Light and Darkness in The Hound of the Baskervilles

Light and shadows are often used in fiction to contrast and/or represent certain ideas.  In the case of The Hound of the Baskervilles, light is associated with the truth while darkness is tied to lies or the unknown.

After Watson and Henry have discovered that the mysterious L.L. is just a woman that Sir Charles Baskerville was going to meet on the night of his death, Henry asks Watson, ". . . what do you make of this new light?"  Watson replies, "It seems to have left the darkness blacker than before."  Instead of revealing the identity of someone directly involved with the murder, it only serves to introduce new elements to the situation, making it more confusing.

When Sherlock is discussing how they have no actual evidence against Stapleton, he says, "If he were acting through a human agent we could get some evidence, but if we were to drag this great dog to the light of day it would not help us in putting a rope round the neck of its master."  The titular hound is associated with the darkness of night, and Holmes and Watson know its description cannot entirely be based in fact, as it is too big and hellish to be a real dog; in this quote, Sherlock discusses pulling the hound away from the lies and shadows and revealing it for what it is in the clear light of day where it can be seen for what it is.

After the fog has begun rolling towards Holmes, Watson, and Lestrade while they wait for Henry and the hound to appear, there is this sentence: "The stars shone cold and bright, while a half-moon bathed the whole scene in a soft, uncertain light."  The half-moon provides only part of the light that it could, and so it is not as bright as it could be, making it an "uncertain light"; the truth will not be completely visible to them, especially with the fog, which makes their perception of their surroundings "uncertain".

Finally, there is some description from Watson about searching for the convict by following the light of his candle: "There is nothing so deceptive as a light upon a pitch-dark night . . . But at last we could see whence it came, and then we knew that we were indeed very close."  This quote is possibly referring to the idea of there being an element of truth amongst lies and how this makes such a case more difficult to solve until you get closer to the truth.  In The Hound of the Baskervilles and also in the episode "The Reichenbach Fall", there is some deception going on which has elements of truth but is otherwise composed of lies, and this helps make the deceit believable but also harder to disprove.  In The Hound of the Baskervilles, there is a hound killing people out on the moor, but it isn't supernatural, and it is enabled by a human owner as opposed to working alone or being controlled by a demon or the devil.  In "The Reichenbach Fall", Moriarty's attempt to make Sherlock out to be a fraud involves truthful facts from Sherlock's life, provided by Mycroft Holmes, and outright lies.  

Settings of a detective genre

     As I write my final post, I wanted to talk a little about the settings in a detective genre, and how important it  is to the story. Overall, setting is a very important part to any good story or book. But I think in particular, setting is even more important in a good detective novel. Detective genre's usually begins with a murder, and that's what hooks your interest of reading the book. The beginning is so important for a detective story, and the setting is what gives it that extra spark. If the story begins with a person being murdered in broad daylight, and his body is found in a river." Its not a very interesting story. Famous detective novels begins with setting the stage. It usually portraits a dark and gloomy night. The rain is falling and there is fog everywhere. Instantly, the reader experiences this chilling feeling, that someone is about to die. Later on, the killing would happen in a dark alley with no one around, or a room that's filled with spider webs and dust. These gruesome characteristics are usually what grabs the readers attention. Of course, a murder scene is always related to gruesome settings. It just wouldn't be right if its not. So I think that 'Setting' is such a big factor in detective novels. You always want to have that first paragraph or chapter to hook the readers attention, and the setting has to play out perfectly with the murder. It has to be special, unlike any other. That way the reader will continue reading your story. And I think that all the story we had read this week had that special element. The authors all paid extra attention to the setting. For example, The big sleep kept on talking about the weather, how its always dark and gloomy; the mousetrap had the snow storm. All these settings gives the reader a chill in the back. That's what makes a great detective novel, the think up a perfect setting that ties the story up perfectly.

The Appeal of Noir

Raymond Chandler's The Big Sleep is commonly referred to as hard-boiled detective fiction, but this falls under a larger genre in film and literature: noir. Film noir, literally meaning "black film", was a type of cinema that began in the mid-forties and ended in the late-fifties. Noir is famous for its morally dubious characters, dark story lines, and pessimistic perspective on life. The question remains, how does a genre so cynical become so popular?

In order to answer this question, we need to look at the time period in which this genre was celebrated. Noir started in literature a decade or so earlier than on film, circa 1930. Quite obviously, the biggest historical event we associate with the thirties was the stock market crash in 1929. Millions of people worldwide were pushed into poverty, and for many, the future looked bleak.

Noir was a style that reflected this sentiment. People down on their luck found someone to identify with; someone equally as downtrodden as they were. Noir was a manifestation of the time period. Because of this, it rose in popularity, continuing through World War II, and making its way onto film and into the cinemas.

This is the most famous period of noir, and its cinematography is instantly recognizable, even to those uneducated in the genre. High-contrast frames, actors in shadows, and fog are hallmarks of this era. Into the fifties, film noir remained popular in Europe, as the continent attempted to rebuild after the war that destroyed it.

However, it lost popularity in the United States. The dark morals and messages of noir could not compete with American idealism, which, after the war, was on the rise. American tastes changed, and it seemed that all the American people wanted out of their movies was their own optimism. Similarly, hard-boiled detective fiction saw it's heyday from the thirties to the fifties, ending when things began to get better.

Blood on the Dinning Room Floor

At first, when I read the story, I was confused and struggled with the plot. There are apparently more then one story running through and they are somehow interrelated to each other.
The main plot being the hotel-keeper's wife fell into cement and died, and Alexander is the suspect because he has the special hobby of not sleeping during night time. Also, Alexander's sister, being the only one in the family that works in the hotel, is suspected that she might have planned the whole murder with her brother in order to create a possible marriage. In this way, Alexander and his sister can gain control over the business.

