another reread complete and just as always i enjoyed it! And i still get complete whiplash with the sudden story line switch.
So either that shows FANTASTIC writing or really POOR writing.
Personally? I have no idea which side i fall on.



I love this first story of Sherlock Holmes simply because it introduces us to the characters, it gives us the view into the crazy that is Holmes and the skeptic that is Watson. And while this entire book does feel rather dry and boring while reading i personally still kind of enjoy it.

Which might sound strange but i just do. Sherlock Holmes was always and probably will always be one of my favourite people to read, watch and learn more about, be it the original story or any kind of adaptation. I am a sucker! This is my weakness.

So while i understand that some people don't love this and find it very strange. I think it shows a kind of brilliance in Doyle himself, that he manages to write a story that completely surprises you in a very, very different way than you expect it.



And while its not the most riveting book you will ever read -it reads rather like dry toast- sometimes that is exactly what you need: to focus on the details on the actual story instead of everything else. And what would fit better to Holmes himself than that kind of story telling?



So after finishing this re-read i can also let Sherlock Holmes himself speak:



But don't worry. I am going to come back and do it all over again!

The birth of a legend....
n  n

This is it...the novel in which Sir Arthur ushered the world’s greatest second best detective (after Batman) into our collective consciousness. Being the non-conformist rebel that I am, I started off bassackwards by reading The Valley of Fear and then The Adventure of the Final Problem because those were the two stories with Moriarty in them. Shocking, I know, but that’s just how I roll. Btw, it still really chaffs my cheeks that Doyle wrote 56 short stories and 4 novels about Holmes and the arch-enemy appears in exactly TWO. I know less is sometimes more but, come on Doyle, that is on the scrimpy side of weak.

Anyway, I have now circled back and returned to the genesis of the Sherlockian mythos and begun with the tale that started it all. Now, for those that have never read any of the Holmes mysteries, I have come to believe that your level of enjoyment of these stories will be directly proportional to your feelings toward Sherlock Holmes himself. Sir Arthur’s a fine writer and his prose is concise and polished with enough flair to make reading him very enjoyable. In addition, his plotting and pacing are excellent and I think mystery fans will appreciate both the content and structure of the central investigation and the procedural components of clue-gathering and interpretation.

These things all point towards a pleasurable experience, However, in the end, the most important barometer in gauging your level of happy will be your reaction to Holmes himself. Thus, I thought I would focus most of my review’s attention on his character bio after briefly summing up the plot as follows:

PLOT SUMMARY:

Holmes and Watson meet....murder is committed...Holmes investigates....clues are found...Holmes figures it out....a murderer is caught...long flashback to America where Doyle does a Krakauer-style expose on Mormons describing and their child-stealing, polygamous ways...jump forward to present.... all is made clear..... Watson slobbers all over Holmes.......

A STUDY IN CHARACTER:

Now, let’s take a look at Sherlock’s profile. Whether you are a hater or a homey when it comes to Holmes, I think most people would agree with the following attributes:

** The man is unlikeable...very unlikeable...extremely unlikeable.
** He is self-absorbed to the point of being sociopathic.
** His has zero empathy for the victims of the crimes he investigates.
** He is so egotistical that it actually makes his general unlikeability pale in comparison
** While never explicitly diagnosed, he is a severe manic-depressive
** He is inconsiderate, callous, cold and socially inept.

From a personality standpoint, one of my buddies here on GR said it best...Holmes is “a dick.”

Despite that, I find myself very much in the “homey” camp and think he’s among the more fascinating creations in the annals of literature. Part of that appeal is precisely because he is such a prickish turd in the social skill department. However it his mental faculties, the trait he is best known for, that makes him so intriguing.

Yes, he is brilliant. However, that is not the end of the story Paul Harvey because it is a unique and very specialized kind of brilliance. Holmes knows the details, and I mean details, of every major crime to have been perpetrated in Europe (and possibly beyond) over the last 500 years. He can also distinguish between every variety of dirt or soil in London and and can tell you the precise brand of tobacco/pipe/cigar simply by its ash.

