So yeah, I've neglected this blog til now. Sorry to the person who's going to read this (don't know who you are yet).
Anyways, the first book I'm going to read is A Study in Scarlet by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. This book is the first of the Sherlock Holmes series. Since I'm doing a study of the character of Sherlock Holmes, what better way than to start with the very first novel.
What I know about the mystery so far:A man has been murdered. Supposedly poisoned and one of the murderers leave behind a wedding ring and there is the word "rache" written in blood on the wall (rache meaning revenge in German).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Not really sure how'll I organize my blog, but here goes:
Part 1 Chapter 1:
The book takes place in the late 1800s. From reading the first 50 pages, I've noticed that the language isn't like that of the more older english literature. The language is fairly easy to understand. I would have to say that the level of diction is literary, but not like Charles Dickens's level of diction.
I've never read any of the Sherlock Holmes stories before and I'm enjoying the book so far. In the first chapter, the author basically introduces the characters of Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson. Dr. Watson had returned from a war in the Middle East and he was looking for a person to room with, since he didn't want to pay a lot for rent. I felt really sad that Dr. Watson "had neither kith nor kin in England," (15). I mean he had just returned from a war and he comes back to nothing. He doesn't have any friends or at least any acquaintances he could meet up with. In addition, it was such a coincidence that Watson was actually able to find a person who would room with him and it was going to be Sherlock Holmes.
Watson met an old friend named Stamford who suggests the idea of rooming with Holmes. It was surprising to read that a friend of Holmes would speak negatively of him. Stamford said, "You mustn't blame me if you don't get on with him. I know nothing more of him than I have learned from meeting him occasionally in the laboratory. You proposed this arrangement, so you must not hold me responsible," (17). Judging by Stamford's tone, it seemed as if he wasn't fond of Holmes. This surprises me because I thought Holmes was supposed to be the best detective out there and yet people don't seem to like him. I'll post what I've found out about Holmes's character in the next post since I'm already 50 pages into the book.
Part 1 Chapter 2:
I have to say this chapter was pretty funny.
The chapter starts off by jumping right into the story with Dr. Watson and Holmes visiting their fortress of solitude on No. 221B, Baker Street.
Much of this chapter helped reveal most of Holmes' characteristics. It was funny that Watson noticed that "of contemporary literature, philosophy and politics Holmes appeared to know next to nothing," (21). Holmes was apparently focused on something else. But what? It can't just all be about his detective work, can it? Holmes was also "ignorant of the Copernican Theory and of the composition of the Solar System," (21). So, he's still living in the olden times where everyone thought the sun revolved around us, the earth.
But I found that Holmes would often zone out as Watson once observed, "but now and again a reaction would seize him, and for days on end he would lie upon the sofa in the sitting-room, hardly uttering a word or moving a muscle from morning to night. On these occasions I have noticed such a dreamy, vacant expression in his eyes, that I might have suspected him of being addicted to the use of some narcotic, had not the temperance and cleanliness of his whole life forbidden such a notion," (20). This justifies the fact that he was a crack addict, as Ms. Clapp had told me about Sherlock Holmes. But it's odd that he can still be so intuitive even though he's killing his brain everytime he uses his drugs.
Finally, it was also funny when Watson wrote down notes about Holmes's personality. The title of his document was "Sherlock Holmes-his limits." I don't think anyone would ever really have to write down someone's traits because they're going to be roommates with them. It goes on to say "1. Knowledge of Literature. - Nil. 2. " "Philosophy - Nil. 3. " " Astronomy - Nil 4. " " Politics - Feeble 5. " " Botany - Variable." So apparently Watson thought Holmes wasn't bright at all.
However, Holmes sure proved Watson wrong. When a postman was delivering a letter to Holmes, Holmes just glanced at him and was able to tell that he was a retired military officer, a retired sergeant of Marines, in fact. This astonished Watson and it amazed me too. Maybe this could be one of the reasons why the character of Holmes is so compelling? I'm just going to have to continue reading.
I almost forgot, I don't know if I'll continue to post for each chapter, considering the chapters are really short and there might not be much to say. I'll try to post for each chapter if I can. =)
Hey Will, well just to let you know, its me saanchi whos going to be reading your blogs, sorry I'm a little late in responding to your blogs, I checked a few times and nothing was up, but now since there is I can finally respond!...Ok well, I was just question what your main purpose is in doing a full study on the character Sherlok Holmes himself?...is it sort of a characterization paper?
And I guess, the reason why his friends do not really like Holmes is because he may have a superior attitude towards his peers since from what you've told me that he is the best detective in the world, maybe the fact that Holmes is the best, detracts from his personality, and his friends or aquaintences are jealous or he may just be really snobby.
