Sherlock Holmes vs Pudd'nhead Wilson

     The ways that a detective works are common and you can find them in many novels when you analyze them closer. We saw the detective skills really shine in the Sherlock Holmes stories by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle which is really commonly known to be one of the better detective novels made. Even when you mention detectives many people will automatically think of Sherlock and Dr. Watson, even if they haven't read the stories. Sherlock Holmes can be known from stories told by people, shows, or even movies. Though the media may not portray Sherlock the same as the stories the name and idea of the character of him still stick around in their heads. So, Sherlock Holmes can be seen as one of the most known and most common detective stories out there. 

     Though detectives can be found in many other things, particularly other novels or stories. An example of this is the book we just finished in class called Pudd’nhead Wilson by Mark Twain. It shows the detective work that you could find when reading a Sherlock Holmes story. The character in the book uses certain things to help lead him into finding out exactly who the culprit is. Some of these things are finger prints, eye witnesses, and disguises. With these helpful pieces of evidence he is eventually lead to the culprit being “Tom” who he discovers is actually Chambers. So, him using these detective skills he uncovers not only who the culprit was, but also that Roxana had switched Tom and Chambers right after they were born so that her son could lead the life of a wealthy white. Even if Pudd'nhead Wilson doesn't have the great observation skill that Sherlock has he was still able to figure out who the real culprit was and not Luigi who was being blamed for the act of crime. 

      Pudd’nhead Wilson is no Sherlock Holmes but it helps show that a story can not be purely based off the detective skills that the main character has. Any novel that has somewhat of a mystery can be a detective story. These stories plots will be more centered around more of a storyline where they are focused on more developing characters or not just the solving of the chrime. Though Sherlock Holmes can do this because the main characters are mostly introduced since it is a series of multiple Sherlock stories, whereas Pudd’nhead Wilson is one book alone and has to put aside time for all the characters. In the end they are both good, but in their own ways.

Sherlock Holmes and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

I have never seen the TV series Sherlock before Thursday night when we watched it as a class, but I knew it was quite popular. I thought it was hilarious and very well done- they showed Sherlock’s sarcastic, smart-alec-y, very intelligent and observational side perfectly. Benedict Cumberbatch was perfectly cast for that role, as well as Martin Freeman as Dr.Watson. I didn’t expect each episode to be 90 minutes long, as long as a movie, though! But I hear that’s normal for UK TV shows.

            I have, however, seen the two movies that came out about Sherlock Holmes with Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law. It was interesting to see the comparison of the more flirty and woman-loving Downey compared to the female apathy Cumberbatch showed. I don’t know which one would suit Sherlock more, because they’re both equally entertaining, but I have a feeling it’s Cumberbatch’s virgin version. Law’s Watson was a little more mature than Freeman’s version of Watson as well.

            I looked up fun facts about the author, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, that might have been overlooked by presenters in class and I found a couple very interesting things.

            -He wasn’t knighted for his fictional work (Sherlock Holmes), but for his non-fiction pamphlet written about the Boer War. This took place in 1902 by King Edward VII.

            -Doyle was once on the same cricket team as JM Barrie, the author of Peter Pan.

            -He was friends with Dracula author, Bram Stoker, and was a classmate of Robert Louis Stevenson, author of Treasure Island, at the University of Edinburgh.

            -Doyle was close friends with Harry Houdini, though their friendship was strained due to differences in spiritual beliefs. Doyle believed in fairies, mediums, and ghosts, while Houdini did not and attempted to disprove these hoaxes his whole life. Here is a link to a small Drunk History video about this (warning: there is strong language):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POFaDJ5IJHg

            -The town in Switzerland that he used as the setting of Holmes’ death in his series made a statue of the famous detective in 1988 and named the square after Doyle himself.

            -Doyle was able to free a man wrongfully convicted in prison using his own time, money, and influence. The man, Oscar Slater, was released with a £6,000 compensation, which he did not share with Doyle.

            -Doyle died in his garden clutching a flower in one hand and his chest in the other. His final words were to his wife- “You are beautiful.”