However, as is divulged in this story, Holmes also has no idea that the Earth travels around the sun. Further, ���of contemporary literature, philosophy and politics he appeared to know next to nothing.” How can a man of such singular ability be so woefully lacking in common knowledge. Holmes explains to Watson thusly:

n  I consider that a man's brain originally is like a little empty attic, and you have to stock it with such furniture as you choose. A fool takes in all the lumber of every sort that he comes across, so that the knowledge which might be useful to him gets crowded out, or at best is jumbled up with a lot of other things so that he has a difficulty in laying his hands upon it. Now the skillful workman is very careful indeed as to what he takes into his brain-attic. He will have nothing but the tools which may help him in doing his work, but of these he has a large assortment, and all in the most perfect order. It is a mistake to think that that little room has elastic walls and can distend to any extent. Depend upon it there comes a time when for every addition of knowledge you forget something that you knew before. It is of the highest importance, therefore, not to have useless facts elbowing out the useful ones.n

This just struck me as particularly awesome from a story perspective. Not only does such a philosophy provide a cloak of believability to Sherlock’s preternatural detecting skills, but his glaring knowledge deficiencies make him that much more fascinating as a character.

I guess I just find Doyle’s profile of Holmes to be superb. He is like a “not quite human” storm of deduction. He’s dispassionate, callous and unimaginably effective. Additionally, he solves crimes not because of a perceived duty, but merely because it is the only thing that keeps the boredom of life away. That and the giant stroking his ego gets when he does “the big explain” which is always entertaining and makes each story worth reading all by itself.

Finally, I also see Holmes as a tragic figure. He is a sad, lonely and devoid of any lasting sense of contentment or pleasure. While alive and invigorated when the game is afoot, most of his time is spent as a mere husk of a man with no feeling of day-to-day happiness.

All of this makes Holmes an extraordinarily compelling figure to me and one I hope to spend a lot more time reading about. While I did not enjoy this as much as The Adventure of the Final Problem (my favorite so far), I was still glued to the page watching Holmes maneuver through his scenes and really enjoyed the flashback portion set in America.

I look forward to many more of his adventures.

4.0 stars. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!!

When I read A Study in Scarlet first time I was very young and the tale seemed to be wonderfully mysterious…

I consider that a man’s brain originally is like a little empty attic, and you have to stock it with such furniture as you choose. A fool takes in all the lumber of every sort that he comes across, so that the knowledge which might be useful to him gets crowded out, or at best is jumbled up with a lot of other things so that he has a difficulty in laying his hands upon it. Now the skilful workman is very careful indeed as to what he takes into his brain-attic. He will have nothing but the tools which may help him in doing his work, but of these he has a large assortment, and all in the most perfect order.

I appear to be this sort of a fool – I drag to my attic everything that is within my reach and even beyond… And this makes me quite happy…

The proper study of mankind is man.

That’s the formula of Arthur Conan Doyle’s universal success.
Of course, now I see that A Study in Scarlet is rather short in plausibility so its main power lies in the charismatic nature of its two – now legendary – heroes: Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson. Thanks to them, the story managed to carry its charms all the way through the years.
Charisma is a weapon that wins over everyone.

Who's the better detective: Sherlock Holmes, or me when I'm trying to figure out someone's entire moral compass based solely on who they're following on Instagram?

Like, sure, Holmesy might use the power of observation more effectively than any other fictional detective in history, but does he even know which usernames are red flags?

Doubtful.

This is one of the better mysteries, like, ever, but in terms of pacing it still manages to be a total nightmare. Stopping the entire narrative at the climax in order to inexplicably launch into a bone-dry description of Mormonism for seemingly 800 pages...brave. Bold. Unparalleled.

(I actually Wikipedia'd this book to make sure something wasn't wrong with the ebook I borrowed from the library. That's how much of a mindf*ck that switch-up was.)

Still, though, Sherlock Holmes rules and is very fun to read about, even if I have some association of his name with Benedict Cumberbatch and therefore have to occasionally feel fear strike my very heart when I think of his face while reading.

We take the wins with the losses in this life.

Similarly, I was browsing in a used bookstore recently and a cute boy started chatting me up about Sherlock Holmes, and then when I left to buy my book and a coffee he didn't chase me across the store / fall in love with me / hold a boombox playing In Your Eyes over his head.

Mixed history, really.

Bottom line: More Holmes, please!

A Study in Scarlet (Sherlock Holmes, #1), Arthur Conan Doyle

A Study in Scarlet is an 1887 detective novel by British author Arthur Conan Doyle. Written in 1886, the story marks the first appearance of Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson, who would become two of the most famous characters in popular fiction.

The book's title derives from a speech given by Holmes, a consulting detective, to his friend and chronicler Watson on the nature of his work, in which he describes the story's murder investigation as his "Study in Scarlet": "There's the scarlet thread of murder running through the colorless skein of life, and our duty is to unravel it, and isolate it, and expose every inch of it."

