When I was, say about 12, I was obsessed with Sherlock. Mainly the television series, but also the books, and off-shoots. The multiple books about the misadventures of the Baker Street Irregulars and the comic Young Sherlock Holmes Adventures come to mind. So one day, one ebay or some other digital marketplace, I bought with all my saved money, the Penguin Complete Sherlock Holmes, published in 2009. I remember not liking it as much as the television series (Sherlock by Steven Moffatt), but that’s because I was an angst-ridden tween with no patience and a massive crush on Benedict Cumberbatch. I like to think I’ve grown in five years, and maybe I now have a deep profound understanding Doyle’s works. So let’s take a look at the first book in the series, A Study in Scarlet, and let’s see how this holds up today.
Let’s start with the characters. How is the world famous cold-blooded, emotionless genius that puts facts before emotion portrayed in his first appearance? Turns out, a sympathetic, emotional, chemist who is kind of smart, is really good at deduction and is extremely emotionally intelligent! Who would’ve figured? (Certainly not Moffat.) Doyle writes Sherlock not as a genius who is never wrong because he has answers to everything and knows everything and is basically magic in his thinking, but as a human being! He’s not right all the time, he guesses quite a lot and a lot of his character deductions include the word “air” in them. I’m sorry Doyle, but what “…the air of a military man” mean? How does he deduce it? Does Holmes actually sniff the air? I’m left with so many questions. Another thing about Holmes’ personality is that he’s charismatic, and very sassy. Take Holmes’ opinion on Monsieur Lecoq, the book so called the “father of detective stories”, is “…a textbook for detectives to teach them what to avoid.” Jesus Sherlock, I don’t think Émile Gaboriau can take that type of criticism. I’m not sure if anyone else read Holmes this way, but I also found him to be quite a bubbly (or in the terms of English passed: queer) person. His first introduction to us as readers is him in the laboratory getting excited because his re-agent works. He fangirls over Gregson, a detective Sherlock tolerates, when he starts talking. He’s just pure and I love him. For the other characters, Watson is shown to be smarter than Holmes in literature, philosophy and even astronomy (Holmes doesn’t know that the Earth goes around the sun because it doesn’t matter to him). Lestrade’s only characteristics, according to Doyle, is that he’s a rat-faced, ferret-like annoyance of a human life. I’ve never known a writer to hate a character more than Doyle hates Lestrade. And don’t get me started on the throw-away detective by the name of Rance, who is flat out told by Holmes “I am afraid, Rance, that you will never rise in the force.”
Now let’s talk about plot, an integral part of the whole narrative thing. On a whole, it’s pretty good. You have on your hands a decent story about revenge and murder. The writing style is immaculate and the very olde-timey, mutton-choppy, moustache-twirling, suspender-adjusting Englishness of it all is very prominent. At the core, it’s a fun romp about two Englishmen, who go on an adventure. And there’s nothing wrong with that. There is, however, a problem when the murderer’s backstory takes up 5 bloody chapters. I know there’s an audience for intense backstory about love and justice and murderous Mormons, but that just doesn’t interest me. If it does interest you, write a review! Maybe I won’t be the only person doing reviews in this school!
So in conclusion, the characters are interesting and fun to read and the plot is a silly run around the cesspool that is Victorian London. Could’ve had less murderous Mormons though, in my opinion. 7/10
Comments (0)
See all