cheetahpig's review against another edition
3.0
I feel a little silly for just now crystallizing this opinion, since I first read Sherlock Holmes stories about 15 years ago and have seen both the Robert Downey Jr. movie version of the Sherlock Holmes universe and the British TV show Sherlock. I was also initially drawn to House because of its deliberate similarities to the Holmes stories. I'm not a fan girl by any means (apparently Holmes lovers have a pretty rabid fan community), but I have always loved a good mystery and I have a soft spot for stories set in 19th-century London. I also have a grudging admiration for extremely arrogant, narcissistic, brilliant characters.
A Study in Scarlet and The Sign of Four are the first two novellas featuring Holmes. I had read both stories as a kid, but since I've consumed thousands of pages since then, I had pretty much forgotten everything about them. While reading them this time around, I was struck with two surprising facts: 1) these stories aren't really true mysteries and are grossly unfair to the critically-thinking reader, and 2) the Sherlock Holmes world is very schlocky.
Claim #1 - In a true mystery (Agatha Christie's novels being the quintessential examples), the author lays out the narrative in such a way that a reader who is clever, knows a bit about human psychology, or is very good at paying attention to details can solve the who-dunnit entirely on their own, potentially even before the detective does. There's an implicit understanding that the author won't withhold information crucial to the solution and won't give the detective an unfair advantage in solving the mystery, because part of the fun of reading mysteries is seeing if you can figure it all out before the detective does.
What makes the Sherlock Holmes stories fail as true mysteries is that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle doesn't follow these rules. He has the annoying tendency of giving us a few clues to hook our interest, and then having Holmes figure everything out on his own and telling Watson something infuriating like, “Oh, I figured the whole thing out ages ago, but I suppose we could talk to some more people or follow up on one of the clues.” Then, when Holmes finally caves in and explains everything to Watson or the police, it turns out that we would have had to know the characteristics of the ashes of a particular brand of cigar and the penmanship habits of Germans in order to reach the conclusions he did. That simply isn't fair, because it doesn't matter how closely you pay attention, you're unlikely to be able to solve the mysteries until Holmes deigns to explain everything to Watson, the London police, and you – i.e. the collective band of idiots.
Holmes also makes leaps of logic that may be warranted in a very narrow, fictional universe, but wouldn't necessarily apply in the real world. This is important because in order to maintain the suspension of disbelief, a story should conform as closely to our expectations about how things work as possible. For example, at one point in A Study in Scarlet, Holmes says that “of course” the murderer would have taken a job as a cabbie while he bided his time because, well, um, it's obvious that that's what anyone in his situation would do. Sometimes Watson will call him out on this type of flimsy reasoning and accuse Holmes of merely speculating, but Holmes' retort is always that an explanation is not speculation if it's the only explanation that fits the available facts. The problem is, there are always far more explanations than Holmes acknowledges, but Conan Doyle winks at the reader and asks us to pretend that in this particular version of London, there are only a few very limited options for human behavior, and people always behave predictably in accordance with their gender, age, and class.
I can't get too angry about this, because these stories are first and foremost tales of action, not mystery, and it's only because Holmes is so entrenched in our culture as a detective that we tend to think of these tales as bona fide mysteries. In reality, Holmes and Watson are closer to Batman and Robin than they are to Miss Marple or Hercule Poirot.
Claim #2 – Speaking of Batman and Robin, these stories are amazingly schlocky and melodramatic. In just the course of two novellas (a tiny fraction of the whole Sherlock Holmes canon), we have messages scrawled on walls in blood, a Mormom feud, a convict with a peg-leg, buried treasure, a cannibal midget who shoots poisoned darts, and a boat chase on the Thames. If graphic novels had existed in the 1880s, these stories certainly would have been published in comic, rather than book, form. Maybe it's because Sherlock Holmes stories are often part of school curricula and are usually shelved in the classics section of libraries and bookstores, but the low-brow, corny simplicity of these stories surprised me. I guess I had expected them to be more sedate and ponderous.
The fact that these stories are schlocky and don't conform to the typical mystery model isn't necessarily a bad thing, and they are quite fun and interesting to read. I'm just amazed at the discrepancy between my conception of the Sherlock Holmes narrative universe and the actual stories. Now I'm wondering just how true this realization would be for every other book I read as a kid. That's what makes me hesitate to re-read books that I loved when I was younger: I'm worried they won't turn out to be as good as my memories of them, and I'd rather leave my happy reading memories intact.
A Study in Scarlet and The Sign of Four are the first two novellas featuring Holmes. I had read both stories as a kid, but since I've consumed thousands of pages since then, I had pretty much forgotten everything about them. While reading them this time around, I was struck with two surprising facts: 1) these stories aren't really true mysteries and are grossly unfair to the critically-thinking reader, and 2) the Sherlock Holmes world is very schlocky.
