The Murders in the Rue Morgue

This is the first of the Dupin stories and will be my starting point in proving that Holmes, whom everyone appears to be trying to copy, was actually caste in the mold of Dupin - though he fervently denies any such connection. Ha!

The Independent Reading Odyssey continues...stuff your ears lest the sirens lead you astray...

Okay, so its that time again!! A new set of stories is at my disposal: the Dupin stories by Edgar Allan Poe. Dupin, as i stated in the previous post, is the true patriarch of fictitious sleuthing and was the first ever to use the method of deduction - though he never openly stated that "hey, i'm deducing" like Holmes so often does. Dupin's method is actually called "ratiocination", a method where he tries to think like the criminal and put himself in the criminal's shoes, but this method incorporates deduction within it. I will be reading "The Murders on the Rue Morgue", "The Purloined Letter", and any other Dupin story i can get my eager hands on. Till we meet again.

A slight rectification...oops!

My deepest apologies, dear reader, but it has just come to my attention that i have been repeating a very blatant falacy throughout the last few posts. Therefore, i deem it necessary to henceforth make amends for this err and attempt to unlie the dear reader of this inaccuracy.
Sherlock Holmes was not, i repeat, NOT, the first fictitious sleuth to be conjured up for public discretion and entertainment. This prestigious title actually belongs to the one and only Auguste Dupin, a character of Edgar Allan Poe's who started the entire genre. This, is the true patriarch of detective stories, althogh Holmes is the more popluar and is thus heralded as the original.
Forgive me for these blasphemous propclamations. However, blasphemous as they mioght have been, they should not be considered null and void. My entire post regarding Holmes being the first sleuth and therefore set as the standard is not without consequence because, due to his popularity, he is actually considered by many readers as the patriarch and granddaddy of sleuthing. Therefore, my former opinions still hold. Do not disregard them. Adieu.

Responding to Gen: Part 5

Okay....so how effective do you think this method is. Now, I'm not discounting that if it works for her then it's good, but esp. in comparison to Holmes.

Spot on, Gen, absolutely spot on. I really think that Ms. Marple's method, pitted up against Holmes' infallible method of deduction, would not hold much water. Especially if the two were used in this day and age. Holmes' method is timeless and perhaps, if grafted by a competent detective, can still be used to solve crimes today. Ms. Marple's method however, would be more likely to err as human nature is never as truly constant as is depicted in the Marple stories. People simply do not follow the same patterns of life. Sure, people may bear similar traits and act somewhat the same, but that does not mean that they would act the same under the exacty same circumstances. The one loophole in Marple's method is that it disregards the singular nature of humans. Holmes' method, however, relies solely on the one thing that, as John Grisham from C.S.I. famously says, "never lies", and that is the evidence. Blood is still blood, no matter what; human emotions however, are not as constant as the blood on a suspect's sleeve may be.

Responding to Gen: Part 4

Miss Marple in her differences from Holmes might also ask you to go back to what you thought about Holmes and reevaluate how his personality is good/bad for him.

Okay, Holmes' personality...well, if we are comparing him to Ms Marple, Holmes definelty falls short in the sentimental department. Holmes believes that emotions are a sign of weakness when it comes to sleuthing, as emotions mean attachment, which mean involvement, which leads to partiality in judgment, which translates into misguided deductions. Holmes detests Watsons' love and vies never to fall in love himself lest he falls prey to that trap. This could be a good thing or a bad thing for Holmes, depending on how one looks at it. For, if Holmes' own romantic interest (God Forbid!) were to be the murderer in a case he was investigating, how impartial would he be when conducting his investigations, and what if he arrests the wrong person because of his misguided deductions? What then? However, this deficiency of emotion is also not good for Holmes as he lives his life in solitude with only Watson to provide him company and no hope of ever attaining a family. To Holmes hoewever, this is not important, so for his own benefit, it is better this way. Also, after seeing Ms. Marple do her sleuthing first-hand, i appreciate Holmes' method even more since he never takes anything for granted. Ms. Marple however, though her calculated guesses are just as certain as Holmes' deductions, are based more on conjecture than on hard evidence, because they rely so heavily on human character: a very mutable trait.

Responding to Gen: Part 3

The only thing is, now that you ahve discovered the differences you might want to look at how these differences change the genre for you or added to your understanding of what the general sleuth can be.

