Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by notwellread
A Study in Scarlet by Arthur Conan Doyle
3.0
3.5 stars.
The main draw of A Study in Scarlet is that, being the first ever Sherlock Holmes story, you get to see Holmes and Watson meet for the first time and how the characters were originally configured. The mystery they solve is pretty good but nothing particularly special.
Some of Sherlock’s traits in the original text are very recognisable from latter-day adaptations — his eccentricity, a certain ‘cold-bloodedness’ (as the acquaintance who introduces him and John describes him as being), and, frankly, many of the typical traits of a man on the spectrum (but not sociopathy, in my view), though being such an eloquent communicator would seem to disqualify him. On the other hand, his enthusiasm and liveliness is less characteristic — Sherlock is usually portrayed as much more sardonic — and, notably, he seems to have practised his skills of analysing people and settings over time with the aim of using them for his work, rather than being a natural talent. He is also a more physical and less totally cerebral character than many portrayals — I was very surprised by the boxing match in the first Robert Downey Jr. film, but Watson does indeed have him down as “an expert singlestick player, boxer, and swordsman”. That adaptation also (like the Benedict Cumberbatch version) had his periods of despondency to balance things out, so overall a surprisingly faithful version!
Another difference in both character and plot is the portrayal of Sherlock’s method: I thought it was interesting that he throws shade at Poe’s Dupin (whose stories I read a few months ago) for interrupting people, “breaking in on his friends’ thoughts with an apropos remark after a quarter of an hour’s silence”, as “showy and superficial”, which is ironic given how often Sherlock himself is portrayed like this. I also liked that, although Sherlock is obviously intelligent, his method is portrayed in such as way as can lead the reader along: for instance, he deduces the height of the killer from the height of the writing on the wall at the murder scene, on the basis that most people will instinctively write at eye level. This is something the average person could puzzle out themselves, whereas the BBC Sherlock became increasingly alienating with time because his capabilities were much less realistic. I would add the caveat to all this that there is the potential for some first instalment weirdness here, and to see Sherlock change as a character later on (apparently the next story, [b:The Sign of Four|608474|The Sign of Four (Sherlock Holmes, #2)|Arthur Conan Doyle|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1299346921l/608474._SY75_.jpg|21539872], humanises him a little more, so I will look forward to that).
In terms of the actual mystery there is considerably less to say. It fulfilled a primary requirement for me, in that I did not anticipate the resolution to the mystery, but it was framed in such a way as to make it pretty much impossible to do so, since the story suddenly switches to a Western setting halfway through and we get a lot of the relevant info through that entirely different narrative, which then sort of joins up with the main narrative again towards the end. In fact, I think it would have been possible to convey the whole story just through the killer narrating their background and motivations, without the need to split off from Watson’s narration entirely, since inserting a separate storyline so abruptly dampens the realism of Watson as an author surrogate, writing and publishing the story so that he and Sherlock get credit for solving the case.
I will end this review with two highly amusing Kate Beaton comics about the variable portrayals of Watson, which should be appreciated by purists and innovators alike.
The main draw of A Study in Scarlet is that, being the first ever Sherlock Holmes story, you get to see Holmes and Watson meet for the first time and how the characters were originally configured. The mystery they solve is pretty good but nothing particularly special.
Some of Sherlock’s traits in the original text are very recognisable from latter-day adaptations — his eccentricity, a certain ‘cold-bloodedness’ (as the acquaintance who introduces him and John describes him as being), and, frankly, many of the typical traits of a man on the spectrum (but not sociopathy, in my view), though being such an eloquent communicator would seem to disqualify him. On the other hand, his enthusiasm and liveliness is less characteristic — Sherlock is usually portrayed as much more sardonic — and, notably, he seems to have practised his skills of analysing people and settings over time with the aim of using them for his work, rather than being a natural talent. He is also a more physical and less totally cerebral character than many portrayals — I was very surprised by the boxing match in the first Robert Downey Jr. film, but Watson does indeed have him down as “an expert singlestick player, boxer, and swordsman”. That adaptation also (like the Benedict Cumberbatch version) had his periods of despondency to balance things out, so overall a surprisingly faithful version!
Another difference in both character and plot is the portrayal of Sherlock’s method: I thought it was interesting that he throws shade at Poe’s Dupin (whose stories I read a few months ago) for interrupting people, “breaking in on his friends’ thoughts with an apropos remark after a quarter of an hour’s silence”, as “showy and superficial”, which is ironic given how often Sherlock himself is portrayed like this. I also liked that, although Sherlock is obviously intelligent, his method is portrayed in such as way as can lead the reader along: for instance, he deduces the height of the killer from the height of the writing on the wall at the murder scene, on the basis that most people will instinctively write at eye level. This is something the average person could puzzle out themselves, whereas the BBC Sherlock became increasingly alienating with time because his capabilities were much less realistic. I would add the caveat to all this that there is the potential for some first instalment weirdness here, and to see Sherlock change as a character later on (apparently the next story, [b:The Sign of Four|608474|The Sign of Four (Sherlock Holmes, #2)|Arthur Conan Doyle|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1299346921l/608474._SY75_.jpg|21539872], humanises him a little more, so I will look forward to that).
In terms of the actual mystery there is considerably less to say. It fulfilled a primary requirement for me, in that I did not anticipate the resolution to the mystery, but it was framed in such a way as to make it pretty much impossible to do so, since the story suddenly switches to a Western setting halfway through and we get a lot of the relevant info through that entirely different narrative, which then sort of joins up with the main narrative again towards the end. In fact, I think it would have been possible to convey the whole story just through the killer narrating their background and motivations, without the need to split off from Watson’s narration entirely, since inserting a separate storyline so abruptly dampens the realism of Watson as an author surrogate, writing and publishing the story so that he and Sherlock get credit for solving the case.
I will end this review with two highly amusing Kate Beaton comics about the variable portrayals of Watson, which should be appreciated by purists and innovators alike.