Scan barcode
meganpbennett's review against another edition
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.0
Graphic: Racism, Blood, Misogyny, Sexism, Gun violence, Death, Murder, and Animal death
seforana's review against another edition
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.25
Graphic: Toxic relationship, Violence, Blood, Gore, Body horror, Animal death, Injury/Injury detail, Murder, Death, and Physical abuse
mistystar's review against another edition
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? N/A
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.75
Minor: Death, Injury/Injury detail, Drug use, Blood, Murder, and Infidelity
maren_hemsath's review against another edition
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
4.25
Graphic: Violence, Gun violence, and Murder
Moderate: Drug use, Kidnapping, Injury/Injury detail, Domestic abuse, Confinement, Blood, Racism, Racial slurs, and Drug abuse
Minor: War, Sexism, Medical content, and Animal death
chalkletters's review against another edition
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
2.25
There was only one instance, in A Case of Identity, in which I felt that Arthur Conan Doyle really mistreated one of his female characters: Holmes works out exactly how his client, Miss Sutherland, was manipulated and deceived but declares that she won’t believe him if he tells her, so just leaves her to get on with her unhappy life! Clearly, it’s the solving of the puzzle that matters to Sherlock (and Dr Watson), and not the actual result of his actions. That would be okay, except that I increasingly feel as though the same is true of Arthur Conan Doyle, and what’s forgivable in a flawed character is less so in a real person.
For the most part, the beginnings of the stories were a little tediously repetitive: Watson notes that Sherlock solves cases for the nobility, but says that these are sometimes less interesting and shows off Sherlock’s skills less well than whichever case he’s introducing. There’s nothing wrong with a formula that works, I suppose, but I might recommend not reading these stories back to back to back.
The problems and their solutions are clever, and anyone reading these for the first time would likely be carried along by that alone. (Except in the case of The Five Orange Pips, which is sadly incredibly obvious to a modern reader. I can only assume that the Klu Klux Klan was less familiar to British readers in 1892 than it would be today.) Remembering the endings of ten out of twelve stories definitely put me in a position to notice more of the flaws!
Minor: Addiction, Animal death, Drug use, Gun violence, Murder, Violence, Death, Blood, Death of parent, and Injury/Injury detail
caitlin_doggos's review against another edition
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
4.0
Graphic: Blood, Drug abuse, Violence, Drug use, Injury/Injury detail, Death, Murder, and Animal death
novelyon's review against another edition
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
5.0
Moderate: Murder, Medical content, Addiction, Death, and Medical trauma
Minor: Blood, Confinement, Animal cruelty, Classism, Animal death, Domestic abuse, Fire/Fire injury, Incest, and Violence