I love the Hollywood flicks and the modern BBC show, but I've never read Sir ACD. So I'm curious what readers have to say about the original!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They are compulsively readable, in a way that most period literature is not. While there is a lot that dates them (casual Victorian racism, for example), Holmes' personality remains clear and compelling, and the puzzles posed by many of the mysteries remain fun to match your wits against (assuming they haven't been spoiled for you by the many times they've been referenced/adapted/updated by books, TV and movies). Watson is awesome (don't believe any adaptation that makes him out to be a dumb sidekick).
I like the literary period this comes from and I think that Holmes is one of the best characters of this or any other period. I also agree with Ms. Price about Watson; not just there to give Holmes someone to pontificate to.
Have read my "Complete Omnibus" edition till the cover has literally fallen off. Can't recommend the written tales highly enough.
And certainly, Watson as narrator is very self-deprecating but obviously a capable and worthy companion to the literature's greatest detective :)
Wow, that's some glowing praise!
And yeah, I've been wondering how Sir ACD originally presented Watson. Until I saw the movies and the show, I had for some reason thought he was a buffoon or at least possessed of no great talent. Probably just because I heard the phrase "Elementary, my dear Watson!" as a child. I'm very happy knowing he not just Sherlock's sounding board. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The original Sherlock Holmes stories are one of those very few books I seem to be able to read however many times as possible without getting tired of them (except, maybe, for the whole second half of A Study in Scarlet where Holmes and Watson are conspicuous by their absence). Have to admit that The Speckled Band was a lot creepier when I was 9, though.
Other than that I'll agree with what everyone above me has said - especially about Watson being awesome and far from a klutz.
I love the Hollywood flicks and the modern BBC show, but I've never read Sir ACD. So I'm curious what readers have to say about the original!
Holmes is among the first adult books I ever read, way back circa third grade. I haven't been back to him at any length in the past twenty years or so, but occasionally read one for fun or watch the Jeremy Brett version. The latter can get pretty close to actually reading the stories.
I remember them fondly, but there are a few really clunky points like the aforementioned where Holmes and Watson vanish for half a book. Also if you're a mystery purist, you should know that Doyle predates the fair play whodunnit by a bit and so most of his work doesn't really follow its conventions. Were the stories written from Holmes' POV they might have. Of course the fact that they do not helps highlight Holmes' brilliance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Holmes was a jerk. Watson was great.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Find an omnibus that has the original Strand illustrations in it.
And +1 to Watson being awesome. He's only dumb in comparison to Holmes--and really everyone except Moriarty, Mycroft, and The Woman are dumb in comparison to Holmes. Holmes's extreme intelligence could only be showcased by a narrative trick like making him look way smarter than a medical doctor.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've not been to happy with the most recent Holmes portrayals in Sherlock and Elementary. They make Holmes out to be to much of a misanthrope to be believable as someone anyone would consult with.
To see the best portrayal of Sherlock Holmes you need to watch Jeremy Brett's definitive version in the 1984-1994 Grenada Television series. It's also the first to get Watson right, portraying him as a returning veteran still recovering from his wounds, though giving him PTSD is an invention of the Sherlock version.
I've not been to happy with the most recent Holmes portrayals in Sherlock and Elementary. They make Holmes out to be to much of a misanthrope to be believable as someone anyone would consult with.
I agree -- my wife and I watched the pilot episode of Elementary and decided we had no interest in watching the TV execs try to turn Holmes into Gregory House Lite. I prefer the written version, but I have heard many good things about the BBC series.
During one of the early BBC episodes, someone calls Sherlock a psychopath, to which he snaps "I'm a high-functioning sociopath; do your research." Not a character I'd want to have lunch with, but very amusing as a fiction.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find Sherlock amusing, but Jeremy Brett is still the real Holmes.
Agreement on Jeremy Brett being the real Holmes.
The bit in Sherlock where Moriarty has our heroes at gunpoint and in the background there's a sign saying "Deep End" is one of my favourite TV-moments from the past few years, though.
I found Sherlock very entertaining. I think the point was that it was a fairly total reimagination of Holmes.
