Talk:A Study in Scarlet

message: The original illustration in Part I of the book's summary is improperly aligned with the text. Any way to fix it?   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fartlisto (talk • contribs) 01:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Formatting

message: why did doyle choose watson to narrate the story insted of having holmes tell the story hself? what are the benefits and drawbcks of doing it this way?
:Many books feature a highly intelligent and skillful protagonist paired with a more-or-less bumbling sidekick.  Nowadays, writers probably do this because they grew up with the tradition and don't know any better, but the original motive (back in Conan Doyle's day or earlier) was probably to help the readers relate to the hero's feats of intellectual prowess.  Dr. Watson gives Conan Doyle an excuse to explain Holmes's behavior.  Poe did the same thing in his Auguste Dupin stories—"The Purloined Letter", "The Murders in the Rue Morgue", etc.  You can even find the tradition carried on in Tom Swift books.  I  haven't read Victor Appleton's grand originals, but the Tom Swift, Jr. series (dating from the 1950s), had the boy genius Tom paired with Bud Barclay, a genial guy who always needed Tom's inventions explained to him.  The most recent Tom Swift series—the ones I grew up with—did the same thing with Rick Cantwell, Tom's good buddy who never quite got the science but was always good "testing to destruction".
:If you watch the movie Fantastic Voyage (or, better yet, read Isaac Asimov's novelization), you can see the same thing happening.  The strong-jawed secret agent character, Grant, gives the writers an excuse for explaining what all the different organs do, why the ship can only stay miniaturized for so long, and so forth.
:Not all stories, or even all mysteries, follow this pattern.  In Murder on the Orient Express, most of Hercule Poirot's deductions go on in his "little grey cells", without his explaining them to anybody else.  We don't really discover his mental processes until he presents his solution at the end.  Most of Elizabeth Peters's Amelia Peabody books follow this pattern, too: her characters often take pride in not telling each other what they think, so only at the end are all the curtains pulled back.
:The biggest downside I can see is that the Holmes-and-Watson storytelling method makes the Watson character look, well, rather stupid, unless the writer works with care.  Many readers come away with this impression, certainly; Jorge Luis Borges wrote an essay that claimed Watson's intelligence was "somewhat inferior to the reader's."  (Whether Borges actually believed that is hard to say—the man wrote an awful lot that wasn't serious.  Check out his story "Death and the Compass" for a mystery without a Watson.)  In The Seven-Per-Cent Solution, Nicholas Meyer had Watson defend himself against these claims, saying that being around Holmes was enough to make anybody feel stupid.
:I suspect that I'm helping Mr. A. Nonymous finish his English homework, but I don't mind.  First, because I'm probably too late anyway (by almost two months), and second because I got through AP English by copying passages from the Dada Engine.  Who am I to dictate ethics?
:Anville 16:07, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I am in full agreement with Anville, but wish to highlight one point. Doyle wishes to emphasize Holmes' abilities. Clearly, then, he must demonstrate them to someone. This explains the necessity for Watson's presence. Now what? A straight "third person omniscient / God's-eye view" narrator would be forced to constantly interrupt the narrative to explain how astonished Watson is. Having Holmes tell the story would be even worse. Take, for instance, the incident of the retired sargeant of marines. How could Holmes relate this? How could he give Watson's motivation in asking the man his previous occupation? To Holmes, the question would appear to come out of nowhere. And, to even relate it would constitute a most repellent form of bragging. No, it is by Watson expressing his view of Holmes that Doyle convinces the reader of Holmes' extraordinary abilities. B00P 04:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are both arguing the same thing, although Anville — by focusing too much on the "sidekick" aspect — perhaps unintentionally perpetuates the very myth he seems to be trying to discard: Watson as mentally inferior bumbler.  BOOP's discussion in terms of storytelling mechanics is more to the point, but misses a secondary issue.  It's also a matter of reader identification.  Holmes is a moody eccentric, an arrogant intellectual, a misogynist, someone who conducts odiferous (and possibly dangerous) chemical experiments in his sitting room, fires pistols into the sitting room wall, goes days without sleep or sleeps for days, keeps unsavory habits such as chain smoking and drug abuse, disappears for days at a time, is alternately an absolute slob and a stickler for neatness, is an elegant conversationalist who despises small talk and goes days without speaking, etc., etc.  He's a poor roommate and a dangerous neighbor or tenant.  This isn't someone many mainstream readers could identify with, and at the time the stories were published many readers of propriety would have been appalled.  However, by seeing him through the annoyed-yet-sympathetic eyes of an everyman narrator, the reader can be removed from the necessity of identifying with such a character and is allowed to see the creature in situ, as the effective genius that Watson sees.  Holmes thus becomes an eccentric but romantic hero rather than an alien and unsympathetic being.  He could not be the Holmes we know if he had to narrate the stories.  He would have to be more of an everyman, and his genius would therefore not be as convincing. Canonblack 15:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's pretty difficult to argue against Doyle's choice of first-person narration given that so many have readily accepted Watson and Holmes as real people.WHPratt (talk) 19:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