عنوانهای چاپ شده در ایران: «اتود در قرمز لاکی»، «عطش انتقام»؛ نویسنده: آرتور کانن دویل؛ موضوع: داستانهای پلیسی کارآگاهی از نویسندگان بریتانیا سده 19م؛ تاریخ نخستین خوانش: سال 2001میلادی

عنوان: اتود در قرمز لاکی؛ نویسنده: آرتور کانن دویل؛ مترجم: مژده دقیقی؛ تهران، شهر کتاب - هرمس ( کارآگاه )؛ 1380؛ در 180ص؛ چاپ دوم سال 1384؛ شابک 9647100841؛ چاپ سوم 1389؛ چاپ چهارم 1392؛ شابک 9789647100847؛ چاپ ششم 1396؛ چاپ هفتم 1397؛ موضوع داستانهای پلیسی کارآگاهی از نویسندگان بریتانیا - سده 19م

عنوان: عطش انتقام - ماجراهای پلیسی جنایی شرلوک هولمز؛ نویسنده: آرتور کانن دویل؛ مترجم: حسینقلی انگالی؛ تهران، موج، 1372؛ در 192ص؛

اتود در قرمز لاکی، نخستین بار در سال 1887میلادی، در سالنامه ی «کریسمس بیتن»، منتشر شد، و در ماه ژوئیه سال 1888میلادی، به صورت کتاب جداگانه، از سوی ناشران همان سالنامه، به چاپ رسید؛ نخستین داستان از مجموعه داستانهای «شرلوک هولمز»؛ و نخستین اثر «سر آرتور کانن دویل» است؛ داستان دو بخش دارد، بخش نخست را، «دکتر واتسن» روایت میکند، شرحی درباره ی حرفه ی پزشکی «دکتر واتسن» در ارتش، و ملاقاتش با «هولمز» است؛ بخش دوم رخدادنامه به روایت سوم شخص، در باره ی ماجراها، و راه حل کارآگاه زبردست، برای یافتن پاسخ معمای جنایتها است

تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 09/08/1399هجری خورشیدی؛ 09/06/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی

“What ineffable twaddle!” I cried, slapping a periodical (about Highways length and breadth; state wise in India) down on the sofa, which had been forcefully fed to me just before this book that I am going to talk about now.

I am staying with such people around me nowadays, who feel that if I love reading, they can bring anything on and I will read it. These silly rascals! The close buddies of my salad days; take advantage of my reading habits customarily. Anyway, we have struck the deal for the evening, I will pay for their espresso shots and they will pay for my foams of macchiato. A perfect foggy winter evening plan with old buddies! (Yes it was still winter when I read this book, I am very lazy in posting reviews).

For as long as I remember I am reading the author after four years. Maybe five. This book begins in the usual prototypical style of the author and what can I say about those hard-headed conversations between Holmes and inspectors trying to solve a murder mystery. Just Perfect! Two inspectors who are dealing with this mystery are Lestrade and Gregson. Holmes says Lestrade is pick of a bad lot and Gregson is smartest of Scotland Yard.

'I don’t deny that it is smartly written. It irritates me though. It seems the theories of some arm-chair lounger who deduct all these neat little paradoxes in the seclusion of his study. It is not practical.'

This thing is said by Dr. Watson to Holmes who is sharing the room with him at Baker Street, after reading an article of an unknown author in a magazine. The article mentions how from a drop of water a logical brain can infer the Atlantic without even going there. Holmes says to Watson later it was he who wrote this!

The dialectics and argumentations since the outset were mind-opening. I think everybody likes those small skirmishes over the logical deductions among the detectives. They create humor and curiosity both. But the most exciting thing in this book is the second part. While reaching this segment I suddenly felt as if I was reading a Thomas hardy novel, or even at certain places I remembered H. Rider Haggard. A dry wasteland of Utah, and while I was still in the middle of the story, I felt a strong urge to see the places the author was talking about so I opened the maps and stared at those places for long. The Sierra Nevada to Nebraska, Yellow stone river to Colorado those regions of silence and desolation. How could the scene have been in this region in 1847? A question trimmed in my head.