Since Stein has spent most of her life writing Opera, she is very good at turing "writing a story" into "telling a story". She stresses on the communication between the author and the reader a lot. She also created the character Lizzie to represent the interaction between audience and the text.
Even though this story is open to all types of readers, the calling toward Lizzie shows that Stein puts most of her attention toward female readership. It is a strong calling for the interchange relationship between a female writer and a female reader.
I think this shows Stein that she has a strong sense of feminism

There're also critics about Blood on the Dinning Room Floor not being a detective novel. For instance, there's no detective presented through out the story, and the crime is left unsolved. And the possibility of not having a crime exists.
However, three factors make this story somehow tie to detective story. Which is the present of a corpse, the hotel keeper's wife; the possible motive, which is Alexander and his sister wanting to gain control; and at last, the suspicious character, who are Alexander and his sister.

After doing a bunch of research, I really appreciate the way Stein writes this story. It somehow ironically criticize the traditional authoritative detective novel, which presents confusion and gives solution. In Blood on the Dinning Room Floor, it's more like the author presents question and leaves it unsolved. This way, the content becomes more open.

I found this video while doing the Blood on the Dining Room Floor presentation. This prologue is a very short introduction to the story and the author.
I think the background story is quite interesting. After the introduction and a long music, there is a women singing to express Stein's struggle and feeling toward writing this story.

The Big Sleep Setting

These top two make me think of a downtown L.A. at the time of the book, tall cement and brick building lined streets.

These next two show the movie business-old black and white movies: classic Hollywood.

More of what I would imagine the downtown Marlowe is in.

Reminds me of the Sternwood's grounds leading to the house.

More of the downtown with the classic brick style.

"Ten blocks of that, winding down curved rain-swept streets, under the steady drip of trees, past lighted windows in big houses in ghostly enormous grounds, vague clusters of eaves and gables and lighted windows high on the hillside..." p. 40

The Big Sleep in Real Life

This door is somewhat old-looking, and it reminds me of the door for one of the bookstores that Marlowe visits. It could also be the door of a diner. It is actually the door to Andreas.

This building reminds me of General Sternman's mansion, surrounded by nature and assuming a very antique but rich appearance.

These movie posters accurately depict the cinema scene at the time.

These flowers remind me of the orchids that General Sternman and Marlowe talk about.

Places in the big sleep

“A.G.Geiger’s place was a store frontage”
“There was a copper trim on the windows, which were backed with Chinese screens, so I couldn't see into the store” (page 22)

“The main hallway of the Sternwood place was two stories high. Over the enterence doors, which could have let in a troop of Indian elephants” (page 3)

The Big Sleep Setting

I imagined the first picture being one of the alleys people might walk down on during the time period, and the second picture as Geiger's house. I pictured the second picture as Geiger's house because of the quote on page 33 which states, "The Geiger hideaway was perfectly silent again when I hit a gap in the hedge and dodged around the angle that masked the front door."

This building somehow maches with the image of Brody's house in my opinion. Because I imagine that Brody would live in a fancy and deluxe type of house, but it will still be decent and neat. 

"A cool breeze blew down the hall from the open screened door to the fire escape"(76)

The Big Sleep Photo

This dark photo gave me the feeling of being boxed in, and having few options. Marlowe's clients don't have many options, which is why they are consulting him. They're stuck in a maze, and he appears to be the only way out.

Raymond Chandler 1920's

This reminds me of a alley in the 1920's.Old and dirty, where garbage cans are placed and cats jumping around.



This to me, looks like a 1920's diner. There's the big sign and the row of seats, that lets you look out the window.

Detective story: Some thoughts on writing

               Detective stories are one of the hardest to write. What makes one superior to another? Many elements are needed coordinated perfectly to make a detective story great. Everyone can write a bad detective story, but what makes one great?

               One of the hardest part in writing a good detective story is to appeal to all audiences. Some maybe into it for the violence, others enjoy the mysterious crime solving. Many people enjoy detective stories for many different reasons and the writer is the one who puts it all together. A writer must be able to incorporate all the things that people love about detective stories, and put it all into one story.

               Great, interesting, exciting cases must also be well planned out ahead of time. The writer's creativity and knowledge of their readers must be immense. Writers must be able to invent crazy and fun villains when needed. Be able to come up with disgusting crimes as well as puzzling ways to solve them. The author is required to plan every detail out before because of how complicated these story lines can be. In detective stories it is even more important that the writer connects us to the characters. Readers especially need a connection with the characters to have more of a connection to the tragedy and troubles.

               The plot must be planned to perfection, every twist and every detail. It all must be planned out before the writing, because every small detail could change the entire book. There must be good timings for all things including clues, red herring, explosions, and chases. These books have to be exciting at all times and never let you put the book down, if not they would be very boring because it would be more of a lecture of detection. The writer has to be smart and know what they are doing. These kinds of books cannot be dumb, if a detective novel was too easy to figure out and solve nobody would read that. The author has to have some skill in making the case challenging so that it is a challenge to solve for both the reader and the detective. The problem with that though is that it also cannot be too hard, it has to be relatable by the reader. The reader wants to read something that they can see themselves doing and not just read a completely made up and unreal book. The clues and plot have to be easy to follow, but challenge your minds when you try to solve it.

               Detective novels are so hard because they require so much from the writer. They have to be able to know and understand their readers so well. Writers need to work extra hard to form connections between the reader and character. They must perfectly balance difficulty and understanding for all who read their books. The worst part is, if they mess one small thing wrong they book could go totally wrong and be a letdown. I’ve found to appreciate the writers of detective novels more after I realized what a tall task it was to write a detective story. A writer becomes complete when they are able to write a good detective story.