And Conan Doyle's Holmes was a pretty serious misanthrope, at least externally. They didn't make that up for Sherlock, just gave it a modern (if extreme) treatment :)
But I agree, there's no comparison between Sherlock and the original.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've not been to happy with the most recent Holmes portrayals in Sherlock and Elementary. They make Holmes out to be to much of a misanthrope to be believable as someone anyone would consult with.I agree -- my wife and I watched the pilot episode of Elementary and decided we had no interest in watching the TV execs try to turn Holmes into Gregory House Lite. I prefer the written version, but I have heard many good things about the BBC series.
Elementary seems like they took all the good ideas from Sherlock and threw them out.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Agreement on Jeremy Brett being the real Holmes.
The bit in Sherlock where Moriarty has our heroes at gunpoint and in the background there's a sign saying "Deep End" is one of my favourite TV-moments from the past few years, though.
The signs or graffiti in the background do that in other episodes, too--keep your eyes out for them.
Doyle's original works are excellent! Hound of the Baskervilles remains my favorite of all. If your only exposure to Sherlock and Watson to date has been through television or movies, then you owe it to yourself to pick up some of the books and give them a read. I'd recommend starting with some of the shorter serials before segueing into any of the longer novels.
The previously linked The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes is, in my opinion, the best place to start. Within, The Speckled Band and The Redheaded League were probably my two favorites from that collection.
The Hound of the Baskervilles was the first one I read. Thanks to dad for having kept some of his old childhood favourites around.
Anyone who gets super powers from cocaine is alright in my book.
Which was the one with "Rache" written on the wall?
If memory serves that was A Study in Scarlet, Sherlock Holmes' inaugural appearance.
Adding +1 to all the recs. It's awesome stuff.
Thank you. I remember reading that in second grade. I've been meaning to read all of his stories again. Also, the Brigadier Gerard stories. Maybe one day...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel safe to assert that I am the biggest Sherlock Holmes geek you'll run across. I do an online, free newsletter, I used to run the internet's leading website for Holmes on film and tv, have written Holmes fiction and nonfiction and used to write a column for Sherlock magazine. I'm a bigger Holmes guy than RPGer. Which explains my alias...
There is an awful lot of the original stories in the BBC series. They've done a fantastic job of updating the tales while keeping elements of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's stories.
Doyle's writing style holds up very well for being over a century old. The Holmes he created is obnoxious but compelling. Watson is not the goofball he is often (but not so much lately) pictured as on screen. The mysteries are solid puzzles.
The earlier tales are stronger than the latter, which is not suprising as Doyle didn't care much for Holmes and was only cranking out stories at the end to bring in money for his spirtiualism interests. The latter stories aren't without value, just not of the same quality.
I too recommend starting with the Adventures, then going back to the first two tales, A Study in Scarlet and The Sign of Four.
Holmes is the most enduring character in fiction (arguments for Dracula acceptable). This is a tribute to Arthur Conan Doyle's writing.
My newsletters are at the link below. The cartoon there is from back in the day and considered a pretty good descriptor of Doyle's feelings towards the detective, of whom he said, "He takes my mind from better things."
Benedict Cumberbatch and Robert Downey Jr have both done good adaptations of Sherlock (I'm not so crazy about Elementary as a Holmes show, though it's a decent police procedural). But the actual 60 (possibly plus 2) stories by Doyle are absolutely worth reading.
And there are hundreds and hundreds of Holmes pastiches by other authors, ranging from hideous to very good.
The original Sherlock Holmes stories are one of those very few books I seem to be able to read however many times as possible without getting tired of them (except, maybe, for the whole second half of A Study in Scarlet where Holmes and Watson are conspicuous by their absence). Have to admit that The Speckled Band was a lot creepier when I was 9, though.
Other than that I'll agree with what everyone above me has said - especially about Watson being awesome and far from a klutz.
Doyle had a hard time using Holmes to carry an entire novel (really, novella). Thus, Watson and Holmes are gone for a huge chunk of A Study in Scarlet.
Similarly, the second story, The Sign of Four, features a long flashback with no Holmes and Watson.
Doyle already had a big part of The Hound of The Baskervilles worked out as a non-Holmes novel when he decided to make it about the detective (collecting a big payment from an American publisher along the way by bringing Holmes 'back to life'; well, for one tale, anyways). Holmes is off stage for a big part of the book.
And, back to the tried and true formula in The Valley of Fear (an excellent book!), which features a long flashback sans the detecting duo.
