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?
I am lost to. This is very confusing =/..but I agree with contstanza.
I think that Doyle had Watson narrarate the story instead of Sherlock Holmes because he wanted to change it a little bit. Instead of having the main character telling the story, he had the assistant of Holmes narrarate it. So that he could say what he thought Holmes meant in his own words.
I agree with Anthony because he has the sort of the same answer as me. Watson does have different opinions then Holmes. This makes the story a little better.
=]
LMAO yo i agree with maria. She makes sense because Holmes is the main dude and Watson is like his partner/homeboy so i guess the story really wouldnt be all that exciting from holmes talking about himself. rather the watson tellin the story.
—–Please proofread your posts for spelling, capitalization, and grammar errors before you post to the discussions. Thanks!! I have corrected all 2 of your errors. No worries, but this is the first and last time I do this.
In my opinion I think Sir Arthur Conan Doyle chose Watson to narrate the story because we all see Holmes as the main guy and Watson as the assistant or partner. I think the author wanted to give the book a sense of differentiality by using Watson the “sidekick’s” point of view.
—–And exactly how would you describe or define “differentiality” to us all? Could you support your answer with details from the text?
Busie,
I will speak to you in class. No worries.
🙂
I think Doyle chose Watson to narrate the story because we see so much more through his eyes then through Holmes. What I mean by that, is that we see things unfold, rather than know whats going to happen really quickly.
The benifit of having Watson tell the story is that we get some suspense while Mr. Holmes is thinking.
The Drawback of having Watson telling the story is that its hard to guess what Holmes is thinking sometimes.
I agree with what Sophia said because she gives a good point about how we dont know what Holmes is thinking and can guess abit for our selves.
I think Doyle choose Mr. Waston point of view to telling the story because Mr. Watson has a whole different view toward the mystery then Mr. Holmes does.
I agree, with Sophia more because “The benefits, in my opnion, would have to be that it makes the story alittle cliff-hanger like in a way because of point of view and the Main person is Watson not Homles because of the narration.”
I think Doyle chose Watson to narrate the story because he wanted a character that really experienced these thrilling events with Holmes to share his outlook on the mystery. The benefits of doing this is that you get to see the story through the eyes of Watson , and you get a feel of his outlook on Holmes and the case they were working on. The drawbacks of doing this is that you don’t get the prespective of Sherlock Holmes and how he sees the story.
I agree with Kaitlyn D because I think that its true that if you saw the story through Sherlock Holme’s eyes then you would be getting a more straight forward answer rather than a different point of view.
Constanza M.
09-02-07
I think Doyle chose Watson to tell the story instead of Holmes because he knew that Watson has a whole different personality and also because if Holmes was telling the story then it wouldn’t be as fun. Watson finds a way to explain and tell the story from his point of view, which happens to be pretty good, but if Holmes was to tell the story I doubt it would be interesting. Holmes would also not be able to make the story as mysterious as it is right now. Watson tends to leave some things unknown which makes it even better and leaves everyone in suspence. This are some of the benefits.
i agree with Sophia. I think you are right when you said that if Holmes told the story, it would be different, and with Watson telling it we get more of a mystery because we don’t know all of the details. We don’t know everything that Holmes thinks, so we have to try and think like him. Watson doesn’t know Holmes’ thoughts, so he can’t tell us what Holmes is thinking either.
Constanza M.
09-02-07
I agree with Busie and Gabrielle T. He does seem to know what he is talking about and he does have the answers for everything right away. It makes it even more interesting.
I agree with Kaytlin D. because of the point of view thing. It gives the reader a broader perspective of different points of view.
I think Doyle chose Watson to narrate The Hound so that we wouldn’t know what Holmes was thinking. Because of the fact that Holmes is a detective, Doyle choose Watson so that we could think like Holmes and so that we can try to figure out the mystery on our own.
The benefits of having Watson narrate the story is that so we have to think on our own and try to fit the pieces together.
The drawbacks of having Watson narrate the story is that we can never know exactly what Holmes is thinking as he is trying to solve the mystery.
Forgot to put benefits and drawbacks.
One of the benefits would be that the reader would be exposed to a new point of view and a drawback might be that the reader might not understand Watson’s point of view, they would be use to Sherlock’s point of view.
Sorry Mr.Moshe but you lost me.
I agree wIth Gabby T.He is very mysterious and we are always finding out new things from his perspective.Also Holmes does seem to have an answer for everything
I think that Doyle chose Watson to narrate The Hound Of The Baskerville because it would give the reader a chance to experience one of Doyle’s books written in Watson’s point of view.
I happen to agree with Rebecca B. I agree that she is correct with what she said, “because Holmes, I think, is the one who is behind the whole mystery.” I agree because Holmes seems to know the correct answer to everything right away, but at the same time he seems to be holding back with some information.
I think Doyle chose Watson to tell the story instead of Holmes because Watson can be a smart guy, but at first he thinks like us kids. If Holmes were telling the story I believe there would be no mystery to the book because he is a very smart guy and a great detective. For example, in the book Holmes stated to Watson “It may be that you are not yourself luminous, but you are a conductor of light. Some people without possessing genius have a remarkable power of stimulating it”. This tells you that Watson helps other people figure the things out, and explains things in an easier way.
The benefits of Watson telling the story is that it gives the story lots of suspense and makes you have to have different perspectives of what is going to happen next.
The disadvantage of Watson telling the story is that we don’t exactly see what Holmes is thinking or feeling.
Maria, “Watson gives more detail than Holmes” – Can you give us an example from the text?
————————
Busie T
Period 2
September 2, 2007
I Agree
—Busie, you have to post this in the appropriate discussion. Go to the top, and do a SEARCH for “preparing to post” – That should help you find the proper discussion.
—Busie, I like what you contributed to this discussion!!
————————
I agree with Sophia’s statment saying that Watson adds more mystery, and this is because he gives more detail than Holmes.
I think that the author chose Watson to narrate the story to make it more interseting because if holmes narrated it then it would be just a boring mystery book. Also if Holmes was telling the story it would just be him talking and Watson would just be a minor character. Watson also can talk more about Holmes and tells the reader what is really like, but if homles was narrating it then he wouldn’t talk about him self. And i think it is better hearing the story form Watson’s point of view than Homles.
The benefits of having Watson tell the stroy is that the story is being givin by another point of veiw than the dective. this is because if it was told by holmes it would just be a normal mystery story. Also by Watson telling the story makes more interesting!
I think they chose Watson to tell the story because i think so we can see what is happening through someone elses point of view, and it kind of helps me understand the story more.
—————————————————————————
I happen to agree with this statement taht kaitlyn had mentioned:
“The benefits are that the story is more intriguing and hooks the reader in.”
Because I can relate to this true fact.
I think Doyle choose Watson to narrate hound instead of Holmes tell the story himself is because Doyle wanted to express what they were thinking about Watson instead of us really knowing what Watson was really thinking.It goes along with the mystery theme and it really helps us to think about different conclusions.
The advantages about this is that we definately see it from different perspectives as well get to know things about Watson that he wont say about himself.
The disadvanteges is that things that Doyle doesn’t know about Watson as much as Watson knows about himself so we wont get first hand perspective.
Busie T
Period 2
September 2,2007
I Agree
I think that Doyle chose Watson to narrate the Hound instead of Holmes because Holmes, I think, is the one who is behind the whole mystery. If Holmes was the one narrating the story then there would not be a mystery. The drawbacks of having Watson tell the story is that if someone else would have told the story like Dr. Mortimer then we would be able to get to know more about Watson. The Benefits to having Watson narrate the story is that it makes the story more interesting by him telling us all this stuff about Watson.
I agree with Danielle R. about how the drawbacks of Watson narrating the story are that we don’t get to see the other characters point of views.
i agree with Kryssa C. because if Holmes were to narrate we would find out the mistery of the story early in the story and we the rest of the story would be pointless.
I think that Doyle chose Watson to narate instead of Holmes because he wanted us to see the story through the eyes of another person, not of the main character. I think if we hear the story from the eyes of Holmes that would know exactly what he was thinking so we wouldnt be able to find things out on our own. It wouldnt really be a big mistery.
The drawbacks of having Watson narate is that we will only see Watson’s perspective. The benefits of having Watson narrate you will hear his side of the story instead of the main characters side. By him narrating people wont know the mistery oft he story right away.
I am pretty sure we get Holmes’ point of view in the story.
We get Holmes’ point of view on the case at hand mainly through Watson.
– Through Watson’s reflection on their conversations
– Through the conversation themselves
I like how you are allowing this discussion to take you in new directions. That is what I was hoping for.
For those of you who haven’t answered the discussion question yet – Get To It. You have to answer the DQ before you can get into any other conversations.
You’re all doing great!!
I agree with Kaitlyn D. because if holmes was the narrator of the story it won’t be a mystery. It wouldn’t be a mystery because Holmes would know the answer to every question and their wouldn’t be a point to the story.
I agree with Kryssa C. becuase if Sherloc Holmes was the narrerator than the mystery would have been solved to early in the story. Meaning that there would probubly be no point in it being a novel.
I think Doyle choose Mr. Watson to be the narrerator becuase he probubly thought that if Mr. Holmes was the narrerator than it would not be as interesting. Maybe with Mr. Watson being the narrerator than Mr. Holmes would be able to do more stuff with in the story.
I strongly agree with Sophia M. about the benefits of Watson narrating the story. The reason for strongly agreeing with her is because it is way more fun to challenge yourself into a book that has another challenge by itself, and it really gets your brain thinking about it. The story really does sort of leave a little cliff-hanger, or a mystery of our own.
I think Doyle chose Watson to narrate the Hounds of Baskervilles because Doyle wanted to tell the story using someone elses point of view. I think a drawback would be that since Watson is the narrator, we only hear his point of view and not others such as Holmes and Dr.Mortimer. A benefit would be that you get to hear what Watson has to say and not just what Holmes has to say.
I agree with Kaitlyn D and everyone who said this because she mentioned also how a drawback would be you don’t get to hear others’ point of view which I think is true.
I believe that Doyle chose Watson to narrate The Hound Of The Baskervilles story is because Doyle wanted to keep the story a mystery, and what’s the point if you know what Holmes is thinking about the whole thing. Eventually Holmes will find out the answer before anyone else in the story, and then its like the whole mystery is basically nothing anymore if its already solved too quickly.
The drawbacks from having Watson narrate the story is that we only get to see his prospective on things that other characters in the story might have a whole different seeing to things that Watson agrees with or disagree with. The benefits of having Watson narrate the story is by listening to his side of the story, he leaves mysteries of facts and opinions that only Holmes may know, and by him narrating, people won’t really get the mystery solved right away.
Yes, i agree with all of you (Kaitlyn D, Tyler W, Lizzet T) on the drawback. It is a draw back not being able to see that story from Homles point of view because of infomation or part of the stoay we don’t really get to read. I kind of disagree though because even though it is a draw back, i somewhat think it is a benefit because if you think about it, without getting every single thing from Holmes it enables us to think about for ourselves and adds on to the Mystery. And isn’t that what this book is?
(Sorry forgot to put the benefits and drawbacks.)
The benefits, in my opnion, would have to be that it makes the story alittle cliff-hanger like in a way because of point of view and the Main person is Watson not Homles because of the narration. The drawbacks would have to be information in the story, such as if Holmes were to narrate we would know everything and it would be easyier in a way to understand. But with Watson narrating it’s a bit more difficult because your not able to know everything another character is thinking or exactly trying to get at.
