OnlineBookClub.org

This is one of my favorite books of all time! To me, the genius of Conan Doyle cannot be rivaled. I especially liked the depth of the characters, and the parts where Sherlock Holmes really showed how much he cared for Dr. John Watson. Their relationship is just absolutely riveting. The best part of all of his stories and novels, however, is the brilliance of Sherlock's deductions. The explanations and clever ideas written into the stories by Arthur Conan Doyle are together an immeasurable feat of intelligence. Every story is planned out with details, even the smallest of details that are woven in with skill to finally come together in the end and create a whole picture. I highly recommend this to anyone who loves mystery books or just plain classics!

Sherlock Holmes is definitely a classic. What I found about the Holmes stories is that I enjoyed the short stories featuring him more than the novels, whereas the opposite is true for Agatha Christie's Poirot. I liked "the adventure of the speckled band" (which actually gave me some nightmares when I was younger), "silver blaze" and "the adventure of dancing men". Novel-wise I would pick A Study in Scarlet.

Bobbylou Chandler wrote:Sherlock Holmes is definitely a classic. What I found about the Holmes stories is that I enjoyed the short stories featuring him more than the novels, whereas the opposite is true for Agatha Christie's Poirot. I liked "the adventure of the speckled band" (which actually gave me some nightmares when I was younger), "silver blaze" and "the adventure of dancing men". Novel-wise I would pick A Study in Scarlet.

I have a theory concerning the story, The Speckled Band which may or may not be true. Doyle was actually tired of writing the Holmes stories and wanted to pursue other literary paths; however, the public and his publisher constantly beset him for additional material concerning the super-sluth and Watson. I think this story may have been Doyle's way of thumbing his nose at his public.

****Spoilers Ahead*****

The speckled band, as you know, was a venomous snake. The villainous uncle occupied the room next to his victims. He sent the snake down a bell pull sash (used for summoning servants) which was directly over the bed of his intended victim. He would send the snake crawling down the bell pull sash. The snake would then bite the victim. Then he would play a flute and this would recall the snake up the cloth bell pull to get a reward of a bowl of milk.

1) Snakes cannot hear (the flute).
2) Snakes do not drink milk.
3) It is physically impossible for a snake to crawl up a piece of cloth.
4) Reptiles have neither a limbic or neocortex aspect to their brains - they cannot be taught tricks or to respond to commands.

I think this was Doyle's way of saying Pbbbbbbbbllllllttttttt [:- P ~~~~~~ *LOL*

Edited to add:
Favorite short story = The Red Headed League
Favorite novel = The Hound Of The Baskervilles (of course)

Thanks DATo! now if I had known all that years ago it would save me some sleepless nights...
Yes some of the stories, though it sounds fairly logical as you read, actually do not work in reality. I think in "silver blaze" (if memory serves) Holmes used footprints/stride lengths to estimate the height of the culprit. While it was a method used around the time the story was written, it is a fairly unreliable way to estimate height!

Bobbylou Chandler wrote:Thanks DATo! now if I had known all that years ago it would save me some sleepless nights...
Yes some of the stories, though it sounds fairly logical as you read, actually do not work in reality. I think in "silver blaze" (if memory serves) Holmes used footprints/stride lengths to estimate the height of the culprit. While it was a method used around the time the story was written, it is a fairly unreliable way to estimate height!

You are most welcome. It is always nice to meet another Holmes fan! [:- )

I'm working my way through all of the stories now (had read some, but never had the chance to read all). I agree with Bobbylou that the short stories, with the possible exception of Hound of the Baskervilles, is more fun. Not only are the two novels very early--so Doyle was still working out his pattern--but Doyle tends to pad them with rather tedious interludes from the point of view of the villain, once he's caught. Boy, do those villains love to talk. I'm rather glad Moriarty wasn't like that.

It would be a hard thing to find someone in the world today who has not heard of Sherlock Holmes. Numerous movies and TV series have been produced and shown so often, that it is no wonder that he is the world's most well-known detective. My mother read me the stories when I was a child. It was almost a game while she was reading to try and figure out what had happened and who had done it. It still intrigues me that the intricacies of the plot are so minute that even readers who have read it multiple times, might still be slightly surprised by the end. The brilliance of Arthur Conan Doyle is shown through the character of Sherlock Holmes, who is brilliant beyond all explanation. These stories will continue to be classics for generations to come.

There is an absolutely huge amount of detail in them. Doyle must have done so much research that I can kind of see why he got sick of it after a while and took a break. Right now, I'm listening to them on audiobook. I see it as a way to get a good overview of all of them by reading through them once, but I certainly expect I will be delving into a few again later on.

Now that is a classic book. This book gives me kick to be more smart, wicked and intelligent. The pair is awesome. And also irene from whole series plays a vital character with her wit. She is the lady gutsy.

Bobbylou Chandler wrote:Sherlock Holmes is definitely a classic. What I found about the Holmes stories is that I enjoyed the short stories featuring him more than the novels, whereas the opposite is true for Agatha Christie's Poirot. I liked "the adventure of the speckled band" (which actually gave me some nightmares when I was younger), "silver blaze" and "the adventure of dancing men". Novel-wise I would pick A Study in Scarlet.

I have only read about half of the Sherlock Holes stories, so far I love them! I have a question though. A Study in Scarlet is rather polemic, as the plot is not quite close to the other stories. Should I recomend A study in Scarlet to someone who have nerver read any of the others? (I recommend books every month in my website classics4classics.wixsite.com/classics4classic , but I am not quite sure if this one would be a good idea°

Thank you for your insights sinse now!

i enjoy the books the mysteries never get old and sherlock is constantly redone

I remember reading Sherlock stories with my Dad as a kid, but when I re-read them as an adult I was shocked by how many stories Doyle structured without an actual crime, and how many "villians" Sherlock never unmasked. They're not uniformly structured at all - there's no "formula" that Doyle used to build his plots. That's what separates Doyle from Agatha Christie, in my mind; Doyle wrote more about Sherlock and Watson as characters and the plots fell secondary to character development, and Christie is the inverse.

This collection of stories belongs on every book lover's shelf. The consulting detective with his singularly brilliant mind, loyalty towards justice and friendship and beautiful eccentricity contained in such a respected and charismatic form of a human is unforgettable. My favorite one among the collection is The Dancing Men. There are more famous and renowned ones, but that particular story showed me that even the most complicated problems have a simplicity in being solved. This is one of my most favorite finds and I love the books.

Sherlock Holmes is the reason for my love of mysteries. Doyle's stories are beyond compare, I have read them so many times. I can't wait to introduce my own kids to these amazing stories.

I’ve only read a couple, but I need to read more. I really enjoy them.