Sherlock Holmes

There's really no need to read the stories in any kind of order unless you just want to. The story all stand alone. There might be an occasional reference to some past case in one of the latter stories, but it's unimportant. However, you might want to start with A Study in Scarlet just because it's the first Holmes story.

As for your choice of collections, it would be okay. The only negative I see is that it's an almost 1000 page book and sometimes those have smaller print and can be a bit inconvenient to read. It depends on the person.

If you run into any questions along the way, just ask. I have two annotated versions of the complete Holmes stories (both large, two-volume sets). However, for general reading I prefer the small paperbacks I have.

Yes, that is the complete canon of Holmes stories and novels done by Doyle. And the edition you link to looks like it presents them in the order published by him. Whether the internal chronological order is the same as the published order (or different as with, say, the Narnia books) I don't know, but if you like them I'm not sure the order you read them in really matters.

I've been plowing through them myself, probably out of order, but enjoying it nevertheless. I'm still halfway through The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, which has been an absolute blast.

Cranky said:

I've been plowing through them myself, probably out of order, but enjoying it nevertheless. I'm still halfway through The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, which has been an absolute blast.

Click to expand...

Uh, oh. Some people read the stories and just enjoy them; for others the whole Sherlock Holmes thing gets into their blood. That's when you start buying annotated collections and subscribing to The Strand magazine.

A bit of trivia: the character of Sherlock Holmes was inspired by Dr. Bell, one of Doyle's professors when he was in college.

I think the real genius of Doyle was coming up with "the Watson"--a character who can know everything that the sleuth knows (and relay it to the reader), but who does not see the same things in the facts before him as the sleuth does.

It's all great fun.

alleycat said:

Uh, oh. Some people read the stories and just enjoy them; for others the whole Sherlock Holmes thing gets into their blood. That's when you start buying annotated collections and subscribing to The Strand magazine.

A bit of trivia: the character of Sherlock Holmes was inspired by Dr. Bell, one of Doyle's professors when he was in college.

I think the real genius of Doyle was coming up with "the Watson"--a character who can know everything that the sleuth knows (and relay it to the reader), but who does not see the same things in the facts before him as the sleuth does.

It's all great fun.

Click to expand...

It is a lot of fun! I read The Hound of the Baskervilles way back as a girl, but then I moved on to other things, only occasionally reading one of the stories. I just recently started re-reading them again (some I've not read before) and find I enjoy them a lot more as a grownup than I did as a kid.

And now I'm gong to head off and finish reading.

You can also read them free from Project Gutenberg:
http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/d#a69

childeroland said:

Yes, that is the complete canon of Holmes stories and novels done by Doyle. And the edition you link to looks like it presents them in the order published by him. Whether the internal chronological order is the same as the published order (or different as with, say, the Narnia books) I don't know, but if you like them I'm not sure the order you read them in really matters.

Click to expand...

I think it is a good idea to read them chronologically. First, the character of Holmes, as in all series, tends to evolve a bit as the stories progress. And second, I would say that the earlier stories are the better ones. By the time you reach the later ones, some of which objectively aren't nearly as good, Holmes and Wason are so firmly entrenched in your consciousness that it hardly matters -- they're still great fun.

But if you read the later stories first, you might not be as taken with them.

I have a two-volume paperback set - it looks very similar to the one you linked. Anyway I am quite happy with them. I think if it was one-volume paperback size, I might be afraid of breaking the spine completely after a while.

alleycat said:

I think the real genius of Doyle was coming up with "the Watson"--a character who can know everything that the sleuth knows (and relay it to the reader), but who does not see the same things in the facts before him as the sleuth does.

Click to expand...

I am compelled to point out that Sherlock Holmes refers to Watson as his "Boswell," and it is generally assumed that the Holmes/Watson dynamic was based on Johnson and Boswell.

- Jo, who is as obsessed with Samuel Johnson as some people are with Holmes.

Oh - I just realized. The one you linked IS what I have - it comes in two volumes. Yes, get it, it's very decent and readable and I THINK they are in chronological story order.

I haven't read Holmes since I was a kid. Only read a few of the short stories, but I have wanted to read them all. I really enjoyed them then, and think I would more now.

JoNightshade said:

I am compelled to point out that Sherlock Holmes refers to Watson as his "Boswell," and it is generally assumed that the Holmes/Watson dynamic was based on Johnson and Boswell.

- Jo, who is as obsessed with Samuel Johnson as some people are with Holmes.

Click to expand...

Holmes was referring to Watson as "his Bowell" merely for writing the narration of his cases. I was referring to Doyle employing Watson to show the "facts of the case" to the reader, while still keeping what's in Holmes's own mind a mystery.

Doyle read the stories of a fictional French detective (the correct spelling of the name escapes me at the moment) when he was younger. I read one of the book about this French detective and you can see several similarities between him and Holmes.

katiemac said:

Great! I see now where it says it's a two-volume pack. But the type is okay? I guess the best bet is to go to the bookstore and check it out myself. I'm wary of tiny fonts these days, which is sometimes standard in collections like these.

Click to expand...

Are you sure? I think the one you linked to was a former two-volume set made into one volume. I'd have to go back and look to be sure.

My only exposure to Sherlock Holmes is the WAY more awesome than it should be:

Sherlock Holmes: The Awakened.

ITs a video game adventure wherein you play as the good Holmes and occasionally as Watson as you try to figure out a mystery of some...minor cult of some...kind.





Here's a hint: It starts with a C and lives in Ryleth.

Zoombie, shut off your PC and go read a book. It's for the good of humanity, really.

Do text based adventures count?

For the love of God and all that is holy, NO!

Bah...grumble grumble...

<mutter mutter>

I was told ...

when I was a little girl, to read Sherlock Holmes to prepare me for my Elizabethan history studies. I had to read thousands of books before I got all the facts straight and right. It took me 38 years to study Elizabethan history with rests in between because people were after me all the time.

The Hound of the Baskervilles is one of the four or five best mysteries ever, a truly magnificent book. The other three novels are good, but that was the pinnacle. I reread it every few years.

I also reread all the Nero Wolfe books regularly. According to some folks, Wolfe is the offspring of Holmes and Irene Adler.

Sherlock Holmes!

Any fans? I've been hooked since I first read A Study In Scarlet way too many years ago.

Funny, because other than Holmes, I'm not a fan of mysteries at all.
I own a very well worn collection of the shorts and novels and couldn't even begin to tell you how many times I've been through that thing.

There's something about Doyle that carries me back to those dim London streets with who knows what lurking around each corner. Can't get enough.

EG