Well, after discovering the differences between the two, Marple and Holmes, i have added to my understanding of the mystery genre. For one, Christie's Marple just goes to show you that women can do exactly what men can. For years before Marple was ever conceived, sleuthing was only looked at as something a man, definelty like Holmes, could do. However, by introducing the character of the brilliant Ms. Marple, Christie shows that even a little old lady can do what Holmes does. Also, by captializing on the stereotypes that go along with little old ladies (not being able to defend or support themselves, going senile and the sort) Christie takes almost a feminist stand in her portrayal of her sleuth: discouraging the assumption that the fairer sex cannot do what men (Holmes) have been discovered capable of. Christie's message through Ms Marple's stories, cliche as it may seem, being one of not judging a book by its cover. Therefore urging the public not to look down on women because they do not appear capable of doing the same work as men.

In Response to Gen: Part 2

For me, Cuff almost seems to be kind of like a dissapointment, just becuase he falls short of the standards set by Holmes. His methods don't seem as effective or i guess sleuthy enough to me now after reading abut Holmes, as if he just completly falls short of what i wanted.

Yes, Cuff is a bit of a disappointment in The Moonstone simply because the story does not revolve around him and his methods. For starters, Cuff is not even the protagonist of the story, severely hurting any chances of him being as good as Holmes. Secondly, Cuff is not even present for the majority of the story, let a lone heard from. Holmes has also been known to disappear from the story for extended periods of time (as is evidenced by his absensure for the majority of Hound of the Baskervilles), having said that, Holmes still appears in the story to grab the bull by the horns and illuminate the unsuspecting Watson. On the other hand, Cuff disappears from the story and does not return, ever. Not even when the final big reveal is being made does Cuff make a belated appearance. And third and most important, Cuff breaks the most valuable rule of sleuthing: he actually makes a mistake. I do not mean misinterpreting a clue only to get it right later on, no, i'm talking blatantly stating "The Moonstone was never stolen from the house, and i shall soon prove this", yet bey the end we discover that it was really stolen. Cuff does not even return to redeem himself later on, thus dashing any hopes of him being as good or even close to as good as Homes.

In Response to Gen: Part 1

Okay, time for some major catch-up; this calls for some drastic measures. Therefore, i will be responding to, not one, not two, but all of Gen's recent comments in independent posts!!! Isn't this going to be exciting!!!

However I think in looking at his faults and how they compare to Holmes you can probally discover a lot about both the books, to me it kind of shows that Holmes is like this ultimate standard of what is to be a sleuth.

I agree, Gen. I think all detectives in literature are caste in the mold of Holmes. Be it in minute similarities or in very conspicuous likenesses (if that is a word), i believe that most authors, when they set out to write a good mystery novel, try to copy the original. Holmes still remains the epitome of detective excellence, so it only makes sense that Detective Cuff and Ms Marple bear very didtict similarities to Holmes in certain aspects: if only to make them as believable or as good as Holmes seems to be. Another factor that should be taken into consideration is that Holmes was the first, the granddaddy of all fictitious sleuths. Therefore every other sleuth we see does somehow resemble Holmes because he set the standards for our comparisons. However, what if Holmes had not been the first; what if Ms. Marple had preceeded Holmes, or even Hercule Poirot (another one of Agatha Christie's detectives), would we then still hold Holmes in such high regard and praise him as the patriarch of detective fiction? I think not. I think a lot of it has to do with his being the first in the genre and thus retaining the perks of being the original.

Miss Marple parallel in the media!!!

I have discovered a character, the protagonist actually, of a prime-time television show on Fox that bears an uncanny resemblance to our dear Miss Marple. The similarity may not be physical - given that said character is a man, American and named Amsterdam - but you will pick up on it as i describe the plot for the show. The show is 'New Amsterdam', and this is the plot;

• A man in medival times offers up the ultimate sacrifice for another human's life: his own.
• For such a selfless act, while he is gasping for his last breath, he is granted the gift of everlasting life until he meets his true love.
• Therefore, Amsterdam has been around for ages and still looks like he's about 30 years old.
• In this lifetime, Amsterdam is a detective for the police and is very good at his job if i do say so myself.
• Amsterdam's unique ability to solve crimes is as a result of his infinite experiences with people throughout his numerous lifetimes. Amsterdam's age and wisdom make new and baffling cases appear commonplace...

...please tell me you can see the connection too...

Amsterdam's method is an exact replica of Miss Marple's, just that he is much older (though he looks younger) and enjoys (but mostly regrets) the perks of being unable to die.

