Jump to content
tagesmann

The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes - Thoughts

Recommended Posts

I have opened up a few threads on the individual stories, to give the quicker readers a start.

I think that is a great idea. I thought of doing that...

but didn't...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cherrypie was itching to start and I didn't want her enthusiasm to go to waste :)

Megustaleer

 

I saw that you had opened some threads for the individual stories and, as I have read three of those, could not contain my enthusiasm any longer!! I have been a member for only two weeks or so, and I am really excited to have found the group read and be able to participate in it. I cannot tell you how glad I am to have found this site, as having tried a couple of local book groups with little success, this is suiting me down to the ground. Such helpful and friendly members, I have had a lot of help with questions about navigating the site, and what it has to offer, plus a lot of fun reading and submitting posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi cherrypie,

 

I feel a bit ashamed that I haven't kept this thread as up to date as I should have. At the same time it is great that we have such an enthusiastic new member. So thank you, welcome and please keep posting.  :flowers:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whenever we go to visit the Kimbell Art Museum in Ft. Worth, I always duck into the permanent collection because, I tell my kids, it's my chance to visit old friends.  That's how I feel about these Sherlock Holmes stories.  I read all of the stories and books multiple times when I was a young teen into my high school years.  I've enjoy reading the "new" stories (and have the Horowitz one now on my list of books to read) and I enjoy watching the dramatizations.  So I am very much enjoying this group read.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thought is a question - has everyone who has seen SH on TV been happy with the choice of actor? Reason I ask is that with SH now on BBC again, and with us doing this group read, I cannot but admit that with Cumberbatch in mind as I read these tales, I am getting a little extra 'kick' out of them. :D

 

Edited to correct typo

Edited by Ting Mikyunyu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cumberbatch is doing a fine job as the modern Holmes, but given that the TV series is meant to be an update of the original stories, there inevitably have to be some changes to his character to move with the times.

 

Serious Holmesians generally regard Jeremy Brett's portrayal in the 1980s ITV series as being most faithful to Conan Doyle's vision. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Jeremy Brett is my favorite.  But I enjoy the Cumberbatch series and even "Elementary," mostly (didn't like what they did with Irene Adler at all).  Someone talked about Watson being Holmes's only friend and the "Elementary" series has some of that in it.  They are working with the NY police and Holmes likes the captain and one officer named "Bell" and he calls all the other officers "not Bell," which seems consistent with Holmes to me.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Benedict Cumberbatch in anything so can't comment there :wub: and I'm enjoying Elementary as well. 

 

As for the definitive portrayal of Holmes, I  find it difficult to to say.  I like Jeremy Brett's interpretation but then I rather like Basil Rathbone's too.

Edited by lunababymoonchild

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit off topic but didn't know where else to post - just a bit of an irrelevance anyway. Discovered we had an unopened DVD of Sherlock Holmes stories and was excited thinking the Adventures would be on it. No such luck - 19 episodes none of which are the ones in the book. The actors are Ronald Howard and H. Marion Crawford. Drat! 

 

(I had already posted this on the Holmes and Watson thread.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Benedict Cumberbatch in anything so can't comment there :wub: and I'm enjoying Elementary as well. 

 

As for the definitive prtrayal of Holmes, I  find it difficult to to say.  I like Jeremy Brett's interpretation but then I rather like Basil Rathbone's too.

 

Have just checked the top ten SHs and Jeremy Brett is No 1 (gosh, in the photo he could be a brother to Cumberbatch!), Basil Rathbone is No 2. Our Benedict, Luna is No 5 :huh: . Some of the others seemed to be odd choices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeremy Brett is my number one version of Holmes. I did think at the time that the role had undermined his health, but It seems that his health, physical & mental, were pretty poor and affected his portrayal rather than the other way round

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was clear at the end of his run that Jeremy Brett was very ill, but I agree that his illnesses did not seem to be from his portrayal of Holmes.  Apparently Edward Hardwicke (the second of the two Watsons) became one of his best friends and took care of him many of the times when he needed taking care of.  I have heard that both of them (Brett and Hardwicke) were beloved by everyone on the set and it was generally a very happy place to work.  I may need to watch these again sometime.  I'm afraid that I only have them on VHS and I'm not sure our VHS player even works anymore.  I will have to see if they are on Netflix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm now trying to work out a couple of chronological issues - and I can't.  According to what I can discover, the sequence of writing the stories, and the sequence of when they took place are different.   :scratchhe Also, in the sequence of stories in the Adventures, "A Case of Identity" should not be the second story, because it takes place well after many of the others.  :scratchhe  Also, sometimes Watson is married and sometimes he isn't. Which is a pity, because it messes with his character development. Is there any reason for this lack of continuity, by both Conan Doyle and the publisher?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the definitive prtrayal of Holmes, I  find it difficult to to say.  I like Jeremy Brett's interpretation but then I rather like Basil Rathbone's too.