Four novellas, four big absences for Holmes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you have netflix, try watching a few of the Jeremy Brett Sherlock Holmes episodes. They are EXTREMELY well done.
And..watch a movie or two starring Basil Rathbone. They were a series of 14 or so movies made in the forties. All but the first two were contemporary, so they have a different feel. And Dr. Watson is purely comic relief. But Rathbone (an excellent actor) is one of, if not the, best Holmes'.
But Rathbone (an excellent actor) is one of, if not the, best Holmes'.
Agreed. I love the Grenada series, and Brett is brilliant as Holmes, but a great part of it's strength comes from the fact it played Watson straight, rather than as the comic relief as so many versions before have.
Gotta disagree with you guys about Rathbone. He looked like I always imagined Holmes, but he doesn't make Holmes' brilliance visual in the way that Brett does.
Rathbone is a more energetic Holmes than Brett. Brett's energy, while sometimes more frantic, is more contained. It's a different take on the role.
BTW, Arthur Wontner (five Holmes films circa 1930: one of which has been lost) was a very good cererbal Holmes.
Brett was an excellent combination of the action Rathbone and the thinking Wontner.
Other Holmes' worth watching (the movies aren't necessarily great, but strong performances) include:
Ronald Howard (tv series. The best young Holmes of them all)
Christopher Plummer (Murder By Decree)
Ian Richardson (Sign of the Four, Hound of the Baskervilles)
John Neville (A Study in Terror)
Christopher Lee (played Holmes three times in poor movies, but he was a good Holmes. Also played Mycroft and Sir Henry Baskerville as well).
I was active in the Holmes community and Matthew Frewer (Max Headroom) is soundly denounced. And his first of four, The Hound of the Baskervilles, is overacting of the Jim Carey variety.
But the second (The Sign of Four) was better and he grew into the role and The Royal Scandal is a VERY SOLID Holmes film, combining A Scandal in Bohemia and The Bruce Partington Plans. The fourth one (Whitechapel Vampire) was a step back, unfortunately.
When discussing good Holmes' on screen, you sometimes have to distinguish the acting performance from the film, as Holmes scripts are often bad (I'm not sure I could ever again sit through Hands of a Murderer, which was supposed to be the next Ian Richardson film).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It hasn't been mentioned, but I recently saw The Seven-Percent Solution again on TV and was struck by how good a job Nicol Williamson and Robert Duvall did playing Holmes and Watson respectively. Duvall playing a then-rare serious and competent Watson and Williamson a Holmes suffering from cocaine withdrawal symptoms.
It hasn't been mentioned, but I recently saw The Seven-Percent Solution again on TV and was struck by how good a job Nicol Williamson and Robert Duvall did playing Holmes and Watson respectively. Duvall playing a then-rare serious and competent Watson and Williamson a Holmes suffering from cocaine withdrawal symptoms.
The Seven Percent Solution was a very well done book, as are the other pastiches Nicolas Meyer wrote. I was amazed at how well it translated to film, and with two actors (Williamson and Duvall) who I would never have envisioned in the roles. Both do an excellent job, and are probably my second favorite interpretation of the characters.
I'm a longtime Holmes fan (I too have read my omnibus to tatters) and have all the Basil Rathbone films on DVD. Rathbone to me is Holmes, though to be fair I haven't seen the Jeremy Brett shows so can't really compare the two. I've heard many good things about Brett's portrayal, however, so I'll have to give them a look sometime soon.
The one weakness the Rathbone films have - if you can really call it that - is that they portrayed Watson as a somewhat of a buffoon to make Holmes appear smarter by comparison. That said, Nigel Bruce is such a wonderful actor and plays Watson so warmly and convincingly that it's really hard to fault the characterization. Is it "canon"? No, but it's still great fun to watch.
I've also greatly enjoyed the two recent Robert Downey/Jude Law films, and am looking forward to seeing how that franchise progresses.
To be honest, my gut reaction to the first commercials was "Sherlock Holmes as action hero?? What are these idiots smoking??" but the films themselves have won me over. By taking a completely different angle of looking at the characters but still remaining true to Doyle's descriptions they have come up with something very unique and entertaining, and have told their stories in a visually stunning manner. I hope they can continue to do as well in future.
