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.

No, no, it's an interesting distinction. Although I'd argue that the fire trick was calculated to make Irene act out of feeling and specifically not out of planning/thinking/reasoning.

That makes sense. It's a fine line, I guess, but Holmes seems pretty unconcerned with how anyone feels about anything, on the whole.

I think I'm partial to Irene because I read the Carole Nelson Douglas books featuring her (and Holmes, from time to time), and she was a lot of fun in them. In the actual story, I think it's both Holmes's and Watson's reverence for "the" woman that resonates.

Another difference that occurred to me was my surprise when there was no dead body in "The Red-Headed League". When I hear "mystery" I expect it, at least in a modern novel. And we all know TV is littered with corpses.

Who are the modern detectives to whom we're comparing Holmes? I think most of the other detective fiction I've read is involves Marlowe or the Continental Op (or, sadly, Mike Hammer, when I was a teenager). There's also tv detectives like Monk, McNulty, Pembleton, and, more systematically, Lenny Briscoe, and, a little further back, Columbo and Rockford.

CI, I think all those you mentioned are valid for comparison, considering the fact it unlikely the creators/writers of all those detectives weren't in some indirect way influenced by Doyle's work.

In a way, Holmes is predictable because of all the emulation. I knew where he was going in "Red-Headed League" once the scam was laid out for us because modern tv/movies has jaded me. Someone in Minearverse, while commenting on Tim Minear's then-running show (sob) The Inside, said something similar - that she's rarely surprised by twists and turns in plotting anymore. In the two stories we read so far, Holmes solves the cases in a pretty straightforward manner, with no unexpected twists or turns, and by my sensibilities it's almost too easy. I'm sure the 19th and early 20th century readers enjoyed it much more.