 

Rathbone is generally credited with introducing elements (the deerstalker in particular) that many associate with Holmes but Conan Doyle made no reference to, so some purists get a bit sniffy about him.

 

I always think of Holmes rather a gaunt figure, which Brett wasn't especially, but otherwise he is my vision of Holmes.   

 

I'm now trying to work out a couple of chronological issues - and I can't.  According to what I can discover, the sequence of writing the stories, and the sequence of when they took place are different.   :scratchhe Also, in the sequence of stories in the Adventures, "A Case of Identity" should not be the second story, because it takes place well after many of the others.  :scratchhe  Also, sometimes Watson is married and sometimes he isn't. Which is a pity, because it messes with his character development. Is there any reason for this lack of continuity, by both Conan Doyle and the publisher?

 

 

I've often wondered about this too. I don't know if the stories are sequenced in the collections in order of original publication in the Strand magazine or not, which might account for the inconsistencies. In addition, Conan Doyle notoriously grew to loathe his most famous creations and often dashed the stories off, with, I suspect, little regard for whether they were internally consistent or not.

 

The way Watson narrates them, however, suggests he is reminiscing rather than reporting; I've always liked his little asides about other cases Holmes takes on which never actually make it into stories. If you look at Holmes's adventures from this perspective then there is no reason to suppose the cases are recounted in chronological order.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've often wondered about this too. I don't know if the stories are sequenced in the collections in order of original publication in the Strand magazine or not, which might account for the inconsistencies. In addition, Conan Doyle notoriously grew to loathe his most famous creations and often dashed the stories off, with, I suspect, little regard for whether they were internally consistent or not.

 

The way Watson narrates them, however, suggests he is reminiscing rather than reporting; I've always liked his little asides about other cases Holmes takes on which never actually make it into stories. If you look at Holmes's adventures from this perspective then there is no reason to suppose the cases are recounted in chronological order.  

Glad to know I'm not being dumb here, Grammath.  Thank you.

 

This website tries to do a chronology. It is useful. http://www.sherlockpeoria.net/Who_is_Sherlock/SherlockTimeline.html

And your post has just popped up Tagesmann, so I'll check it out immediately. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a useful site, tag It must have taken a real Holmes nerd (or several) to try and sort the stories into a chronology of cases undertaken, when Conan Doyle didn't seem to be bothered about a consecutive time line.

 

The first six stories in the book we are reading were the first ones published, in the Strand Magazine July - December 1891. I presume the other six were in the magazines from January to June 1892, but I don't have that volume.

 

Whatever Basil Rathbone might have introduced to our image of Sherlock Holmes, he can't take credit for the deerstalker hat. That was down to Sidney Paget, who did the illustrations for the original stories.

 

 Holmes and Watson in The Boscombe Valley Mystery  as portrayed by Paget in 1891

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I am reading the stories on my Kindle - such a modern idea - it is very nice to see one of the old drawings of the famous pair. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I am reading the stories on my Kindle - such a modern idea - it is very nice to see one of the old drawings of the famous pair. 

scroll down that page and there are more - but they are a bit on the small size. There will more to be found with a more extensive search of the web

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

scroll down that page and there are more - but they are a bit on the small size. There will more to be found with a more extensive search of the web

 

I am not too good on the computer but am improving.  Managed to view the pictures as you suggested from your link.  They really are great to see.  Holmes is pretty much as I have always imagined him to be (television productions aside) although Watson not so.  For some reason I always imagined him to be considerably smaller than Holmes which the drawings do not seem to suggest.  No reason for this just the way I have imagined him I guess. 

 

Many of the drawings depict the two showing the real friendship existing between them.  A real treat to see. 

 

Thank-you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By canongatebooks
      Hello! The next book up for grabs is The Complete Brigadier Gerard, a rousing tale of heroism and gallantry (tongue firmly in cheek) from the author of the Sherlock Holmes mysteries, Arthur Conan Doyle:



      Mon Dieu! The extraordinary, sabre-rattling adventures of Gerard, a young French cavalry officer in the time of the Napoleonic wars, introduce a hero who will be adored by fans of Flashman and Sherlock Holmes alike. Gathered here in one edition are both volumes of Conan Doyle's much loved tales, which will delight modern readers with their absurdist humour, infectious warmth and swash-buckling energy.

      We've got ten copies to give away to BGO subscribers who are based in UK/Europe. Please claim your copy by (1) posting a reply in this thread and (2) sending me a PM. The giveaway closes 27 June 2010!
    • By Adrian
      This is for people who have read just the first few chapters. If you haven't yet, reading the following will be a spoiler.