text: The dog that they poisoned was not a "bull pup." "Now would you mind going down and fetching that poor little devil of a terrier which has been bad so long … ." (Chap. 7)  However, according to Owen Dudley Edwards, in the Oxford Sherlock Holmes, a bull pup is a pistol that is small and similar to a "short-barrelled revolver of large caliber," not a dog at all.Lestrade 00:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another theory (from a Baker Street Journal correspondant) says that "I keep a bull pup" was a Victorian idiom for "I have a bad temper." WHPratt (talk) 19:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I think it's fun to see if one can find plot holes in the Sherlock Holmes stories -- actually, "a mystery within a mystery" to find the logical fallacies in the stories of the infallable. (So to say.) Anybody know if there is a website dedicated to this idea? -- Syzygy 08:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can think of another plot hole, but I don't want to contribute to a negative view of this work of art. Many readers have had many hours of pleasure in reading this story. The author has succeeded in creating a world and its inhabitants that live in the reader's imagination. Doyle didn't know London or Salt Lake City. He created his own version and did a fine job of it.Lestrade 13:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot holes? 

message: I was wondering if anyone knows there having been any criticism coming from the Mormon church,regarding the second part of the book (The Country of the Saints)...--Padem 10:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a line about this in the plot summary, together with an external reference. --Quywompka 11:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism for the second part 

message: I have just edited the inconsistencies section of this article, and deleted the passage which talked about Watson's "bull pup."  This is because I am certain, and I have looked it up in the novel, that the dog is actually mentioned later on.  
In the final chapter of the first section of the novel, Holmes asks Watson to fetch the dog, which is apparently very ill.  The landlady, according to Holmes, has been trying to convince Watson to get rid of the dog for several days.  He then uses the dog to test the pills (that he suspects to be poisonous), which have been found as evidence, and Watson then describes how the animal dies.  
Unless Holmes is refering to a completely different dog here, it seems very evident to me that this is a satisfactory explaination for what happens to Watson's pet, and why it is no longer mentioned in any later stories.
:::::Dear Anonymous Editor, the following is included in the "Discussion" section above. It may be of interest to you, Anonymous Editor. If a bull pup is a dog, it is certainly not a terrier.
 Lestrade 00:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake. I was unaware of the Bull terrier breed, which includes the notorious Pit bull.Lestrade 22:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the mistake.  It is not clear from context what Watson means when he says, "I keep a bull pup," which he considers a vice.  Surely having a dog is not a vice, which makes Dudley Edwards' interpretation slightly stronger, although the idea that keeping a large caliber pocket pistol is a vice is only slightly less tenuous.  At any rate, it is implied that the poisoned terrier is not Watson's; he describes the dog as he carries it upstairs and seems unaware of its age until he notices its white snout.  I have always interpreted the text to be saying that the dog was Mrs. Hudson's, and she had asked Watson to put it down because he was a medical man and might perhaps know a humane way of doing so.  In his laziness, he procrastinated until Holmes saw a use for the poor animal. 12.233.146.130 (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistencies... 

