No Subject

[Nini]

When one encounters an instant literary classic, it is acknowledged almost instantaneously. The plot is immediately deemed brilliant, the characters at once named congenial, and relevant to toady’s society; and the element of style and vocabulary appeasing. Thus are the three components of an outstanding piece of writing. Thus are the components of A Study in Scarlet. <br> <br>The Plot of A Study in Scarlet is an exceptional one; Conan Doyle created a feasible history for Dr. Watson, making him the typical military surgeon of the Victorian era, trying to make his way during an epoch poverty and industrialization. It was the fact that John Watson was impoverished himself that brought him into contact with Sherlock Holmes. Halving rooms was not so uncommon in the Victorian age, creating yet another feasible plot event relevant to society. To be succinct regarding the message of this paragraph, the tale was wholly and entirely believable until we encounter Sherlock Holmes.<br>Holmes is purposely and likeably anomalous; few are the men that keep their tobacco in a Persian slipper, purposely scratch madly at a violin when they may play excellently when they so choose to and wear a deerstalker in public regularly. This sudden twist to the plot diverts the reader from the actual storyline of the piece—murder. Whilst we, the readers are caught up in the abnormalities of Holmes, we are completely unaware that there is virtually nothing occurring. In a way, this is necessary, such a unique character deserves more that a simple four line introduction, as that of Lestrade and Gregson. <br>When the actual mystery is placed before Holmes and Watson, there were greater expectations upon this work (in retrospect) compared to all other Sherlock Holmes stories. Not only must Holmes brilliantly solve an unsolvable crime, but explain thoroughly (though not too deeply, “A conjurer does not reveal his tricks, for then they seem too obvious” says Holmes) his methods. In conjunction with this, Watson must be far more awestruck than usual, this being his first experience with Holmes. Holmes used his usual methods in solving the crime, bringing forth the supposition that Doyle actually had created a workable, deductive system for the usage of Sherlock Holmes, showing that consistency is a key to writing well. <br>As with all Sherlock Holmes novels in contrast to Sherlock Holmes short stories (With the exception of The Hound of the Baskervilles) the villain, once arrested, tells his story which, in A study in Scarlet is an exceptional piece. Though it comprises fully half the novel, it is essentially well though out and corresponds lovely with the rest of the novel. There is, however, a poor transition from this portion of the book back to Holmes and Watson, which could have been developed more. <br><br>In essence, the characters of the book are well embodied and were worked on very closely, so that every hint of personality could be distinguished from one another, from the pompous, but brilliant Holmes to the humble and amazed Watson, the personalities are each unique characters as only Conan Doyle could personify. <br>Lastly is the style of Arthur Conan Doyle. He has a consistent and mature writing style that allows him to explore subjects as no other author could. His vocabulary and grammar surpass those of his infamous predecessors, Charles Dickens included. His consistency makes for the same excellent character embodiment and vocabulary with every book he writes. It is his style that has preserved his novels thus far, and shall preserve them for many years to come. <br>

[Reichenbach]

'when they so choose to and wear a deerstalker in public regularly.'

It has often passed upon my mind 'what would possess someone to where a deer stalker cap?' The abnormality of Holmes is what gives him the mysterious characteristics that so many fall in live with. That along with his amazing intellect gives him the noble and sometimes pompus charm that so enlightens our fictional life

[Elizabeth19]

Holmes used his usual methods in solving the crime, bringing forth the supposition that Doyle actually had created a workable, deductive system for the usage of Sherlock Holmes, showing that consistency is a key to writing well.
The method of deduction is wonderful, and it really works. By the way, it works not only in solving crimes but in other activities.

As with all Sherlock Holmes novels in contrast to Sherlock Holmes short stories (With the exception of The Hound of the Baskervilles) the villain, once arrested, tells his story which, in A study in Scarlet is an exceptional piece.
The composition seems unusual and original to me, such an abrupt passage from one plotline to another. When I started to read the second part, I didn’t understood at once, how it was related to the first. In general, I enjoyed the composition of the story. Argumentations and descriptions don’t seem too long, because they are parts of the whole intriguing text.

In essence, the characters of the book are well embodied and were worked on very closely, so that every hint of personality could be distinguished from one another, from the pompous, but brilliant Holmes to the humble and amazed Watson, the personalities are each unique characters as only Conan Doyle could personify.
I agree that the characters are bright and have some opposite features. Maybe they became friends, because so different personalities are mutually complementary.

the style of Arthur Conan Doyle. He has a consistent and mature writing style that allows him to explore subjects as no other author could. His vocabulary and grammar surpass those of his infamous predecessors, Charles Dickens included. His consistency makes for the same excellent character embodiment and vocabulary with every book he writes.

The vocabulary of Conan Doyle is rich, indeed, and reading his books can help in learning English.