So What Are you Reading?: Generations
- Thread starter captcalhoun
- Start date
Well, compared to The Valley of Fear, it at least has the advantage of being entirely a Holmes story, instead of using the Holmes story as an extended preface for a novella about a totally different hero that we don't even know is the hero until the last chapter.
Some of it's tongue-in-cheek like Nero Wolfe's "Watson Was a Woman" (which argues exactly what the titles suggests), and some of it's very serious. I think of historic Holmes fandom as the original nerdy fandom.
I find it tedious to read. It exists to achieve an end, which it does without any enthusiasm and barely any story. Yet I enjoy some of the "remixes" of "The Final Problem," namely Nick Meyer's The Seven Per-Cent Solution (and film), and Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows. Michael Dibdin also remixes it in The Last Sherlock Holmes Story, and though very well written, it's also very... modern and revisionist.
Don't mince words; what do you really think?
A bunch of years ago, I sat down to read all the Holmes stories and novels -- I'd read a story here and there, but never sat down and plowed through the canon all at once.
When I got to "The Final Problem," the only reason why I didn't throw the book across the room is because I was reading an electronic copy. It was so horrible and lifeless and so constructed. It was obviously written solely as an exercise to get rid of Holmes by an author who couldn't be arsed to even try hard.
This is why I automatically consider any Holmes adaptation that uses Moriarty to be inferior to one that doesn't, because Moriarty isn't really that important a character. At best, he's a pathetically awful retcon, done by an author who was trying to rid himself of an albatross. He's not even a character, he's a badly constructed plot device.
It's especially frustrating because all the other stories are so good.......
When I got to "The Final Problem," the only reason why I didn't throw the book across the room is because I was reading an electronic copy. It was so horrible and lifeless and so constructed. It was obviously written solely as an exercise to get rid of Holmes by an author who couldn't be arsed to even try hard.
This is why I automatically consider any Holmes adaptation that uses Moriarty to be inferior to one that doesn't, because Moriarty isn't really that important a character. At best, he's a pathetically awful retcon, done by an author who was trying to rid himself of an albatross. He's not even a character, he's a badly constructed plot device.
It's especially frustrating because all the other stories are so good.......
I don't think "The Final Problem" is that bad. At least, it's an interesting change of pace to get out of England and "see" all that European scenery, culminating in the striking setting of Reichenbach Falls. And Moriarty's introduction out of nowhere is no more contrived than Mycroft's. ("Let's go visit my secret brother I never mentioned before, who's even smarter than I am!") Or other arch-nemeses that got tacked on later -- Moran, Milverton, etc.
One could argue that, at this point, Moriarity as a concept has transcended his specific origins, with subsequent writers and performers doing much better by the character. I wouldn't give up George Zucco in THE ADVENTURES OF SHERLOCK HOLMES or John Huston in SHERLOCK HOLMES IN NEW YORK for anything.
One could also make a comparison to, say, Magneto. In his initial comic-book appearances, back in the sixties, he was just your stereotypical megalomaniac super-villain. He didn't acquire any particular depth or complexity until the Claremont era many years later. Heaven forbid we should judge Magneto by the mustache-twirling villain with the silly name in X-MEN #1.
Last edited:
And Elementary did something rather inspired with both Moriarty and Irene Adler (to put it in a non-spoilery way).
I freely admit I'm not rational on the subject, and @Greg Cox you're absolutely right, but I also have a deep hatred for all-powerful super-villain types who always unconvincingly get away with everything and anticipate every possible outcome and are generally impossible to catch and stop. It's why I always skip the Nicole Wallace episodes of Law & Order: Criminal Intent, too. *laughs*
When you put it that way, I realize that "The Final Problem" was basically Doyle saying to the holodeck in his head, "Create an adversary capable of defeating
YES!!!!!!!