message: The description of how Hope was arrested is simply wrong.  Did the writer actually read the book?
:::It certainly seemed an odd summary; it may have been based on a filmed adaptation instead of the book itself. I've done a very quick tidy up of the summary of the first part. --Quywompka 11:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then fix it yourself, lazy butt.  It seems pretty right to me (although I haven't read the book recently) Juru (talk) 04:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The plot summary is wrong

message: From the Plot Holes: 
"It is strange that the police apparently never questioned the owner of the Brixton house, where the first murder happened. The door was intact, so whoever murdered Drebber had to have a key, for which the owner would have been the obvious candidate. This would have led the police (or Holmes, who chose to ignore the clue as well) quickly on to the right track. Defense: the owner had no idea who Jefferson Hope was, or that he had a key."
Well, the book says --
Wouldn't this provide a logical chain: House owner -> prospective client -> cab driver? --Syzygy 14:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed the bit about the Mormons.  I have no idea what you're talking about as far as "describing" the theme.  Perhaps you are referring to the explanation of the motive?  In that case, I disagree; the motive should be in the plot summary of a mystery novel.  Juru (talk) 04:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "key" issue 

message: it seems as though the information plane on the left side of the page is covering up the plot summary.  Is it appearing this way to everyone or just me?Killemall22 (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  words cut off 

message: I've just read an electronic copy, and there was no mention of Holmes and Watson visiting an actor named Joey Daly. After J.H. confesses and recounts his tale to the Scotland Yard inspectors, Holmes asks J.H. the identify of the man who retrieved the ring.
Either my electronic copy is incorrect, or the recent contribution about the visit to the actor comes from a film adaptation.
Anyone know for sure? 71.190.64.85 (talk) 03:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither.  It was vandalism. Monkeyzpop (talk) 10:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot summary regarding Joey Daly 

message: In the "Adaptations" section, the following is printed: "A surprisingly faithful animated version of the tale with Peter O'Toole voicing Holmes was produced in 1984 by Burbank Films and helmed by frequent Disney animator Alex Nicholas." Instead of "helmed", should the word be "filmed"?Lestrade (talk) 14:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Helmed" is a common term in discussing films.  It means "directed". Monkeyzpop (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Misprint?

message: I'm concerned that the word count of this 'novel' is actually that of a novella. See (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_count). Apart from Science fiction associations, most place the cut off at 50,000 words for a novel, which I believe would make this a novella.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.4.225.49 (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Word Count

message: With regards to the revert I just made of Olorin3k's edit. Primarily it the edit suffers from misrepresenting sources. For example, Estleman in the foreword for the story gives two specific reasons why it was not controversial, specifically the reports of the Mountain Meadows Massacre and the small membership of the church. Nowhere in his comments does he attribute it to the "lesser ability of Mormon apologists in those days". Another example, the website (itself probably not a RS) for the 5th Regiment history says the order to go to Utah was because the Mormons "were accused of denying the sovereignty of the United States and inciting Indian attacks on travelers", not "to prevent further Mormon violence against Christian settlers". Finally, comments like "alleged, without any supporting evidence or corroborating testimony" and "She does not specify whether these alleged errors include the violent nature of Mormonism as depicted in the novel or not" and such are POV editorializing and border too much on original synthesis. Hence the revert. --FyzixFighter (talk) 00:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing out my unintentionally misrepresenting the Estleman source. I'll fix that. Talking about things like this before erasing the information that I added is a better way for you to deal with things (unless your intent is to censor certain types of information wholesale). As for the 5th Infantry source, that is not misrepresented, but I will reword it in order to maintain precision of meaning without attributing specific words to them. Content is more than the mere words used, and so more wording prevents misunderstanding of communicative intent. That  is the way all sources are used that are not just mere quotes. So it is rather arbitrary to accuse of editorializing, yet I will work to improve the wording while also aiming for conciseness. As for the propagandistic reference to an absolutely unsubstantiated later allegation that Doyle privately recanted but never told anyone else, maybe we should accuse inclusion of that in the article as editorializing, eh? Seems like it has such little merit to be in here at all, but I was willing to let it stay with some balancing of its tendentious inclusion. Simply exercising the ability to find some source, however incredible it may be, that has said what you want in print somewhere, and then to cite it with a reference does not mean that in itself it is anything more than POV editorializing. Since there is no credibility to the claim of Doyle's secret recantation except in that one person's POV, it is certainly accurate to mention that fact, even if that may be opposed by someone who doesn't like the reality. How can a statement of indubitable fact be slurred as mere "editorializing"? So I will aim for better wording. Olorin3k (talk) 00:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I am under no obligation to discuss first before removing material. Quite the opposite, the onus is on the editor adding material. Please reach consensus before re-adding material - see WP:3RR (which will apply if you re-insert the material again today) and WP:BRD. Editorializing is when you make valuations of the sources that is both original and meant to lead the reader to a conclusion not found in the sources. For example, "a modern Salt Lake City newspaper repeats without citing sources a hearsay discussion" is participating in the debate rather than simply reporting it. Now, if a reliable source made such an argument that the account was suspect, then that would be a different case. Also, your "fix" to the 5th Regiment comment doesn't do anything to address either the POV, OR, or RS concerns. First a self-published website is not a reliable source. Second, leading with "Such accounts reflect the widely known fact that..." is both POV and original synthesis connecting the stories that may have influenced Doyle to the 5th Regiment deployment. Finally, I don't see this 1894 source as supporting the statement that historians were noting the link between Doyle's depiction and its accurately reflecting recent violence by Mormons. Now, there are other routes for resolving disputes, and I would recommend pursuing one of those rather than engage in editing against the current preliminary consensus (at least two editors have issues with your intended edit). --FyzixFighter (talk) 02:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