I think Doyle choose Watson to narrate the story instead of Holmes beacause of two reasons. One, i think it is so we can see what is happening through anothers eyes instead of seeing it directly through the main person. Not to mention, if we did see it though Holmes’ eyes, it would be totally different. We would be seeing exactly what he is thinking and we would not be able to think what might happen for our selves. Two, it is not only another point of view when the story is being narrated by Watson but it is also adds more to the mystery because if you think about it, we get less information which leaves you to wonder and having to talk about it or think about it. For example, when you are reading what Holmes said instead of thought (if he were to narrate) you are not getting the full sense of everything, as if something is missing. And that something is whan makes it alittle mysterious and keeping you wanting to read more.
I agree with Kaitlin D. This is because even though having Watson as th narrator makes the story more mysterious, we don’t get to hear the other people’s points of view.
I think that Doyle chose Watson to narrate the story because Watson is the detective’s helper, not the detective. So, this means that all of the ideas don’t have to be right. plus, being Holme’s assistant, we can get a good perspective on what is going on. Watson is like the keeper of the information that Holmes uses. For that reason, he helpes us get an insight on all of the characters and events.
The benefit is that you can hear about Watson’s thoughts on everything (being an experienced detective’s assistan and all). The drawback is that you don’t get to hear anyone else’s personal opinion on anything.
I agree with mostly all of you (Tyler, Helber, and Lizzet) that the drawback is we don’t get to hear other characters point of view. I agree because, i too feel that if we had the other characters point of view we could understand the story even more than we already do.
I think Doyle chose Watson to narrate the hound… because, with his point of view there is more mystery to the story basically some things are unanswered. If it were Holmes point of view it wouldn’t be that way because, Holmes is a detective he always has that train of thought so we would basically sense/or no whats happening, by his cognitive way of thinking. The benefits are that the story is more intriguing and hooks the reader in. The drawbacks are (like mostly everyone else said) that you don’t get to hear other characters points of view.
I have to agree with Tyler W. I think because you can only hear what watson was saying and feeling instead of Holmes which is like the main character.
It’s more than simply letting you see the story from someone’s point of view other than the main character. You guys are close, but you’re not quite getting at the core of this question. Here’s my suggestion to you, because I am not willing to GIVE you the answer.
I suggest you go to the Period 3 discussion. Spy on them a bit. moo hoo hoo hoo ahh a ha hah h h (diabolical laugh).
They are on the right track.
DO NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR DISCUSSION
Just read some of their entries, then return here to get this thing really going!
Have fun with this discussion.
Proofread your posts before you post.
Thanks a whole heck of a lot for proofing your stuff. I appreciate it, and so do your classmates.
lizzet t., on August 31st, 2007 at 3:02 pm Said: Edit Comment
lizzet t.
period-2
i agree
———==================
THis comment is posted in the wrong discussion. You have to post in the appropriate discussion to get credit. Thanks for your understanding in this.
I have come to a disagreement with Lizzet T. because i think that having Watson narrate is making it difficult to understand the story because you don’t know what Holmes is thinking. having Watson narrate may make it easier to understand Watson, but not the story in general. That is why i disagree with Lizzet T.
I think Sir Arthur Conan Doyle chose Watson to narrate the story instead of Holmes because Watson really knows more about the mystery of the hound or the “problem”. Also, Holmes really gets most of his information from Watson.
I think the benefits of having Watson as the narrator instead of Holmes as the narrator is the fact that you get to hear what Watson thinks about everything. I think the drawback of having Watson as the narrator instead of Holmes as the narrator is that you don’t know what goes on in the main character’s head, and that makes it hard to understand what they are talking about.
I think sir aurthur Cannon Doyle choose Watson instead of Holmes because he wanted to let you see the story by someone elses point view instead of the main characters. I think that the benefits of this is that you get to understand the story better. The drawbacks are that you don’t understand the story as if you were the main character and it gives you less information.
lizzet t.
period-2
i agree
I think Doyle choose Watson to narrate Hound instead of having Holmes tell the story because he wanted Watson to tell his point of rather then Holmes to tell his point of veiw.And the benefits and drawbacks of doing it this way the benifits was that you heard Watson point veiw. But the draw backs were you could here Holmes point view which gives you less info about what he’s thinking about and how he feels inside.