A Study in Scarlet

Hey blogosphere! So I am back to blogging because I finished my homework and I have some time to kill before my brother's basketball game...GO GRIZZLIES WOOT WOOT! But anyways I decided to review one of my favorite books of all time, A Study in Scarlet, by my favorite author of all time, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. A Study in Scarlet is the first Sherlock Holmes novel written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and it is one of my favorites! As a side note, if you like Sherlock Holmes check out the BBC show titled "Holmes" which is a modern take on the Sherlock Holmes stories. Brilliant, clever, and witty, "Holmes" is the epitome of good television. The only bummer is that the producers only make three episodes at a time so I have to wait until next year for the new set of episodes! Also the movie Sherlock Holmes with Robert Downey Jr. is a good one to watch but with one glaring defect. Holmes has a love interest in this movie but Holmes (in the real writings) doesn't have love interests seeing as he is "married to his work".

Characters: Sherlock Holmes: brilliant detective/ is in need of a roommate/ is a master at the science of deduction
John Watson: an ex-military doctor/ comes back to London after the end of his service during the war/ decides to be a roommate with Sherlock Holmes
Detective Inspector Lestrade: grudgingly asks for Holmes help/ tends to have Holmes meddle in his cases/ works actively with Holmes and Watson on this particular case

The Plot: John Watson is finally back in London. After several years serving as a military doctor, Watson has returned to his home in the hopes of opening his own practice. However, his attempts to do so are put on hold when he discovers that his new roommate, Mr. Sherlock Holmes, is a "consulting detective". Mr. Holmes soon informs Watson that as the "only one" (consulting detective) in the world that he is often asked by the police for his assistance on cases where the police are incompetent (which in his esteemed opinion is always). Watson doesn't expect to see Holmes in action very soon but when a mysterious man ends up dead in an abandoned house with the word "Rache" written next to his body, Watson decides to come along. As his awe of Holmes grows, Watson begins to discover more about the man who would become a literary legend.

What I liked: I have officially decided that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is my favorite author of all time. He created the most brilliant, witty, and darkly humorous character of any genre or generation in Sherlock Holmes. While as a reader you are in awe of Holmes, what you should really be in awe of is Sir Conan Doyle. He created this maze of circumstances that leave you with no idea what will come next. He can weave a story that is so thick with intrigue and mystery that you are, like Watson, completely in the dark as to the final solution of this great puzzle but are enjoying the ride so much you couldn't care less. Sherlock Holmes is an icon in the mystery world. His character represents the brilliance that we long to see in ourselves. In my forensics class when we learn about the "power of observation", all I can think about is Sherlock Holmes. I also love Watson as a character. I like that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle didn't make Watson afraid of Holmes or threatened by him. Instead of being a character that conflicts with Holmes, which Watson does sometimes don't get me wrong, he is more of a foil to Holmes. They are perfect together. It's like peanut butter and jelly. Each one by itself is great but together they are unstoppable. I had always wanted to read Sherlock Holmes but I had no idea that I would love these stories as much as I did. I am absolutely sure that I will never read a mystery story that captures the mind like the Sherlock Holmes stories do. A Study in Scarlet is the perfect opening to any serious reading of Sherlock Holmes. It gives you a taste of Holmes's brilliance and Sir Doyle's writing style. This book has one of my favorite passages of any book. Holmes is explaining to Watson why he (Holmes) doesn't know "pointless facts" such as why the Earth revolves around the sun. Holmes compares the mind to a vast library and that he has specific books he needs to get to in order to do his job and any useless information will simply prevent him from getting there. This really resonated with me mostly because I think it is so true. For school especially I jam my mind with useless facts in order to do well on tests. I want to be a curator of a museum when I grow up. In order to do that job effectively, do I really have to know how to find the inverse of a function? Of course not. It's this simple, yet brilliant logic that resonates with the readers of Sherlock Holmes. Holmes's deductions that he makes based off people at first seem implausible. The reader wonders if Holmes is making it up. But then Sir Conan Doyle shows us the "path to enlightenment" if you will: he shows us the simple solution that so escaped our previous attentions. One side note, I love that Holmes is an imperfect character. If you have read any of my blog reviews so far, I love multi-dimensional characters. I think this is because we as humans are not perfect so why should the characters in stories be? The greatest heroes of the ancient legends all had an Achilles Heel or some sort of flaw that makes them imperfect and relatable. Holmes's is that he has a drug problem. He says it is because when he is bored he has to find something to do. While I don't condone drug use at all, I like that Holmes is imperfect. It annoys me when modern day Holmes adaptations release a Sherlock Holmes story where he is some fuddy-duddy character that doesn't have Holmes's darkness. By doing so, you remove a part of the Holmes persona that is essential for the true Holmes experience. That is an experience you don't want to miss.

What I didn't like: That it wasn't longer. I could read Sherlock Holmes for hours.

Overall: 10 out of 10. The only group of books that I love as much as this is the Harry Potter series.

