Scan barcode
Reviews tagging 'Confinement'
Estudio en Escarlata (Spanish Edition) by Arthur Conan Doyle
4 reviews
discodetective's review against another edition
adventurous
mysterious
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
2.0
Hoping Doyle wrote the rest of the series much better than this.
The mysterious events themselves were so fun! It was feasible and enjoyable to follow Sherlock's logic in where/how he searched locations and why he suspected some people before he revealed his own deductions. I felt like I was also a detective! I'm not exactly sure why he's so condescending, but I found it incredibly grating.
I feel the last section is a slog. We have the perp, so why are we on the other side of the planet, withthe Mormons no less? Victor Hugo never made me sit through such a detour! š„ŗšš Maybe if it were placed just a chapter later or earlier where we didn't have any idea of the people involved or even if it was massively truncated, it wouldn't been so jarring.
Can't forget the racism, of course! It's expected of many things of this time, but I doesn't stop my eyes from rolling right out of my head!
Reading this alongside Charlotte BrontĆ«'s Jane Eyre has me noticing some things despite their vastly differing genres... šļøšļøš
The mysterious events themselves were so fun! It was feasible and enjoyable to follow Sherlock's logic in where/how he searched locations and why he suspected some people before he revealed his own deductions. I felt like I was also a detective! I'm not exactly sure why he's so condescending, but I found it incredibly grating.
I feel the last section is a slog. We have the perp, so why are we on the other side of the planet, with
Can't forget the racism, of course! It's expected of many things of this time, but I doesn't stop my eyes from rolling right out of my head!
Reading this alongside Charlotte BrontĆ«'s Jane Eyre has me noticing some things despite their vastly differing genres... šļøšļøš
Content Warnings
Moderate: Confinement, Misogyny, Racism, Violence, and Murder
Minor: Death of parent and Alcohol
teri_b's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
dark
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? N/A
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
5.0
In order to read something out of my normal reading tastes, I take a dip into Sherlock Holmes.
Listening to this story/book was an adventure, a discovery and delightful on so many levels.
Stephen Fry as narrator does such an amazing job to bring this story to life and let you live it as you listen to it. This listen was immersive, and I liked that a lot.
I am also astonished how modern this story feels even after the many years it was first told. A timeless classic, I would have to agree.
Listening to this story/book was an adventure, a discovery and delightful on so many levels.
Stephen Fry as narrator does such an amazing job to bring this story to life and let you live it as you listen to it. This listen was immersive, and I liked that a lot.
I am also astonished how modern this story feels even after the many years it was first told. A timeless classic, I would have to agree.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Confinement, Death, Religious bigotry, and Murder
gailbird's review against another edition
adventurous
funny
mysterious
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.75
Can I just say, I forgot how much I love Doyleās writing? I think Doyle was somewhat justified in resenting Holmesā popularity, which pressured him to continue writing the same type of "cheap," āpopularā crime stories instead of exploring his range and moving on to potentially greater things. But Doyle is a good writer, and shows immense range even in the first installment of the Sherlock Holmes stories. People have complained (including myself) about how random the digression into the murdererās backstoryāin Utah of all placesāis, but at the same time, itās a really compelling addition to the narrative. Imagine the Utah episodes werenāt there, written as they are. Imagine all we got of the backstory was what the murderer confesses at the end. Wouldnāt that be dry? Even drier than the pitiless desert Doyle evokes through writing as vividly as Louis L'Amour ever did. Given that Holmes himself called the case āsimpleā and solved it essentially from his armchair in three days, the added narrative prevents the content of the story from feeling flat. It communicates things to the reader that Holmes could not have deduced in any amount of time with the information he hadāemotion, passion, cultish fear, survival, grief. The Utah narrative is also a courtesy of the authorial handāit is not written by Dr. John Watson, as is the rest of the story. It confuses the form a little bit, but it also places us decidedly on the side of the murderer, which is a bold move no matter how itās done.
Another thing I didnāt remember from when I first read it is the direct reference included in conversation between Holmes and Watson of Edgar Allen Poeās deductive reasoner, C. Auguste Dupin. Watson compares Holmes to this pioneer of detective fiction, which Holmes rather resents and, somewhat uppishly, explains why he is in fact not like Dupin. I donāt know whether to chalk this up to Doyle wanting to get out in front of possible comparisons that the audience would make, or a genuine acknowledgement of those whose works inspired and informed the creation of his own. One of the characteristics that so distinguishes Holmesā character in this introductory story is that he is not showy (part of his criticism of Dupin), he is not dying to tell everyone his methods, and when he does upon request, he frames it in the most straightforwardādare I say it?ādullest way imaginable. Heās not concerned with the drama of discovery, heās concerned with the truthful results. It may also be inferred that it is difficult for him to clearly convey his processes, as he has automated so many of the steps as to not notice himself taking them, in the same way someone in advanced levels of mathematics might be at a loss as to how to explain the steps of long divisionāthey just do them automatically. And that's another argument for the intermission in ye olde Utah rather than following Holmes doing nothing in particular, which means Watson observing nothing in particular to relate, for those dozen or so pages.
