The complete Sherlock Holmes by Arthur Conan Doyle

First off, I have to say that I did myself a disservice by reading "Dust and Shadow" by Lyndsay Faye before reading the original source material because Doyle's writing style is MUCH simpler.  I loved Faye's Sherlock Holmes pastiche novel about Jack the Ripper and am aware of the global fascination/adoration for Sherlock Holmes.  I read "The Hound of the Baskervilles" in high school but could only vaguely remember it.

I liked "A Study in Scarlet" because not only was it a mystery solved by Sherlock but it was also a story told by the culprit about the history of Mormons in Utah and the civil war in India.  The writing style and historical detail made it a fascinating story that I thoroughly enjoyed.

I liked "The Five Orange Pips" for the historical lessons about the Ku Klux Klan that sent me to Google about their disbandment in 1869.

Perhaps when the short stories were published in a magazine for the general masses they may have been more suspenseful and exciting.  The more of them I read, the more formulaic they seemed to me.  They weren't thrilling mysteries to solve but threads to follow to the end where everything was neatly tied up.

One of the most annoying things about the Sherlock Holmes stories was the sprinkling of untranslated foreign phrases where context couldn't help with deciphering.  I was thoroughly happy to discover that someone had compiled them all in one spot and explained them.

The way people talk about Moriarty, I figured he would be in at least more than one story but he's NOT.  I was completely disappointed because the whole mythology behind Moriarty as Holmes' arch nemesis has no basis other than Holmes' own word in the one story.  So much has been made of Moriarty that you just expect to see him show up in more than just one story.  And then the actual writing of Moriarty was a let-down because other people's interpretations are far more detailed than the original story where Moriarty himself is more of a shadow figure than a real character.

Much has been made (and implied) about Holmes and Watson's relationship, considering that they lived together as roommates.  So I was utterly surprised when Watson meets his future wife in "The Sign of the Four" and is already married in "A Scandal in Bohemia".  Holmes and Watson don't actually live together for very long until after Holmes' faked death.

Mike from the Book Fight podcast wants to know: "Is Sherlock Holmes supposed to be a giant dick? Why does Watson keep working for him?"  I wondered this often myself.  "The Hound of the Baskervilles" triggered this question when Holmes sends Watson off to work on the mystery without him and then later in the story reveals that he's been working the case anyway.  In "The Final Problem", we meet Moriarty (for the only time) and the story ends with Moriarty and Holmes falling into the gorge at Reichenbach Falls in Switzerland.  In the next story, "The Adventure of the Empty House", Holmes has been 'dead' for three years when he suddenly reappears and can't understand why Watson faints at the sight of him.  When Watson recovers and asks how Holmes survived and where he's been the last three years, Holmes basically says, "We'll talk about it later.  Right now we have work to do."  The deeper I got into the Penguin Complete Sherlock Holmes, the less I liked him.

I decided not to finish reading all of the Sherlock Holmes stories.  I gave up at the beginning of "The Adventure of the Six Napoleons" when Holmes mentions vampires in Transylvania.  I was severely disappointed in the source material.  For me, the widespread popularity and legend of the Sherlock Holmes character is blown way out of proportion from the original source material.  Although I like his logical skills of deduction, the man himself is not a very nice person.  Dr. Gregory House of the TV show "House, M.D." is supposed to be a Sherlockian character with similar logical skills of deduction.  In the beginning of the series, I very much liked the show but, over time, House, like Sherlock, shows that he's not a very nice person and I lose interest.

I wouldn't mind reading more Sherlock Holmes pastiche such as "The House of Silk" by Anthony Horowitz but I doubt any of them will be as fascinating and gripping as Lyndsay Faye's novel.

Read on,

Paula

Forgetting books; and book blogging

The Readers podcast had a great episode recently.  One of the main topics they discussed was forgetting books: forgetting almost everything about a book shortly after you've read it and/or forgetting you've read a book.  I am afflicted with this.  Like Thomas, I don't think it's because I read too fast (especially now when I am lucky if I make it to 50 books a year) but that I probably don't read closely enough.  Looking through the list of books I've read, I know I've read them because I can remember something about the time in my life when I read it or I can remember something about the book...but not always.  I plan to institute something similar to Simon where I take notes while reading. 

Thomas from The Readers says that forgetting books is the reason he started book blogging and I am using that as inspiration.  I love books and I love reading but my blog has been a bit of an unfocused venture.  Going forward, I intend to be more detailed in my reviews so that I can remember my favourite parts, quotes, and it may be heavy in spoiler alerts.  This is something I have struggled with and never gotten any advice on: how much of the plot should you give away in your review?  Granted, I am not a reviewer for a major magazine or newspaper but (theoretically) someone out there will read what I've written.  I wouldn't want to spoil the plot of a book that prevents someone from reading the book itself.  So maybe I won't go into ALL of the details but I will be more descriptive in what I liked about the book.  Consider yourself forewarned!

Read on,
Paula