Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by joanna1266
The Complete Sherlock Holmes by Arthur Conan Doyle
5.0
Five stars, though I must say this book is not quite so thought provoking as I would've liked it to be for such a rating. These are absolutely amazing stories, but contain very few metaphors, creative diction, and other compositions of great literary works that I had expected to be contained in Doyle's stories.
Many of Sir. Arthur Conan Doyle's novels were composed of as much backstory as there was the point of view of Watson. At first, I found this occurrence to be quite irksome, as I hadn't much cared for the story of the life of either the deceased or the murderer. But, as I continued to read these novels, I found that such backstories added a delightful dimension that was not present in the completely analytical mind of Holmes (even as it was sightly softened through the eyes of his dear friend Watson).
As for the short stories, I had trouble at first attach myself to the personas of the clients, as the characters were quite flat and static in the reader's point of view. (Though don't make the mistake for a second that I had not immediately became enthralled by the personalities of Sherlock and Watson, for I've loved each of these characters dearly from the start). But, as I continued to read the many volumes of compilations, I found that such secondary characters as Holmes' customers were, were designed not only to take on whatever personality could be formed by the imagination of the reader, but were also forced to be bland so as to allow for the cunning personality of Holmes to take precedent. Many of these cases were well thought-out, nearly conceivable crimes. Some were a bit hard to swallow, but all-in-all, I believe that the author did a magnificent job in describing the steps of observation and reasoning needed to make such cases conceivable.
I would've like further variation between stories, as their seemed to be a number of annoyingly similar burglaries, but not a single case of kidnapping. Furthermore, I found that there was an obnoxious number of cases whose motive simply lied in the explanation of love, an occurrence likely common in real life, but to me seemed merely a simple explanation to a tired Arthur Conan Doyle. These repetitions may have very well been a consequence of the popularity of the stories in the eyes of the public during the time of their publishing, as the author needed to created such plots in quantity rather than quality as the love of the novels increased. But, whatever the case, I found that I wish the creativity which had enthralled readers during the start of the novels and stories would've lasted to the end of the series.
Another component which I wished might've lasted to the end of the series was a common villain. Yes, yes, I understand that *crime* is the one and only villain to the Sherlock Holmes. But, I was under the impression (perhaps naively) that Moriarty was a central figure and opponent to the detective. This was not so. Though Moriarty and his web of fiends was mentioned many a time, I found that in a mere single story did the villain ever present himself fully, and there were very few actual villains who sought to stop the ways of the detective. This was a bit of a disappointment to me, for I would've loved to seen some over-arching conflicts that connected each of the short stories. In my opinion, such a component would have allowed the series to flow much more fluidly than they had, even if this precluded the existence of stand-alones.
Another point which I wish to address is the personality of Holmes and Watson. Having guiltily watched a multitude of TV shows based on such a beloved character before the reading of such stories, I had a fixed image in my mind of what the famed Sherlock Holmes should be. He should be a character of grace, spontaneous outbursts, and an unexplained indifference to the rest of the human race. He should be distant from his family, for his obsessive (nearly sociopathic) tendencies have estranged him from all of society except the unfazed Dr. Watson. But, such qualities were not found to be so.
Yes, Holmes was found to have exhibited many oddities throughout the novels, and through the eyes of Watson he did indeed portray a sense of cool apathy, but he acted on far more emotional and moral ideals in resolving decisions than seemed to match the widespread idea of what the detective should be (in my opinion at least). Furthermore, Watson was much more docile than I would've expected him to behave as well. Would a man so often ridiculed and tricked through arrogant portrays of intelligence so kindly offer praise to he who had treated him so? I would've liked to have seen more human outbursts from Dr. Watson, more examples of a realistic reaction. But once again, Holmes was far more amiable than I would have expected him to be, so I suppose it is only reasonable that Watson be so too.
Anyways, if you have read the entire length of this review, I congratulate you. I would only like to add that despite the seemingly large number of criticisms I hold, I believe Arthur Conan Doyle to be a wondrous writer. The stories of Sherlock Holmes may not have been perfect, but they offered what all readers look for in a book: a world so different from our own that we may delve inside of, so as to escape and/or enrich our current reality while simultaneously feeling safe in the warm conform of an ever availing hero. I have had an amazing time reading such a series, finding not only that I have taken on a style of writing similar to that of the old-English novels, but that I acquired the same curiosity of the world presented in each of the cases of SH. I am glad to have read of the characters so often referenced through pop-culture and other literature in our time. I have now reached a melancholy point in my review in which I must say goodbye to my dear friends Sherlock and Watson, hoping only to see them in other lives and portrayed in other stories.
