A Study in Scarlet

When I got to part 2 I had to double check that I was still reading the same novel. Interesting that the first half was Sherlock and Watson solving the crime and the second half was the perpetrator's motive. Great writing, of course, though a bit dry for my taste - I'll probably read more in the future.

I could have sworn I read this long ago, having been a Sherlock fan by my early teens. But while the murder scene rings a bell, I had no recollection whatsoever of Evil Mormons or the motivations and identity of the killer. I suspect my youthful mind lost traction when the extended flashback (with NO Sherlock!) began, and I never actually read the whole thing!

I've got to give this at least four stars - it's the original Sherlock tale, and establishes so many of the well-loved tropes of his adventures. It's amazingly readable for a modern audience - it's funny reading the satirical take on various biased newspapers spinning the murder story to their own political ends. Unfortunately as fresh and relevant as when it was written! And I'd wager this story is the main source of the phrase “judge, jury, and executioner,” how cool is that? (Defoe evidently used it earlier but in a much lesser known work.)

There is of course rampant and casual sexism and racism sprinkled throughout, but I try to read and judge a work in historical context and on that score I don't think I can dock stars. This is what white English dudes were soaking in in 1887, unfortunately.

However, I am deducting a star for two items that irritated me beyond that. First, Ferrier is supposed to be wise, shrewd, and stoic, but he's literally Too Stupid to Live when the plot requires it. One would think he could have managed to play along a bit and not set himself and Lucy up for disaster!

The other thing is What the fuck, Hope? You're the toughest Terminator ever when it comes to revenge, but you don't even try to rescue your true love? YOU HAD A MONTH, but you just wandered away because I guess once her hymen was torn she was as good as dead or something? Ugh.

Just got the super bumper edition of all the Sherlock Holmes stories read by Stephen Fry on Audible. I'm not sure I'd have enjoyed this quite so much if anyone else had been reading it. Plot wise, it's a 3. Performance by Stephen Fry, 4. Writing style and engagement, 4. The descriptive writing at the beginning of the second part, the back-in-time part, is excellent. It drew me right in and felt just a little bit like Steinbeck. Not a lot mind you, but enough that I was drawn right in which, up until then, the novel hadn't done.