[HELP* Should I start by A Study in Scarlet?

[Victor Zuanazzi]

Hello guys!

 

A Study in Scarlet is remarcable for two reasons: It is the very first Sherlock Holmes novel and sets the ground to all the following stories. And second, the plot is weird!

 

I have started a blog to suggest classic novels to readers enthusiastics (please feel free to join  :D ), and I would like to recommend A Study in Scarlet by the great Doyle. However I am afraid that people may not like the plot, therefore, not really feel motivated to read the rest of the Canon (what would be sad, because the Canon is awesome!).

 

On another hand, all the other Sherlock Holmes' books are not the first one! And that is against the common sense to start by the middle.

 

See the antagony?

 

Please, help me with your insights about how to approach this problem!

 

Thanks in advance

 

 

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

Hi, Victor, and welcome to Sherlock Forum!

 

That's a very good question, but I'm not sure I have a good answer. I agree that ASiS might scare off some potential Holmes fans -- not so much because of the basic plot, but more because the story is kind of long-winded, plus it wanders all over and seems almost like two different stories.

 

If someone was curious about the original Holmes stories, and asked me for a good place to start, I think I'd suggest that they try one of the short stories. Admittedly that's not starting at the beginning, but I suspect they'd enjoy ASiS more (and be more likely to actually finish it!) after becoming familiar with the characters by enjoying a few of their more succinct adventures.

 

That still leaves the question of *which* story (or stories) to start with. I might suggest that they pick up a paperback copy of The Adventures of S. H. and just start reading. That way, they'd at least be starting with some of the early stories.

[Arcadia]

Hey, Victor, I welcome you too!

 

I had my book club read A Study in Scarlet, and just explained to them before they read it that the plot structure was a bit strange, and if they didn't like the second part they could just skip over it. They liked it fine, even though we all agreed the structure was weird.

 

I agree with Carol too, though: I don't think you need to read the first book to enjoy the short stories. So starting with "Adventures" would work too!

[Victor Zuanazzi]

Thanks for you help!

 

Indeed, I started myself by the Adventures of Sherlock Holmes (at the time I thought it was Doyle's first work). I think I'll take the hint and just recommend this one!

 

Thanks a LOT again.

 

 

[Boton]

I agree.  Actually, it seems that many of the television incarnations of Sherlock Holmes either front-end their Irene Adler story or somehow put it in a place that is easily-accessible for those who want to get caught up with the show once it gains some media buzz.

 

Examples:

• The Granada series started with "A Scandal in Bohemia."
• Sherlock put "A Scandal in Belgravia" at the beginning of the second season, when the show was returning after decent critical reviews.
• House put "Three Stories" at the end of the first season, again, I believe, taking advantage of positive media buzz to let new viewers in.

For that reason, if someone asked me where to start reading the canon, I would tell them to start with "A Scandal in Bohemia" and then perhaps start at the beginning after that.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Well, "Scandal" is the first of the short stories. So that makes sense, plus it's a good story.