4. Why doesn't Watson tell the audience what he thinks is going on when he figures it out? What does this suggest about other possible omissions? (More specifically, how often does he leave out a clue that would make everything obvious to the reader? Although most Sherlock Holmes mysteries can be solved, some of them fall into the trap of false difficulty because of a missing clue. What's the deal?)
5. Holmes just basically killed a man. Watson seems to be okay with that, which suggests that the reader should be okay with it. Are you okay with it? If this was (or is) your first experience reading the canon, does it change your perception of Holmes?
Bonus: What 'more cheerful' things did Holmes and Watson turn their minds to during their two hour wait?
As always, anything else you care to add is also awesome.