The Hound of the Baskervilles Period 3 – DQ #1
PERIOD 3
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 responding to others 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?
Responding to Michelle r.
I agree with you Michelle, it does give a mystery feel to the story. Also Holmes does have a corrupeted mind that whole tobacco sitiuation does explain that. You also made a very good point about the drawback because youre right Watson cant read Holmes mind.
I think that Doyle chose Dr. Watson instead of Holmes beacuse from Watsons point of view of Holmes its much more clear to the reader about Holmes actions and descriptions. A benefit is that visualizing is another better way to understand reading. I dont see any drawbacks on this reason at all.
Kevin,
I appreciate that you want to participate, however, you wil have to give us more. When you say you “agree with the point that Holmes only thinks about his clues,”
What do you mean?
Can ou give an example?
RESPONDING TO KAYLA, SUE, AND ANYONE ELSE WHO SAID THINGS LIKE THEM:
Kayla, you’re right. Writing from Watson’s point of view makes us want to keep reading, and Sue your drawback about the exaggerations is good, too.
Respond to Eric V:
i agree with your drawback. because Holmes would most likely describe every little detail about Watson; and the book would be harder to understand because he wouldnt describe himself as much.
good point. =)
I think that the author has watson narrate the story because he knows holmes very well, and he helps people figure things out. Also, we can see how Holmes is from another person’s point of view.
On the downside; we dont know Watson all that well.
So, we dont know if he exaggerates, or stuff like that.
REASPOND TO KEVIN J
I disagree with Kevin J because if we do not understand the clues thats why Holmes is the dective .
I think that Doyle choose Watson to narrate the hound instead of having Holmes because some people like to hear other people’s perspectives and Holmes is a major character in this book . The benefits of this is you get to hear Watsons thoughts on Holmes . The drawbacks of this is you only get to hear Watsons thoughts not other characters thoughts .
Respond to Erik V.
I agree with the point that Holmes only thinks about his clues.
Doyle picked Watson to tell the story to get a different perspective of things.Some benefits are seeing things from others perspectives. And some drawbacks are we might not understand some of the clues.
Lalchan (is this your first name or last? If it’s your last, please post with your first name and last initial.),
I have had to edit out a web address multiple times now. Please remember NOT to put a web address in the field that calls for one. Leave it blank. I will have to deduct credit if this continues.
Samantha,
I have had to edit out your last name multiple times now. Please remember to ONLY put your first name and last initial in the field that calls for your name. I will have to deduct credit if this continues.
Please understand that I ask you to use this format for a number of reasons, but the most important reason is to protect you and your family.
I hope you’re enjoying the discussions.
How refreshing, eh? Intelligent discussion even when you’re not at school!!
responding to kayla, deanna kevin and jhane
i agree that the purpose of the book is for us to have to think.
RESPOND TO MICHELLE:
I disagree with your drawback. Mr.Holmes and Dr.Watson have been working together a long time they trust each other to tell them what their thinking. If they didn’t, then they won’t be able to slove the mystery.
The author picked Dr.Watson to narrate Hound instead of Holmes because if read by Holmes then some people won’t know other peoples perspectives and also it will seem that Dr.Watson was barely in the book since Holmes only focuses on his clues.
Benefit:Dr.Watson would be like a main character in the ranks of Holmes instead of a character like Dr.Mortime
Drawback:We won’t know much about Dr.Watson but instead of Holmes
RESOPONSE TO VICTORIA K.
I compleatly agree with the benefits! With little known about Holmes’ thoughts it keeps the readers intrested. not to mention readers get more involved to see what would happen. the book is not like a dead giveaway book : )
The author picked Watson to narrate because he makes us infer about Holmes’ feelings. Basically we have to infer about what we don’t know rather than what we do know.
Benefit: With Watson narrating we get more involved with the book. Basically saying we have to pay attention or we will get lost.
