The Hound of the Baskervilles Period 2 – DQ #1
PERIOD 2
Before you get to the question you have to understand that this is a discussion, and that you will be graded for “discussing” . You might be wondering, how I will grade you. Well, here’s how I’ll do it.
- Answer the Discussion Question completely (50%).
- Respond to at least one classmate’s answer (50%).
- A response to a classmate must be substantial.
- Substantial means having something to add to another’s comment:
- agreement with explanation,
- disagreement with explanation,
- add something completely new.
Here’s the question:
Why did Doyle choose Watson to narrate Hound instead of having Holmes tell the story himself? What are the benefits and drawbacks of doing it this way?
Be advised that I will not go through how to answer every question (as I did for this one below) all the time. You must get into the practice of answering every part of a question.
Now, go ahead and read the rest of this, answer the Discussion Question, and submit it.
You must be sure to answer every part of the question and to respond to another’s comments. That is the catch when it comes to getting your points for discussion assignments. It is very important to really read the entire question before responding to it. If you look at this question closely, you’ll notice that there are actually two separate interrogatives, or question statements:
- Why did Doyle choose Watson to narrate Hound instead of having Holmes tell the story himself?
- Explain the reason why the author, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, chose Watson to be the narrator rather than Holmes.
- What are the benefits and drawbacks of doing it this way?
- This asks you to do two things:
- Explain the benefits of having Watson narrate the tale,
- Explain the drawbacks of having Watson narrate the tale.
- This asks you to do two things:
Now answer the Discussion Question:
Why did Doyle choose Watson to narrate Hound instead of having Holmes tell the story himself? What are the benefits and drawbacks of doing it this way?
Sir Author Conan Doyle chose Mr.Watson to be the narrator of the book “The Hound of the Baskervilles”. I think it would be easier for Watson to express his feelings more(he is after all the victim in the book ) so it would be much easier for Watson to show how he feels. Rather then Sherlock Holmes the dectective or anybody else for that matter. The benefit of Mr.Watson being the narrator would be like I said earlier, would be easier for him to express his feelings and emotions toward the book and him being the victim of the story. The drawback would be that it is mostly all about Mr. Watson and nothing about all of the other characters whether than important or not their opinions matter to help us better understand the book and the characters and also about the other characters opinions about the situatio(s). Those are the benefits and drawbacks of Mr.Watson being the narrator.
i lik totally agree with becca b and the comment from gabby t. i lik never thought of it that way but if u think about it ive seen this stuff b4 so ya it does make alot of sense to me
i disagree with megan when she says that the author did it to hear it from someone else’s point of view. i think the author did so because if holmes was narrating the story; it would be much longer than it is now.
the reason i think this is because all of holmes sentences that he says are much longer than watsons sentences. holmes tends to go into much greater detail because he is always trying to figure out mystery’s and i think thats what he’s use to doing.
You can thank http://www.sparknotes.com for the question you just enjoyed. Here is the answer that they offer to the question:
Doyle uses Watson as a narrator for two key reasons. In the first place, Watson is not as intuitive as Sherlock Holmes. In this sense, he allows the reader to join him as he attempts to live up to the master’s standards. By contrast, if Sherlock Holmes were telling the story, we would have little opportunity to solve the mystery ourselves: witness, for example, Holmes’ various and sundry revelations of the truth, which preclude our participation by effectively beating us to the punch.
The second reason Doyle uses Watson as a narrator is that it allows for the pace he is looking for. Even if Holmes’ character can give us a chance now and then by keeping his conclusions to himself, he is still too quick a thinker to take on the onerous task of relating all the facts in detail. Only a slow-witted lackey like Watson is fit for the job. When Holmes’ character does appear, he serves more as a catalyst for the action in the story, bringing things to a quick and exciting climax.
Any answers to the question posted after this will not be considered for credit.
You may still enjoy discussing the topic, though. Maybe you could offer some details from the text to support this answer.
OK Thanks and sorry
I agree with Sophia the most. She makes a good point about the clif-hanger with the narraration. But i think that it is better that Watson is narrarating because it’s like you are wondering what is going to happen next. So it gets you into the story more rather than being bored and just reading words.
I think Doyle chose Watson to narrate instead of Holmes because if Holmes narrated the story then we would know every step by step detail of the mystery. Basically there would be nothing for us to solve. The benefits of having Watson narrate the story is that there is more mystery to the book to keep the reader entertained. The drawbacks of doing this is that we don’t know everything that is going on in the story.