Sherlock doesn't entirely suck

Prior to enrolling in this course, I had never read Sherlock Holmes. Which, having looked back upon it, is kind of surprising. While yes, some of the things Holmes says can be considered narcissistic and  taboo for certain audiences, it's really well written. The language is great, and I'm really enjoying the blend between more modern english while still holding true to the Shakespearean style of saying things like "Pray" instead of "Please". I think it makes the story easier to read because it's the language we're most used to, while also reflecting on the age of the story, because no one speaks like that anymore. 

Also, the stories are really interesting. I mean yeah it's not like it's a Criminal Minds episode where there's like 100 different MO's and 30 people involved, but for the late 1800s, I think that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle did a pretty good job of coming up with some original content. Although we haven't read a ton of Holmes yet, I can totally see why people consider this a classic. It's a fairly easy read, while also challenging the mind to not only get through the bits and pieces of  the older english, but also, the reader wants to know what happened! While I was reading the Speckled Band, I personally didn't pick up on all the clues, as it was the first time I had ever read the story, and found it really interesting that Doyle chose to make the killer a snake. I also loved that The Dancing Man was a code. I thought that was so interesting and creative! Yes it has been done before, but these stories are really old I think Doyle deserves some credit for coming up with such a creative concept!

I'm really excited and looking forward to continuing to read these stories, and also to hear what everyone else has to say about them. I really like that Doyle chose to make everything short stories. It makes it easier to read, and doesn't feel like you need to sit down and read forty pages of just straight words. Breaking it apart more makes it easier to follow, and I think more enjoyable, because it feels like less work. I'm really enjoying this so far, and look forward to continuing reading the stories

Holmes

Like many people in this class, I have never really read Sherlock Holmes prior to coming to this class. Most people do not fully know his stories and background but we’ve heard about the name Sherlock Holmes being referenced to many things. Since I am the type of person who watches crime-solving shows all the times, I’ve developed an interest in knowing the character and what he was all about.

Sherlock Holmes paved the way for many of the shows that airs on television nowadays. Almost all the top-rated shows airing now are based on some sort of crime solving plot, whether it’s NCIS or Hawaii-five-O (Hawaii five-O is awesomeeee).  Like I stated above, I enjoy watching these kinds of shows a lot. One of the shows relatable to Sherlock Holmes that I really enjoy is Forensic Files. Like Sherlock Holmes, Forensic Files focuses on cases that are almost unsolvable. The crimes being solved on this show uses all sorts of scientific methods that goes above and beyond to bring justice for the victims. Although, Sherlock solves his cases way faster, there are still some similarities between the two.  

After reading the stories, I’ve began to like Holmes more. One thing that I like is how he approaches the crime scenes. For example, in the story A Study in Scarlet, Detective Holmes began to look at the pavement and garden leading up to the house before he even met with the inspectors. This shows that he doesn’t rule out anything that could potentially help solve crimes. Another characteristic that I find very interesting is how he makes predictions based on just what he saw. After Holmes arrived to the crime scene later, he began to make connections based on what he just saw. Some of the things he stated was the height, cause of death, size of feet. I think this is where people lost interest in the Sherlock because those things are just impossible to confirm based on the time the stories were created. It’s obvious that no human can make those assumptions just based on eyesight but I try not to look at it from that point of view. when it comes to fictional stories, I like to think of it as reality. It just makes the story better and makes all the outrageous claims more believable.

SHERLOCK HOLMESSSSSSS

I was super excited to finally read a little bit of the Sherlock Holmes series as I have never had the pleasure of reading Conan's work. Being completely honest, I have to say I didn't dig it too much. I tried so hard to like it because I always thought of Sherlock Holmes as a bad ass detective. While reading A Study in Scarlett, I found part 1 to be fairly interesting, but I found the end to be fairly weak. Maybe I read the end wrong and didn't grasp the awesomness to it, but I wanted the investigation to come together more smoothly. I wish we could just go into the mind of Sherlock during the investigations, then it would make more sense.

I found little joy in part 2. I did like how Holmes credits his discovery of the suspect through "reasoning backwards". I thought it was fun how it came together.