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/10561577/Arthur-Conan-Doyle-19-things-you-didnt-know.html

Drawing and Listening Leading to a Better Understanding

    

     Before our discussion in class I never really thought of the different tools I could use to interpret some go the readings we do for class. Never before have I drawn what I was  reading to help get a better picture of the setting that is being drawn out in my head in a story. Also I usually don't prefer to have things read out loud to me, such as audio books. Though this was a different case because the voices chose for each reading was very powerful and helped voiced the emotion in them. 

     There were very noticeable differences from reading “Kubla Khan” on my own and listening to someone read it. Some of these were the tone, setting, and even the plot. The tone is easily mistakes when you are reading something on your own because on your own you can just use a muted tone. Then when Benedict Cumberbatch read the the piece you can hear what emotion should be felt in certain places throughout the story, also while he is reading it you can her some music in the back ground. The music can also help you see the mood that is being set in that particular instance, especially when it will get louder or even get more distant. I felt when he read it I got a better understanding about what exactly was happening in the story and what the author was intending for the readers to see. 

     The story of “Ozymandias” was definitely better when read by Bryan Cranston. He has such a powerful voice that helps the reader or listener in this case get a better image of what is trying to be shown. He projects his voice very well while reading it. Especially in certain places when his voice will get louder or even when he will have longer pauses throughout the story for more of a dramatic effect. Another noticeable thing when he is reading are the drums being played in the background. I definitely got a much better understanding of what was trying to be said in the story after he read it, because when reading it on my own I thought it was very short and that there wasn't much going on. Then when listening I almost got goosebumps because his voice was so powerful and I felt like I could perfectly picture the sands being discussed and the idea of the lifeless things. 

     Overall I think the different tools of reading these kinds of story is beneficiary. Without them I don't feel that I would have quite gotten the full understanding of what was trying to be said in these two stories. 

The Nightmare by Henry Fuseli: Gothic theme during the Romanticism era

As a class, we discussed the Gothic theme quite extensively and were shown a picture of a painting (see above) called The Nightmare by Swiss-born English painter Henry Fuseli. Though it does represent the Gothic style, it's actually considered a Romanticist painting.

It was made in 1781 in London, England and was quite shocking to the public, though many knew he was an odd man who was interested in painting the supernatural and dream-like already. His audience wondered what happened to the popular themes that came about in paintings at the time- there was no moralizing subject, there was no historical significance in the scene, there was nothing from the Bible or literature in the painting, it was simply a result of Fuseli's imagination. This puzzled critics and visitors of the Royal Academy exhibition, where it hung, because they were expecting something from what we now call the Enlightenment, or the “Age of Reason,” but this is what they got.

The light Fuseli uses in the painting seems to emphasize the innocence and virtue of the woman (her white gown) and make the horse's eyes pop out even more, which creates a creepy vibe. The shadows and darkness enveloping the characters emphasizes this even more.

People believe this was Fuseli's interpretation of nightmares coming to life, and I'm sure no one can debate that. The creepy figure on the woman's chest is considered to be an incubus, which is “a type of spirit said to lie atop people in their sleep or even to have sexual intercourse with sleeping women.” Though the title seems to be a pun on the horse in the background (night mare, mare meaning horse), it has another meaning behind it. According to Samuel Johnson's A Dictionary of the English Language (1755), a “mare” or “mara” used to be defined as “a spirit that, in heathen mythology, was related to torment or to suffocate sleepers. A morbid oppression in the night resembling the pressure of weight upon the breast.” The horse wasn't there in the original painting, but was added as a final touch by Fuseli with no known reason, though it could be to surprise, shock, or horrify the crowd even more than they already were when looking at the evil spirit. There is a possibility he added it as a symbolic representation of the word “nightmare.”

Because of it's dark, mysterious features, it inspired many writers such as the poet Erasmus Darwin (Charles Darwin's grandfather), Mary Shelley, Edgar Allan Poe, and many others. It is now considered an icon and has been used several times in parodies and comedic drawings.

