Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I enjoyed this story and thought the "twist" was good.  But it was another story that ended too abruptly.  I think a little bit more about what actually happened afterwards, rather than the hope of what might happen afterwards, would have been better.  Probably another one that was written on a too-tight deadline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again I agree completely with what has already been said.

 

What I would add is that I felt that this story was rather digging up old ground.  Holmes had used the clues surrounding tobacco ash and footprints many times before and although I know that this would happen there did not seem to be too many new ideas.  He has also used the idea of old grudges/past history before.  Also used the idea of characters being followed from other countries to this country in the past.

 

Still really enjoyed the story and am finding the stories as a whole very easy to read.  Liking Watson more and more - feel that although he is not the star of the show is a necessary element to the stories if only as a steadying influence on Holmes and his brilliance and flamboyance.  For all Holmes' brilliance and attention to detail he sometimes seems unaware of human emotions in the same way as Watson.  Am loving the development of the Watson character as much as that of Holmes.  Also enjoying the continuation and development of the friendship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This story starts with Dr Watson at home with his wife.  I checked back to the previous story; he's unmarried. I have to remind myself that these stories are not meant to be connected or chronological, but wonder why not. (See "Thoughts" for more on the chronology conundrum)

 

The initial chat between Watson and his wife reveals their relationship briefly and skillfully. I find that Conan Doyle has an easy way with dialogue, managing to create the right tone whatever the situation. There is even an amusing riposte to Lestrade …

"I find it hard enough to tackle facts, Holmes, without flying away after theories and fancies."  "You are right", said Holmes demurely; "you do find it very hard to tackle the facts." … that goes right over Lestrade's head!

 

I wonder why Lestrade fails to learn detection skills by being around Holmes. As always he does the wrong things at the scene – accidentally destroying clues – and then pours scorn on Holmes's revelations. Maybe he gets better later on. But, they seem to have a good working relationship for all that.  I was uncomfortable with Lestrade's refusal to go looking for the perpetrator.  Talking of whom, the timing of his arrival was excellent. :clap:

 

The Australia story was a nice change from England, and a bit of banditry always goes down well! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if the fact that Lestrade does not seem to improve his ability to deduce clues in the way that Holmes does is because although of a high position in the police he probably was not a man of great education.  It has to be remembered that the police force was probably not the sort of career that men of Homes' or even Watson's abilities would be drawn to.  Holmes just had a real interest in working out crimes but was often only looking for expenses and did not care too much if he did not gain by the experience.  I suspect that Lestrade was simply someone who rose up through the ranks because he was the brightest of a not very bright bunch.  The way that Holmes often refers to him would seem to uphold this thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found this story interesting and didn't really pick up any clue as to the potential murderer.  I did wonder briefly about Mr. Turner senior but he was described by his daughter as being terribly ill so thought there's no way he would be capable of murder. The young Miss Turner pleaded with Holmes to help James McCarthy as she was convinced of his innocence and Holmes was quite willing as he was sure himself at this point that James McCarthy was innocent.  We also learn that Miss Turner is in love with the young James.  I was surprised to find out how Turner became rich, hadn't any inkling of him having a criminal past. I liked the way Holmes behaved at the crime scene (almost like CSI :)) as he analysed the various foot prints and clues.  I still wonder why he needs to bounce his ideas off of Watson as Watson is always so surprised at Holmes' clever thinking.  The description of Lestrade when they arrive at the station leaves you with the feeling that Doyle did not have a lot of respect for policemen and his portrayal of the Scotland Yard man was not terribly flattering.  Am rambling a bit here but just jotting the notes down as they come to mind.  

 

When Mr. Turner confesses to Holmes that what he did was to save his daughter from the clutches of the spawn of the evil McCarthy it is ironic that it would be to no avail as his action doesn't prevent that from happening.  The story doesn't say that Mr. Turner's written confession is what gets James his release but rather "on the strength of a number of objections which had been drawn out by Holmes and submitted to the defending counsel."  This seems rather strange, however, it wraps up the story briskly and without burdening Miss Turner with the knowledge of what her father did.

Edited by momac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love Holmes's decisiveness, he seems to know the truth well before anyone else, and usually just needs a few details confirmed before the confrontation/denouement takes place. I liked this a little more than the previous story as like Holmes we could be reasonably sure that James McCarthy wasn't guilty, just a bit too easy, and typical of the simple police methods of the time. The real culprit was a little more elusive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just checked the chronology, it certainly is all over the place! I wish the dates were included in the index.

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.
×