Ginger, could you provide some background to these two stories, like a Previously or something. I get that Watson is married in the "Scandal" and isn't so in all the books.

What conventions of the modern detective novel or television show do you see introduced in these stories?

These are the first Holmes stories I've read that I can recall. It didn't take long for me to visualize Hugh Laurie as Holmes, because I think Dr. House is a pretty good incarnation of Holmes. He's dismissive, conceited, observes where others only see, and has rather odd hobbies that seem very much out of character (like watching soaps, or going to monster truck shows.)

I have to think more about the conventions I noticed in the two short stories, but two that come to mind are Holmes's mastery of disguise, and his disdain for the police. I will also consider your other two questions.

has rather odd hobbies that seem very much out of character

Or shooting cocaine.

and the violin playing

I get that Watson is married in the "Scandal" and isn't so in all the books.

Watson meets his wife in "A Sign of Four", which I believe is the second Holmes story after "A Study in Scarlet." (I'm working off of memory here, since I haven't had a chance to reread the stories we're discussing. I adore "Scandal in Bohemia", though. What's not to love about Irene Adler?)

Watson is supposed to have been married at least twice, and Doyle today would be taken very much to task for his lack of continuity. Heck, he's practically the Chris Carter of his day.

It didn't take long for me to visualize Hugh Laurie as Holmes, because I think Dr. House is a pretty good incarnation of Holmes. He's dismissive, conceited, observes where others only see, and has rather odd hobbies that seem very much out of character (like watching soaps, or going to monster truck shows.)

Very cool idea. I love House, and I see the similarities, yet I don't love Holmes. He really is a cold fish.

My first impressions had mostly to do with that, and liking Watson so much more, as well as boggling at some of Holmes's deductions. I need to read that Ellis piece. "Bohemia" didn't make me boggle as much as "Red-Headed League" did, which was a fun story, but so completely convoluted and hard to buy.

What role does Watson's narration play?

I think, as someone said above, Watson is there to give the reader someone to identify with, as well as to point out both Holmes's strong points and his failings (his cold fishiness, the way he's out of touch with everyday life).

It's not one of the stories we were supposed to read, but the Three Garridebs story does show that Holmes does have feelings. Watson gets shot, and Holmes is very pissed and pretty much tells the shooter that if Watson had been more hurt that the shooter would not have left the room alive. I realized itg was very ho-yay, once I understood what ho-yay is. I don't remember where that story falls in the chronology of production, but I wonder if it was done to remove some of Holmes' chilliness.

Well, that day got away from me.

the Three Garridebs story does show that Holmes does have feelings

I kind of already think he has feelings, they're just odd ones. Or something. He was fascinating to read about, but not someone you'd snuggle up with.

"The Red-Headed League" was entertaining simply for the wackiness factor -- what an elaborate scheme. Loved the waiting in the basement scene, although I was a bit confused that Holmes noted he'd run into the schemer (memfault on name at the moment). Was he featured in other stories, or is this one of those throwaway asides, so Holmes could claim to know his M.O. etc.?

I adored "A Scandal in Bohemia" because Irene is a great character, as is the king, but even that one had its moments of boggle-ability. The convoluted, staged accident, and the way Holmes seems to accurately judge how anyone is going to act or react in a given situation is a little eye-raising.

But, given Ginger's question about the modern conventions of detective fiction/shows, I think we see this all the time -- the difference is that the modern detective seems to extrapolate more often how a particular suspect will *feel* rather than think.

A couple of people have mentioned how great a character Irene is. Considering all she has one split-second scene and a letter, I don't know how much of it is Irene, or the fact that Holmes (and Watson) just give her so much respect and admiration. Or is she in other stories?

But, given Ginger's question about the modern conventions of detective fiction/shows, I think we see this all the time -- the difference is that the modern detective seems to extrapolate more often how a particular suspect will *feel* rather than think.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

Holmes seems to anticipate how someone would plan/think/reason. Modern detectives are all about (or mostly about) how a suspect feels. Is X humiliated by his wife cheating? Is Y scheming to get her grandfather's money due to ambition? It's still anticipating or extrapolating how they think, I suppose, but it's starting from a different point.

Or maybe I'm talking out of my ass.