4 ms·

Emotions about the character of persons, that are deducted by the length of the nose and the span of the eyebrows? Seriously, reading the books with a detective

Emotions about the character of persons, that are deducted by the length of the nose and the span of the eyebrows? Seriously, reading the books with a detectives eyes, one can see all the nonsense they believed aeons ago..

bena 4y ago
I mean, Holmes can only really be as smart and capable as Arthur Conan Doyle was. Any blind-spots or nonsense Holmes engaged in was because Conan Doyle believed it. Which means Holmes believed in some really batshit ideas. But since the world of Holmes is defined by Conan Doyle, shit like phrenology was real in that world.
- PicassoCTs 4y ago
  Or that ridiculous quak-science with the monkey stem cells transfusion. The deduction stories were excellent, but some of the outlier-stories or the "nationalism" race characteristics are the insanity that gave us WW1 and WW2.
  - bena 4y ago
    Even the deduction stuff is only because Conan Doyle says so. Like he could determine cultivars of tobacco from looking at and feeling the ash. And other people never pick up on things that even the reader could. But Holmes does. And then you feel smart, because you even beat Holmes to the punch. My wife has been watching Bones (again) and I've noticed this a lot there too. It was an episode where the victim was a nine-year-old child. They "digitally reconstructed" the child's appearance and couldn't find a match, but then noticed the hair was dyed, the teeth were veneered, etc. And it's obvious, the child was on the pageant circuit. But they didn't put it together until the answer was given to them. Later on, same thing with a murder weapon. They assumed it was a steel-toe boot, but it's pageant contestants, tap shoes are also available. Etc. etc. And yes, tap shoes were used in the murder. And there's two reasons for this. This is how smart the writers are. They honestly think this takes significant deductive ability. And making the characters figure it out faster would be implausible. Or. They want the viewers/readers to feel smart. And one way to do that is to make them able to figure out the pieces before the characters. Characters who are the smartest because we're told they're the smartest.
    - robswc 4y ago
      I love Sherlock Holmes. I know it's implied he is just a normal human but I find it more entertaining to realize its impossible for someone like that to exist. It falls apart due to the sheer probability of the events involved. However, the stories are almost always entertaining, despite that. i.e. This story: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Red-Headed_League https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Red-Headed_League Summary; Man hired to copy books for a large pay. Lots of things don't add up at all. Turns out, it was a long con to use his shop space (he was gone while copying books) to tunnel into a bank across the street. How Sherlock Holmes found this out is completely improbable. For some reason though, I just love watching all the clues fall together. They're also relatively short stories. I really like stories like the one you describe too though. I think I just like mystery genre in general and I'm not super picky, haha.
      - Aerroon 4y ago
        >For some reason though, I just love watching all the clues fall together. They're also relatively short stories. I think almost all stories work like this due to the nature of how you structure a story: - Introduction - characters and concepts are introduced - Middle - anything can happen and usually some important new characters and concepts are added - Build-up - all the pieces are assembled and are being being put together, tension increases - Climax - the puzzle is completed and shown to the reader/viewer - Conclusion - payoff for the characters, they lived happily ever after Detective novels often try to give the reader the opportunity to put the pieces together before the characters do. Other stories can give you a similar pay off though.
        bombcar 4y ago
        It was an Agatha Christie novel (I think) and that literally stopped the reader and told you you had all the clues necessary for resolution.
      - bena 4y ago
        It might seem like I'm criticizing things, but I don't think it's a failure per se. A work can be engaging regardless of whether or not the character is accurately portrayed as intelligent or observant or whatever. Bones is fine television. Sherlock Holmes is a fine read. I have the collected works in two volumes. But I do notice a tendency among people to use fiction as evidence of reality. So it's good to remind myself that characters are reflections of the author, not of reality.
- anothernewdude 4y ago
  Which is bad news for that Sherlock show.
- groffee 4y ago
  > shit like phrenology was real in that world Ask pretty much any AI model, it still is.
- golem14 4y ago
  Actually, Doyle made fun of phrenology in "the case of the 3 Garridebs", if memory serves?

bena 4y ago

I mean, Holmes can only really be as smart and capable as Arthur Conan Doyle was. Any blind-spots or nonsense Holmes engaged in was because Conan Doyle believed it. Which means Holmes believed in some really batshit ideas. But since the world of Holmes is defined by Conan Doyle, shit like phrenology was real in that world.

