As Culbard portrays him, Holmes is a tall, strapping man with a granite jaw and aquiline nose, the sort of person with the strength to subdue a suspect or pursue a lead across London. (In other words, no one utters "Elementary, my dear Watson!" or swans around London in a fancy cape and hat.)Ĭulbard’s visuals bring a vigorous, masculine energy to Doyle’s story. More importantly, Edginton stays close to Doyle’s conception of who Holmes and Watson are, rather than allowing a century of stage plays, movies, and unauthorized sequels to influence the characterizations. Edginton preserves as much as the original text as possible while breaking up the narration into digestible chunks - no mean feat, given just how many passages consist of characters telling long, digressive stories. Their version is more judiciously paced and entertaining than Doyle’s, even while remaining faithful to the source. Culbard have fashioned a silk purse from a sow’s ear with their graphic adaptation of A Study in Scarlet. Given the source material’s flaws, Ian Edginton and I.N.J. Doyle was obviously fascinated by period headlines describing Mormonism, but his attempt to tart up the story with sensational details - polygamy, kidnapping - falls flat, especially when contrasted with the more engaging narrative describing how Watson came to live and work with Holmes.
Odder still, that flashback takes place not in England but in Utah, where Brigham Young’s followers were waging guerilla war against the US government. The story is oddly constructed, with a lengthy flashback in which the villain - captured by Holmes midway through the book - explains why he sought revenge on his victims.
Reading A Study in Scarlet, it’s easy to see why Doyle’s freshman effort made little impression on the public.
0 kommentar(er)