I am very excited for class tomorrow to listen to my classmates' views on these stories so I can grasp more ways of looking at Sherlock Holmes. But as of right now, I'm not sold.

Sherlock

I thought it was interesting that we were assigned to read Sherlock Holmes. I personally have never read Sherlock Holms once. I feel that there have been so many adaptations made from this classic that I only noticed if it was an adaptation if it was painfully obvious. After beginning to dive into the serious I now realize how many movies, novels and bored games were based off of this detective classic. Nate the Great was always my favorite novel growing up. My mom used to read it to me every night while I would fall asleep. While I was reading Sherlock Holmes I realized that I used to love basically the children’s version. It was great to experience a blast from the past from this assignment.

Another experience I have had with Sherlock is the T.V show which is on Netflix and I completely recommend. Not only is it of course based on the great story of Sherlock Holms but it is just a great show in general. Since I have watched the show while I was reading the story I couldn’t help but picture the actor Benedict Cumberbatch and how the show pictured his ability to read a situation almost like visions.

One thing that I really found interesting in the story is when he is explaining his ability to read people and their appearance to determine their story. Sherlock says “I knew you came from Afghanistan. From a long habit the train of thoughts ran so swiftly through my mind that I arrived at the conclusion without being conscious of such steps” (Sherlock Holms A study in Scarlet” Sherlock says this to Dr. Watson when he asks how Sherlock received the information that he served in Afghanistan. Then Sherlock goes on to blow my mind even more. He then tells Dr. Watson the thoughts that ran through his mind when he met him leading him to know that he indeed was in Afghanistan. Most of the clues Sherlock used I believe I could have noticed such as Dr. Watsons tan complexion or his hurt arm. However, he also solved that he went through such hardship and was by reasoning in Afghanistan without missing a beat and took no time whatsoever. This shocked me and Dr. Watson as well. Sherlock uses the stairs in the house as an analogy. He states that they both know where the stares are and where they lead but he asked Dr. Watson if he knew how many stairs there were. Dr. Watson answered that he did not and Sherlock said that is the difference some notice while others simply walk the stairs. Sherlock Holms is a mysterious character and I’m excited to continue reading about him.

I just don't understand.....

Hello classmates, I have a confession. Reading texts for English classes have always been something that I struggled with. Although I may have an interesting imagination, I just can never relate to fictional characters. However, considering the fact that in life we have to step out of our comfort zones. With that being said, here is my attempt to write a response to the assigned reading.

            Before reading the text, my first thoughts were “why does Dr. Mitchell-Buck want us to read Sherlock Holmes?” This was not a sarcastic question that I asked myself, but rather a reality. Dr. Mitchell-Buck does not seem like the type to assign a text that has no purpose. With that being said, as I was reading, my goal was to dissect the true relevance of the stories of Sherlock Holmes. So let’s first begin with the characteristics of Sherlock Holmes. He is apparently a forensic scientist who is well known for implementing methods to solve cases. (At least that is what I go from it) Also, I am getting the sense that the story often shifts narrators. I assumed that the narrator would be Sherlock Holmes since that is the name of the chapter. However, on page 19 it states, “ ‘You don’t know Sherlock Holmes yet,’ he said.” That indicated he was not the narrator all long. As I continued reading, I learned that Holmes was a respected investigator and has an excellent educational background. To be honest, A study in scarlet was not appealing to me at all. However, when I began to read A Scandal in Bohemia, it was exciting to read about Irene Adler and the role that she played in Holmes’s life. After reading this section, it was still a little unclear on what the purpose of the story was. However, in the afterword on page 53, it states that “Irene Adler is the first of Holmes’s opponents to know her antagonist by reputation.” This quote provided me with a little bit more insight about Adler.

Despite my struggles in understanding and relating to this text, I hope to eventually realize the purpose and true meaning of this text. Hopefully in class student’s commentary on the text will help me to better relate to the text. Does anyone else miss Romeo and Juliet? I mean who can’t relate to a classic love story?