text: The text attempting to discount/discredit the SLT article via the characterization in that wording is most definitely editorializing. Likewise the Utah War material you attempted to insert, seemingly in an attempt to "prove" Doyle's characterization was correct, is off-topic on this article. Additionally, it is laughable incorrect to call Redfield Proctor, Levi K. Fuller & Charles H. Davenport (authors of Men of Vermont ) "historians", or give much credence to their evaluation of Young. The bobcat.ws website is a self-published source, and the author credited on that page is not a notable "established expert on the subject matter [the Utah War, Utah, Mormonism, &/or A Study in Scarlet], whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". —Asterisk*Splat→ 19:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

text: As you have taken offence to my use of the term "laughable", I withdraw it, and substitute another, but the context is the same: neither the two prominent politicians (who belonged to a political party caught up in the throes of vilifying Mormons in Utah just before this work was published), nor the highly political editor of the Brattleboro Reformer can reasonably be called historians. I didn't say that Bagley is a bad source, I said the Utah War material was off-topic, which includes the text you are using Bagley to support. You appear unfamiliar with Harold Schindler, who is hardly just a "newspaper man"; he happens to be a journalist and historian of note about the American West. He had a prominent position providing the SLT with articles of historical interest during Utah's centennial, and the Utah Division of State History quotes verbatim those articles, right along side material contributed by Bagley, because he is highly credible. If Bagley had written specifically about the Utah/Study in Scarlet/Doyle connection, that could easily belong in this article, but the more general material about the Utah War is out of place and off-topic. Just as I have withdrawn word you identified as "ad hominem", I ask that you do the same by striking "mischievous". —Asterisk*Splat→ 22:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  since you have you have edited other pages in the month since the comment above without making any additional comments here, am I to assume that you either have no further interest in this discussion, have nothing more you wish to say, or are quietly acquiescing to the points that have been made here? —Asterisk*Splat→ 17:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misrepresenting sources and editorializing 

message: hi  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.221.69 (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  ho 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on A Study in Scarlet. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.holmesonscreen.com/miscellanymain2.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on A Study in Scarlet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060923063139/http://historytogo.utah.gov/salt_lake_tribune/in_another_time/041094.html to http://historytogo.utah.gov/salt_lake_tribune/in_another_time/041094.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Since this is the first appearance of Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson, should a section be added to this article that covers how these characters originated? Are there sources that cover how and why Doyle created the characters? ~EdGl talk 22:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on the origin of the characters? 

message: Book story review 2402:3A80:1E6A:C77B:9583:836:2732:21B0 (talk) 13:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book story review of Sherlock Holmes