The Great Sherlock Holmes Read
*sigh*
It's not even February yet and I've gone and changed my layout. Again: *sigh*
Anyway! I mentioned one of my resolutions this year was to read outside my comfort zone (*coughYAcough*); so I've decided to read the entire Sherlock Holmes catalog. I can't believe I haven't read them sooner because the stories have everything I like: Victoriana, mystery, eccentric characters, scientific method. I've enjoyed both Robert Downey Jr./Jude Law Sherlock movies; I love the BBC's new series, Sherlock, and The Great Mouse Detective is my second favorite Disney movie. (Or my first favorite, if I'm trying to be a hipster.) Also, from a purely selfish reason, one of my characters is insisting on being a prodigy of sorts--or highly observant--and I figured why not study the greatest detective ever written. So I trekked on over to the library and checked out these bad boys. No, I'm not reading the annotations. These were just the only ones at the library that contain all the stories; although, some of the annotations are hilarious*.
And because I normally don't do things half-arsed, I'm reading them in publishing order. First up are A Study in Scarlet and The Sign of Four (the first two novels in Volume 3), then all of Volume 1, back to Volume 3 for the two remaining novels, The Hound of the Baskervilles (*squee* I'm really excited for this one!) and The Valley of Fear, and then finally all of Volume 2.
So far, I've only read the first two novels, and here are my not-so-deep thoughts:
A Study in Scarlet: I almost wrote "A Study in Pink" because that's the pilot title for the BBC show, heh. Good first story that introduces the characters with a basic, don't-you-see I-was-WRONGED?! revenge story. I preferred the BBC version because I felt like that villain's reason >>>for why he made his victims chose between the poisoned pill and the non-poisoned one<<< was more plausible and made more sense in the given circumstances.
The Sign of Four: Man, I hope a) all the villains don't get two chapters to explain their motives and b) all the motives aren't all "Don't you see, Mr. Holmes, I was WRONGED?!" Yet another revenge story, this one taking place seven years after Scarlet. Two things worth noting is that Mary Morstan is introduced as a potential heiress to a lost fortune, and because of said fortune, Watson feels like he should intrude with his feelings for her (jeez, man, you just met her two minutes ago!). On the flip side, Ms. Morstan seems uninterested in said fortune, and isn't it just grand when >>>the entire fortune stays lost<<< meaning Watson can ask Ms. Morstan to marry him. Seriously. It's like the plot to a YA novel; just talk to each other already! More interesting is the debate behind when this story took place with regard to the canon timeline. What could it mean? Is it a ~conspiracy**?
**Maybe Doyle just got lazy. Let's remember he was writing these stories out of order. I don't know how extensive his notes were, but unless he plotted all 60 stories before writing A Study in Scarlet, it should be expected that the timeline would get messed up.
Now onto Volume 2!
*For instance, the annotator--who writes as if Holmes and Watson were real people who really lived in real-life Victorian London--has this wack-a-doodle theory that Watson isn't Dr. John Watson, that the real Dr. Watson died in the (first) Afghan War and his footman took his identity because in more than one case Watson forgets/acts like he doesn't have a wounded leg. Maybe the piece of paper where he had notes on Watson's character went missing. Maybe Mrs. Doyle used the back of the paper to make her grocery list. Maybe in the heat of writing Doyle forgot, m'kay?
It's not even February yet and I've gone and changed my layout. Again: *sigh*
Anyway! I mentioned one of my resolutions this year was to read outside my comfort zone (*coughYAcough*); so I've decided to read the entire Sherlock Holmes catalog. I can't believe I haven't read them sooner because the stories have everything I like: Victoriana, mystery, eccentric characters, scientific method. I've enjoyed both Robert Downey Jr./Jude Law Sherlock movies; I love the BBC's new series, Sherlock, and The Great Mouse Detective is my second favorite Disney movie. (Or my first favorite, if I'm trying to be a hipster.) Also, from a purely selfish reason, one of my characters is insisting on being a prodigy of sorts--or highly observant--and I figured why not study the greatest detective ever written. So I trekked on over to the library and checked out these bad boys. No, I'm not reading the annotations. These were just the only ones at the library that contain all the stories; although, some of the annotations are hilarious*.
And because I normally don't do things half-arsed, I'm reading them in publishing order. First up are A Study in Scarlet and The Sign of Four (the first two novels in Volume 3), then all of Volume 1, back to Volume 3 for the two remaining novels, The Hound of the Baskervilles (*squee* I'm really excited for this one!) and The Valley of Fear, and then finally all of Volume 2.
So far, I've only read the first two novels, and here are my not-so-deep thoughts:
A Study in Scarlet: I almost wrote "A Study in Pink" because that's the pilot title for the BBC show, heh. Good first story that introduces the characters with a basic, don't-you-see I-was-WRONGED?! revenge story. I preferred the BBC version because I felt like that villain's reason >>>for why he made his victims chose between the poisoned pill and the non-poisoned one<<< was more plausible and made more sense in the given circumstances.
The Sign of Four: Man, I hope a) all the villains don't get two chapters to explain their motives and b) all the motives aren't all "Don't you see, Mr. Holmes, I was WRONGED?!" Yet another revenge story, this one taking place seven years after Scarlet. Two things worth noting is that Mary Morstan is introduced as a potential heiress to a lost fortune, and because of said fortune, Watson feels like he should intrude with his feelings for her (jeez, man, you just met her two minutes ago!). On the flip side, Ms. Morstan seems uninterested in said fortune, and isn't it just grand when >>>the entire fortune stays lost<<< meaning Watson can ask Ms. Morstan to marry him. Seriously. It's like the plot to a YA novel; just talk to each other already! More interesting is the debate behind when this story took place with regard to the canon timeline. What could it mean? Is it a ~conspiracy**?
**Maybe Doyle just got lazy. Let's remember he was writing these stories out of order. I don't know how extensive his notes were, but unless he plotted all 60 stories before writing A Study in Scarlet, it should be expected that the timeline would get messed up.
Now onto Volume 2!
*For instance, the annotator--who writes as if Holmes and Watson were real people who really lived in real-life Victorian London--has this wack-a-doodle theory that Watson isn't Dr. John Watson, that the real Dr. Watson died in the (first) Afghan War and his footman took his identity because in more than one case Watson forgets/acts like he doesn't have a wounded leg. Maybe the piece of paper where he had notes on Watson's character went missing. Maybe Mrs. Doyle used the back of the paper to make her grocery list. Maybe in the heat of writing Doyle forgot, m'kay?