And I had another question is Sherlok Holmes a real person because you said Ms. Clapp told you Holmes was a crack addict,it just seemed like thats what you meant, sorry I'm just not too knowledgeable with Sherlok Holmes, but you've given me a pretty good intro. for it. And lastly, I have to say I would have never thought of such an idea such as this one for my independent project, in fact when I learned I was supposed to blog on this subject, I thought I would be completley disinterested, but now that you've actually explained some of the story to me, I've started to really get interested in this genre.
In response to your comments, Saanchi, I'm going to focus mostly on the character of Sherlock Holmes. One of my other books, called "The Execution of Sherlock Holmes" is written by a contemporary author and I'm going to see if Holmes's character has changed over time and why he is so compelling. Another one of my books deals with his drug addiction and no, Sherlock Holmes is not a real person, but there is a fictional biography made for him, which I may read. Hope this clarifies things for you, Saanchi.
Part 1 Chapter 3:
And so this chapter begins the actual mystery. Holmes receives a letter from Tobias Gregson who works for the Scotland Yard. Gregson was asking Holmes for help in a case involving murder. "There had been no robbery, nor is their any evidence as to how the man met his death. There are marks of blood in the room, but there is no would upon this person. We are at a loss as to how he came into the empty house," (26). This is just a brief part of the letter that Gregson sent to Holmes. It seems to me that the Scotland Yard lacks the intuition that Holmes has to solve cases. Furthermore, many people rely on Holmes to help solve their cases. For example, Gregson and his friend Lestrade are "the smartest of the Scotland Yarders" and yet they still need Holmes's help to solve a case.
When Holmes's arrives at the crime scene, he finds the victim lying on the ground surrounded by blood. Holmes inquires Lestrade and Gregson about what they know and upon examination, Holmes immediately knows that the blood had belonged to a second individual. But then Holmes supports this thought by referencing an earlier case he's solved that involved a similar murder. He says "it has all been done before," (29).
The detectives show Holmes the word "rache" written on the wall in blood and they give him their own inference as to what had happened. There was a candle near the wall and they believed it was lit at the time and they thought it was blown out so that the wall would be the darkest spot in the room. They also concluded that one of the victims attempted to write the name Rachel on the wall. Lestrade was the one who made this conclusion and he rubbed it in Holmes's face. He said "you may be very smart and clever, but the old hound is the best, when all is said and done," (31). There seems to be a competition among the detectives. Whoever can solve it first wins. But the funny thing is that Holmes blows Lestrade out of the water. Using a tape measure and a large round magnifying glass, he examines the room and comes up with his own conclusion. Holmes believes that the man was killed by poison and that's why there was no blood and "rache" is a German word for revenge. Immediately Lestrade was stunned. And you're right Saanchi, Holmes is pretty conceited because he has an intuition that no one else has. He had been able to predict, from the previous chapter, that the postman was a retired marines officer. Now, he's able to predict the happenings of a murder after he had just gotten there and examined the room for what, a couple of minutes?
Well thanks for the clarification first of all. It seems like a great topic to do your paper on, and I'm sure you'll find some great evidence through this research.It's kind of interesting how an author made a biography on a compleley fictional person, is the author of the biography the same author for the complete series?
So you've referenced to the quote about it all being all done before, is there any proof as to indicate that this can be the same person who did the previous murder that Holmes has solved? And do you think there has been a past strife among Lestrade and Holmes where Holmes has the determination to actually prove Lestrade wrong with his detecting skills? There just seems to be something in Holmes which makes me feel that although he is the protagonist who solves all the problems, the audience can't help to hate him because of his conceitedness.
I think it's pretty amazing how Holmes can determine so much in a matter for a few seconds of being at a scene. It's just one of those talents I wished I had, but still like I mentioned before, aside from the mystery itself, I think the characters are hiding a mystery including Holmes, so hopefully, I figure things out as the story goes on...
The biography is written by another author.
There isn't any proof that the same person who did the previous murder did this one. Maybe I'll find out when I read more.
I feel that Lestrade and Holmes are rivals. Lestrade is obviously trying to solve the case before Holmes, but apparently his intuition is not as good as Holmes's. I'm pretty sure that Lestrade and Holmes have a strong history together.
