A Study in Pink (Scarlet) the book verses BBC's Sherlock Holmes TV show
Book:
Summary:
In the debut of literature's most famous sleuth, a dead man is discovered in a bloodstained room in Brixton. The only clues are a wedding ring, a gold watch, a pocket edition of Boccaccio's Decameron, and a word scrawled in blood on the wall. With this investigation begins the partnership of Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson. Their search for the murderer uncovers a story of love and revenge-and heralds a franchise of detective mysteries starring the formidable Holmes.
Thoughts:
The book moves at a slower pace then the show but again it's a book and it is written in a time that is different then a lot of readers are use to. That being said it is a very interesting book and fun to see Sherlock deduct things. What I like about the book is the fact that while Sherlock is cocky and intelligent he doesn't come off nearly as condescending as he does in the show. In fact when he is explaining things to us the readers through John he is very slow and tells it in an interesting way that makes the reader go oh that makes sense. Not oh no I feel stupid which is how at times it can come off in the show. I also like that the book takes the time to explain things to us the reader. The book takes the time to go back in history to explain things as well.
Show
Summary:
"Nothing happens to me," Afghanistan war veteran Dr. John Watson tells his therapist. But that's before he moves into 221B Baker Street. In no time, the depressed doctor has joined his eccentric flat mate, Sherlock Holmes, in tackling a case of serial suicide.
Can suicide be a serial crime? It seem so, since it has already happened three times, with each victim disappearing under identical circumstance and later turning up dead with the same self-administered dose of poison. When a fourth victim is found, a woman dressed entirely in pink, Detective Inspector Lestrade gives up and calls his consulting detective: Sherlock.
With Watson lending his medical expertise, Sherlock uses his deductive powers to establish the pink lady's life history, based on clues such as the wear pattern on her wedding ring. Obviously murder, he concludes. And with that the game is on to find the killer, someone who can lurk unnoticed in the middle of a bustling city, snaring victims at will and convincing them to take their own lives.
Lestrade's staff warns Watson to avoid Sherlock, who they call "freak" and consider a psychopath ("I'm a high-functioning sociopath," Sherlock insists). But the doctor receives a more ominous signal from another source, a shadowy figure calling himself Sherlock's arch enemy, who attempts to entice Watson into turning against his new friend.
Meanwhile, the pink lady left an especially baffling clue: she scratched "Rache" into the floor where she died. The name Rachel? The German word for revenge? A coded message? To Sherlock the answer is elementary. Less clear is how the killer enticed his victims into self-destruction and whether the great detective will be lured to the same demise.
Thoughts:
I love who they have cast as Sherlock and Watson both Cumberbatch and Freeman are a perfect fit for Watson and Sherlock. I love that I no longer can think of anyone else playing these characters. I also enjoy how each character stays true to their own character traits and flaws. I like the modern rendition of Sherlock and I really enjoy that it was brought to the 2000s to show us what a Sherlock in our time frame would look like. The thing that always gets me is how condescending Sherlock is to others including Watson and how Watson puts up with it. But what I love about it at the same time is how much Sherlock needs Watson and it is shown so well in this show verses the book. The friendship shows through a lot clearer on the screen then it does in the book and the need they have for each other really comes out here. The show stayed close enough to the book that you could pick out what was in the novel that you could say OH OH I read that but traveled just far enough away that you didn't feel that you were watching another show about the same thing you just read.
I love who they have cast as Sherlock and Watson both Cumberbatch and Freeman are a perfect fit for Watson and Sherlock. I love that I no longer can think of anyone else playing these characters. I also enjoy how each character stays true to their own character traits and flaws. I like the modern rendition of Sherlock and I really enjoy that it was brought to the 2000s to show us what a Sherlock in our time frame would look like. The thing that always gets me is how condescending Sherlock is to others including Watson and how Watson puts up with it. But what I love about it at the same time is how much Sherlock needs Watson and it is shown so well in this show verses the book. The friendship shows through a lot clearer on the screen then it does in the book and the need they have for each other really comes out here. The show stayed close enough to the book that you could pick out what was in the novel that you could say OH OH I read that but traveled just far enough away that you didn't feel that you were watching another show about the same thing you just read.
Final thought: All in all I really enjoyed both and would highly suggestion both of them to anyone who wants a good detective novel or show.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for stopping in I appreciate you taking the time to leave some feedback! Hope you have a fantastic day 😄