Claim #1 - In a true mystery (Agatha Christie's novels being the quintessential examples), the author lays out the narrative in such a way that a reader who is clever, knows a bit about human psychology, or is very good at paying attention to details can solve the who-dunnit entirely on their own, potentially even before the detective does. There's an implicit understanding that the author won't withhold information crucial to the solution and won't give the detective an unfair advantage in solving the mystery, because part of the fun of reading mysteries is seeing if you can figure it all out before the detective does.
What makes the Sherlock Holmes stories fail as true mysteries is that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle doesn't follow these rules. He has the annoying tendency of giving us a few clues to hook our interest, and then having Holmes figure everything out on his own and telling Watson something infuriating like, “Oh, I figured the whole thing out ages ago, but I suppose we could talk to some more people or follow up on one of the clues.” Then, when Holmes finally caves in and explains everything to Watson or the police, it turns out that we would have had to know the characteristics of the ashes of a particular brand of cigar and the penmanship habits of Germans in order to reach the conclusions he did. That simply isn't fair, because it doesn't matter how closely you pay attention, you're unlikely to be able to solve the mysteries until Holmes deigns to explain everything to Watson, the London police, and you – i.e. the collective band of idiots.
Holmes also makes leaps of logic that may be warranted in a very narrow, fictional universe, but wouldn't necessarily apply in the real world. This is important because in order to maintain the suspension of disbelief, a story should conform as closely to our expectations about how things work as possible. For example, at one point in A Study in Scarlet, Holmes says that “of course” the murderer would have taken a job as a cabbie while he bided his time because, well, um, it's obvious that that's what anyone in his situation would do. Sometimes Watson will call him out on this type of flimsy reasoning and accuse Holmes of merely speculating, but Holmes' retort is always that an explanation is not speculation if it's the only explanation that fits the available facts. The problem is, there are always far more explanations than Holmes acknowledges, but Conan Doyle winks at the reader and asks us to pretend that in this particular version of London, there are only a few very limited options for human behavior, and people always behave predictably in accordance with their gender, age, and class.
I can't get too angry about this, because these stories are first and foremost tales of action, not mystery, and it's only because Holmes is so entrenched in our culture as a detective that we tend to think of these tales as bona fide mysteries. In reality, Holmes and Watson are closer to Batman and Robin than they are to Miss Marple or Hercule Poirot.
Claim #2 – Speaking of Batman and Robin, these stories are amazingly schlocky and melodramatic. In just the course of two novellas (a tiny fraction of the whole Sherlock Holmes canon), we have messages scrawled on walls in blood, a Mormom feud, a convict with a peg-leg, buried treasure, a cannibal midget who shoots poisoned darts, and a boat chase on the Thames. If graphic novels had existed in the 1880s, these stories certainly would have been published in comic, rather than book, form. Maybe it's because Sherlock Holmes stories are often part of school curricula and are usually shelved in the classics section of libraries and bookstores, but the low-brow, corny simplicity of these stories surprised me. I guess I had expected them to be more sedate and ponderous.
The fact that these stories are schlocky and don't conform to the typical mystery model isn't necessarily a bad thing, and they are quite fun and interesting to read. I'm just amazed at the discrepancy between my conception of the Sherlock Holmes narrative universe and the actual stories. Now I'm wondering just how true this realization would be for every other book I read as a kid. That's what makes me hesitate to re-read books that I loved when I was younger: I'm worried they won't turn out to be as good as my memories of them, and I'd rather leave my happy reading memories intact.
margheritazaia's review
adventurous
dark
emotional
funny
mysterious
tense
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
4.5
joshkolditz's review against another edition
adventurous
lighthearted
mysterious
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
5.0
cbt00004's review against another edition
adventurous
mysterious
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
I remembered reading the short stories as a child and loving them. These longer stories weren’t especially to my taste, I enjoyed the mystery but was not a fan of the writing style with the jumps backwards to explain stories.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Racism
Moderate: Drug use and Death
nubecato's review against another edition
adventurous
lighthearted
mysterious
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
4.0
5⭐ A Study in Scarlet
3⭐ The Sign of the Four
3⭐ The Sign of the Four
Content Warnings
Graphic: Murder, Racism, and Death
Moderate: Colonisation, Racial slurs, Gun violence, and Drug abuse
Minor: Religious bigotry, Alcoholism, Ableism, Animal death, War, and Sexism
owlreads_'s review against another edition
adventurous
mysterious
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
4.5
momreads's review
adventurous
dark
mysterious
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
3.75
Although I enjoyed both of the stories in this, they were not my favorite Sherlock Holmes stories. The first one, A Study in Scarlet, spent a great deal of time in the backstory of the criminal. The whole thing was rather sad and I prefer more of Holmes analytical detection in the story. The second story really brought out Holmes drug problem and use of cocaine when mentally bored.
sabrina_riegler's review against another edition
Read 'A Study in Scarlet'
Unread 'The Sign of the four'
Unread 'The Sign of the four'
smithological_stories's review against another edition
adventurous
mysterious
reflective
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.75