Modus operandi

The biggest difference between Miss Marple and Holmes is in their method;

Holmes deduces...
As we all remember, Holmes uses his keen eye and his method of deduction in order to solve the most complex of crimes.

...while Miss Marple...well...she remembers, associates and attributes.
Miss Marple's method is simpler than it sounds. This is how it works;

1. Miss Marple is very old,
2. And she has met several people in her life,
3. And because of this, she has had or observed very many experiences of several people in the past.
4. As she observes these experiences, she begins to associate the way people act with their characteristic traits eg. a woman (let's call her 'lady x') may remind her of a past acquaintance ('lady y')who got cheated on because she was too trusting in her husband, this would make her atribute lady x with the memory of lady y and therefore would be able to tell what type of woman lady x is simply through her past association with lady y. So, if lady x's husband were to suddenly turn up dead, Miss Marple would not look too far to find a suspect and the motive - perhaps lady x, upon discovering her husband had cheated on her, killed him, not so much out of contempt, but out of disbelief that her husband, whom she loved and trusted, could do such a thing to her. All this Miss marple would consider, simply because she knew someone else who went through the exact same thing.

Miss Marple under the microscope

Okay, this is the point in my quest for answers that i compare and contrast my sleuth with all the previous sleuths i have encountered. Miss Marple, i have discovered, is not too different from the achetypical detective himself, Mr. Sherlock Holmes...

Marple meets Holmes, and they enjoy a cup of English tea;

• Miss Marple, just like Holmes, is English.
• Miss Marple and Holmes are both unofficial detectives whom, at first glance, appear mere amateurs
• Miss Marple, at one point during The Mirror Crack'd, is approached by an actual police inspector to assist with the case...sound like someone we know? Definetly.
• Miss Marple has her own method of solving crimes that is unique to her. Though it may not be the same as Holmes' method of deduction, it is just as effective, as is evident in the several crimes she solves.
• Miss Marple surprises people with her intelligence and just how mentally acute she really is...need i say more?
• Miss Marple abides by Holmes' theory that there is no new crime under the sun, though in a slightly different manner: she believes that people tend to follow the same trends of behavior. This, she believes, is only human.

However similar these two may seem, there are evident digressions in their characteristics...

Marple and Holmes get into a heated argument, and part ways;

• Miss Marple is very old, by any time period's standards - Holmes is still around his forties for most of the stories.
• Miss Marple cannot take care of herself the way she used to anymore due to her ripe age - Holmes is comfortably self-sufficient.
• Miss Marple is very modest when it comes to her unique eye for crime - Holmes, though he is not pompous about it, always acknowledges his achievements and makes it know that it was "simple, really, just common sense".
• Miss Marple does not have a 'side-kick' - Holmes does.

The Miss Marple stories

Okay, its been a long time coming, but i have finally decided to post again. I have read two Miss Marple stories and am currently half-way through the third. In all three (two-and-a-half, rather) stories, Miss Marple constantly recurs as the heroine and protagonist of the plot. Here is some background information about our little old sleuth.

Miss Marple;

• is a ripe eighty years old
• lives in a little village named St. Mary Mead
• apparently (in other words, as far as i have read) has never been married
• lives with a maid in her little home to assist her with all the tedious jobs
• has known (met) a lot of people throughout her lifetime (this is very very important, as will be elucidated in the subsequent post)
• has a famous author-of-a-nephew named Raymond who generously foots all her medical bills and pays foranything she might need
• now finds it difficult to perform all the tasks she used to do such as first rate gardening, and therefore has to settle with knitting all day.

The independent reading odyssey continues...leaving behind the cyclops...

My next set of stories is from the famous Agatha Christie. I will be reading the Miss Marple stories.

First and last...a juxtaposition!

-Okay, the first thing i noticed when i picked up this book was that it was about the size of a Sherlock Holmes short story. The entire book was a staggering 92 pages long and took me the greater part of two hours (maybe) to finish.
-Okay so the detectives. There is a detective in this story called Mr. Cuff. However, he is different from Holmes is several respects.
1. Cuff is not the protagonist of this story but only a minor character.
2. Cuff's input in this story is fundamental but is not the main thing that makes the case come together.
3. Cuff, at one point of the story, makes a totally wrong assertion. Unlike Holmes who does not preempt himself but retains all final assertions till the end, Cuff openly declares that the diamond was not actually stolen and that by the end this fact would reveal itself to be true. This, unfortunately, is totally false since the diamond was stolen.
4. Also, Cuff constantly reveals his discoveries during his investigation, unlike Holmes.