      I watched the R&J review and have bought the book. So far I'm maybe a dozen pages into it.

      I'm not loving the double first-person narrative. It reminds me of Kevin Sampson's Outlaws, where the same story is told from multiple viewpoints. I find it just detracts from the story, and makes the book feel a bit gimmicky. Maybe it'll grow on me as I read more, and it certainly won't stop me reading it.

      Secondly, I'm not yet buying into this "Chrono-Displacement Disorder" plot device. It's too Sci-Fi for my liking, and just too "handy" for the author: "I need to have the guy time travel, so here's how I've made it happen." I'm hoping it's resolved later on. If it's a premise I have to swallow just so the book could be written I'll be disappointed.

      As you might have guessed, I'm not wholly convinced just yet.

      What's your first impressions of the book?
    • By Adrian
      I'm about halfway through (he's spending Christmas with her family and has just found out her Mum's a manic depressive - and after reading this book, love, so am I), and unless I get I get some positive feedback here, I'm giving up.

      I posted my first impressions earlier, and I'm afraid it's getting worse.

      Firstly it didn't grab me from the start and I read other books inbetween - always a bad sign. Still, I vowed to stick with it, and once I got past the awkward narrative structure it improved. The enforced double-narrative seemed a little contrived, and I felt whenever the authour switched voices in mid-scene Niffenegger was really forcing the change of voice to make it obvious it was now the other person narrating. Seemed a bit like Kevin Samson writing in Outlaws, where each narrator gets his own unique voice.

      Secondly, the basic premise of the novel, time travel, is mishandled and cack-handedly written. Two versions of himself in the same time frame? (Believe me ladies, if we could do that to ourselves the human race would be extinct). Some evolutionary mishap in the human genome being allowed to rewrite the laws of physics? Those I could live with, but TTW is just an affront to basic common sense. I keep asking myself questions instead of losing myself in the book. Why just appear now? Why just disappear now? More important is the where? How does he go to a particular place as well a particular time?

      Also, the nastiness of the bloke: "I can't help myself so I can do whatever I like." Beat people up? Sure! Rob and steal? Why not! Buy stocks cheap? Who wouldn't! Run naked through the neighbourhood? Well, I tried this, and the police would just not believe my story!

      Most importantly, I don't care about the love story. So he loves her and they love each other, and so forth. I find both of them so insufferable that I don't care about their relationship(s).

      I'm half-heartedly interested in the secondary goings on. I like Kimy, and I like Clare's room-mate, but can't stand the room-mate's boyfriend.

      My current thinking is, "This is not a book to tossed away lightly. It is to hurled with great force."

      I'd like either an incentive to finish it (bearing in mind I have a long list of others waiting on my TBR pile) or, preferably, a precis of the ending. I'm guessing she dies of some disease he can't prevent, and he knows it (of course he knows it, he just can't get involved in any ethical situation that would ruin the house-of-cards plot), but doesn't tell her.

      God, I hate them both. Hey Audrey, try going back in time before Stephen Fry wrote Making History.
    • By Mad Dog & Glory
      Having finally finished The Time Traveler's Wife last night (yes, I know, I'm a bit behind), I was left feeling a little dissatisfied. I loved it for around 200 pages, but then I thought it tailed off badly and left a lot of unanswered questions. Not only the time travel - I had no problems with suspending disbelief, although the most unbelievable part was that they were allowed to lead a 'normal' life, rather than Henry being captured and studied by the US government.

      It's the so-called 'normal' life that concerns me. It seems incredible that I could read a 500+ page novel centring almost exclusively on two characters, and at the end not really have much of an idea of each other's personalities or how they went about their daily lives. At one point, Henry buys a lottery ticket knowing the result and wins several million dollars, so Clare can have a studio. No other mention is made of this. So are they millionaires? They seem to live in normal-sized house, in a normal street. So what do they do with themselves when Henry isn't time travelling? They're not watching TV, as Henry can't. They can't spend all of their time in bed.

      The other huge problem with the novel is lack of conflict, which is essential to all drama. Henry and Clare have this 'perfect' relationship, and are only unhappy with each other over the miscarriages. There were all sorts of potential themes and conflicts that Niffenegger shied away from. Why does Clare never question the fact that this man came into her life at the age of 5 and, as they say, ruined her for other men?
      Niffenegger seems so intent on making this the perfect love story that she misses a lot of tricks.

      My guess is that Audrey Niffenegger will be a one-hit wonder. She came up with a brilliant idea, and also came up with a good structure (although some disagree), and played out every permutation of time travelling possible. But in the end a great idea can get you only so far, and I don't feel she has the skills as a novelist to get as much out of the story as was potentially there.
×