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!Saturday, March 29, 2008
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)