The Great Gatsby

Hey everyone! So I was doing my homework, minding my own business, being very productive when I discovered that I had a weekly for PreCalculus to do. So in my head I go "A weekly? No Problemo!" Wrong...very, very wrong. I seem to have hit a dead end and I have literally no idea how to proceed. So while I was an utter failure at my PreCalculus homework, I figured I would do something productive with my time and write a blog. For this blog I decided to review a book we just finished up in APENG (Advanced Placement English), an American classic, The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald.

Characters: Nick Carraway: recently moved to New York City/ is a cousin of Daisy/ lives next door to Jay Gatsby
Jay Gatsby: in love with Daisy/ is extremely mysterious/ seems to be some kind of mobster
Daisy Buchanan: married to Tom/ she used to know Gatsby when she was younger/ is extremely flighty
Tom Buchanan: is cheating on Daisy with Myrtle/ is a very jealous, self-absorbed man/ has "old money"

The Plot: New York City in the heart of the Roaring Twenties was a very different place than today. In the middle of Prohibition and at the end of World War I, morality seemed to have left New York City and the time for celebration and living without care seems to have arrived. At least that is what Nick Carraway, a new addition to New York City from the Midwest, thinks. After encountering cousin Daisy (who lives in the fashionable, "old money" center East Egg), Nick begins to adjust to his life on West Egg the place where the up-and-coming live. There he meets Jay Gatsby, a man with not only a few secrets but with a secret plan that no one could have guessed. As Nick delves further and further into New York's society he begins to see sins from lust to gluttony to greed and vanity, of the people of New York and how strangely artificial these times seem.

What I liked: This book completely took me back to the Twenties. The Great Gatsby completely captured a time and as a reader, I felt like I was completely in the story. If you have read my blog before, you will know that I love historical fiction. I thought I had read good historical fiction before, but I hadn't seen the epitome of historical fiction until I read The Great Gatsby. It is almost indescribable how this book makes you feel. The book was written almost superficially: there was almost no real character development, everyone was fake and their activities were pointless. In any other book, it would have killed any chance of a plot or a decent read. But in The Great Gatsby it fills you with the feeling of emptiness that is associated with that time. As a reader you feel almost hollow and desperate for an escape. I felt almost trapped in this novel, like I was thrown down into a well and was clawing at something real to try and pull my way up. Fitzgerald took me as a reader and put me in Nick's body. Throughout the novel you can see the progression of how Nick feels increasingly trapped in New York society. He is caught between East and West Egg, between Daisy and Gatsby and between Tom and Myrtle. He ultimately realizes that he doesn't belong there and we as a reader feel this progression. I can tell you one thing: I'm glad I don't live in the twenties. People say America today is superficial but I believe that nothing could be as bad as the Twenties. On another note: I absolutely loved Gatsby's character. Fitzgerald made him the most lovable character possible, in my mind. First: he made Gatsby be wealthy by his own merits. Americans love a success story, especially one where the hero works his way from the bottom up. It, essentially, represents everything we believe in. Second: Gatsby had this hope which he clung to even though his whole world was falling apart and we can admire that as readers. Third: he would still do anything for the woman he loved even though she treated him awfully. And finally: Gatsby was a bootlegger. This part may not make sense to you so give me a chance to explain. I think there is a little part of everyone that appreciates the mobsters or the people with absolute power. You respect them because they are so tough, so strong, and that they have this larger-than-life persona. For example, in my U.S. history class my teacher Mr. Jones asked us why we could remember the industrial giants of the time like John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie and J.P. Morgan but we couldn't remember the names of the founders of unions? Unions were considered to be the "good guys": they combated the injustices of big businesses like the United States Steel Corporation and United States Oil but we still cannot remember their names? They don't capture the imagination like Rockefeller, Carnegie and Morgan do. I believe this is because in a weird way, we love imperfection. We want our characters and people to be less than perfect but we admire their power as well. That's why Gatsby is the perfect character and that is why he makes the story: his imperfection has such perfection that we are instantly drawn to him and we cannot look away until the end.

What I didn't like: I'm just going to come out and say this...I wanted to punch Daisy in the face. I know that is very irrational because Daisy is a character in a book and not a real human being, but seriously. She was willing to let Gatsby take the fall for her crime(not going to say the crime here but if you want to know read the book) and then she ran off with Tom. Her whole persona was flighty, irritating, self-absorbed, inconsiderate, irrational, and a complete and utter mess. I understand why F. Scott Fitzgerald wanted to do this but she almost made me stop reading. It's no wonder that when we had to write an alternate ending in English class, I had Daisy die in prison after Gatsby dumps her, Tom and Myrtle die alone, and Gatsby and Nick moving away from New York City and continuing to make millions. And another thing: I don't understand the purpose of the first chapter. It is not only, unessential for reading the novel, but it confused me so much that it set a bad tone with me as a reader. It took me a few chapters before I was starting to enjoy the book again. Finally, I didn't really understand the significance of Jordan as a character. She didn't add anything to the story and her presence just seemed forced and unneeded.

Overall: 9 out of 10. I had to take off a point because of Daisy but I won't soon forget the feeling The Great Gatsby left me with.