The Hound of the Baskervilles: Reality is Relative

Nature proves to be a prominent theme in The Hound of the Baskervilles; whether it be the naturalist beliefs of the Stapletons’ or the legends of the supernatural, the concept of what is or is not considered to be “natural” is constantly being manipulated by some party attempting to convince another of its ideologies. The line that differentiates between the improbable and the impossible is not discernible until it merely serves as an afterthought, until after all uncertainty is cleared and the case has already been solved. So then, no degree of intelligence nor prestigious profession that any character may claim gives him or her the authority to define what is or is not natural. Many, however, fall prey to this false sense of authority; as Mr. Stapleton is regarded as a “scientific man,” his opinion is often regarded as factual, thus empowering him to conceal his actions simply by dismissing any activity in the moor with some obscure, “scientific explanation.” Watson is on the receiving end of several of these after inquiring about the sound from the moor, possibly the mud settling or water rising. Watson, however, proves himself to be somewhat less accepting of the scientist’s suggestions, which results in the development of a more in depth theory involving rare birds. Stapleton is extraordinarily perceptive, because he rather immediately understands why the previous theories did not satisfy Watson: they did not possess the same quality of uncanniness as did the phenomenon they were attempting to account for. Armed with this knowledge, Stapleton constructs a theory more peculiar, more improbable, yet still possible, knowing that an explanation that is not only justifiable by facts but by the notion that “all things are possible upon the moor” as well would be one Watson would likely be far more receptive to. (p. 50) Watson, although quieted at the time by this second explanation, remains open to the idea that other possibilities may lie past where Stapleton’s conception of reality ends, thus establishing the fundamental message within the theme of nature: it’s relative. There is a motif of singularity throughout the text, whether it be used to describe a person, place, or situation, which serves to predispose the reader to this idea of nature assuming different meanings and qualities depending on the individual. Watson subtly, yet significantly, touches on this as he responds to Mrs. Stapleton’s warning that Sir Henry must not go to the moor because of the danger she perceives to be there by saying, “that is Sir Henry’s nature.” This play on words suggests that it is not simply Sir Henry’s nature as in his character that Watson is referring to, but also his personal perception of nature, as in what he deems to actually be possible in reality; Mrs. Stapleton sees apparent danger because the existence of such an animal as the hound doesn’t challenge her perception of what can occur in the natural world, but Sir Henry’s perception of nature deems the hound to be supernatural and therefore its existence impossible. The singularity of each person’s beliefs allows for differing perceptions of reality to coexist because perception is dependent on perspective, and one person’s perspective is independent from another’s, thus making nature relative. This quality is essential to the characters in the book as they interpret the Baskerville family legend, which was first written down in 1742 but had been in the Baskerville family for some time prior to that. This places the events told in the legend as having happened during the very beginning of the Enlightenment, a time period focused on the use of logic and reason to explain essentially anything previously associated with a higher power, leading to a shift away from traditional religious views. Therefore, the various characters in The Hound of the Baskervilles must be able to draw conclusions from a story that defies many of the modern conventions of reality by independently deciding which of these conventions, if any, they are willing to challenge or manipulate in order to explain the otherwise unexplainable.

What makes a good adaptation?

When adapting a book, novel, short story, etc. to film or television, one cannot obviously include every detail and sentence of the text-it would make for a very bored viewer. Along with the fact that in most cases this would make the movie or show too long, what makes a book suspenseful and draws the reader in may not necessarily work quite the same with a viewer. And so, changes are made, plot is added or taken out, and often times this creates many angry viewers who are also fans of the text and don't like to see in "ruined".

In the case of The Hound of the Baskervilles and Doyle's stories of Sherlock Holmes in general, the BBC adaptation Sherlock is widely respected and well-liked by the general television watcher and avid Doyle reader alike. So, what makes it such a good adaptation? This question is especially interesting in regard to the fact these stories were written in the 19th century and are now being put in the context of the 21st century.

To start with, the BBC show retains most of the supporting cast of characters and the same general plot-line of the original Doyle text. In the case of the episode The Hounds of Baskerville the villain is changed and some genders are swapped, in the case of Dr. Stapleton, for example, but the same names are kept and used in much the same way. Dr. Frankland becoming the villain and his motives and his means of killing all help the show bring the show into the 21st century. He is using new technology to kill, but still relies on fear and superstition to keep people away and test his theories at the same time. In the book, Stapleton uses this fear of the supernatural and the moor to keep people away and kill them at the same time. Put into this century, the fears are changed from monsters and beasts to genetic experiments and conspiracy theories, but still act in very much the same way, helping to enable the villain.

Keeping some of the same lines from the book also help to keep this updated version from straying too far. For example when Sherlock tells Watson in the book, "It may be that you are not yourself luminous, but you are a conductor of light. Some people without possessing genius have a remarkable power of stimulating it."(pg. 2) This line is repeated with slightly different wording in the BBC episode based on Doyle's The Hound of the Baskervilles. Small details like this are able to connect the two stories across the two media: text and film.

A significant, but at the same time necessary, change is in that of the suspense and pacing of the show. In The Hound of the Baskervilles and in books in general, the reader gets an air of suspense and excitement when things are creeping slowly, employing things like cliffhangers and slow to come action, mystery, solutions, or danger. An example of this from Doyle's text is when Holmes and Watson are waiting outside of Stapleton's house and the fog is slowly closing in around them. This impending sense of doom and fear that is brought with the fog in a way also is slowly closing in on the reader. Once this fog closes in, all the duo can see are shadows, contributing to the suspense. In The Hounds of Baskerville and film in general, suspense is shown in a much different way. Very sudden visual effects, such as the flashing lights on and off in front of Henry's house, and things appearing from nowhere, etc. are startling and contribute to suspense for the viewer in terms of film. When the lights are flashing it also shows this peculiarity in that the viewer is more scared when the lights are on and the shadow is flashing across the screen than when the lights are off, which is the opposite of the normal social construct that the dark is scary and the light is safe and warm.

These few points are some of what contribute to making a good adaptation in general and that make the BBC's Sherlock so mesmerizing and popular. The way they are able to take these stories and breathe new life into them and put them into the context of modern times while staying mostly true to the originals is amazing and wonderful and why the show is so popular (also the superb acting doesn't hurt).

"Ten Commandments" of detective stories?

Wait, we should limit our imagination? Follow rules when writing a story? Why did Ronald Knox write the “Ten Commandment” of a Detective story? How crazy must he have been to try to restrict people’s minds and creativity? Who does he think he is making the law of writing? It may seem very silly to try and set rules for how to write, but after thinking about it and understanding them I understood why.

