Hi! I am better today, had a rough week with trying to balance work and illness, but got there completely shattered yesterday 🤯
I meant to post my full notes yesterday, however we had a power cut which even after it was resolved caused Internet issues. So I posted quickly as I didn't wish you to think I was ignoring you 🙂 (and Google docs was not my friend yesterday!:O You would have had a chuckle at my expression when the power did cut out in the middle of my module. Kind of horror and what on earth..?
How are you?🥰
So! Below are my notes but tweaked a little for your post 😊
-- Our first introduction to Tobias Gregson and Lestrade happens here and with it the beginning of our mystery.
-- Gregson's message is quite polite and clear in how perplexed he is of the affair. Holmes' opinion on Gregson and Lestrade however is not so encouraging. He calls them quick & energetic but shockingly conventional.
Understandable position but slightly unfair since Holmes' own methods are yet being developed, so it is hardly as if either man could match the consulting detective.
On the other hand Holmes' reluctance to help stems not from a fit of laziness, but that his help would not be acknowledged (bad show Gregson!). I do love how Watson does prevail on Holmes to go and in exchange Holmes must have Watson accompanying him.
-- Ooo the infamous declaration!
Holmes: "No data yet...It is a capital mistake to theorise before you have all the evidence. It biases the judgement." 😀
-- I do like our second introduction to Holmes' methods in how he surveys the area outside first.
-- Gregson's description: "...a tall, white-faced, flaxen-haired man...who rushed forward and wrung my companion’s hand with effusion."
-- Lestrade's description leaves me baffled I admit: "Lestrade, lean and ferret-like as ever…"
'As ever?' Has Watson met Lestrade previously? Or is this a case of Doyle jumping the gun?
-- What I found fascinating is how near the end of Chapter 3 there is a paragraph that summarises the relationship between all four men quite well, and as you said mightymads shows how perceptive Watson is, because unlike the two policemen he already comprehends Holmes' approach:
"Gregson and Lestrade had watched the manoeuvres of their amateur companion with considerable curiosity and some contempt. They evidently failed to appreciate the fact, which I had begun to realise, that Sherlock Holmes' smallest actions were all directed towards some definite and practical end."
I cannot add anything to the Parthisn shot because the text is terrific and your historical fact awesome! -------- Chapter 4
-- Agree with you mightymads Watson shows an incredibly clear grasp of the facts. He is no mere tag along, but a highly perceptive gentleman.
Holmes praising Watson for it is lovely and not long later leads to this remarkable exchange:
(Watson) "I shall never do that," I answered; you have brought detection as near an exact science as it ever will be brought in this world." My companion flushed up with pleasure at my words, and the earnest way in which I uttered them. I had already observed that he was as sensitive to flattery on the score of his art as any girl could be of her beauty.
😀 I wonder how often Watson used such a method to either cheer up his companion or to encourage him on a case, or in other situations?
-- The living conditions of the working class are a definite reminder of the class differences.
-- The conversation with Constable Rance is interesting because whilst Holmes learns something new and clearly perceives a lot, Watson and we are still in the dark.
-- I wish to second your observation mightymads! Holmes does not call Constable Rance a "blundering fool" to his face. He has manners and whilst he is strict with people, he tends to be harder on two proper policemen such as Gregson and Lestrade, who either should know better or be more open considering they are demanding his help, rather than a Constable unaware of such matters.
Well! I am really enjoying this re-eread of STUD so far. Some of the finer details I' d forgotten so it is nice to fully absorb them this time.
I may rec my favourite two adaptions of STUD next time!
no subject
I meant to post my full notes yesterday, however we had a power cut which even after it was resolved caused Internet issues. So I posted quickly as I didn't wish you to think I was ignoring you 🙂 (and Google docs was not my friend yesterday!:O You would have had a chuckle at my expression when the power did cut out in the middle of my module. Kind of horror and what on earth..?
How are you?🥰
So! Below are my notes but tweaked a little for your post 😊
-- Our first introduction to Tobias Gregson and Lestrade happens here and with it the beginning of our mystery.
-- Gregson's message is quite polite and clear in how perplexed he is of the affair. Holmes' opinion on Gregson and Lestrade however is not so encouraging. He calls them quick & energetic but shockingly conventional.
Understandable position but slightly unfair since Holmes' own methods are yet being developed, so it is hardly as if either man could match the consulting detective.
On the other hand Holmes' reluctance to help stems not from a fit of laziness, but that his help would not be acknowledged (bad show Gregson!). I do love how Watson does prevail on Holmes to go and in exchange Holmes must have Watson accompanying him.
-- Ooo the infamous declaration!
Holmes: "No data yet...It is a capital mistake to theorise before you have all the evidence. It biases the judgement." 😀
-- I do like our second introduction to Holmes' methods in how he surveys the area outside first.
-- Gregson's description: "...a tall, white-faced, flaxen-haired man...who rushed forward and wrung my companion’s hand with effusion."
-- Lestrade's description leaves me baffled I admit: "Lestrade, lean and ferret-like as ever…"
'As ever?' Has Watson met Lestrade previously? Or is this a case of Doyle jumping the gun?
-- What I found fascinating is how near the end of Chapter 3 there is a paragraph that summarises the relationship between all four men quite well, and as you said
"Gregson and Lestrade had watched the manoeuvres of their amateur companion with considerable curiosity and some contempt. They evidently failed to appreciate the fact, which I had begun to realise, that Sherlock Holmes' smallest actions were all directed towards some definite and practical end."
I cannot add anything to the Parthisn shot because the text is terrific and your historical fact awesome!
--------
Chapter 4
-- Agree with you
Holmes praising Watson for it is lovely and not long later leads to this remarkable exchange:
(Watson) "I shall never do that," I answered; you have brought detection as near an exact science as it ever will be brought in this world."
My companion flushed up with pleasure at my words, and the earnest way in which I uttered them. I had already observed that he was as sensitive to flattery on the score of his art as any girl could be of her beauty.
😀 I wonder how often Watson used such a method to either cheer up his companion or to encourage him on a case, or in other situations?
-- The living conditions of the working class are a definite reminder of the class differences.
-- The conversation with Constable Rance is interesting because whilst Holmes learns something new and clearly perceives a lot, Watson and we are still in the dark.
-- I wish to second your observation
Well! I am really enjoying this re-eread of STUD so far. Some of the finer details I' d forgotten so it is nice to fully absorb them this time.
I may rec my favourite two adaptions of STUD next time!