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 Flingo
      Rescued Thread When Bill has caught up with some things, please can we have the forum for this back, and then get it moved? Cheers!



      Flingo 8th June 2006 11:06 PM

      I thought in Bill's absense we could start a couple of threads about Holes here and have the discussion that so many people are keen to do before we forget what we want to say. It should be able to be moved once the new board is open, shouldn't it?

      So what are people's first impressions? I know some people have finished it - but please remember anyone could call in here, so spoiler if necessary!

      I really enjoyed Holes. My children's librarian mentor has been urging me to read this for ages but I had never got round to it, and am now really disappointed that I left it so long!

      It's really clever, although it takes a bit to understand where all the threads of the story are going.

      The writing is so easy to read, and you feel drawn in almost immediately. I could felt the heat of Camp Green Lake radiating out of the book - a huge acheivement!



      megustaleer 8th June 2006 11:34 PM

      I read it some years ago, and loved it. I really don't know why it has not been a bigger hit as a 'crossover' book. I thought that the way all those plot threads were neatly tied up was just so satisfying, and so clever!

      Have just checked my reading list, and it is six years since I read it, and I can still remember quite a lot of it; it really made an impression!



      katrina 9th June 2006 06:02 PM

      Hey, this is my second read of this book in a year, as I had to read it at the start of my PGCE course, its a really popular keystage 3 yext. I prefered it this time around, the first time I was annoyed by it, but I can't remember why now.

      Thought the writing was good, and the sense of the lake and the heat were well depicted.



      Momo 9th June 2006 06:20 PM

      I can well imagine that it's six years since Meg read it. My oldest son read it when he was a year younger than my youngest one is now and he is five years older. It had just come out otherwise he would have done it earlier as my younger one has.
      Anyway, even though both my boys had read it, I never did so myself. Somehow it always seemed like a book for little boys. So, I was pleasantly surprised when it wasn't that at all. (We even have the DVD and I never watched that either!)
      I will recommend this book to anyone. It's a quick read, yet very interesting and there is a lot in this. More than last month's read.



      katrina 10th June 2006 08:30 AM

      I was wondering if anybody had watched the film version of the book, if I have time this week I'm going to borrow it from school and take a peak at it, I've heard its quite a good adaptation



      Flingo 10th June 2006 10:45 AM

      I picked it up on Wednesday, and will be watching it tomorrow.

      I think we ought to have a thread about the film in this section, so that we can discuss comparisons and similarities? Whoever watches it first can start that!



      megustaleer 16th June 2006 08:56 AM

      belweb says on another thread that she thought the plot was full of holes! I beg to differ! The thing that I like about this book is that there are no 'holes', everything is all neatly sewn up at the end!

      Admittedly a lot of the connections are contrived, but I thought that was part of the humour of the book. My reactions were along the lines of 'Well I Never!! and 'Who'd've Thought It!' , and I thought it was all very cleverly brought to a satisfying (if not necessarily satisfactory) conclusion.

      I wouldn't have accepted the neat conclusion in a serious adult novel, but 'Horses for Courses', eh? And there's plenty of food for thought in there, too.

      The book probably suffered from being read in the middle of reading for an Eng. Lit. degree. I'm sure it wouldn't stand comparison to the other books occupying belwebb's thoughts.



      Momo 16th June 2006 01:45 PM

      I don't know either what kind of holes belwebb saw in this novel. As Meg already mentions, and we all should consider this, this is a children's book. We cannot expect deep meanings that you will only understand after studying English Lit.



      belwebb 16th June 2006 05:28 PM
       
       
       
      Yes, you've made some valid points. However, when you say 'contrived' I think that's the word I should have used - it was incredibly contrived, but then, like you say, I was in the middle of an English lit course!



      elfstar 16th June 2006 06:38 PM

      I enjoyed this book, it had a nice 'roundness' to it,there was no unhappy or unresolvesd ending for the protagonist, the characters were not as deep as they could have been but it is a childrens book and a such it was very acceptable



      donnae 19th June 2006 11:17 PM

      I really enjoyed this book. I loved how the story of the past was neatly interlinked with Stanley's story. Contrived maybe, but very enjoyable still. At least it ties up a lot more ends than last month's read!
       


      As this was a children's story, I liked the manner in which the anti-racialism was dealt with, not too heavy-handed. There were some obvious morals going on in the book, but they didn't overshadow the story.

      There is a sequel to Holes called Small Steps. This follows the lives of Armpit and Xray.

      Holes is a book I will be encouraging my children to read - I think they will all enjoy it. One of my daughters has watched the film and enjoyed it. Flingo, have you watched it yet?



      Adrian 20th June 2006 01:50 AM

      I was thinking the same thing, donnae. It's pretty obvious when you read it.



      megustaleer 20th June 2006 09:34 PM

      Because it is a children's book, and apparantly a straightforward account of Stanley's misadventures, perhaps there is a tendency to whiz through it without picking up the clues?

      Once you know how it all fits together, of course, a lot of it was clearly hinted at in advance.

      Hindsight's a wonderful thing!



      Adrian 20th June 2006 09:52 PM

      I certainly did that, not giving the book its due respect and racing through it. I'll have to re-read it, or maybe listen to the audio version.



      Flingo 23rd June 2006 08:47 PM
       
      I did watch it - though it was really nicely done. Louis Sachar actually wrote the screenplay, which I think helped keeping it true to the book.

      Recommend watching it if you enjoyed the book.
       
    • 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.
×