PicassoCTs 4y ago
Or that ridiculous quak-science with the monkey stem cells transfusion. The deduction stories were excellent, but some of the outlier-stories or the "nationalism" race characteristics are the insanity that gave us WW1 and WW2.
- bena 4y ago
  Even the deduction stuff is only because Conan Doyle says so. Like he could determine cultivars of tobacco from looking at and feeling the ash. And other people never pick up on things that even the reader could. But Holmes does. And then you feel smart, because you even beat Holmes to the punch. My wife has been watching Bones (again) and I've noticed this a lot there too. It was an episode where the victim was a nine-year-old child. They "digitally reconstructed" the child's appearance and couldn't find a match, but then noticed the hair was dyed, the teeth were veneered, etc. And it's obvious, the child was on the pageant circuit. But they didn't put it together until the answer was given to them. Later on, same thing with a murder weapon. They assumed it was a steel-toe boot, but it's pageant contestants, tap shoes are also available. Etc. etc. And yes, tap shoes were used in the murder. And there's two reasons for this. This is how smart the writers are. They honestly think this takes significant deductive ability. And making the characters figure it out faster would be implausible. Or. They want the viewers/readers to feel smart. And one way to do that is to make them able to figure out the pieces before the characters. Characters who are the smartest because we're told they're the smartest.
  - robswc 4y ago
    I love Sherlock Holmes. I know it's implied he is just a normal human but I find it more entertaining to realize its impossible for someone like that to exist. It falls apart due to the sheer probability of the events involved. However, the stories are almost always entertaining, despite that. i.e. This story: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Red-Headed_League https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Red-Headed_League Summary; Man hired to copy books for a large pay. Lots of things don't add up at all. Turns out, it was a long con to use his shop space (he was gone while copying books) to tunnel into a bank across the street. How Sherlock Holmes found this out is completely improbable. For some reason though, I just love watching all the clues fall together. They're also relatively short stories. I really like stories like the one you describe too though. I think I just like mystery genre in general and I'm not super picky, haha.
    - Aerroon 4y ago
      >For some reason though, I just love watching all the clues fall together. They're also relatively short stories. I think almost all stories work like this due to the nature of how you structure a story: - Introduction - characters and concepts are introduced - Middle - anything can happen and usually some important new characters and concepts are added - Build-up - all the pieces are assembled and are being being put together, tension increases - Climax - the puzzle is completed and shown to the reader/viewer - Conclusion - payoff for the characters, they lived happily ever after Detective novels often try to give the reader the opportunity to put the pieces together before the characters do. Other stories can give you a similar pay off though.
      - bombcar 4y ago
        It was an Agatha Christie novel (I think) and that literally stopped the reader and told you you had all the clues necessary for resolution.
    - bena 4y ago
      It might seem like I'm criticizing things, but I don't think it's a failure per se. A work can be engaging regardless of whether or not the character is accurately portrayed as intelligent or observant or whatever. Bones is fine television. Sherlock Holmes is a fine read. I have the collected works in two volumes. But I do notice a tendency among people to use fiction as evidence of reality. So it's good to remind myself that characters are reflections of the author, not of reality.
anothernewdude 4y ago
Which is bad news for that Sherlock show.
groffee 4y ago
> shit like phrenology was real in that world Ask pretty much any AI model, it still is.
golem14 4y ago
Actually, Doyle made fun of phrenology in "the case of the 3 Garridebs", if memory serves?