Many of Sir. Arthur Conan Doyle's novels were composed of as much backstory as there was the point of view of Watson. At first, I found this occurrence to be quite irksome, as I hadn't much cared for the story of the life of either the deceased or the murderer. But, as I continued to read these novels, I found that such backstories added a delightful dimension that was not present in the completely analytical mind of Holmes (even as it was sightly softened through the eyes of his dear friend Watson).
As for the short stories, I had trouble at first attach myself to the personas of the clients, as the characters were quite flat and static in the reader's point of view. (Though don't make the mistake for a second that I had not immediately became enthralled by the personalities of Sherlock and Watson, for I've loved each of these characters dearly from the start). But, as I continued to read the many volumes of compilations, I found that such secondary characters as Holmes' customers were, were designed not only to take on whatever personality could be formed by the imagination of the reader, but were also forced to be bland so as to allow for the cunning personality of Holmes to take precedent. Many of these cases were well thought-out, nearly conceivable crimes. Some were a bit hard to swallow, but all-in-all, I believe that the author did a magnificent job in describing the steps of observation and reasoning needed to make such cases conceivable.
I would've like further variation between stories, as their seemed to be a number of annoyingly similar burglaries, but not a single case of kidnapping. Furthermore, I found that there was an obnoxious number of cases whose motive simply lied in the explanation of love, an occurrence likely common in real life, but to me seemed merely a simple explanation to a tired Arthur Conan Doyle. These repetitions may have very well been a consequence of the popularity of the stories in the eyes of the public during the time of their publishing, as the author needed to created such plots in quantity rather than quality as the love of the novels increased. But, whatever the case, I found that I wish the creativity which had enthralled readers during the start of the novels and stories would've lasted to the end of the series.
Another component which I wished might've lasted to the end of the series was a common villain. Yes, yes, I understand that *crime* is the one and only villain to the Sherlock Holmes. But, I was under the impression (perhaps naively) that Moriarty was a central figure and opponent to the detective. This was not so. Though Moriarty and his web of fiends was mentioned many a time, I found that in a mere single story did the villain ever present himself fully, and there were very few actual villains who sought to stop the ways of the detective. This was a bit of a disappointment to me, for I would've loved to seen some over-arching conflicts that connected each of the short stories. In my opinion, such a component would have allowed the series to flow much more fluidly than they had, even if this precluded the existence of stand-alones.
Another point which I wish to address is the personality of Holmes and Watson. Having guiltily watched a multitude of TV shows based on such a beloved character before the reading of such stories, I had a fixed image in my mind of what the famed Sherlock Holmes should be. He should be a character of grace, spontaneous outbursts, and an unexplained indifference to the rest of the human race. He should be distant from his family, for his obsessive (nearly sociopathic) tendencies have estranged him from all of society except the unfazed Dr. Watson. But, such qualities were not found to be so.
Yes, Holmes was found to have exhibited many oddities throughout the novels, and through the eyes of Watson he did indeed portray a sense of cool apathy, but he acted on far more emotional and moral ideals in resolving decisions than seemed to match the widespread idea of what the detective should be (in my opinion at least). Furthermore, Watson was much more docile than I would've expected him to behave as well. Would a man so often ridiculed and tricked through arrogant portrays of intelligence so kindly offer praise to he who had treated him so? I would've liked to have seen more human outbursts from Dr. Watson, more examples of a realistic reaction. But once again, Holmes was far more amiable than I would have expected him to be, so I suppose it is only reasonable that Watson be so too.
Anyways, if you have read the entire length of this review, I congratulate you. I would only like to add that despite the seemingly large number of criticisms I hold, I believe Arthur Conan Doyle to be a wondrous writer. The stories of Sherlock Holmes may not have been perfect, but they offered what all readers look for in a book: a world so different from our own that we may delve inside of, so as to escape and/or enrich our current reality while simultaneously feeling safe in the warm conform of an ever availing hero. I have had an amazing time reading such a series, finding not only that I have taken on a style of writing similar to that of the old-English novels, but that I acquired the same curiosity of the world presented in each of the cases of SH. I am glad to have read of the characters so often referenced through pop-culture and other literature in our time. I have now reached a melancholy point in my review in which I must say goodbye to my dear friends Sherlock and Watson, hoping only to see them in other lives and portrayed in other stories.