Valley of Fear Ch.1-4
Having seen the Sherlock Holmes movies a while ago, I was excited to get to read one of his adventures. I was shocked to find out that the tale is narrated by Watson. I could be mistaken, but I don’t believe the movies were formatted the same way. But similarly to the movies, Holmes appeared to be his lovably arrogant personality cocktail of simultaneously hyper-focused and hyper-distracted. He does things the way he wants and is always one step ahead. It is very interesting when he asks Watson pointed questions, like when they are examining the encoded message. Holmes knows the answer to every question he asks (as he leads Watson to the conclusion of Almanac), he simply asks Watson to condescendingly congratulate him on reaching the conclusion and as a mechanism for the audience to follow Holmes’ chain of thought.
Moriarty sounded familiar in my head right when I read it. I remembered him as a villain from the movies, but not much more than that. I can’t remember what he did or much about him, which is good because I am going into the story with a relatively blank slate. I also remember the Scotland Yard detective, and was caught off guard by Doyle’s description of him as tall, physically capable, and concisely frugal with speech, as I remembered him from the movies as a small, squeamish man, who had little to offer Holmes by way of policing.
Had I not already known of Sherlock Holmes as a character, I do not think I would have had a very complete idea of his character after this first section of the book. But since I have a pre-established conception of Sherlock Holmes’ personality, I read this opening section entirely more informed to the nuances and undertones of his dialogues and general actions.
Ultimately, the first couple chapters seemed relatively cookie-cutter until they arrived at the scene of the murder, with a brief analysis of the scene narrated from the view of the local police officer. This is where things started to get interesting. Loose ends started arising and I was getting excited to be mislead. Who is this Cecil Barker character and why is he getting so much attention? What is his relationship with Mrs. Douglas and could that have something to do with the murder? If Holmes describes this Douglas as a good guy, then why does he also assume that he was working with Moriarty, who he has deemed the pinnacle of evil? Why is he branded with a symbol of illuminati/masonic quality? Where is his wedding ring? And perhaps the greatest question of all… why the f*** does he wear his wedding ring on his pinky???????
Your writing style has an energetic feel to it, and you definitely "tell it how it is". Some people sugar coat their words, that is not the case for you. Your perspective from someone who has seen the movies first is interesting, especially the contrast between how the narration is told between the books and the movies. Also, I love how you pointed out how Douglas wears his wedding ring on his pinky finger which is strange. I hadn't given much thought to that before reading this.`
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your statement that Holmes' leading questions to Watson serve as a useful and pretty subtle way for Doyle to allow the reader to follow Holmes' train of thought instead of getting lost in his overly-hyper mind. However, being someone who has only read a few pages of Sherlock Holmes story in my entire life, I don't agree that the first few chapters don't give a good idea of his character; I feel as though his interactions with Watson within the first few pages accurately represented him by showing his slightly condescending nature and his overly-active mind at work. While I definitely got a better idea once he began to interact with other types of characters, I do think that Doyle did a good job at introducing Holmes to the reader in the beginning.
ReplyDelete