從福爾摩斯綠皮兒童版、(中略)、新世紀福爾摩斯影集版、新世紀福爾摩斯漫畫版、緋彈的亞莉亞繞了一圈後又回來了
《血字的研究》8/10
《四簽名》6/10 ( )

I read the study in Scarlet. It was good, but the extended deviation into Latter Day Saints kind of threw me for awhile. I didn't read the Sign of Four. I may go back to it another time. I actually did go back and read The Sign of Four. Another great Sherlock story. ( )

The prose is clunky and does not flow well. I'm going to stick to television/movie versions of Sherlock, thanks. ( )

A Study in Scarlet is the first book in the Sherlock Holmes series. We are introduced to the impressive Sherlock who uses logic to solve mysteries, and his sidekick Dr. Wilson. Both books are good and interesting reads, just that the way the story is structured i.e. long narratives unveiling the background of the mystery, breaks the flow of the story and slows down the pace. ( )

A few brief notes:
-Surprisingly modern, readable prose for a pair of 19th century novellas. Compare, for example, the depictions of India in Doyle's The Sign of Four and Kipling's Kim. Kipling may be more naturalistic, but Doyle is more accessible (i.e. I was not reaching for the dictionary every 10 minutes). When I read an old novel that sounds (relatively) modern, I take that as a mark of the strength of it's influence. That is, the stronger the influence of an older novel on those that came afterward, the more it is likely to have in common with them.
-Having seen many film and TV adaptations of the Sherlock Holmes's* stories, I was surprised by a couple things about the original portrayal of the Holmes character. First, he is not the armchair detective I had pictured. He's an action hero--boxing, shooting revolvers, etc. Second, he's not the pontificating old man I remember. If I read *A Study in Scarlet* correctly, Holmes (a recent university graduate) is about 20 years younger than Watson (a pensioned Army doctor, who injury seemed to have shifted from his shoulder to his leg, but never mind that). Third, Holmes is not the ego ideal I expected. Unlike, say, Superman or James Bond, Sherlock Holmes regular says or does reprehensible things that Watson (the narrator) explicitly points out to the reader. I'm thinking here of both Holmes's misogyny and drug addiction. The addiction especially features quite prominently in The Sign of Four, which begins and ends with Sherlock's IV drug use (so extensive that he is described as having track marks). Flawed heroes are, as far as I'm concerned, far more interesting.
-My evaluation of the books might be colored by the fact that I found them historically interestingly. Read on their own, irrespective of their influence, they might seem less...something. I dunno. Even though I don't like lengthy, tedious exposition, I still liked these books. They do something bad, but they do it well. So it all works out in the end, right? ( )