               These 10 little rules seem small and meaningless, but they help the writer and reader much more than we think. The “Ten Commandment” help the writer focus on what they are promoting. How weird would it be to read the blurb and buy what you think is a detective novel, but bring it home to find out that it is nothing like a detective novel. Nobody wants to read a book that makes no sense and is all over the place. Understanding of the reader and interest of reader are both improved when following the rules. It limits the writer from throwing in stuff that you had absolutely no clue in, so that you can try to follow the detective’s mind as closely as you can. It makes it so that most of the solving in the facts part and not in the machine and contraption.

                Books must be sold to make money. You sell books by writing interesting and original books. Ronald Knox wrote these as a guideline to help writers write a more interesting book. It is somewhat like a teacher showing and teaching little tricks that could help them achieve much more. I feel like Ronald Knox wrote these “Commandments” more as suggestions. He wrote down what he thought reader would be most interested and hooked on for the writers. I think he by no means was trying to make this the law and saying that everyone must follow these rules and exactly these rules. It just seems that the suggestions worked so well and were so effective that everyone started using it, and then somewhat made it into rules. Of course these suggestions are not flawless, people get bored if all detective stories have the exact same formatting. But then that is not Ronald Knox’s job, it is the writers job to add his or her own special style or taste to the story and make it perfect. Writers got to do what they got to do to make the story the best it can be. The writer’s job is to make the reader have an enjoyable time and his suggestions help the writer do exactly that. Ronald Knox was a genius to have wrote these suggestions down and must have done something right to have these suggestions turn into the “Ten Commandments” of detective stories.

Every Holmes Needs a Watson (and Vice Versa)

Where would Sherlock Holmes be without his Watson? Both names go hand in hand, even though Holmes does most of the work in their cases. In the TV series Sherlock, the Sherlock Holmes films, and, of course, the Sir Arthur Conan Doyle novels, Sherlock Holmes' name is central to the title with no mention of Watson. Yet we all know the phrase, "Elementary, my dear Watson," and that despite his social problems, Holmes found himself a steadfast friend in Doctor John Watson.

Somewhere in the murky place that is Tumblr, someone reported the story of their ten-year-old sister theorizing that each person is either a Holmes or a Watson, but they need each other to balance out. I can't find the original post at the moment, but this small child explained how each of us has small quirks either mostly like Holmes or Watson. Her point was that eventually, every Holmes will find his Watson and every Watson will find his Holmes because they need each other. Holmes needs someone who will run around with him, go on adventures, be comfortable with a little danger, understand his moods - knowing when to let him sulk and when to push him to get out of 221B. Watson needs the excitement Holmes provides for him and the friendship Holmes has blessed so few with. Both men care for each other so strongly that theirs is one of the most famous friendships (or in the opinion of many, romances) in literary history.

Holmes is obviously crucial to the novel itself because he has the brain capacity to solve the crime. He has all the facts inside that funny little brain of his, allowing him to use either the brain-attic or mind palace to move information around until he can make sense of it. But he needs Watson to keep him in check in social situations - to tell him when he's said something "not good" or to gain information from a witness. The reader also needs Watson because we need some sort of filter between the abstract and terrifying Sherlock's mind must be. Watson is the perfect candidate to serve as the average, yet still intelligent enough to follow Holmes, man to serve as the medium between Holmes and the reader.

Other detective novels try to use this dynamic, but it isn't always the same. Watson asks the same questions as us, the reader. We are on his level. But in the television show, Poirot, based on Agatha Christie's detective of the same name, features the character Arthur Hastings, who only appears in eight of Christie's Poirot stories. Hastings is extraordinarily similar to Watson, but Hastings is also extremely stupid. His questions are unintelligent, annoying, and a waste of time (as is his character). In Edgar Allan Poe's detective stories about C. Auguste Dupin, the story is told in first-person narration by a nameless friend of Dupin. The friend has little personality and really only serves as the most basic of Watsons.

Few have been able to create a "sidekick" character who equals or surpasses Watson, who constantly proves to the reader exactly why we and Sherlock need him. We see this even more clearly in the BBC series, where Watson has no patience for Sherlock's antics and is willing to punch him when necessary (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjv4hKwEucg). The Sherlock Holmes stories would be painful to read without Watson, but also very boring without Holmes. Both men have created an important relationship in the fictional apartment of 221B Baker Street that continues to intrigue fans to this day.

The 2 sides of Mr.Trotter

          I wanted to talk a little about Mr. Trotter in “The mousetrap”. After I read the whole story, Mr. Trotter gave me an unforgettable impression. I could have never guessed he was the killer. He showed incredible kills of adaptation. He might even be a little bipolar, changing attitudes from 1 second to the other. He appears as a respectful gentleman, but really, deep in his heart is the instinct to kill.

          First things first, he disguised himself as the detective. This shows he's smart and clever. He could think up ways to make himself look less guilty, or appear normal in the eyes of the other characters. He took the whole thing very seriously, showing that he cares about what was going on. He also said near the end of the story:" This is not a game!", this shows he wanted everyone to take the situation seriously. Making each and everyone one of the people in the room, to play out his fantasy. He appears as a gentleman, he's respectful, well dressed, very formal. He stays this way throughout most of the story. This is what tricked everyone into believing his lies. He also lures the people into letting their guard down, by using the excuse of being a detective. Of course, if your a detective investigating a murder, you're probably the last person to be convicted of being the murder. All these things shows how intelligent Mr. Trotter really is. He plans ahead, makes up a ruse, and acts it out perfectly. All these things ties perfectly together, he almost got away with it. If he hadn't broke down in the end. Mr. Trotter is a highly intelligent criminal, who murders out of rage and revenge. He will stop at nothing to kill the people he has targeted.

           Now that I have talked about the good, or at least,  positive side of Mr. Trotter. Lets talk about his negative side. He is a very strange person, he often changes between personalities. Even the littlest things can set him off. When he does get mad, it is hard for him to control himself. He is no longer behaves in a formal manner, he "loses" his gentleman like qualities, and just becomes this whole different person. I think that's one of the clues that gave away Mr. Trotter is the killer. Criminals or murders tend to have anger management issues, or duo personalities. They can't control themselves in certain times. You could say Mr. Trotter is a combination of psychopath and sociopath.

            What really scares me about this character, is his ability to change between 2 personalities in a matter of a second. One minute you might be having a very sophisticated conversation, while the next minute he's holding up a knife, ready to murder you. He is a great suit to this story, his actions and qualities are one of the main reasons, I think, that mislead us away from guessing he's the real killer. And that's why, I think, this story is so successful. Every character has its own unique characteristic, that will keep you guessing till the end. But I definitely think Mr. Trotter is the most intriguing and odd character in the book.  

The Hound of the Baskervilles: A Detective Novel Without a Detective?

         For my second and final blog post, I thought it would be interesting to talk about The Hound of the Baskervilles and the unique way that Conan Doyle wrote the novel.  In most detective novels or stories that I have read, the detective is a very prominent part of the story and is alongside the sidekick for most, if not all, of the novel.  Therefore, I was surprised when on page 39 of The Hound of the Baskervilles, Sherlock Holmes says goodbye to Watson and is not heard from for the next 50 pages (which is a rather large chunk of the novel).  Yes, I know that Sherlock is still technically lingering in the background during this time, gathering intel while relaxing in a stone hut as only he would do, but it was still rather puzzling to me.  Why write a detective novel where the detective is not present for almost half of it?

I suppose it is possible that Conan Doyle wanted to give the reader a sort of free reign to unravel the mystery on his or her own, since the gap between the average reader’s intelligence and Watson’s intelligence is significantly smaller than the gap between the average reader’s intelligence and Sherlock’s intelligence.  However, a lot of the information needed to piece clues together is not available to the reader until Sherlock reveals it.  The reader knows that Mr. Stapleton is unreasonably angry when Sir Henry professes his love to Mrs. Stapleton, for example, but this detail alone is not enough for the reader to be able to put together that Mr. and Mrs. Stapleton are actually husband and wife opposed to brother and sister.  The information about the convoluted past of “Mr. and Mrs. Stapleton” that leads to the discovery that the two are husband and wife is not revealed until Sherlock tells Watson about the research he did on Mr. Stapleton’s background as a schoolteacher.  It almost felt to me as though Conan Doyle just wanted to increase the length of the story by having the reader follow Watson, because he knew that Watson would put together clues slower than Sherlock would. While some of the clues that Watson discovered were interesting to me, I found myself getting a little bit bored by the sluggish pace of the middle part of the novel.  

While I holistically enjoyed The Hound of the Baskervilles, it irritates me that Conan Doyle chose to have Sherlock Holmes’ character be absent for a chunk of the novel.  I feel like one of the most enjoyable parts of the world that Conan Doyle creates with Sherlock Holmes is the banter between Holmes and Watson.  Therefore, when only Watson is present in the middle of the book it seems dry and like there are numerous missed opportunities for additional humor and excitement.  Moreover, Watson is just not as interesting of a character as Sherlock in my opinion, and therefore the book begins to drag when Sherlock is absent. Maybe I would have been less irritated by Conan Doyle’s choice if Sherlock was not waiting in the wings the whole time and Watson truly figured out the crime by himself.  However, Sherlock was still the one who pieced all of the clues together and figured out the crime, while only using a few of the details that Watson reported to him.  Hence, for a sizable part of the novel I felt like I was reading a detective novel without what I consider to be a true detective.  While I understand that Conan Doyle claims that Stapleton may have been suspicious and overly cautious if Sherlock was present, to me Sherlock being absent from the story felt like a literary mechanism that was merely used to lengthen the story.

The Murders in the Rue Morgue: A Screenplay

by Jenny, Ali, Catherine, and Emma

Sidekicks, which are characters who accompany detectives, most often exist with the primary purpose of allowing the reader to experience the process of solving a mystery vicariously. These characters are fundamental to the adaptations of any detective story because if the reader or audience member were able to follow the thought process of a detective without an explanation offered by the sidekick, then the detective’s character would lose the attractive quality that makes him and the story compelling. One such quality is his unparalleled brilliance. In order to maintain the essence of the narrator’s purpose in our film adaptation, we decided to have a camera follow Dupin from the perspective of an implied, “invisible” person, instead of casting  someone for the role. We found this to be a necessary component of our film in order to uphold Poe’s intention for the existence of a character who asks questions and thus anticipates the reader’s questions. As a result, the purpose of Dupin’s explanations to his sidekick is to drop clues for the reader. By writing the story in the first person perspective, Poe literally makes the narrator’s words become the reader’s: “I replied..,” “I don’t understand..,” “I need you to explain…” Therefore, if the role of the narrator was played by an actor, the feeling of connection to the story and its characters that this style of writing intentionally provides would be lost. The camera we would use in our adaptation, however, would ensure that this connection is maintained; the audience members would experience the story through the eyes of Dupin’s accomplice, in the same way that readers experienced it through his thoughts. Just as Poe’s story mostly lacked any descriptions of the narrator (which would have limited the character to a certain gender, race, background, education, or countless other categories, thus hindering how easily the reader could visualize him or herself in the story), a view of only Dupin and their surroundings from our camera’s perspective would allow each audience member to construct their own image of Dupin’s accomplice, but more importantly, step into the shoes of the accomplice. This camera perspective involves the audience as part of the cast and part of the actual process of solving the murder. Furthermore, instead of adding subplots, we decided to adapt the short story into an equally short film. Any subplots and extraneous romantic relationships are unnecessary because they would not allow the film to remain true to the story, and most importantly, they would definitely detract from the process of solving the mystery. If this were a typical Hollywood movie that adds trivial or excessive characters, subplots, etc., the complex simplicity of a detective fiction novel would be lost. Poe mentions this complex simplicity: “This is an ordinary, although an atrocious instance of crime… the mystery has been considered easy, when, for this reason, it should have been considered difficult, of solution.” We also used direct citations and tried to paraphrase as little as possible so as to stay true to Poe’s writing style, which is very purposefully specific so as to mislead but also give the reader a chance to solve the mystery before the detective does. Without his particular syntax, wording, and timing of actions, Poe’s locked room mystery may be easier or more difficult for the reader to solve. By adapting the story to the medium of a short film in this way, the intellectualism of the story and the standards of the audience are maintained at the same time. The differences between the film and the story ensure that the intended audience would be willing and prepared to analyze and watch a mentally rigorous and stimulating film. In addition, this short story has already withheld the test of time and has been highly acclaimed despite its lack of subplots, which proves its merit. The following scene is Act I, and the process of discovering and figuring out the mystery, which is unmentioned, is Act II.

A PARK IN PARIS

[Dupin and Narrator are in the middle of a game of chess.  They are sitting at a table. The camera faces Dupin.]

NARRATOR (astounded): This is our third game today. How do you always manage to win?

[With a neutral tone and vacant eyes, Dupin reveals to the narrator, in a lengthy explanation, how he had predicted the narrator’s moves.]

DUPIN (neutral): The game of chess is greatly misunderstood in regards to its effects on mental character. It is the more concentrated rather than the more acute player who conquers. On the contrary, in checkers, the analyst throws himself into the spirit of his opponent and identifies himself therewith. Therefore, different qualities are necessary for different strategies.

NARRATOR: Dupin, this is beyond my comprehension. I do not hesitate to say that I am amazed, and can scarcely credit my senses.

DUPIN: The best chess player in Christendom may be little more than the best player in chess, but proficiency in whist implies capacity for success, and all these more important undertakings where mind struggles with mind. When I say proficiency, I mean that perfection in the game which includes a comprehension of all the sources whence legitimate advantage may be derived. The concentrated chess player will do very well at observing intently and consequentially remembering distinctly. The necessary knowledge is that of what to observe.

NARRATOR (after a few moments of silence): It is already four in the morning. We should return home.

[They stand up and take a silent walk towards their assumed residence, Dupin observant and out of view of the camera. The narrator is deep in thought. The camera shows the front of the sidewalk, as Narrator walks next to Dupin, then points at the cobblestones, and then at the night sky. The camera rises as Narrator straightens up.]

DUPIN: He is a very little fellow, that’s true, and would do better for the Théâtre Variétés.

NARRATOR: There can be no doubt of that… [Narrator suddenly stops in the middle of the street] Dupin, how on earth did you know know what I was thinking?

DUPIN:  You kept your eyes upon the ground --glancing, with a petulant expression, at the holes and ruts in the pavement, (so that I saw you were still thinking of the stones,) until we reached the little alley called Lamartine, which has been paved, by way of experiment, with the overlapping and riveted blocks. Here your countenance brightened up, and, perceiving your lips move, I could not doubt that you murmured the word 'stereotomy,' a term very affectedly applied to this species of pavement. I knew that you could not say to yourself 'stereotomy' without being brought to think of atomies, and thus of the theories of Epicurus; and since, when we discussed this subject not very long ago, I mentioned to you how singularly, yet with how little notice, the vague guesses of that noble Greek had met with confirmation in the late nebular cosmogony, I felt that you could not avoid casting your eyes upward to the great nebula in Orion, and I certainly expected that you would do so. You did look up; and I was now assured that I had correctly followed your steps. But in that bitter tirade upon Chantilly, which appeared in yesterday's 'Musée,' the satirist, making some disgraceful allusions to the cobbler's change of name upon assuming the buskin, quoted a Latin line about which we have often conversed. I mean the line "Perdidit antiquum litera prima sonum."  I had told you that this was in reference to Orion, formerly written Urion; and, from certain pungencies connected with this explanation, I was aware that you could not have forgotten it. It was clear, therefore, that you would not fail to combine the two ideas of Orion and Chantilly. That you did combine them I saw by the character of the smile which passed over your lips. You thought of the poor cobbler's immolation. So far, you had been stooping in your gait; but now I saw you draw yourself up to your full height. I was then sure that you reflected upon the diminutive figure of Chantilly. At this point I interrupted your meditations to remark that as, in fact, he was a very little fellow --that Chantilly --he would do better at the Théâtre des Variétés."

NARRATOR: Your reasoning skills are truly incredible and are better than anything I’ve ever come across. For Heaven’s sake, tell me more.

[The scene ends with the two walking into their house.]

Mental Disorders in The Mousetrap

In this story, it is made known to the reader that the murderer has schizophrenia, something discovered during his military days by the army psychiatrist. When Trotter (the murderer) snaps and draws his revolver on Mollie, he reverts back to a childlike personality. This switch is attributed to his mental disorder.

In fact, Agatha Christie uses mental disorders as plot devices in a few of her works. This could be due to the fact that mental illness was not well understood during the time period she was alive, and is not even understood fully today. Unfortunately, mental illness as the explanation for the twisted actions of a character has become a trope since Christie's lifetime, and it stigmatizes mental illness, and those who suffer from it.

There is also some debate as to the medical accuracy of the disorders depicted in fiction. The murderer in The Mousetrap is said to have schizophrenia, but he suffers from multiple personalities. His symptoms are more inline with dissociative identity disorder, which actually accounts for split personalities. Schizophrenia gives people delusions, hallucinations, disorganized thinking, or symptoms that mimic sociopathy, but it does not give people multiple personalities.

But, if we take Christie at her word and leave the discrepancy in Trotter's symptoms up to factors we don't understand, we need to determine how he developed this disorder. Christie's writing suggests that it was completely environmental; a product of Trotter's traumatic childhood. But schizophrenia is a combination of environmental and genetic factors, so if Trotter was at risk for this disorder, it follows that his siblings would have been too. If that is the case, why didn't Miss Casewell develop schizophrenia or some other mental disorder as well? She endured a significant amount of trauma, just like her brothers. Of course, the events of their childhood would have affected them both differently, but it is clear that these events still haunt Miss Casewell, even though she is mentally sound.

Ultimately, it seems that giving Trotter a mental illness was simply convenient for Christie. By designating Trotter an 'other', separate from the norm, she saves the reader from discomfort because they can't identify with the murderer. She also saves them from difficult questions of human nature.

