It's a good resource, especially for those new to the fandom. I've been in the fandom for quite some time, so there wasn't anything in the book I didn't already know, but the format is easy to read and the organization helpful. The chapter on Victorian life is useful.
Thank you! I figured if you'd been into fandom for a while that there probably wasn't anything new, but I have read other "For Dummies" books and I like the format. So I thought that it would be a quick reference.
It's okay for a quick reference, but it doesn't have the kind of detail I want/need when I'm writing. For instance, it notes certain incidents, but doesn't always state what story the info came from. It also contradicts itself in a number of places (although to be fair so does ACD).
The section on film and TV is good, but of course not as detailed as the books devoted to those areas or even Wikipedia.
But for someone completely new to the canon, it's a decent primer.
The other thing it doesn't always do is differential between canon and fanon. For instance, it states that Holmes and Watson were born in certain years, etc., which is total fanon. ACD never was specific about years of birth or even which man was the older, Holmes or Watson. It's all speculation. This author (also Doyle, but no relation) takes the Irregulars and their line as gospel, Baring-Gould's projections, etc.
I bought this book, read it in a day, then proceeded to scribble all throughout it with my own set of references. There's not a single page that hasn't got some bit of my writing in it. I don't think it's exactly what the author had in mind for it, but it's serving as a rather good quick reference book now. All I need to do is print out the Baker Street File and stick it in there somewhere, and all should be set.
Comments 6
I recommend it.
Reply
Thanks again for the feedback.
Reply
It's okay for a quick reference, but it doesn't have the kind
of detail I want/need when I'm writing. For instance, it notes
certain incidents, but doesn't always state what story the info
came from. It also contradicts itself in a number of places
(although to be fair so does ACD).
The section on film and TV is good, but of course not as
detailed as the books devoted to those areas or even Wikipedia.
But for someone completely new to the canon, it's a decent
primer.
Reply
Reply
canon and fanon. For instance, it states that Holmes and Watson
were born in certain years, etc., which is total fanon. ACD
never was specific about years of birth or even which man was
the older, Holmes or Watson. It's all speculation. This author
(also Doyle, but no relation) takes the Irregulars and their
line as gospel, Baring-Gould's projections, etc.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment