cricketmuse

a writer's journey as a reader

Archive for the tag “Sherlock Holmes”

Author Spotlight: Sir Conan Doyle


While on vacation I picked up a Dover Thrift Edition of four Sherlock Holmes stories–a bargain at 35 cents at the corner library. Ages ago I read through all the Sherlock Holmes books and stories I could find. Or I thought I did. I did not recognize one of the stories, which was a bonus treat.

While I do relish a good Holmes story, I have been a fan of most of the Sherlock Holmes adaptations–Basil Rathbone was a bit over the top, Benedict Cumberbatch is a bit too loose with creative license for my tastes–I’m a bit of a purist, which is why while Robert Downey Jr. is entertaining, he is not Sherlock (he even admitted in an interview the series was for the “kiddies). Jeremy Brett of the BBC series is by far the epitome of Holmes. He interpreted Doyle’s detective as being an intelligent, if not a genius, English gentlemen whose inductive reasoning skills profited him many an adventure with his faithful friend and partner in sleuthing, Watson.

Holmes and Watson remain favorites of literature and film, which is evidenced by the myriad forms of satire and pastiche that abounds. That is a post for another day.

Unfortunately, as most fans know, Doyle was not keen on Holmes, stating that he could not move forward with other writing since the public only wanted more of Holmes. This is why Holmes was tossed over the waterfall in his battle with the Professor. This didn’t work out so well for Doyle. The fans went mad, magazine subscriptions were cancelled, and Doyle had no choice–Holmes once again appeared in print.

Holmes is not the first literary detective, even Doyle points to Poe’s stories for inspiration. There is also Christie’s Poirot, among other famous detectives. Yet, what makes Doyle’s detective stories so memorable?

First of all, Holmes is a dynamic, unique character possessing an air of mystery while he conducts the sleuthing of mysteries. Websites and fan bases are set up to explore his parentage, siblings, relationships, and personal preferences. Then there is Watson, who adds reality to the idiosyncratic nature of our Baker Street hero. Watson is a soldier, a gentleman, a doctor, a husband, a friend, but he is not a bumbling doofus, as he is so often presented to be. I do like Jude Law’s take on Watson.

Doyle’s stories are full of intrigue and strange situations. He plays with clues, creates plot twists, and red herrings while providing an assortment of interesting characters such as Lestrade, Moriarty, Mary, Mrs. Hudson, and his Baker Street Irregulars. There is no formulaic approach. Each story is unique in its formation, even though the reader knows there is a mystery to be solved, it’s the getting there that makes Sherlock Holmes stories so worthwhile.

And to think Doyle wasn’t content with having created such a memorable literary icon. Holmes almost fell out of circulation by becoming a washed up sleuth.

Sherlock Holmes and Professor Moriarty at the Reichenbach Falls.jpg

So–do you prefer to read Sherlock Holmes through his many stories or do you watch him through film or television series?

Who is your favorite interpretation of Sherlock?
Basil Rathbone?
Jeremy Brett?
Benedict Cumberbatch?
Robert Downey Jr?

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

The Book Is Better (maybe)


I’m in the “Book First, Book Better” camp when it comes to film adaptations. Of course, whenever we are adamant about something our paradigm gets firmly nudged to reevaluate our ideas. This happened not only once, but twice this month.

The first book was North and South by Gaskell. She’s been compared to Austen, but I would say she is a bit more outspoken and verbose in her approach to the romantic historical. Having watched the BBC miniseries when it first came out in 2004, I decided I had to read the book. I finally got around to doing so this year. Then I watched the series again. Yup, the film adap is better.

Actors: Richard Armitage is John Thornton, just as Colin Firth defined Darcy. The balance of brooding strength and vulnerability made each scene with Armitage riveting. This wasn’t as apparent in the book simply because Armitage made Thornton so vibrant.

Setting: the grime, noise, and poverty of a mill town is evident and doesn’t need pages of constant reminder of the deplorable conditions. A scene can speak pages of description.

Dross: all that extra writing emphasizing beliefs is neatly trimmed into edited significant scenes. More meat, less gravy.

Ending: much more satisfying than the book and much more telling than that would rate a spoiler alert.

The second book is a more recent connection. As a Sherlock fan, Doyle and Jeremy Brett (BBC series), I was curious of the chatter about Mitch Cullin’s A Slight Trick of the Mind, especially when I learned Sir Ian would play an aging Sherlock. I can imagine him channeling his Gandalf into the role. Devoured the book, mesmerized by the movie. The book is excellent, yes, you should read it. Yet, the adap, which is not 100% faithful to the text, is actually a stand   alone. It’s Cullin’s outline, his premise, of an aging Sherlock, but the story on screen is so poignant, the interpersonal interactions so much deeper, I’m going to reread the book and see if I missed it all the first time.

Characters: all the actors are steller and they play off one another in such a way that awards are surely going to be handed out. Sir Ian proves once again his depth and versatility. The young actor who is Roger holds his own–I’m hoping great acting parts for him.

Setting: England after two wars–Holmes would have been old enough to see both at 93. There is still the sense of loss, yet a rekindling of hope as life goes on. Brits are a tough lot. Never give up, never surrender. This Sherlock captures his country’s motto in his fight against dementia.

Ending: a radical change from the book, but it was so perfect, that even an absolutist like myself, who dislikes mucking about with the text when it comes to transferring the text to screen, left the theatre oh so satisfied.

I am thinking I should ease up on my penchant for purity of transfer and sit back and enjoy the show. The  book doesn’t have to be the movie–pardon me, that noise was my paradigm shifting.

Post Navigation

%d bloggers like this: