Offline
Very possibly.
Doesn't mean they were right.
Offline
So you don't think they might be experts?
Offline
On Conan Doyle?
No.
Offline
But then who is? Just the literary critics? I always thought that every reader could become an expert and was allowed to interpret the text.
Last edited by SusiGo (May 24, 2014 7:10 pm)
Offline
Of course we're all allowed to interpret the text, but our interptretation may not exactly match the writer's intention.
Offline
May I quote the writer:
"You may marry him, murder him, or do anything you like to him."
Offline
besleybean wrote:
On Conan Doyle?
No.
Hmh. But you are? What qualifies you as an expert to tell things for sure?
I mean, those readers shared the same country and era and cultural codes.
Offline
I'd rather read what Doyle hismself said.
Yes Susi, that was to the stage director who made the play of Sherlock Holmes when Doyle was completely fed up of him and it wasn't a description of what he'd done to him: after all, he didn't marry him off..
The stage director wanted to embroil Sherlock Holmes in a love interest with his leading lady and did so with Doyle's blessing.
Last edited by besleybean (May 24, 2014 7:21 pm)
Offline
besleybean wrote:
I'd rather read what Doyle hismself said.
And that is the same what those readers did. Only they knew him better than you. Because they were contemporaries.
Offline
But what did he say? Nothing as far as I know. And the fact that he was so indifferent about the adaptations might be a hint that he also let the imagination of his readers roam freely.
Apart from that the moment a writer chooses to publish their work it becomes open to interpretation. Full stop. You may like it or not as a writer but you have to accept that people might see things in there you have not deliberately planned.
Offline
No, I mean in his interviews and his autobiography and of course ACD was fully aware of the writer's curse.
Doesn't alter the fact that people may be seeing something different to what you wrote.
Last edited by besleybean (May 24, 2014 7:26 pm)
Offline
Haven't you read ACDs book: "Not a Couple - The Ultimate Truth About Holmes and Watson", Susi?
Offline
Will have a look at amazon asap.
Offline
I once read ACD´s book "Land of Mist" where he introduced two young people and then wrote something like: "If you see those two together, consider them a couple, please - but I don´t want to write about their relationship in detail in this book, because I am not interested in writing romance:"
Just a food for thought.
Offline
Sherlock isn't a romance either.
It's about Sherlock Holmes.
But we are privileged to a look into his intimate life.
A vital part of this is his deep friendship with John Watson.
Offline
besleybean wrote:
Sherlock isn't a romance either.
It's about Sherlock Holmes.
But we are privileged to a look into his intimate life.
A vital part of this is his deep friendship with John Watson.
Why is it not a romance?
Mycroft asked, "What might we deduce about his heart?"
Offline
Yes, in relation to Irene.
Offline
Also in relation to his childhood and his self-image as a pirate and a detective (and maybe a dragonslayer).
Offline
I always took it to mean he had a childish, romantic dream, but opted for the more practical solution.
Offline
besleybean wrote:
Yes, in relation to Irene.
Sherlock's encounters with Moriarty revealed more seduction and sizzle than his ultimate response to Irene. Sorry about dinner.
Irene's story was a plot device to illustrate Sherlock's resistance to her provocations and feminine wiles. The writers created the ultimate, exotic (and erotic) femme fatale and Sherlock walked away.