Part 1 Chapter 4:
So, as I said before, Holmes is incredibly intelligent. The first thing he observed when he arrived was "a cab that had made two ruts with its wheels close to the curb," (32). It hadn't rained for a week and the wheels of the cab left a mark that, Holmes thought, must have been made during the night. Holmes also noticed that there "were marks of the horse's hoofs, too, the outline of one of which was far more clearly cut than that of the other three, showing that that was a new shoe," (32). He's able to infer that there were two men involved by just looking at markings of a cab. Holmes even noticed that the A in Rache was written in a non-German way, so he was able to conclude that a German was not involved. Holmes pays a lot of attention to the slightest detail. I guess Holmes's mindset is that any evidence is better than no evidence.
In addition, Holmes and Watson interview or rather interrogate a man named John Rance who had been the guard of the mansion where the murder took place in. Rance told Holmes about a drunk man who had been wandering around the perimeter of the house during the early hours of the morning. Holmes concludes that the drunk man came back for a wedding ring that he dropped during the murder.
Rance's name looks a lot like the word rache. Do I sense some foreshadowing going on? Well, I could be completely wrong, but there's got to be some significance to his name. Maybe he could be the murderer.
Finally, I also like Holmes's mindset. He believes "there's the scarlet thread of murder running through the colourless skein of life, and our duty is to unravel it, and isolate it, and expose every inch of it," (36). So basically Holmes will not stop until this case is solved.
I completley agree with you Will, I first saw Rance's name and I had an instant thought that "hey, that looks a lot like Rache, or maybe I'm out of my mind." But maybe the gaurd may have a really good hand behind the murder. Since Holmes found out that the A was written in a nongerman way, is it ok to assume that the murderer was trying to spell out rachael? For some reason, I feel Lestrade has a hand behind the murder also,I'm probably wrong, but for some reason or another, red lights flash whenever Lestrade is in the picture for me. I could be incorrect based upon the info. that I do have on Holmes, but seems a little weird. I guess I started to get into this mystery as well :) Oh and yah, who's mansion has this murder taken place in? I was just wondering if we know anything about him yet. Maybe I missed it while reading. Your last quote in the last blog, was a really good characterization quote for Holmes, because it shows how he is determined, and very confident that he will achieve the goal in isolating and unwinding the thread of murder in life. I think it really is impactful in labeling him as a character.
Not sure who owns the mansion. The author doesn't mention any names, but it's called Lauriston Gardens, off Brixton Road.
Hmmm...that's a pretty good prediction that Lestrade could be linked to the murder in some way. It could be true, we never know. Gonna have to look out for that.
Well, Holmes has already concluded that the victim wasn't trying to spell out Rachael, but we don't know if it is true.
Part 1 Chapter 5:
So, Holmes and Watson decided to put out an advertisement for the ring that they found at the crime scene. They put it in the local newspaper to see if their suspect might show up. They had to take out a revolver just in case the scene got ugly. Anyways they waited throughout the day and at around eight o'clock at night the door bell rings. It was very ironic because instead of the man in a brown coat that Holmes had expected, it was an old woman. This shows that Holmes can be wrong sometimes too. I think that makes him a more believeable character because if he had been able to predict who the guest was going to be, then this whole story wouldn't be worth reading. I'm sure readers wouldn't like characters that are conceited and too smart, except for superheroes who actually have powers. She claimed that the ring belonged to her daughter. They take down her name and her address and as soon as she leaves, Holmes follows her. Holmes is obviously very eager to solve this mystery. He immediately "sprang to his feet the moment that she was gone." The lady took a cab and fooled Holmes because she told the cab driver to bring her to her house, but when Holmes met the cab at the destination, he saw no one get out of the cab. Holmes later found out that the address doesn't even belong to the lady. Holmes believed that the old lady was in fact a young man in disguise and he believes that "he" jumped out of the cab at some point before the destination was reached. Holmes must be really ticked off and the chapter ends with him playing the violin as "he was still pondering over the strange problem which he had set himself to unravel." So again, I see Holmes's mindset in action. He's not going to give up until it is solved.
I was suspicious about the old woman as soon as you started talking about "it". Maybe I've just been watching too many movies haha. And I noticed how cleverly the author builds the characters trust, by initially making Holmes wrong by making the mysterious person an old woman and not a man, which proves Holmes wrong, and more beleivable because he is not perfect and does not have super powers, but then very cleverly fits the fact that somehow Holmes was right, and the old woman was a flook. It just hit my how author's can pull tricks like that to show imperfection but completley contradict that aspect of it so subtly. I don't know if I make sense?
So when Holmes finally reaches the cab destination and checks the cab, does he ask the cab driver what happened? And how could he not see the mysterious person jump off of it since I can imagine how alert he must have been. At first I thought maybe the mysterious person hid in the trunk, or became the cab driver himself, but it's just not possible for this book. And I think the cab driver was staged.
Post a Comment