Delving into Doyle

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, that is.  More specifically Sherlock Holmes.

Though I know I read a couple stories in high school (The Adventure of the Speckled Band stands out), but aside from what the speckled band was, I couldn’t tell you much about my overall impression of the writing and Holmes in general.  So, in need of something short and hopefully well-written, I sought out a collection of Holmes stories—The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes from Project Gutenberg.

Story one was A Scandal in Bohemia.  Interesting premise, but overall a bit flat.  And I think my slash-goggles are permanently and firmly in place as several of Watson’s comments led me to far more interesting places than the narrative was.  My biggest issue is that Conan Doyle seems to be very big into telling vs. showing.  I’m beginning to believe that the heavy weight placed on showing is a more modern development, but it’s hard to shake once it takes hold.  With Watson as narrator, Conan Doyle has limited himself in this respect.  Holmes goes off and has a bit of investigative fun without Watson, so the only way we hear about it is after the fact, when Holmes tells Watson.  From an editorial standpoint, if it’s important enough to tell after the fact, why not show it in the first place?  But Conan Doyle chose Watson as our entrée into this world, so we and he are limited by this choice.  I’ve never been shy about criticizing “great authors”, and I won’t back down here.  Sherlock Holmes’ adventures would be a hell of a lot more engaging if we were in his head.  Not that I don’t love Watson, but…  Then there’s the argument that perhaps Holmes’ head is too overwhelming of a place to be, even for his creator.  Food for thought, that.

Also read The Red-headed League, which I think I may have read back in high school as well.  Considerably more show vs. tell in this story, since Watson is present for the bulk of Holmes’ investigation.  Definitely more enjoyable all around, I thought.

But there I gave up and decided to track down the “proper” order of stories (all hail Wiki!) and went back to the beginning.

A Study in Scarlet definitely read much better, at least in the beginning.  Finding out a bit about Watson’s past and how he comes to live with Watson, not to mention their first meeting and settling into life together…brilliant stuff.  Even without slash goggles.  Things start to fall apart after Holmes and Watson first become involved in the investigation.  Initially Watson is present at the seen, and the Doyle shows a considerable amount more than he tells.  But by the end of it, we’re getting told events again—this time even poor Holmes on the receiving end from the rival Scotland Yard detectives.  And Homles’ solving of the case was really very deus ex machina as well.

Grey pointed out that, difficult as it may be, I should try to read it in the context of the times.  And she’s got a point.  I know I wouldn’t have been half so critical reading this in college—and I did get my degree in English, after all, so how sad is that?  If I knew back then what I know now…  Life and writing and editing has made me extremely critical of what I read.  Maybe that’s why I’ll probably never be the voracious reader I used to be.  I can’t just read any old thing.  Okay, sometimes I can, if in the right mindset—I did unfortunately read Twilight.  But the exception proves the rule, as they say.

Back to Holmes.  I wonder if he’s stood the test of time in spite of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s less than impressive writing.  The characters rise above their source and take on a life of their own.  And that would have made a brilliant analytical essay in college.  Still, I was always more focused on being a writer than an academic anyway.