Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In the last year or so, I've been reading classics from 19th century England. Already had read a bunch of Jane Austen, some Dickens, Wilkie Collins. But in the past year I read Thomas Hardy, the Brontes, Henry James (yes he was American by birth but went through a nationality-reassignment surgery), George Eliot, and more and more Dickens.
I had avoided Arthur Conan Doyle at first, because I was thinking that Sherlock Holmes was too "19th century pop culture" and not "literature." I then thought maybe I had been wrong, and that I can't really say I've read all great 19th century English works unless I've read the Holmes canon.
So I downloaded the whole canon, all 4 novels and all 5 collections of short stories. I'm now more than half way through (just finished "The Return of" stories) and I have to say, I'm underwhelmed. Could it be that all the books, movies, TV episodes, and stories that are derivative of the Holmes works are BETTER than the originals???
My bias is usually, in most circumstances, that originals are better than remakes. Older is better than newer. But I've tried to like the Holmes works, and I can't really do it. Hell, I like the Star Trek: Next Generation episodes with Data pretending to be Sherlock Holmes better than the actual Sherlock Holmes. In fact, I feel more challenged to solve a mystery by a Law & Order episode.
I guess I've been "spoiled" by 20th and 21st century mystery works, where you get clues as you read, and along the way, the reader is challenged to solve the mystery while the detective (or detective-like figure) learns of each clue. But in the Holmes works, the reader is left out of most of the discovery of most clues, and then we suddenly have Holmes spill out the answers, after he found a bunch of clues off-stage. It's like "Ta-da! here is the solution to the mystery! and YOU, reader, had no chance in hell of solving it!"
It can't just be because this was early in the history of mystery writing and no one had yet developed the sophistication to lay out clues for a reader to put together. Collins wrote a couple of really good detective mysteries. Other 19th century authors have written good mysteries that let us follow breadcrumbs to the solution. Not sure why Doyle was seen as so great. The actual writing is also ho-hum.
Anyone else experience this disappointment?
How on earth is Holmes one of the most famous and "most often portrayed fictional character in history"?
I've read them all although quite some time ago and thoroughly enjoyed them. They are definitely on my list to reread someday.
It's just a different style of writing that doesn't appeal to you. Nothing wrong with that of course but I don't think it makes the books poorly written or unsophisticated.
It can't just be because this was early in the history of mystery writing and no one had yet developed the sophistication to lay out clues for a reader to put together. Collins wrote a couple of really good detective mysteries. Other 19th century authors have written good mysteries that let us follow breadcrumbs to the solution. Not sure why Doyle was seen as so great. The actual writing is also ho-hum.
I don't know that Doyle was seen as "so great." We have this entire pop culture lexicon that's been built up around these stories and characters for decades that it's easy to forget that he was writing pop fiction, not great literature. Much like Louisa May Alcott, he grew to resent the popularity of the character and that the audience demanded more than he wanted to give.
I love the Holmes stories, and they're fun to read, but they're not sophisticated mysteries. They're about Holmes.
Also: Keep in mind the times in which they were written. There was no such thing as forensics or investigative techniques. The typical methods employed by Scotland Yard at the time a crime was committed was usually to round up a bunch of suspects (meaning poor people) and browbeat them into confession.
I look on Sherlock Holmes kind of like how I look on the Beatles. I really appreciated the influence of the art form. Really, really appreciate it. But enjoy it? Not so much. Sherlock hasn't aged well.
Sherlock Holmes is, as others have said, mainly about the character. However, I read him as a child and it made me much more observant in general.
The book that always disappointed me was Wuthering Heights. People had always told me it was a beautiful love story, and when I finally read it, I was appalled to find out that Heathcliff was just an abusive douchebag and probable psychopath. The love between him and Cathy was seriously dysfunctional. I LOVED the book, but I felt I'd been misled.
Also: Keep in mind the times in which they were written. There was no such thing as forensics or investigative techniques. The typical methods employed by Scotland Yard at the time a crime was committed was usually to round up a bunch of suspects (meaning poor people) and browbeat them into confession.
I look on Sherlock Holmes kind of like how I look on the Beatles. I really appreciated the influence of the art form. Really, really appreciate it. But enjoy it? Not so much. Sherlock hasn't aged well.
I love the Beatles. Nothing just “appreciated” about them for me at all. They age well as far as I’m concerned. YMMV.
Haven’t read Doyle yet. One of these days, though, hopefully.
I like the Beatles --- especially their early stuff, when they were just copying Buddy Holly. And I really appreciate the fact that they elevated rock and roll songs beyond love songs, break-up songs, cars, and surfing. They brought a real complexity to rock music, not only with lyrics but with music. They proved that rock can be smart.
But honestly, I just don't like a lot of their music. Once the drugs came in, things got strange. I mean "Strawberry Fields." That song is just weird. Weird!
The Who was actually a far better band, both musically and lyrically. But honestly, an any given day I'd much rather listen to the Kinks or even the Stones than the Beatles.
You know, I had a similar experience - at first. I was so disappointed, and kept feeling that I'd been cheated. It's not a "fair' mystery. And obviously, it's not "literature" as an Austen or Dickens work would be.
But then I gradually came to understand - or, at least, to feel for me, personally - that the enjoyment isn't the supposed mystery. For me, the enjoyable part became the character of Holmes - his impertubability, his polite dismissiveness, his sense of humor.
Then I started to like it.
i'm not sure about his fame overall - perhaps it was because of the timing? Did he appear early one, before other series of detectives?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