Drawback: With Watson as the narrator, we have a vague description of who Watson really is. He is basically a stranger! : )
i believe the author has watson narrating the story so that we understand sherlock and the book more.
benifit:
we learn a lot more about holmes than we would if he was narrating.
drawback:
we don’t learn about watson as we do about holmes.
RESPONDING TO JHANE, DEANNA, AND KEVIN
I agree with three of my fellow classmates. As they have said also the whole entire purpose really of the book is to leave the reader thinking, and wanting to read more. That goes for every book not only for this book. Nobody really likes a predictible book. A reader likes twists and turns in a book. So far i think that this book has met my expectations!
Well I think Conan Doyle uses the character of Dr. Watson as a stand-in to narrate the strory of the Hound because of Sherlock Holmes way of solving problems. The reason he seamed so smart was because he always had the inside scope of everything. While on the other hand Dr. Watson really was just going by all of the clues trying to peice things together.
There are some benifits of this choice. One benifit of this choice is the twist and turns that the story can take. There is also more excitement and mental uncertainty going on inside of the reader. Which makes them want to keep reading.
The drawbacks to this choice is that Mr. Holmes always had an inside scope and correct conclusion. Holmes also provided more insight to a situation as well as analysis,and cleverness.
i agree completly with taylor.
if we knew everything that was going on the minute it happened or someone said something than we wouldnt need to read the book or the book wouldnt even have a meaning.
REPLY TO LALCHAN P’S POST: I agree with the benefits of having Watson narrate. Holmes himself said that Watson very bright and too smart, and Holme’s mind is very complex, so Watson’s level of thinking is most likely closer to ours.
RESPONDING TO MICHELLE R. POST.
I Agree with everything you say. Mostly the Drawbacks, but if Holmes is holding back on something than it would effect what Watson is thinking and what the readers are thinking.
I think Doyle Choose Watson to narrate Hound instead of having holmes because with Watson Narrating it it’s more of a mystery because if Holmes was narrating it, it wouldn’t really seem like a mystery. We would know the truth or the ending before it came.
The benefits to doing it this way is Watson truely doesn’t know whats going on in Holmes mind so, the readers want to keep reading so they know whats going on. It keeps readers more interested.
The drawbacks are Holmes could always be holding something back which would mean Watson wouldn’t know about it, and since Watson is narrating it the readers wouldn’t know it either.
Doyle chooses Watson to narrate the Hound because it leaves an heir of mystery as to what Holmes is always thinking. And since Holmes has a complicated mind, like when he filled his home with tobacco smoke to help himself think, Doyle may think the readers may not understand it if they were able to know why Holmes does everything he does.
The benefits of having Watson narrate the tale are that Watson looks up to Holmes as a friend and colleague so readers get his perspective on how Holmes chooses to solve cases. Another benefit is that Watson does not always know what Holmes is thinking, so it keeps the readers wondering about it.
The drawbacks of having Watson tell the tale are that Holmes may be hiding a specific thought from Watson, which means the readers don’t know it either. Another drawback is that Holmes may lie about something, and Watson may not know about it.
REPLYING TO EMMA’S POST:
When you said, “The drawbacks of Watson narrating are that we can never know what Holmes thinks about people and such. We can never tell what he is serious about and what he may be lying about.” I agree. I think Holmes is too smart and clever to tell certain people EVERYTHING that he knows. Holmes would know who and who not to tell certain information, whether the person would want that information or not.
Andrew S
Pieod 3
9/2/2007
“i agree”
RESPONDING TO MATT:
I agree with you when you said ” If we knew what Mr. Holmes was thinking then the story wouldnt really be a mystery at all” because if we knew everything Holmes thought then we would know what he would do, who and what he suspected, and what he thought. Then there would be no point in reading the book. Also if Holmes narrated the story it would be too complex to understand given how he analyzes people and his surroundings.