Why The Mousetrap has Remained a Success

As I was reading The Mousetrap yesterday, I was surprised by how engrossed I became in the story.  I felt an urge to quickly flip the pages and discover who was at the core of the mystery that was unravelling before my eyes in a way that I had not while reading Mademoiselle de Scudery or even Murders in the Rue Morgue.  This led me to think about why exactlyThe Mousetrap intrigued me and why it has continued to intrigue people for over 60 years.  Was it the plot, the writing style, the characters?  After pondering the subject, I came to the conclusion that the story has been such a success due to the fact that one feels as though they are a part of a challenging game that they are able to win while reading or watching the play.

As we discussed in class today, one of the characteristics of the detective novel that evolved during The Golden Age was that the novel was supposed to be formulated into a sort of game.  The reader was supposed to be given the chance to figure out whom the murderer was along with why he or she committed the crime.  In my opinion, Agatha Christie perfected this approach in The Mousetrap.  Unlike in some detective novels, where only a few of the numerous characters are truly focused on or characterized well, Christie pays equal attention to each on of the people that are trapped in Monkswell Manor.  This more intimate approach allows the reader to feel as though he or she has enough information to accurately predict whom the murderer is, and as though he or she is an active participant in the game that Christie creates.  Additionally, Christie utilizes red herrings extremely well, which causes the reader to question each and every individual and once again keeps the reader invested in the story.  In one scene, the reader may think that Christopher is the murderer, while in the next a clue may arise that causes the reader to think that Paravicini is the murderer. Therefore, an exciting game of ‘whodunnit’ is created.  Finally, the fact that the murderer is someone that numerous people would not necessarily expect adds to the overall satisfaction felt upon reading or watching the play and provides a worthwhile conclusion to the “game”.  Even though the reader may have technically “lost” , he or she still feels happy because they were properly challenged and entertained.  No one likes a mystery that is too easily solved after all.

Essentially, The Mousetrap felt like a game of Clue to me to some extent, where I was competing with the characters in the story to try to guess who committed the murder and how.  I wasn’t once bored while reading the play, and while this may also be a byproduct of the succinct writing style, I believe it was more so due to the way the plot allows the reader to feel as though they have an active role in the story.  It’s because of this, that I wouldn’t be surprised if The Mousetrap is still playing at St. Martin’s Theatre in another 60 years from now.

"The Mouse Trap" and "And Then There Were None": Similar?

Due to the excessive amount I've talked about it and advocated that each and every one of my classmates reads it, it's fairly obvious that Agatha Christie's "And Then There Were None" is my favorite mystery novel as well as one of my all time favorite books. One of the primary characteristics of this novel that I found so engrossing was that ten strangers gather on an island, and when the killings begin, all of them are trapped due to foul weather and no one can escape their eventual fate of death. After completing this novel, I continued to explore Christie's works in hopes of finding an additional story that contained a similar element of suspense. This search, however, was unyielding to my desires, until I began "The Mousetrap" this afternoon. I began to lose myself in the play within the first 20 pages, an unusual occurence for me. It was around this point that I realized how strikingly similar "The Mouse Trap" and "And then There Were None" are in the aspects of utilizing extreme weather conditions, incorporating nursery rhymes, and motives of the murders.

The initial notion I came across that vaguely reminded me of Christie's famous novel was the reoccurring emphasis on the threatening snowstorm that was likely to prevent any commuting for the characters whatsoever. Similarly, the novel was set on Soldire Island, which is only accessible by boat. Just as the murders begin and the terror is unraveled, a powerful storm obstructs any possibility of a boat landing safely on the island and rescuing the captives. 

Another significant aspect of "And then There Were None" was the nursery rhyme introduced early in the play, "Ten Little Soldire Boys", which ultimately dictated the murders of the characters. In "The Mouse Trap", two poems were mentioned: 

"The Three Blind Mice" and "The North Wind Doth Blow". The former of the two is used as a basis for the number of murders committed as well as the anthem of the murderer, thus developing the play's eerie mood.

Lastly, the motive of the murderers in both the play and the book are quite resembling; the reason for committing the crime being to avenge the death of a person whom the victim caused or allowed. Both murderers view their actions as a way of delivering justice for those who have escaped punishment for their wrongdoings. The issue of the justification of these murders is then subliminally raised, and the reader is then able to pick a side on the ethical validity of the fates of the victims. 

Although the stories had their similarities, they did differ in a few important ways. In "And Then There were None", the murderer succeeds in his master plan and is never caught or thwarted. "The Mouse Trap", however, concludes with the murderer being disrupted and subdued  before he can complete his final killing. However, the overall introduction, many of the themes, the motives of the murders,  as well as just simply the overall structure of the play can be paralleled with Christie's novel. But these similarities did not take away from my enjoyment of the play, as I felt like I was reading another version of a book I so dearly adore. 

Holmes in Numbers

On June 29 / 2015, The Guardian has published a series of images that contain various 'data charts' on Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories. Interesting about their collection is how it draws attention to the similarities between the stories, which might say more about Conan Doyle's methods of writing than those of his notorious detective.

Sherlock Holmes: examining the evidence - in charts

“A True Detective: Ideal or Real?”

Although Chandler’s theory of an ideal detective is intriguing and stimulating, it is not fully intact for a genre as complex as detective fiction. Firstly, Chandler’s ideal detective is too ideal, so much so that it is hardly realistic. It seems as if Chandler has too many expectations for this archetype. For instance, a detective cannot and, depending on how one interprets a particular story, should not be “a hero” who “is everything.” Some detectives, such as Sherlock Holmes, possess flaws that make them more relatable to the reader. If the reader cannot relate to the protagonist, there will inevitably be some lack of understanding on the reader’s part; he or she may not understand why the detective lied or acted in a certain way, hence the numerous novels written from the perspective of the detective’s sidekick. The protagonist cannot successfully and simultaneously embody a “hero” who “is everything” and also “complete… common… and yet an unusual man.” When a person is unusual, he or she is certainly not common; he or she may also either be missing a certain common quality that is expected in society or possesses too much of a quality that is either unexpected in society or is taken for granted. For example, in the television show Sherlock, Sherlock Holmes is unusually intelligent, precise, and skilled at his trade; he is also obsessed with gruesome experiments. However, he lacks in social skills and initially appears apathetic. In addition, even if a man simply felt or were actually “complete,” one must question why he would have the thirst for adventure. One must question why he would not be perfectly content with how his life already is.

