Talk:A Study in Emerald

message: I removed the trivia section and included the info about the advertisements in the opening paragraph. --Junius49 (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Triva section 

message: It's an interesting theory, but unfortunately, it's not supported by the story, whereas the original interpretation is. To support this interpretation:
*The 'detective' character has written a paper on 'The Dynamics of an Asteroid', which "Rache" comments on. In the original canon, Moriarty is the author of this paper.
*The narrator signs his name at the end of his story. Whereas the name is obscured, he possesses the initials 'SM' - Sebastian Moran.
*The narrator frequently discusses what a crack-shot he is. In the original canon, Moran is described as being an expert marksman.
It seems more likely to me that Gaiman is using the two pairings to show how similar they are, just on different sides of the law; Holmes and Moriarty were always constructed as equals-but-opposites, both brilliant men who worked on opposite sides of the law with companions from the military, and the Holmes trappings are just to show how this is inverted in the alternative world. Furthermore, given that Holmes and Watson are opposing a regime dominated by Lovecraft's Great Old Ones, whereas the detective and the veteran are on their side, it could be argued that this IS a 'complementary' presentation of the two. In any case, this smacks a bit of P.O.V, so I've deleted it and provided some examples of why the first interpretation probably is the case.--Joseph Q Publique 07:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'A different, complementary interpretation' 

message: I'm again removed the spoiler tags, since they're in a clearly marked plot summary section. --Tony Sidaway 02:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My reasoning is that reading the plot of this story is an unusually bad spoiler so we should take extra effort to warn people off. You could start reading the plot section to get an idea of the story's setting, but the spoilers start from the first sentence emphasising that the narrator is unnamed when we are set up to believe he is John Watson. Slogby 08:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spoiler tags

message: The article says that "none of the characters are explicitly identified in the text," but I just finished listening to the audiobook which clearly states that the limping doctor is one John Watson, a wounded veteran of the Afghan campaign. I don't know how much more explicit Gaiman could be. Is this a later revision to make the twist clearer, or is the article just wrong?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Seantrinityohara (talk • contribs) 
:You are correct. AJD (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Characters Explicitly Named

message: Is it likely that the events at the end are about the assassination of the GOO Czar? Even if NG thinks it is possible to kill a GOO, I read it simply as monsters exterminating all the humans in Russia. The reference to the real Czar assassination is pertinent, but suggesting even an attempted assassination of the GOO Czar surely needs a good source.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.213.83.221 (talk) 06:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why Tsar Alexander II is mentioned either, since the story takes place in 1914.  Given the date, I suppose it wouldn't be unlikely for a GOO's assassination to trigger a World War, but that's only speculation. The story itself mentions no assassination.142.162.110.96 (talk) 06:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, never mind.  I was being dense.  I think I get it now. 142.162.110.96 (talk) 06:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assassination 

message: While I found the Overview section invaluable in understanding this story with my limited knowledge of Sherlock’s stories… it really shouldn’t be here, as it’s blatant original research. So I’m removing it, but also hoping the info remains in a forum or wiki somewhere. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research is interesting, but…