Just finished A Study In Scarlet. Anyone who hasn't bothered with Holmes really should.
Yep.
None of the films/TV shows come halfway close.
They're brilliantly woven, where the adaptations (and let's face it, every detective show ever owes a heck of a lot to SH) basically have a "gotcha" moment, almost all of the books avoid that stupidity and lead you into what he sees.
I really liked A study in Scarlet but the second book The Sign of the Four was a real chore for me to finish for some reason .
I can understand that. I remember thinking "_no, don't shift away from Holmes again!". SoF is perhaps my least favorite of the novels.
Possibly uniquely in what's termed classical English literature, I think the brilliance of Doyle is best shown in the Holmes short story collections. I really liked Scarlet and Baskervilles but for sheer consistency of detail, quality and character drawing I think the shorts are high point. The glimpse of Victorian London, its mood and its lifeflow, is every bit as good as Dickens. And imo Holmes, in his austere and acerbic drawing by Doyle and gradual expansion in an entirely consistent manner, is one of literatures greatest creations, whether you like the genre or not. (Except for the awkward mistake of killing him off, lol).
My booksheves are dominated by a Biggles collection and historical non fiction, but If this were a stereotypical "desert island" scenario, The Complete Sherlock Holmes Is competing with The James Herriott Collection for my choice.
If there's one thing that English (crime, clubland) fiction is almost totally devoid of before 1960 (and I've got a heap of these books in the cupboard) is characterisation. The characters are all paper-thin....and I'm including Conan Doyle, Sapper, Dornford Yates, Agatha Christie, Edgar Wallace, E Phillips Oppenheim....someone just sits in the study and nuts it out. Yeah, right! Just tales of muscular Christianity, dashed good chaps, tophole gals and heaps of dewwing-do. And f'Chrissake, don't pass the port from right to left, or leave the crusts on the water-cress sandwiches. And the overt racism (against swarthy dagoes mainly) is staggering. They're just not British, old chap.
Not all that convinced the Yanks had it right either, but it's certainly changed since the war.
As a general rule, I think that’s spot on. But interestingly, I think the Holmes canon is free of many of those generalizations. Holmes is an opiate addicted, flawed, narcissist who mixes apathetic lethargy, arrogance, physical prowess, razor intellect and is usually lacking in all empathy, lol.
On the racist bit, some passages in the Biggles series are just cringeworthy,and I’m not at all surprised that Johns fell foul of the rising political correctness of the sixties and seventies, lol. He was very typical of British junior fiction from the turn of the century right through to post-war though.
As a general rule, I think that's spot on. But interestingly, I think the Holmes canon is free of many of those generalizations. Holmes is an opiate addicted, flawed, narcissist who mixes apathetic lethargy, arrogance, physical prowess, razor intellect and is usually lacking in all empathy, lol.
On the racist bit, some passages in the Biggles series are just cringeworthy,and I'm not at all surprised that Johns fell foul of the rising political correctness of the sixties and seventies, lol. He was very typical of British junior fiction from the turn of the century right through to post-war though.
"I've wanted to meet you for some time," said Holmes. "I won't ask you to sit down, for I don't like the smell of you, but aren't you Steve Dixie, the bruiser?"
"That's my name, Masser Holmes, and you'll get put through it for sure if you give me any lip."
"It is certainly the last thing you need," said Holmes, staring at our visitor's hideous mouth."
Edit: I guess he could just be smelly and broken lipped from fighting...
The Fu Manchu stuff by Sax Rohmer is pretty eyepopping, racially speaking. But oddly enough the narrator ends up hooking up with and marrying an Egyptian/Middle Eastern girl. Apparently it's only the Asians that are universally eeeevil...
Lol. Oh no doubt, wim. There is also the poison-dart weilding Andaman Islander stereotype from the Sign of Four, off the top of my head. But from memory, the majority of Holmes adversaries are very white, very British (or at least anglo) flotsam . headlined of course by the genius Moriarty.
There's a book...it might be Biggles, can't remember, where our hero is not fooled by the expert blackface employed to impersonate his trusted servant, because the foolish villain could never replicate the smell.
The other thing this brief discussion has me pondering is how many authors become controlled by their characters. Doyle killed off Holmes because he felt he was dominating Doyle’s output. The public outcry and financial pressure saw Sherlock dragged out of the Reichenbach Falls as Doyle admitted that Holmes dominence was inescapable.
Johns is on record as stating that by the 1950s Biggles had come to represent the quintessential British “traits” and so (paraphrasing) " I can’t have him out on the ■■■■, or womanizing, or stirring up hell. What would my audience think? In fact, I need live my life thinking ‘would Biggles do that’ ? " it reached its height of absurdity when 1950’s reprints of the early WW1 stories ( incidentally, some of the best and most authentic writing on the horrors of WW1 combat flying masquerading as junior fiction) were censored to remove references to alcoholism and mental breakdowns.
One I do find interesting is Flemings Bond. The literary Bond was an alcoholic, brooding killer. The films turned him into something far more romanticized. At least until Craig’s version shifted back towards the real character of Flemings Casino Royals.
The other thing this brief discussion has me pondering is how many authors become controlled by their characters. Doyle killed off Holmes because he felt he was dominating Doyle's output. The public outcry and financial pressure saw Sherlock dragged out of the Reichenbach Falls as Doyle admitted that Holmes dominence was inescapable.