This book first looked like a murder mystery, then like a travelogue, then a love story, and then flashed in the eye of my mind … valley, gorges, hunting, hunters, defiles, boulders, a great extravagance of natural sprawl. It gave me another sort of a reading experience. You will definitely like the love story too! This was interesting for me to know that while the author was going to get glory with his invention of Holmes in this book he had already begun something else. While a study in scarlet was yet to be published and was doing the rounds of the publishers, Doyle has started working on his first so-called “serious” work, a historical novel. During those days a historical novel was considered as a proper work of a serious novelist. That book was about the account of Micah Clarke. The year was 1889.

This book imparted a flawless reading pleasure, but I did not get carried away by the ending so it fell a bit short of full marks for me. Otherwise a great book for Doyle lovers… No doubt!

It was a mild yet efficacious dose of my ‘whodunnit' in between my longer reads.

I savored both parts of the book in a very good spirit.

Dr Watson, I'd like you to meet Mr Sherlock Holmes!

As Agatha Christie's The Mysterious Affair at Styles introduced a grateful reading public to Hercule Poirot, perhaps the second best known fictional detective of all time, Conan Doyle's A Study in Scarlet marked the debut appearance of the acknowledged master of detection, the one and only Sherlock Holmes!

John Watson, a medical doctor recently retired from the British military to recover his health and recuperate from wounds received in Afghanistan, is looking to stretch his limited budget by finding another gentleman with whom he can share accommodation. When a mutual friend introduced him to Sherlock Holmes, one might slyly suggest that the game was afoot and the rest, as they also say, became history. Already characteristically melancholy and moody, a jaded Holmes, who labeled himself the world's only consulting detective, is invited by Scotland Yard's Lestrade and Gregson to assist in the investigation of a baffling pair of murders.

With A Study in Scarlet, Doyle is clearly new to the craft of writing mysteries and the great detective's debut outing suffers from characteristic first novel and new character jitters. The style itself is markedly different from everything that follows in the Holmes canon with the story being told from a third-party perspective. The background to the mystery is revealed through the mechanism of a flashback to the western USA at the time of the Mormon migration to Utah. Feedback from the reading public must have been immediate and - we'll have to hand it to Doyle - he must have been a quick learner. Watson was thereafter appointed official narrator and diarist to the master and Doyle never looked back.

I leave it to others smarter than I to judge whether or not Doyle's historical characterization of the Mormons is justified or accurate! Suffice it to say, that the mystery is entertaining but the details are, quite frankly, entirely unimportant beside the overwhelming fact that this was the first time the world heard the name Sherlock Holmes. It took Doyle only a few pages for example to treat us to an aphorism that we would come to hear over and over again, "It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence."

This novel is a cornerstone in the annals of crime fiction, an extremely important piece of the history of English literature and a darned good read! Enjoy it!

Paul Weiss

like a 3.7 rounded up.

The very first Sherlock Holmes story, reading A Study in Scarlet seems to be appropriate at this time of year, since it was published in Beeton's Christmas Annual in 1887. I didn't know that when I'd decided to read it, but I'd say that's a nice coincidence, considering that I finished it on 25th of December, some 130 years later.

A Study in Scarlet is an unusual novel -- in a big way, it doesn't really cohere like a novel should. The first part of this book brings together Holmes and Watson who both need roommates. Holmes introduces himself as a "consulting detective," stepping in to provide his expertise when government and private detectives "are at fault." Many of his clients come from "private inquiry agents," from whom he collects fees. Shortly after Holmes dazzles Watson with his "intuition," his "special knowledge," and his "train of reasoning," Holmes is called to the scene of a "bad business" at 3 Lauriston Gardens. There is very little to go on at the scene -- a dead body and few clues, the word "RACHE" written in blood on the wall -- but after a short time, Holmes manages to bring the guilty man to his very doorstep, and even knows his name. Leaving the reader wondering how the hell he did that, the next page takes us to "The Great Alkali Plain," and an intriguing story involving Mormons in Utah, a man with an orphaned little girl, and ultimately, a quest for revenge. Then it's back to the final act with Dr. Watson and Holmes for the dazzling solution. It is a flawed story in terms of its telling, but as Julian Symons notes in his book Bloody Murder, it doesn't really matter because "Sherlock Holmes triumphs as a character from the moment we meet him."

And that for me, in a nutshell, is why I've loved Holmes since I read this book as a teenager; it's why I keep reading Holmes over and over again -- it's that first meeting that really sealed the deal. I fell in love with his mind -- there's just no better way of putting it.