GERMAN LONGSWORD STUDY GUIDE by Keith Farrell and Alex Bourdas
This is a handy roundup of variations between the different manuscripts in the Liechtenauer tradition, from the HS3227 through the next couple of centuries. It’s not a manual, but works as a good resource for contextualising the chronology, and the differences in the various masters and manuscripts within it. There are also a couple of essays by the authors on what they learned from the comparisons, and a lovely bibliography – mainly for online monographs – of stuff to read.
Ir comes over as a good choice for HEMA students who’ve studied at least one of the historical sources referenced, who might benefit from the contextualisation, or be guided in which other sources to study next. I find that it has nice concise comparisons that will help teachers and coaches to communicate these contextualisations more efficiently and confidently too. A good thing.
The authors seems to have a slightly mixed attitude to non-sourced actions – this is pretty common on HEMA, mind you – sometimes overlooking that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and sometimes wisely acknowledging things such as taking care of one’s knees, which are never mentioned in period. Of course, as with everything in HEMA, it’s stuffed with points which might spark ideas for writings or videos in any interested readers.
One thing, however, bugs the living shit out of me, and that’s their weird choice of spellings of German terms, other than when quoting the exact period text’s word or another modern writer. They have every -hau be -haw, and every unter- be under- for no readily apparent reason. Since they quote other modern writers with the correct spellings I can only assume maybe they’ve done it consistently this way in their own bits as some kind of copyright-protecting trap, lest anyone try to paste their text into something.
Anyway, otherwise it’s useful context for some, and undoubtedly inspiraional for others, even myself.
This is a handy roundup of variations between the different manuscripts in the Liechtenauer tradition, from the HS3227 through the next couple of centuries. It’s not a manual, but works as a good resource for contextualising the chronology, and the differences in the various masters and manuscripts within it. There are also a couple of essays by the authors on what they learned from the comparisons, and a lovely bibliography – mainly for online monographs – of stuff to read.
Ir comes over as a good choice for HEMA students who’ve studied at least one of the historical sources referenced, who might benefit from the contextualisation, or be guided in which other sources to study next. I find that it has nice concise comparisons that will help teachers and coaches to communicate these contextualisations more efficiently and confidently too. A good thing.
The authors seems to have a slightly mixed attitude to non-sourced actions – this is pretty common on HEMA, mind you – sometimes overlooking that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and sometimes wisely acknowledging things such as taking care of one’s knees, which are never mentioned in period. Of course, as with everything in HEMA, it’s stuffed with points which might spark ideas for writings or videos in any interested readers.
One thing, however, bugs the living shit out of me, and that’s their weird choice of spellings of German terms, other than when quoting the exact period text’s word or another modern writer. They have every -hau be -haw, and every unter- be under- for no readily apparent reason. Since they quote other modern writers with the correct spellings I can only assume maybe they’ve done it consistently this way in their own bits as some kind of copyright-protecting trap, lest anyone try to paste their text into something.
Anyway, otherwise it’s useful context for some, and undoubtedly inspiraional for others, even myself.
Last edited:
Finished T2 Infiltrator. Book was ok nothing special, I am not sure If I buy book 2.
Has anybody read the trilogy and does It get better?
Has anybody read the trilogy and does It get better?
If you weren't that bothered about the first, then probably not. For what it's worth, I did like all three.
I'm currently on An American Weredere in Michigan by C T Phipps.
Trying to get back on track with TrekLit.com after a few months of inactivity.
Just posted my review of Star Trek: Destiny, Book II: Mere Mortals by David Mack, and I have a pretty aggressive schedule over the next few weeks that, hopefully, I can stick to!
I'm currently reading The Unsettling Stars by Alan Dean Foster, after having just finished Voyager #16: Seven of Nine by Christie Golden.
Just posted my review of Star Trek: Destiny, Book II: Mere Mortals by David Mack, and I have a pretty aggressive schedule over the next few weeks that, hopefully, I can stick to!
I'm currently reading The Unsettling Stars by Alan Dean Foster, after having just finished Voyager #16: Seven of Nine by Christie Golden.
Similar threads
