Scan barcode
ggcd1981's review against another edition
adventurous
mysterious
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.25
Eu li a muitos anos atrás uma tradução para o português de A Study in Scarlet, porém não lembrava de quase nada. Dessa vez li em inglês e acho que em sua língua original a obra é bem mais atmosférica. O cenário de Londres Vitoriana é uma das coisas que mais gosto nas histórias de Sherlock Holmes. Nesse primeiro volume se segue Dr. John Watson em sua volta de uma guerra no Afeganistão para Londres e na sua busca de um companheiro para dividir um local para morar. Nesse contexto nos é apresentado Sherlock Holmes em todas as suas excentricidades e o famoso endereço 221B, Baker Street. Dr. Watson é logo envolvido na rotina de Sherlock como consultor de investigação da Scotland Yard e começa a relatar os casos em que Holmes é consultado. Um homem é encontrado morto em uma casa vazia, sem ferimentos, porém há sangue na cena do crime. Com a vítima, um americano, é encontrado um anel de diamante. Depois de algum tempo uma segunda vítima, também americano, é encontrada esfaqueada em um quarto de hotel. A investigação de Holmes é breve e em pouco tempo ele afirma saber a identidade do assassino, armando para esse uma “armadilha” e o capturando com a ajuda dos inspetores da Scotland Yard Lestrade e Gregson e também do Dr. Watson. A partir daí a narrativa passa a contar a história de vingança de Jefferson Hope, o assassino. A história de Hope começa em Utah, nos Estados Unidos onde suas vítimas faziam parte de um grupo religioso extremo que causou a morte da mulher que Jefferson amava, assim como do pai da garota. Pai e filha tentaram fugir do grupo religioso, mas foram pegos, o pai foi assassinado e a garota forçada a casar, em pouco tempo definhou e morreu. Essa parte do livro em que os conhecidos e amados personagens não estão presentes se arrasta um pouco, mas foi importante para contexto. As vítimas de Hope foram primeiro Enoch Drebber, o homem que forçou a garota, Lucy Ferrier, a ser uma de suas esposas, e segundo Joseph Stangerson, o homem que matou o pai, John Ferrier. Ao fim a única pergunta não respondida foi quem era o cumplice de Hope que tentou o ajudar a recuperar o anel de casamento de Lucy que Jefferson havia deixado cair sobre o corpo da primeira vítima. Não sei se essa questão será respondida nos próximos livros da série. A obra termina com a amizade entre Sherlock e Watson estabelecida e, como todos que conhecem a série já esperam, a Scotland Yard levando o crédito pelo trabalho realizado por Sherlock Holmes. A Study in Scarlet foi um primeiro volume bastante bom, estabelecendo muito bem a atmosfera e os personagens, com certeza quero ler os próximos volumes. Dou 4.25 estrelas.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Animal death, Death, Drug use, Misogyny, Terminal illness, Xenophobia, Grief, Religious bigotry, Stalking, and Murder
Moderate: Violence, Kidnapping, Death of parent, and War
Minor: Rape
librarymouse's review against another edition
adventurous
mysterious
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
3.5
A Study in Scarlet was an enjoyable read. Sherlock Holmes, for all his quirks, is history's best detective, and this was a fun introduction into his adventures. The plight of Jefferson Hope and his love for Lucy was charming, and then heart breaking. I got to the second section of the novel I did a double take of sorts and googled it to make sure that my digital copy of the book hadn't accidentally been merged with another book. The difference in the plot in the flashback section was jarring, but the writing style stayed consistent between the actual investigation and the explanation behind it. The character of Watson was far different from his modern iterations. I kind of enjoyed him being characterized as being choosey about what's worthy of him leaving the house, in order to conserve his limited energy after being injured while serving in the military. There was racism and classist sentiment sprinkled throughout the book that was considered acceptable at the time it was written.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Animal cruelty, Animal death, Death, Racism, Blood, Grief, and Murder
Moderate: Sexism, Trafficking, and Stalking
Minor: Xenophobia and War
grimviolins's review against another edition
adventurous
mysterious
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
4.0
Content Warnings
Graphic: Death and Murder
Moderate: Racism, Sexism, Kidnapping, Grief, and Religious bigotry
Minor: Blood and Alcohol
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 Doyle’s writing? I think Doyle was somewhat justified in resenting Holmes’ popularity, which pressured him to continue writing the same type of "cheap," “popular” 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 murderer’s backstory—in Utah of all places—is, but at the same time, it’s a really compelling addition to the narrative. Imagine the Utah episodes weren’t there, written as they are. Imagine all we got of the backstory was what the murderer confesses at the end. Wouldn’t 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 “simple” 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 had—emotion, passion, cultish fear, survival, grief. The Utah narrative is also a courtesy of the authorial hand—it 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 it’s done.
Another thing I didn’t remember from when I first read it is the direct reference included in conversation between Holmes and Watson of Edgar Allen Poe’s 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 don’t 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 Holmes’ 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 straightforward—dare I say it?—dullest way imaginable. He’s not concerned with the drama of discovery, he’s 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 division—they 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 Holmes’ 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 be—observant, 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 is—representation for the skeptical audience that is then won over to Holmes’ side along with him. It’s a common writing technique, but an essential one when you need to get a story moving quickly and communicate necessary information—have 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 he’s written. And I’m here for it.
Another thing I didn’t remember from when I first read it is the direct reference included in conversation between Holmes and Watson of Edgar Allen Poe’s 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 don’t 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 Holmes’ 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 straightforward—dare I say it?—dullest way imaginable. He’s not concerned with the drama of discovery, he’s 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 division—they 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 Holmes’ 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 be—observant, 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 is—representation for the skeptical audience that is then won over to Holmes’ side along with him. It’s a common writing technique, but an essential one when you need to get a story moving quickly and communicate necessary information—have 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 he’s written. And I’m 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