The introduction in this book (the Penguin edition) is by Iain Sinclair, and it is excellent, making me think of A Study in Scarlet in an entirely new way. I won't go into it, but if you can get this edition, it's well worth having just for that.

If your first experience of Holmes and Watson is from the fast-paced, high-tech BBC series with Benedict Cumberbatch, well, the stories might come across as a bit tame. The luckiest people, I think, are the ones who've read the stories first and then watch them play out across the screen.

recommended. beyond highly recommended, even with its flaws.

http://www.crimesegments.com/2017/12/...

Detectives have artists' eyes; and artists have the eyes of detectives. I don't think anyone knows how much I want to be Sherlock Holmes. Aloof, apart, always observing, eyes wide open, untethered to worldly affairs beyond what immediacy makes necessity, quick-tongued, lightning-brained, spiffy dresser, grounded eccentric, sometimes passionate but never so much that the self is jeopardized, knows his enemies and masters them, instincts taut and fast and brutal like a bear trap, mysterious solver of mysteries, parter and navigator of the London fogs... A Study in Scarlet is the first Holmes novel, told through Watson's recollections of meeting The Man, with a brief trans-Atlantic interlude (a lovely coincidence, I read this on my trip from Salt Lake City to Yellowstone and points in between, and the interlude in this book takes place EXACTLY in those places, a fact I was unaware of when I packed the book in my shoulder bag for light-travel-reading purposes)... the first glimpses into the interior of 221B Baker St., the first corpse (fun fact: in the entire Holmes oeuvre, only .4. cases were to do with murder), the first bloody clues, the first "The plot thickens!", the first "Elementary, my dear Watson" (actually, I don't recall this being in the book, perhaps CBS had the phrase copyrighted and retroactively eliminated it from all Doyle's books), the first message in blood ("RACHE"), the first suspect disappearing into the London night and out into the pages of our collective fictive unconsciousness forever. It would be a lovely way to pass a few of the long hours of this life, secluded from the green earth and its peoples, reading the complete tales of Sherlock Holmes. The power of myth, the power of fiction, is essentially the power of mystery...

reading vlog: https://youtu.be/FM4Av8-7TQc

Not related to the book yet

This is the book that completes my 2011 Goodreads Reading Challenge! 275 books and I still have 3 days to spare. My first target was 200 because that was the the annual target of the author Nicholas Sparks as he said in one of his interviews. But I achieved it in September so I changed it to 250. But I achieved 250 on the last week of October and I thought I could still read 25 more. So, here I am, proud that I was able to read 275 books!!! Last year, I only read 196 books and I did not top Nicholas Sparks. Now, I am able to and I still keep my 8-5 office job.

So, how is it to read 275 books in 360 days? It is very rewarding. Reading brought me to a lot of unfamiliar places, time and situations. Reading is very enriching (at least in mind, not yet in terms of financial rewards). I no longer worry about so many menial and mundane things that I used to worry about. When I am worry now, I think of the books about holocaust or 9/11, since I read a lot of books about these two, and say that my worry (of something that did not actually happen) is nothing compared to what Elie Wiesel or Victor Frankl experienced in the concentration camps. Also, when presented with a situation, be it in the office or at home, I now have a bigger perspective and no longer focus on my personal bias and prejudices. I used to have a lot of those before I became a voracious reader.

How was I able to read a lot? Two techniques that I developed this year: (1) I read in every opportunity. I bring at least two books everywhere I go. I read before going to sleep. I read before getting out of bed. I read almost the whole Saturdays and Sundays. We have maids in the Philippines. I read while waiting for the car ban (we call this color coding) at the gym. I read while on queue at the ATM machine. I read the bible or any related religious book while waiting for the priest to show up during the Holy Mass; and (2) I read 5-12 books simultaneously. The idea is that if the book becomes boring or the story becomes dragging, switch to an enjoyable one. Normally, the start of the book is very engaging and the end is very interesting but the middle could be a bore. If this happens, start a new one. If it is good, then I'll be able to finish it in few days and then I go back to the previous book. Because my energy is high, the boring part will be manageable (translations: forgivable or unnoticeable) and I'll be able to continue.

Have I cheated? Are there books whose entirety I did not read? No and yes. I think I did not understand everything but I tried reading each and every word in all of the 275 books. They say that there are indeed books that are intended to be taken as puzzle. Think of Ulysses by James Joyce. He put so many puzzles or riddles in the story that he expected to be interpreted in many different ways by generations to come. I think this is the beauty of reading and one reason why I enjoy works of great literary masters: their works can be interpreted in many ways and each of their works give different meanings to me every time I read them.