Moreover, Chandler declares, “The story is his adventure in search of a hidden truth,” and the detective must thus be a “man fit for adventure.” If one is seeking “adventure” and a “truth,” then he or she must be somewhat dissatisfied with how they are without that “adventure” or “truth.” However, Chandler glorifies the detective archetype as nearly perfect and with very few flaws. One might also argue that the world would be “too dull to be worth living in” if there were such perfect detectives in abundance. In “A Philosophical View of the Detective Novel,” Ernst Bloch affirms that the mystery, the discovery and the solution of it, and most especially the reader’s fascination with it, cause him and many others to think, “There must be something to this case after all.” Many detective fiction writers have openly expressed their frustration with the genre, as well. Both people’s frustration and their fascination with the detective fiction genre stems from that first sense that something is off, wrong, or “uncanny,” according to Bloch. Some have speculated that the murderer’s mistake in his crime, however few or many of these mistakes, is what further draws the reader in. If the murderer’s mistake is so fascinating, why must the ideal detective not be flawed, less than a morally perfect hero, or less than the “best man in his world?” If the detective is so perfect, which would soon wear down the reader and bore him or her, then why would the world not be too dull to be worth living in or reading about? Why would there be any adventure if the detective were already so wise or so experienced?

It is said that the ideal mystery novel has no end, and there is no solution to the mystery; however, the reader would keep turning the pages. Perhaps this novel can exist, but the reader’s interest in it will be ephemeral. The story would be too long, and it would become bland. The same applies to Chandler’s perfect, heroic detective. 

The Underrated Detective Novel

Everyone has heard the name "Sherlock Holmes," even if they haven't read a single work of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle or seen a film or television adaption. The famous detective has become so integrated into our culture that "No ----, Sherlock," is a commonly used insult, and "Elementary, my dear Watson," is often quoted (even though Holmes never says those four words together in any of Conan Doyle's original work). Agatha Christie is another household name and her most famous detectives, Hercule Poirot and Miss Marple captured widespread attention and sold millions of copies. Mysteries are so popular and so plentiful that they have their very own section in my public library. But do they get the respect they deserve?

Recently, I attended BookCon, a convention where authors, publishers, and readers all gathered in New York City's Javits Center. At one panel featuring YA authors Leigh Bardugo and Marissa Meyer, both women commented that the two genres that receive the most shame and disdain are romance and young adult, and they theorized the reason was at least partially the fact that a vast majority of the authors and fanbases are female. But the detective novel is a much more male-dominated genre, from the authors to the protagonists (or the cast of the characters in general), and the fanbase. This is not to say that there are not many females in any of those roles - but none of these categories is at all female-dominated. So what is it about the detective novel that makes it, as Ernst Bloch wrote, "seldom praised and often read, even by those who despise it?"

Perhaps the reason is that there seems to be a very distinct pattern and a good number of popular tropes. The detective is often an amateur who is somewhat resented by the police for his/her unwillingness to simply allow the law enforcement to handle the situation. Said detective often experiences social problems (typically some form of isolation), and has few, if any, friends. The plotline is the same - the crime, the investigation, a red herring, more investigation, and finally the revelation of "whodunit" and why and how and all the other questions that required a resolution.

But not everyone can just sit down and pen a detective novel. It's hard work to come up with a mystery that isn't immediately solvable so as to keep the reader engaged while still having relatable characters and a well-written story. The mystery novel requires so many specific details and leaves so much room for plot holes that true skill is necessary for any mystery writer. And because detective stories are so fast-paced, the authors tend to write a lot of them - meaning they must imagine hundreds of impossible crimes that can be solved in interesting and creative ways. Mystery is probably one of the harder genres to write let alone master, especially if it is how a writer makes a living.

Perhaps like romance and YA, the detective novel is typically meant as a short, sweet form of entertainment for the masses. Obviously there are many intellectual, philosophical, and inspirational works in all three genres, but the stereotype of an easy read that the public can stomach exists in all of these categories. So while everyone has heard of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Agatha Christie, few would consider them on the same tier as literary "gods" like Tolstoy, the Brontës, or Dickens. People can argue all day about whether or not mystery writers deserve to be placed on the "classics" shelves of libraries. However, detective novels definitely do not deserve to be written off as "trash." Every genre has its good and its bad and its in-between. There is no need to judge an entire genre or its fanbase simply because society says it is poorly-written.

Raymond Chandler's The Simple Art of Murder (1950)

"But down these mean streets a man must go who is not himself mean, who is neither tarnished nor afraid. The detective in this kind of story must be such a man. He is the hero, he is everything. He must be a complete man and a common man and yet an unusual man. He must be, to use a rather weathered phrase, a man of honor, by instinct, by inevitability, without thought of it, and certainly without saying it. He must be the best man in his world and a good enough many for any world. I do not care much about his private life; he is neither a eunuch nor a satyr; I think he might seduce a duchess and I am quite sure he would not spoil a virgin; if he is a man of honor in one thing, he is that in all things. He is a relatively poor man, or he would not be a detective at all. He is a common man or he could not go among common people. He has a sense of character, or he would not know his job. He will take no man's money dishonestly and no man's insolence without a due and dispassionate revenge. He is a lonely man and his pride is that you will treat him as a proud man or be very sorry you ever saw him. He talks as the man of his age talks, that is, with rude wit, a lively sense of the grotesque, a disgust for sham, and a contempt for pettiness. The story is his adventure. He has a range of awareness that startles you, but it belongs to him by right, because it belongs to the world he lives in.If there were enough like him, I think the world would be a very safe place to live in, and yet not too dull to be worth living in."

Photo by Will Jackson