A review by flijn
The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes by Arthur Conan Doyle
3.0
Holmes and Watson have some differences of opinion, and these are a recurring thread loosely binding the stories together.
One: according to Holmes, literary embellishment detracts from the most interesting and instructive parts of the cases. He accuses Watson multiple times of dramatizing them to pander to the audience's taste for the sensational and inconsequential, at the cost of attention to logic and reasoning.
This creates an interesting situation, because as a reader there is only Watson's account, which does not seem to give all that much superfluous detail, and indeed does a thorough job of explaing Holmes' deductions. Should we understand Watson to be an unreliable narrator, or is it Holmes who is being uncharitable?
Two: they discuss what makes the most interesting cases. According to Watson, those that present puzzles that seem bizarre, stranger than fiction. According to Holmes, those that seem straightforward and simple at the start.
The stories in this collection are not conclusive. Maybe because they are not meant to be; maybe because what is strange and what is normal has changed quite a bit in the last 140 years.
I don't know what the reasoning was to call this book feminist. It is not, especially not by today's standard. That should not detract from a few hours of pleasant reading. One woman outsmarts Holmes because he shows his cards. That is not brilliant, and calling her smart (with much incredulity at that) but neglecting to tell another woman the thruth to 'protect her illusions' is idiotic. Just let the nineteenth-century brilliant man who looks down on everyone have his flaws.
One: according to Holmes, literary embellishment detracts from the most interesting and instructive parts of the cases. He accuses Watson multiple times of dramatizing them to pander to the audience's taste for the sensational and inconsequential, at the cost of attention to logic and reasoning.
This creates an interesting situation, because as a reader there is only Watson's account, which does not seem to give all that much superfluous detail, and indeed does a thorough job of explaing Holmes' deductions. Should we understand Watson to be an unreliable narrator, or is it Holmes who is being uncharitable?
Two: they discuss what makes the most interesting cases. According to Watson, those that present puzzles that seem bizarre, stranger than fiction. According to Holmes, those that seem straightforward and simple at the start.
The stories in this collection are not conclusive. Maybe because they are not meant to be; maybe because what is strange and what is normal has changed quite a bit in the last 140 years.
I don't know what the reasoning was to call this book feminist. It is not, especially not by today's standard. That should not detract from a few hours of pleasant reading. One woman outsmarts Holmes because he shows his cards. That is not brilliant, and calling her smart (with much incredulity at that) but neglecting to tell another woman the thruth to 'protect her illusions' is idiotic. Just let the nineteenth-century brilliant man who looks down on everyone have his flaws.