So what will be my objective for 2012? I will read more classics. I have to finish Sir Conan Doyle's canon. To finally finish and try to get the gist of the whole of Ulysses, my "waterloo" book. I am still to read Mark Twain. My long delayed appreciation of Henry James' works. I have to re-discover Charles Dickens. I will read another Virginia Woolf. Another Jane Austen. Another Salman Rushdie. I need to complete the works of Haruki Murakami since I have the copies already. I will also need to increase my quota for Filipino works particularly novels written in Tagalog. I should be able to support Filipino authors by buying and reading their works.

n  Top 10 Favorite Reads in 2011:n 1. Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy; 2. Pere Goriot by Honore de Balzac; 3. Embers by Sandor Marai; 4. The Inheritance of Loss by Kiran Desai; 5. Wuthering Heights by Emilie Bronte; 6. Dusk by F. Sionil Jose; 7. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest by Ken Kesey; 8. At Swim-Two-Birds by Flann O'Brien; 9. The Wars by Timothy Findley and 10. Ang Sandali ng Mga Mata by Alvin B. Yapan. These are the books that I'd like to recommend to you if you have not read them. Except #10, they are all in English.


Now about this book

This is my first novel about Sherlock Holmes. I only read two books from this genre before and both of them by female writers: Agatha Christie's The Murder of Roger Ackroyd and Sarah Cauldwell's And Thus Adonis was Murdered. These two are good and well written but I just find all those whodunnit quite uninteresting. Mystery crime books are focused on what happened (where, who, why and when actually not just what) and authors make them so convoluted for the readers to not be able to predict who is the real murderer. This being the nature of the genre, it normally lacks the human emotion that make me enjoy reading.

And so I thought that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is the same as the two ladies. A big mistake.

A Study in Scarlet his first novel and where Sherlock Holmes was introduced to the world, has that emotional drama particularly on revenge because of lost love. The structure of the novel is very interesting: two seemingly independent "stories" fused into two. The first one is about Holmes meeting his narrator, Dr. John H. Watson and they started sharing a room because they cannot afford the rent. There is a crime that two detectives cannot solve and they want to have the opinion Holmes. Before the end of the first story, Holmes is able to tell who the real killer is. When he said "Gentlemen, let me introduce to you Mr. Jefferson Hope..." my mouth was open, my jaw dropped and I could not speak as I was taken by full surprise.

Then suddenly comes the "second" story whose narrative style, characters and setting are totally different that the first. It was quite jarring and I asked myself, is this still related to the first part or maybe the publisher made a mistake during the book binding or reprint as this could be a totally different story, one of the 46 stories? Only after 10-15 pages when some names became familiar and I was able to predict the connection. However, I like this "second" story better. The setting is in the heartland USA and it felt like an old western story (a totally unexplored genre for me). It has that emotional drama of forbidden love and the father supporting his daughter to follow her heart. Mushy yet yummy for me. Men, real men, writing about love are really interesting for me. They don't go overboard and play or trick your emotion yet they are in it.

I liked this book. My first foray to Sherlock Holmes. The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes is a 501 Must Read Book and it also became a Book of the Month for our Filipinos group here in Goodreads. I thought why only read that collection of Sherlock Holmes short stories if I could read the whole canon? With me liking his first novel A Study in Scarlet, I think I now have the right motivation to read his other 3 novels and all his 46 short stories. Had this been a disappointment (2 stars or less), I think I would not bother reading all his other works.

This is the very first Sherlock Holmes book and it was so interesting and entertaining to read. At least, the first half. It felt familiar due to the BBC tv series and I loved seeing the friendship start to blossom between Holmes and Watson as they meet and get to know each other. Everything just felt so cosy. But then the second half happened, and it dragged down the book for me. It had some racism / discrimmination in it (‘r’ word to describe natives, calling them savages, etc). It was also incredibly boring and felt like I was reading an entirely different book (Holmes novels tend to do this when they aren’t short story collections.) It was a lot of backstory I had no interest in and I think if the novel capped off at the first part, or you stopped reading after part one you would have a complete and enjoyable story. What reading this truly made me appreciate was how well adaptions do in leaving out the unnecessary and including the parts of interest to make a good watch.

This review and others can be found on Olivia's Catastrophe: https://oliviascatastrophe.com/2020/0...