forgot to mention this to my reply but the books does give you clues as to what Holmes is thinking about and it tells you 2 to 3 pages later
Doyle chose Dr. Waston to be the narrator because his perspective is easier to understand since Mr. Holmes has a more complex mind. Having Dr. Watson narrate the story leaves it a mystery how Mr. holmes feels and what he is thinking. The benefits of having Dr. Watson narrate the story are that the reader is intrigued to figure out the mystery themselves and it lets them see how Watson feels about what happens. The drawbacks are that the reader don’t know what Mr. Holmes thinks of the mystery or the people involved.
reply to Matt,
I agree with the whole mystery idea of the story because when i read the book i do wonder what Holmes could possibly be thinking about, but the book really does make you try to figure the book out and since we last read the book i was thinking about possible solutions Holmes might come up with
I think that Doyle chose Watson to narrate the hound was because the main character was Holmes. I mean that with Watson being his assitant he is there to assist Holmes at any time and he is there to listen to his thoughts and ideas. Which is why the benefit to this is that Watson is there to describe Holmes great skills and thoughts and conclusions. Drawback is that we wont know what Holmes is thinking inside his head the entire time.
RESPONDING TO DEANA’S POST
i agree with deana’s post because we do get a better summary on Holems when watson is narrarating the story. if Molmes was narrarating the story, we would not have gotten a good description.
reply on Taylor
I agree with the benefits because we would actually feel how other characters feel instead of the main always narrating.
Doyle chose Dr. Watson as the narrator because he probably wanted to tell the story in someones in a different point of view.
The positive outlook on having Dr. Watson as the narrator would have to be that you’ll get to see different points of views than the ordinary main character saying in his. I think the drawback in having Dr. Watson as the narrator would have to be that we will not be able to see Mr . Holmes point of view.
Reply to Deanna’s Post:
I agree to what you said about how the mystery won’t be left, and how you can’t tell how Holmes feels since he isn’t telling the story also how you can get a description of Holmes from another character, since he is the main character and see who he really is like.
Doyle chose Watson to narrate the story instead of Holmes himself because he probably wanted to tell the story from a different aspect, and Watson’s mind is a little less complex than Holmes, and much easier to understand. A benefit for Watson narrating the story is that if you see the story from a different point of view you can get into the mystery, and in Holmes mind you can get all the facts, so then what’s the point of the mystery. A drawback for Watson narrating the story is that if Holmes was thinking of something about the mystery, we wouldn’t know because he’s not narrating the story.
Reponding to Deanna’s Post
I agree with what you said about not having any mystery novel if Mr.Holmes narrated the book because there truely wouldnt be any suspense or mystery if you know everything that was going to happen next in the novel because that’s what a novel is all about mystery and suspense.
Doyle chose Watson to narrate the story because he wanted to tell the story at a different perspective rather then havin Mr.holmes the so called “genius” and main character tell the story.The benefits of having Watson tell the story would be that you get to see all aspects of the story from someone elses point of view, because if Mr.holmes wus to tell the story you would know any and everything he wus thinkin about the mystery so that leaves no mystery or suspense.A drawback would is that you wont be able to comprehend things or get a better or more intelligent look at the story as if Mr.Holmes were telling the story
Reply to Emma:
I agreed with you when you said, “He (watson) is the average person, where as Holmes is a genious.” Because of Watson being an “average” person, Doyle wants us to get the point of view that is much less confusing. In Holme’s mind, since he’s a “genius” it would be hard to relate to him since we’re not all “geniuses”.
Doyle chose Watson to narrate the story because the author wants us to see the book in another point of view that is much easier to understand. Sherlock Holmes has a complex mind and it would be hard to relate to him. Not knowing Holme’s thoughts is both a benefit and a drawback. The benefit is that it adds to the mystery, The drawback is that it’s not his point of view, so we don’t get to see his side of the story.
I think doyle chose mr. watson to narrarate the story becausereders can know mr. Sherlock holmes and we get to now watson, as the “genius behind the scenes”. i thnk his thinking is more on our level, so we can probably understand what is going on.
the disadvantage we have when watson narrarates the book is that we see mostly his side of the story, and not much of anyone else. the advantage of having watson narrarate the story is we can see what’s going on from his point of view, not holmes.