Also, can we pause and appreciate the brilliant introduction of Inspectors Lestrade and Gregson? I felt for those two, and I felt for Holmesā relationship with them. I completely forgot how much of a sense of humour Holmes has. The amount of times Holmes is said to smile or laugh is a shock to system after being accustomed to seeing him portrayed in adaptation after adaptation as some kind of uptight, pompous, obnoxious, tactless person. The way he humours the inspectors and, though momentarily righteously incensed at their being given all the credit, sees their better qualities while they somewhat rudely overlook his is just heartwarming. And Watson. He is all that a narrator should beāobservant, stylish writer, but with a few revelatory emergences of his own personality to make him more than a blank slate for the readers to write their own names on. Of course, that is indeed a part of what he isārepresentation for the skeptical audience that is then won over to Holmesā side along with him. Itās a common writing technique, but an essential one when you need to get a story moving quickly and communicate necessary informationāhave a character enter an unfamiliar environment or meet a new person and then teach the reader about it naturally by having them watch that character learning. But I feel like Watson is more, and is foreshadowed as becoming more, with his background in Afghanistan, his illness, and his honest liking for Holmes after initially being quite indifferent to or wary of him. Because, like I said, Holmes is actually likeable in the way heās written. And Iām here for it.
Another thing I didnāt remember from when I first read it is the direct reference included in conversation between Holmes and Watson of Edgar Allen Poeās deductive reasoner, C. Auguste Dupin. Watson compares Holmes to this pioneer of detective fiction, which Holmes rather resents and, somewhat uppishly, explains why he is in fact not like Dupin. I donāt know whether to chalk this up to Doyle wanting to get out in front of possible comparisons that the audience would make, or a genuine acknowledgement of those whose works inspired and informed the creation of his own. One of the characteristics that so distinguishes Holmesā character in this introductory story is that he is not showy (part of his criticism of Dupin), he is not dying to tell everyone his methods, and when he does upon request, he frames it in the most straightforwardādare I say it?ādullest way imaginable. Heās not concerned with the drama of discovery, heās concerned with the truthful results. It may also be inferred that it is difficult for him to clearly convey his processes, as he has automated so many of the steps as to not notice himself taking them, in the same way someone in advanced levels of mathematics might be at a loss as to how to explain the steps of long divisionāthey just do them automatically. And that's another argument for the intermission in ye olde Utah rather than following Holmes doing nothing in particular, which means Watson observing nothing in particular to relate, for those dozen or so pages.
Also, can we pause and appreciate the brilliant introduction of Inspectors Lestrade and Gregson? I felt for those two, and I felt for Holmesā relationship with them. I completely forgot how much of a sense of humour Holmes has. The amount of times Holmes is said to smile or laugh is a shock to system after being accustomed to seeing him portrayed in adaptation after adaptation as some kind of uptight, pompous, obnoxious, tactless person. The way he humours the inspectors and, though momentarily righteously incensed at their being given all the credit, sees their better qualities while they somewhat rudely overlook his is just heartwarming. And Watson. He is all that a narrator should beāobservant, stylish writer, but with a few revelatory emergences of his own personality to make him more than a blank slate for the readers to write their own names on. Of course, that is indeed a part of what he isārepresentation for the skeptical audience that is then won over to Holmesā side along with him. Itās a common writing technique, but an essential one when you need to get a story moving quickly and communicate necessary informationāhave a character enter an unfamiliar environment or meet a new person and then teach the reader about it naturally by having them watch that character learning. But I feel like Watson is more, and is foreshadowed as becoming more, with his background in Afghanistan, his illness, and his honest liking for Holmes after initially being quite indifferent to or wary of him. Because, like I said, Holmes is actually likeable in the way heās written. And Iām here for it.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Death, Blood, Kidnapping, Grief, and Murder
Moderate: Bullying, Confinement, Domestic abuse, Emotional abuse, Physical abuse, Violence, and Religious bigotry
Minor: Rape and Torture
cnohero's review against another edition
mysterious
reflective
medium-paced
- Strong character development? N/A
- Loveable characters? N/A
- Diverse cast of characters? N/A
- Flaws of characters a main focus? N/A
3.0
Content Warnings
Minor: Animal death, Confinement, and Religious bigotry