I always read him as more intellectually weird than anything else. I always had the impression that Holmes and Watson walking down Marylebone Rd. wouldn’t have stood out in the least- he wasn’t given to wearing odd things or acting particularly strange in public. It was more what he did in his apartment and things of that sort which were reckoned bizarre.
And I’m a fan of Law’s Watson as well; I had him pictured as a bit more stocky, but otherwise, he’s pretty much what I imagined.
(and in a related note, Stephen Fry as Mycroft Holmes was an inspired bit of casting, I thought)
How on earth could someone deduce that from a watch? Sure based on its condition you could say he took care of it poorly, and if the watch is valuable you could say he was a man of means or had a family of means.
But the rest is pure ass grabbery, which is the problem I have with Holmes and the adaptations. It goes beyond being insightful and observant into psychic territory.
I did the same thing (only as a 20-something) except I figured that was the giveaway as I knew it was supposed to be a “cheating book”. It’s a totally fair book. Even without that giveaway it’s still totally fair; you’re never promised a reliable narrator in life.
Watson sometimes reacted to Holmes’ deductions like that. In The Sign of Four he accused Holmes of researching his brother and pretending to deduce what he found.
But Holmes, as he usually did, explains his deductions in detail. He guessed that the watch belonged to Watson’s brother, because of the initials engraved on it, and the W suggested Watson, and the fact that now Watson had it meant his brother was dead.
Holmes deduced that Watson’s brother was left with good prospects, because it was an expensive watch, and thus it was likely that inheriting an expensive watch would imply inheriting a fair amount of money as well. But he “threw them away”, and “lived for a long time in poverty with occasional short outbursts of prosperity”. Holmes noticed that there were two places a pawnbroker’s number was scratched on the inside of the lid. Thus it had been pawned at least twice, but occasionally Watson’s brother was able to come up with the money to get the watch back. Watson’s brother was “careless, and untidy”. The watch was dented in two places, and scratched all over from carrying it in the same pocket as coins or keys. That shows a careless man.
“Finally, taking to drink…” Holmes sees thousands of scratches around the key hole where the watch was wound up. Drunks have unsteady hands - the watch key slips and scratches.
Holmes admits that he is only saying what is probable, and it is convenient that he knows obscure facts about pawnbrokers, so it isn’t exactly playing fair. But the point of the story is that Holmes, once again, shows off to Watson, is right on the money, and that Holmes is so cold-blooded about deduction that he forgets that people have feelings.
Of course Holmes apologizes, but it rather sums up the relationship between him and Watson.
Okay, just because it’s been a few decades since I’ve read them: is the book we’re talking about the one about Roger Ackroyd?Because I always thought that was subversively brilliant. Like most of her plots, actually. She may have been a bit of a hack prose-wise but her murder plot twists were fiendishly clever.
One of the things about Holmes that always bothered me a little was that in addition to his amazing detective skills he was also a world-class pugilist and a master of disguise, as if to admit any weaknesses in his character would have been an admission of failure by Doyle.* Even the drugtaking and depression was more of a character quirk than a flaw. IMHO the character works better if Watson actually serves as someone whose strengths counterbalance Holmes’ flaws (as the Cumberbatch/Freeman version does). Holmes in the books just needs [insert companion name here]; the only quality Holmes needs from Watson is to be unobjectionable and to write everything down in slavish admiration of his genius (and, really, not even the latter).
*I have the same objection to John Buchan’s Greenmantle, another book featuring an Englishman capable of amazing feats of physicality, strategy and acting.
I don’t think Doyle thought in terms of “an admission of failure.” There may have been a bit of “Okay, in order to make this story work, I need Holmes to be a master of disguise.” But the whole idea of Sherlock Holmes is that he has decided to make himself the best detective ever, and so has deliberately worked at mastering the knowledge and skills necessary for this (and ignored those which are extraneous to this).
[QUOTE=Sherlock Holmes]
I know well that I have it in me to make my name famous. No man lives or has ever lived who has brought the same amount of study and of natural talent to the detection of crime which I have done.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve never seen the Cumberbatch/Freeman version, so I don’t know how that works. But it sounds like you prefer stories about a crimefighting team, and/or about a Flawed Hero. There’s nothing wrong with that, but that’s not what Sherlock Holmes is. And, given that he’s one of the greatest, most popular characters ever created, I think he works pretty well as Doyle wrote him.
There’s also at least one story where Holmes depends upon Watson’s intellectual ability (well, to a degree, at least). In “Silver Blaze”, there’s an unusual knife that’s involved with the case, and Holmes recognizes it as a medical implement, but needs Watson to confirm that, and to describe its function and features.
Interesting look at whether Sherlock Holmes had (what would eventually be dubbed) Asperger’s Syndrome.
"The first thing to keep in mind is that the character isn’t just portrayed as being really smart – he is obsessed with certain subjects and totally excludes all others. In one of the Holmes stories, A Study in Scarlet, he doesn’t know that the Earth revolves around the sun (because, he says, the information doesn’t have any effect on his everyday life). These uneven obsessions with random topics – in Holmes’ case, things like tobacco ashes and regional soil consistency – are not signs of an enthusiast; they are symptoms of a disorder. Or, as the Yale Child Study Center puts it, Asperger’s sufferers show “…a narrow range of capacities for memorizing lists or trivial information, calendar calculation, visual-spatial skills such as drawing, or musical skills involving a perfect pitch or playing a piece of music after hearing it only once.”
Which is a measure of the dislike Conan Doyle eventually came to feel for the character, that the public were not lapping up what he considered his finer works - all they wanted was more Sherlock. The later stories become rather formulaic because the slight value he attached to them.
I’m not at all sure that Holmes wasn’t just yanking Watson’s chain there.
I’m no expert on Asperger’s, but as I understand it, it doesn’t fit Holmes. Among the symptoms are physical clumsiness and, more importantly, an inability to “read” people, and understand their motivation and point of view, which would be a fatal flaw in a detective like Holmes. There are a lot more likely things to diagnose him with: introversion, surely, and maybe some form of manic-depression.
But it was partly the other way around, too: he valued them less because they were less inspired and more formulaic.
[QUOTE=Arthur Conan Doyle]
You will appreciate more fully now my intense disinclination to continue these stories which have caused me to resist all entreaty for so many years. It is impossible to prevent a certain sameness and want of freshness.
[/QUOTE]
And, about the last Holmes story he ever wrote, in 1926:
[QUOTE=Arthur Conan Doyle]
It’s not of the first flight, and Sherlock, like his author, grows a little stiff in the joint, but it is the best I can do.
[/QUOTE]