However, there are some similarities;
1. Cuff also has that aura of mystery about him and respect as an authoritative sleuth figure that Holmes possesses.
2.Cuff is English too. He lives in London.

In conclusion, Cuff bears a few similarities to Holmes just so as to fit into the stereotype of the awesome sleuth but he really isn't as good at the job and features in less than a quarter of the book.

The beginning of a new era...introducing - THE MOONSTONE by Wilkie Collins

This is the next book that i shall be reading (actually that i read and completed last night) for my blog. I know that we, as bloggers, should not dote on summary writing and undue narrating of the story. However, in order to encapsulate my ideas in a way that will easily be understood by my reader, it is mandatory that i provide a brief summary of what transpires in the book beforehand. Thus, without further ado, i now present to you...

THE MOONSTONE - an abridged version brought to you by Adrian.

Setting - England, 1848. The story plays out for the greater part in London.

POV - First person narrative of a butler or house-help named Betteredge.

Outline - The moonstone, a valuable diamond from the statue of the Hindu Moon godess is stolen from India by the late uncle of a Miss Rachel, whom, upon his death, bequeaths the valuable stone to his beloved niece for her birthday. Mr. Franklin, an acquaintance of Ms. Rachel's, is charged with the duty of delivering the moonstone to Rachel on her birthday. He does so with great regret (though he does not evidence this outwardly) for he knows that the moonstone is cursed and brings bad luck to any and all who possess it (all this Mr. Franklin confides in our faithful narrator). Later that night, however, Miss Rachel's diamond is stolen. The mystery being that all the doors and windows of the house were locked shut and that noone could have entered or left with the diamond during the course of the night, suggesting that the thief was someone that stayed over that night. The only people that resided in the house that night were Miss Rachel, Mr. Godfrey Abelwhite (a family friend), Dr. Candy (another family friend), the house-helps (including our narrator) and Mr. Franklin...

...skip several chapters and we come to the end of the book. It turns out that Mr. Godfrey conspired with Dr. Candy to drug Mr. Franklin's drink so that he would act "out of the ordinary". Due to Mr. Franklin's concern for Rachel and the diamond's safety, he had inadvertently (in his somnambulant state induced by the drugs) stolen the diamond so as to hide it from the Hindu men that were trying to retrieve the relic at all costs (they even showed up at the birthday party under the guise of magicians but were spotted out by a wise man who had done a lot of travelling to India and could discern their foul motives). But as Mr. Franklin retired to his room, he was intercepted by Mr. Godfrey Abelwhite who took the diamond and left the house the following day. Mr. Franklin was spotted by Ms. Rachel, though, and she thought that he was stealing her diamond. Mr. Franklin remembered none of this of course, so he was very upset when suddenly Ms. Rachel would not speak to him. Anyway, the book ends with one of the Hindu mercenaries killing Mr. Godfrey Abelwhite, retrieving the fabled moonstone, and returning with it to India to replace it in the statue of the godess. So the truth is revealed, Ms. Rachel loves Mr. Franklin again and becomes Mrs. Franklin, and everyone lives happily ever after...except for the few people that died during the course of the story.

My next post will be on the differences and similarities between this story and the Holmes stories. Till then, adieu.

Ruminating, cogitating...and responding.

Well, this is basically in response to Gen's last few comments. Holmes is the archetypical detective of whom we see several renditions in detective stories throughout the ages. The cool and collected sleuth we see in literature, who never jumps to conclusions and meticulously picks each part of the mystery apart, is always a reincarnation of our dear Holmes. I actually have been searching for these traits in the book that i have started reading and i will elucidate further when the time is ripe. And finally, Holmes' method is very productive. Holmes always gets his man (or woman, or animal...depending on whodunit). Even in the story where Holmes is thought to have died at the hands of his arch-enemy, the equally witty and intelligent Moriarty, he still returns under the guise of an old woman to startle Watson and to stay undercover till he foiled Moriarty's crime syndicate. Holmes was actually intended to die in this story, but due to public demand (public upheaval, more like), Doyle (the author, remember) had to resurrect old Sherlock to keep the reading public happy. (Much like what would have happened if Rowling had decided, say, to kill Harry in "Prisoner of Azkaban" and stopped the story there).