Sir Nigel

I have all my best ideas when I'm so sleepy that I can't write them down. Then, in the morning, they're all gone!  That was the case with what I wanted to get down about reading Sir Nigel. I've lost the words that can grasp how the novel combined the brutality of war with a sense of chivalry and romance. Sir Nigel, a young impoverished man of gentle birth, has no other desire than to fight for England. He has his chance when the King visits his home and he is made a squire to Sir Chandos, one of the bravest knights of England. War is never a pretty business, but Sir Arthur Conan Doyle infuses this story with Nigel's youth and innocence and his love for Lady Mary.

Honor. Sir Nigel shows the worth of honor in 14th century England. A man's honor lies in fighting for England, for one's lady, or dying by the sword. To gain this glory, Sir Nigel takes a vow to do three deeds of honor for Lady Mary. Journeying through England, he fights battles against the French, Spaniards and all at Brittany always in the search for more honor.

I loved the character of Sir Nigel and how his optimism, energy, chivalry and honor molded him into a great knight. The novel is a pleasant way to wile away the summer hours when there is no electricity to take your mind off the heat!

This is also my fourth historical fiction book this year, which means that I have only one more to go to complete the Historical Fiction Challenge hosted by Historical Tapestry. Yay! \o/

Hercule Poirot, Sherlock Holmes showdown

The Hound of the Baskervilles is my first Sherlock Holmes read and imagine my surprise when I was introduced to Dr. Watson. Perhaps I should explain; I'm an ardent Agatha Christie fan and have read all her novels loving each and every one; in Dr. Watson, I saw how Hastings had been created. Almost point for point the two men are the same. Innocent and naive, believing in ideals and in their mentor, longing for approval from said mentor, believing that they themselves had learned a thing or two about detection and of course that slight annoyance at being used and information being withheld from them because of their beautifully transparent natures. Do I make it clear? Yes, I believe so, because as far as I can see, Dr. Watson and Captain Hastings are one and the same. The only thing they don't have in common is their profession; also, Hastings is more chivalrous than the doctor! I could say that Hercule Poirot and Sherlock Holmes are also identical but there I found some differences - slight, but enough to make them widely different men.

Both Hercule Poirot and Sherlock Holmes are renowned detectives. Even there natures are somewhat similar in that they are both egotistical, and reticent about their discoveries till the last minute (Poirot more so than Sherlock), but in their detection methods I found a big difference. Poirot is forever about the 'grey cells' and arranging 'the ideas' with 'order and method'. Physically gallivanting about on foot and searching for clues is solely Hastings' passion and something Poirot never deems necessary. It is not so for Sherlock Holmes. He examines and looks at every footprint, searchs in every nook and cranny and for every single physical piece of evidence at the scene of a crime. Poirot usually leaves this to the detective assigned to the case. But to Holmes this is important. Nevertheless, both men are geniuses who know the art of deduction.

Hercule Poirot is the type to recline in his chair and fit together the pieces of the puzzle. All he needs is some quiet time to organize his thoughts. Sherlock Holmes, to a certain extent, is the same. But as I said before, his detection is more scientific. I don't mean to stress his scientific approach because he was not at all scientific - only as far as comparison goes, he is more scientific than Poirot.

As for physical characteristics, who doesn't know of Poirot's egg shaped head, and his famous moustache? He is not at all a handsome man, but then he plays on that and his insignificance allows him to be taken non-seriously, tricking the criminal into letting down his guard. Sherlock Holmes is decidedly handsome (I think Robert Downey Jr. attests that fact!) and doesn't have the advantage of fooling people into revealing their secrets. Nevertheless, this doesn't keep him back and he is more than enough of a detective to compete with Hercule Poirot.

Then, we also have the styles of the two authors. Conan Doyle likes to reveal the mystery as we move along. That is, we are slowly shown and have it explained to us. At least that was the way it was in The Hound of the Baskervilles. Agatha Christie, on the other hand, creates a sort of atmosphere in which we have all the facts - but are led to look another way. The mystery is only revealed in a gathering at the end of the novel. This atmosphere is detectable on reading the book for a second time. You then begin to see how each fact was presented to us from the beginning, and how we missed it.

Wait till next time to read my opinions on Irene Adler and Countess Vera Rosakoff. So far, I haven't had a chance to read an Irene Adler story. Look for my later comparisons as I read more Sherlock Holmes.

The Hound of the Baskervilles

The Hound of the Baskervilles relates how a family legend begins to kill the members of the Baskerville family. Dr. Mortimor, former friend and physician to now deceased Sir Charles Baskerville, comes to Sherlock Holmes with a story; the story of the hound of the Baskervilles. It is in many ways like a legend that has continued through the family for generations, but Dr. Mortimor has begun to be afraid of it. It seems that the legend is becoming the truth and Sir Charles Baskerville's death was caused by his fear at seeing the deadly hound. Withholding some information from the coroner, the young doctor gives the odd facts to Sherlock Holmes and entreats him to give him his solution. Is the death of Sir Charles Baskerville caused by the immortal hound that is said to have ripped out the throat of their cruel ancestor Sir Hugo Baskerville, or is it a clever ruse used to manipulate the public into thinking the deaths are supernatural?

Sherlock Holmes is intrigued. It is just this type of unique case that he tackles. The Doctor is now worried for the new heir to the Baskerville manor, Sir Henry Baskerville, a nephew of Sir Charles. Holmes sends his colleague, Dr. Watson, along with the doctor and Sir Henry to the manor to keep an eye on things; he advises Watson to stick to Sir Henry and never let him walk alone on the moor - the lonely moor where the deaths occur and the hound is spotted by the locals. If the deaths are not supernatural, who could have it out for the Baskervilles? The motive of inheritance is impossible; no near relations are left as the youngest brother of Sir Charles died without a son. Is it one of the neighbours? or someone with a touch of insanity? Sherlock Holmes believes he is close to the truth, when one day, roaming the moor with his colleague, he is dismayed to find another dead body.

In this dreary place, neighbours are scarce. The only close neighbours Sir Charles Baskerville had were the Stapletons - a brother and sister, and Frankland, the local crank. The only servants at the manor are Mr. and Mrs. Barrymore whose family has served the Baskervilles for generations. It is among these people that Sherlock Holmes must search for his killer if he is to dispel the myth of the hound.

Spoiler alert:
The story was well-written, but I found it a little unreal. The motive though easily guessable (inheritance of the property by Stapleton, whose real name turns out to be Baskerville), was not believable and I found myself rushing through the whole book. I liked how a murder was committed under the cover of a superstition, but it should be obvious to any reader that there would be no immortal hound which specifically targeted the Baskervilles. A mortal hand to guide any hound was necessary.

There were a lot of inconsistencies in the plot that even Sherlock Holmes couldn't explain (though he tries!) How the murder of Sir Henry Baskerville would have been carried out is not explained satisfactorily; Stapleton accepting his inheritance when everyone knew him as Stapleton would raise suspicion. Although he characters were interesting, the plot lacked something: well-roundedness with no loose ends.