I pledge that I have neither given nor received unauthorized aid on this assignment,

christiana morris

Is Sherlock Holmes Really That Great?

I have never before read Sherlock Holmes or found an interest in it although it has been something that I have always heard about. However, I have always liked detective TV shows, games, and books that were kind of similar. One detective show in particular that I used to love watching in particular, was Scooby-Doo. Instead of one detective, there were four people and a dog who rode in a mystery van to solve problems. Like Holmes, they put clues together to solve a mystery. It wasn’t the greatest show, but it was entertaining. Mysteries are cool because it keeps people guessing and constantly on their toes.

                                                              s.

For the first story, a study in scarlet, it seemed that Dr. Watson couldn’t catch a break, but it seemed to be vital in order for him to meet Sherlock Holmes. The description he gave of Holmes made him seem fascinating and peculiar. To me, Holmes appears to be a complicated dangerous drug user. What I don’t understand is that if you’re a detective, why should you be mysterious other than solving mysteries? He also seems to be a phony because it seems that what he does, anyone could do if they actually put their mind to it. He mainly uses context clues to figure things out. He isn’t smarter than anyone he just uses different ways of finding out about things that other people aren’t used to doing.

 One part that I do like is that it was written from the point of view of Dr. Watson because no one can successfully pull off every mystery by alone. However, much of the description of Holmes in a Study in Scarlet is biased because in Dr. Watsons eyes Sherlock Holmes is the greatest and can do no harm.

When the king paid Sherlock to obtain the picture he was being threatened with it also reminded me of Olivia Pope from Scandal who always gets paid by high ranking people to do tasks and figure out problems. The problems that she deals with seem to be more dangerous and with the way that she figures out issues, I would dare to call her the modern day Sherlock Holmes.

                                               

Irene took away some of Holmes greatness because in the end she was better than Sherlock. She managed to outwit the detective although she did have a warning ahead of time that he would be coming.  I also find it weird that the king gave Sherlock Holmes a job to do and it wasn’t completed. If someone didn’t do what I asked after I paid them for it I wouldn’t even think of offering them more. I think the king too easily trusts the words of Irene in a Scandal in Bohemia when she says “as for the photograph your client may rest in peace” (51) because that still leaves room for error or for her to change her mind. I don’t see how the King can find comfort in her disappearance leaving just a letter. Can Holmes really be called the greatest detective if he was outsmarted by a woman?

Congratulations, You Played Yourself.

          I enjoyed reading the stories much more than I thought I would, especially A Scandal in Bohemia. I found the stories reminiscent of TV police procedurals, much like the show Lie to Me. In Lie to Me the main character was a man who was trained to figure out if someone was lying, just by looking at a person’s facial movements, just like Holmes.

          At first, I was not sure if I liked Holmes. In Lie to Me, the main character, while often knowing much more than the other characters, is a dad which I think makes his character more likable. Holmes is by himself for the most part, which is why at the beginning he came across not so much as a know it all, but very matter of fact and cold. Towards the end of A Scandal in Bohemia, I began to like him more as a character, after getting to know him a bit better.

          Of the many interesting conversations Watson and Holmes have, I have to say that the most interesting to me, was when Watson learns that Holmes did not know that the earth revolved around the sun and not the other way around. His explanation that the info was not important to him really exemplifies his character, in that he takes in the information that is only pertinent to his work. It made me begin to think about just how much information we take in and how much of it we actually end up using. Although, l do think it is a bit ridiculous for Holmes to suggest that the brain has a finite amount of space in it. 

Watson trying to process what Holmes says

          In a Scandal in Bohemia, I really enjoyed the character of Irene. At first, I thought that she was just going to be another person that Holmes could outsmart. The best part of the story came at the end when Holmes was so sure that he had outsmarted her, but instead received her letter and realized he had not. I find it interesting that Holmes was not super angry that he had been wrong. I think part of it was that he kind of found it attractive that she was essentially on his level, that she beat him at his own game. Maybe Holmes had just been getting tired of always being smarter and found the situation to be refreshing. 

What Irene basically wrote in her letter