Source:http://smarthistory.khanacademy.org/henry-fuseli-the-nightmare-1781.html

Social Norms in Society  

     When reading Hard Times by Charles Dickens you will notice all of the social norms and importance of class during that time period. Today no one really cares, or even asks you, about your class in society or how much wealth you have. 

     An example of social norms for the time is the relationship between Mr. Bounderby and Louisa. She is supposed to be in her twenties and at that time the marriageable age was sixteen and up, so she could be considered somewhat of a spinster. But since she was in a higher class it was a little more acceptable to get married later than the norm. She thought hard about whether to marry Mr. Bounderby or not, as she had no other suitors and he had all the qualifications that her parents would want. They would have wanted an eligible bachelor to have wealth, high class, and a stable career. That is why it was typical for the man to be in his fifties and marry a young wife, which would be thought of as a trophy wife today. 

    

     Another social norm demonstrated in the book was the concept of divorce being totally out of the question. Today you can get a divorce with no questions asked while both the man and the woman can go on living with their lives and even marry again if they choose to. Back in the day if a divorce ever happened then the women could potentially be left with nothing. Back then the men totally supported their wives. In the case of divorce he could take the source of income and the children if he wanted. If their family wouldn't take them back they would have no where else to go. A man could go on to find another wife if he wanted but women would never get remarried. They would literally be left with nothing in life. So they all tended to stay married, even if they were unhappy in the relationship. 

     

     Class was a very serious part of who you were back then. If you were high class you would never be seen with someone who was from the lower class. In a way the lower class could be seen as scum to the higher class. Also a lower class man could never in any case be considered to marry a girl from a higher class. This is because the parents would have some say in the person who their daughter would marry and they would go for the man with more money. Families of lower class would attempt to get their daughters to marry into wealth so they could rise in class. 

     As you can see it was another time where their view on society is very different from ours is today. Though in the end they were doing what themselves and society viewed as normal. Personally I would much prefer living in the 21st century.

-MAL

Sweeney Todd, The Demon Barber of Fleet Street: A Byronic Hero

Though Sweeney Todd is a fictional character, he is the prime example of the Byronic hero, and for many, many reasons.

Todd, from the beginning of the movie, is a noticeably traumatized by his wrongful imprisonment, loss of his wife to suicide (or so he thinks), and inaccessible daughter; all three tragedies that emotionally torture him have one common thread- Judge Turpin- who falsely accuses him to get to his wife, whom he rapes, and then takes his daughter as his own and eventually wants to wed her. This is too much for Todd to handle and he is bound of self-satisfying revenge, taking justice into his own hands and plotting to kill the judge. But he has one extremely violent outburst and murders someone who blackmails him, a man that would have ruined his revenge scheme. With an epiphany, he realizes he'll probably never see his daughter again, therefore having nothing to lose, and that since all men deserve to die, his own core belief, he would be doing the world a favor. And with plenty of manipulation, he is successful in killing the men who come into his shop for a shave and sends them down to the ovens to become meat pies for the restaurant below, showing his reckless, cunning, and ruthless side. By the end, he is depressed to find out that his wife had been alive all along, living as a crazy (due to attempted suicide by arsenic poisoning), homeless woman on the streets of London. Not only that, but it was by his own self-destructive hands that ended her life, due to a wrong-place-wrong-time situation.

One trait that Todd doesn't share with a Byronic hero is self-awareness. He doesn't realize that by choosing his version of justice over legality he is embodying Judge Turpin, the very man he hates. Turpin did whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted and took his power for granted in evil, immoral ways. Todd is taking his power, as a barber to unsuspecting, trusting victims, for granted as well and is seemingly ignorant of this connection between he and the one man he wishes to kill the most. There is a slight possibility that if Todd has recognized this connection to Turpin, he would've stopped his murder spree. Though, from what I can only imagine, Todd would most likely dive into a deeper depression and take his own life.

So, as you can see by his story, (and by the bold words,) Sweeney Todd had a majority of the characteristics of the Byronic hero.