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
You are all really impressing me. I’m blown away!!
You’re ALL definitely onto something.
NOW for the real challenge –
Can you give us an example of what you’re talking about ?
Something from the text that shows the effect you say this creates?
i believe Doyle Chose Watson to narrate so that the readers can understand the book on the level of less “genius”. if everything was as out there and blunt as Dr.Holmes’ perspective on everything (he always has an answer to what happens) then what would be the point of this book?
an advantage of Watson telling the tale as opposed to Holmes is that we can get to see two sides to the way they think. (holmes always has the scientific right to the point answer while watson, on the other hand, has the answer most of us would think is correct.”)
a disadvantage of having Watson narrate is that if Holmes is thinking something, we wont know since he isnt telling the tale.
I believe Doyle chose Dr. Watson instead of Holmes because since Holmes is the main character, I believe that there wouldn’t be much mystery left. If we knew everything Holmes is or will be thinking, where’s the mystery in that? Where’s the suspense? And what’s a mystery without suspense?
I think that the benefits of having Dr. Watson narate the book is that for one, you get his thoughts on it, plus what Holmes is saying. Also, I think that you get a bit more of a description of Holmes… a.k.a the main character- the most important character.
The setbacks of this is that you can’t truely tell how Holmes feels. You don’t get his true thoughts or feelings; the thing(s) he isn’t saying. But, if you really think of it, that’s not a setback because it leaves more for the mystery.
REPLYING TO LEANA’S POST
Leana i agree with the benefits of having Dr Watson as the narrarator. It gives the reader more insight on what the problem is with the Baskerville legacy.
I believe that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote the book in Watson’s perspective because Doyle wanted to leave Mr. Holmes’ mind a mystery. If we knew what Mr. Holmes was thinking then the story wouldnt really be a mystery at all. I think that leaving Holmes’ mind hidden makes the reader try and think on a more detective level, leaving the story to figure out on our own.
The benefits of having Watson narrate the story are that it makes the readers try and figure the mystery out for themselves.
The drawbacks are that we can’t see what Mr. Holmes is thinking about the mystery within his own mind.
REPLYING TO TAYLOR’S POST.
I agree on your drawbacks because you said, “The drawbacks are that you only get how Watson truly feels and no one else’s perspective on the mystery.” and even though Holmes said what he thought about the mystery, we don’t know for sure if he is holding something back.
I believe that Doyle chose Watson to narrate the tale in place of Holmes because Watson isn’t a detective, so we, the readers, see a side of the story which necessarily doesn’t have to be correct because Holmes is the detective, not Watson. Benefits on having Watson narrate are knowing how he feels about Holmes’ as well as his, perspective on the Baskerville’s curse. The drawbacks, however, are that we don’t get to see how Holmes feels about the topic directly from his mind.
I think that the reason Doyle chose to write from Watson’s perspective was to keep Holmes’s innermost thoughts a mystery. We do not know if Holmes is telling other characters ALL that he knows or suspects. This way, Doyle can keep us guessing.
Also, Watson looks at Holmes as an admirer and friend. He wants to know what he knows, and keeps a close eye on him. He is the average person, where as Holmes is a “genius”, and we can see what others thought of Holmes.
The benifits are that we are kept thinking and suspecting, because we do not know what Holmes knows. Also, we can see what Holmes’s colleauges thought of him. The drawbacks of Watson narrating are that we can never know what Holmes thinks about people and such. We can never tell what he is serious about and what he may be lying about.
Doyle chose Watson to narrate this story because Watson’s perspective leaves mystery to how Holmes really feels and leaves his ideas that he thinks to come out at the proper time instead of us immediately knowing how he feels with him as narrator. The beneifts of this are that we can see very accurately how Watson feels about everything going on in the story. The drawbacks are that you only get how Watson truly feels and no one else’s perspective on the mystery.