Johns is on record as stating that by the 1950s Biggles had come to represent the quintessential British "traits" and so (paraphrasing) " I can't have him out on the ■■■■, or womanizing, or stirring up hell. What would my audience think? In fact, I need live my life thinking 'would Biggles do that' ? " it reached its height of absurdity when 1950's reprints of the early WW1 stories ( incidentally, some of the best and most authentic writing on the horrors of WW1 combat flying masquerading as junior fiction) were censored to remove references to alcoholism and mental breakdowns.
One I do find interesting is Flemings Bond. The literary Bond was an alcoholic, brooding killer. The films turned him into something far more romanticized. At least until Craig's version shifted back towards the real character of Flemings Casino Royals.
Agree with the last point about Daniel Craig as Bond. His version of Bond had something the others have all lacked, a real and palpable sense of menace. Not even Connery had that.
Connery wasn’t anywhere near that, was he? But that won’t have been his doing. Someone, somewhere in studio land made the call that screen Bond had to be suave and charming and the other side wasn’t welcome.
There's a book...it might be Biggles, can't remember, where our hero is not fooled by the expert blackface employed to impersonate his trusted servant, because the foolish villain could never replicate the smell.
No, that ain't Biggles.
One that stands out for me in Biggles is a passage where a potential crim is being described. Along the lines of " a really shifty looking type, I didn't like him at all and wouldn't trust him an inch." And the reply : " oh, so he wasn't British then?". Lmao.
Usually Johns' racism is of the patronising type that can be somewhat defended as ignorance rather than outright degradation. He doesn't have his characters "jabbering like chimpanzees " ( Kipling? Burroughs? Can't recall exactly who that was) but One of the books- Biggles In Australia- would send benfti into a foaming rage, it really is that poor.
The other thing this brief discussion has me pondering is how many authors become controlled by their characters. Doyle killed off Holmes because he felt he was dominating Doyle's output. The public outcry and financial pressure saw Sherlock dragged out of the Reichenbach Falls as Doyle admitted that Holmes dominence was inescapable.
Michael Dibdin killed off Aurelio Zen In "Blood Rain" in 1999, blew him to smithereens, and then put him back together again for 4 more sequels. In fact Aurelio "lived" to see the death of his creator Dibden in 2007.
The first 3 books of the Zen series are the best 3 modern crime novels I've read and the final 4 were forgettable money spinners.
A while now, but I seem that recall that Holmes' "second coming" career was fairly uninspiring. I suppose surviving a drop into a gorge with Moriaty does that to you.
Incidentally I agree that Doyle's greatest achievements were his Holmes short stories rather than the novels and he rivals Poe as the most influential practitioner of that form.
Yes, whilst some of the individual were still excellent, in Holmes’ resurrection he somehow lost a little of the magic from earlier. Whether that was because Doyle was writing out of pressured obligation, or because his interest had shifted to his paranormal obsession, or perhaps both, I’m not sure. It also became tangled with Watson getting married and then apparently not being married again by His Last Bow , iirc. Still, the tales themselves hung on to reasonable quality status.
Dornford Yates was one of the worst...in one of his books, Berry (a fop of the first water) and his cronies are in Europe protecting the Empire's interest, and they come across some swarthy European, so they hang him.
Some of the post-war American stuff was as bad. Mickey Spillane's Mike Hammer would have no qualms about killing someone if he thought they were a dirty commie.
But my original point remains...most of the characters were extremely two, or even one, dimensional, held together by their stiff upper lips and their innate Britishness....and don't fart in front of the vicar.
But my original point remains...most of the characters were extremely two, or even one, dimensional, held together by their stiff upper lips and their innate Britishness....and don't fart in front of the vicar.
Josephine Tey? The exception to the rule or doesn't Scotland count as British?
I read The Three Musketeers a few months back and it's a fantastic read. Genuine page turner with plenty of twists that keeps you engaged from start to finish. Loved it.
Currently 1/3 way through Wuthering Heights. What a collection of awful, selfish, nasty and unlikeable characters, with Heathcliff topping the list. So far, Nelly Dean and Lockwood appear to be the only good souls. Nelly has just finished explaining the history of Wuthering Heights to Lockwood, so I‘m curious to see how it pans out. I'm enjoying it.
Lovecraft's mythos suffered from people after his death writing trash.
I think people set the bar far too high for adapting Lovecraft.
If Lovecraft himself came back and did an adaptation, people would still say 'he just doesn't get it.'
Agreed. Even some of Lovecraft's stuff is prety badly written and dry when you look at it objectively - Mountains of Madness for instance is quite badly paced and overly exposition-laden. You can't fault his imagination (and some, like Shadow Over Innsmouth, are gems) but very little of Lovecraft or Lovecraft mythos stuff lives up to the Lovecraft that people carry around in their heads.
But my original point remains...most of the characters were extremely two, or even one, dimensional, held together by their stiff upper lips and their innate Britishness....and don't fart in front of the vicar.
Josephine Tey? The exception to the rule or doesn't Scotland count as British?
I only read the one Tey and I'm sure you can guess what it is.
Funny that the fantasy readers come in when characterisations are being discussed.