The Hound of the Baskervilles Period 4 – DQ #1
PERIOD 4
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 comment. 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?
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.
I’m sorry about the smoking thing, on my first part, I guess I didn’t realize that it was you who said that until I read your response. I’m terribly sorry on that.
Alexis,
Please lose the caps. Capital letters in a discussion of this sort could feel like shouting to the readers. Shouting could be taken as anger, impatience, intolerance, self-centeredness. All of these are distasteful traits. We want to come across to everyone as people who want to be fairly heard, people who have a right to be heard, and people we all want to listen to as well.
There are many reasons why I ask participants to use Standard American English. Using generally accepted (American) rules of grammar, punctuation, spelling, etc. makes It clear that we are all having a nice conversation.
You will not lose any credit, just adjust your Caps Lock, eh?
Right.
Thanks!! 🙂
=================——————————————-
wade, T
——Please post using your First Name and Last Initial.
Thanks!!
Aslo, Tranika,, I have a question for you.
You said, “he picked watson to narrate the story becuase it not only gets his side view of the situation but his as well.”
Did you mean this?
Doyle picked Watson to narrate the story because it not only gives us Watson’s point of view of the situation, but Holmes’s as well.
i agrre with wade becuase
he gets to see what the other person comes up with
and maybe he missed something of his own
Watson is narrating i think beacuse to see how he tells it understands from another point of view.
And to see if his conclusion makes better since than his own
i agree with devree becuase of having Watson narrate the hound is great becuase he knows holmes and would explain much more facts to support the situation.
I think he decided to let watson to narrate the story becuase he wanted to see how it could be expressed from another view. And would be more interested in another thought besides his own.
I think he picked watson to narrate the story becuase it not only gets his side view of the situation but his as well.
HE PROBABLY PICKED WATSON TO NARRATE THE STORY BECAUSE HE COULD MAKE IT MORE INTERESTING AND MYSTERIOUS. THE BENEFITS ARE THAT THE STORY WILL BE MORE EXCITING TO READ AND ALOT OF PEOPLE WILL POSSIBLY ENJOY IT. THE DRAW BACKS ARE THAT HOLMES COULD OF EXPLAINED THE STORY BETTER IN A MORE ENTERTAINING WAY.
2ND PART-
I AGREE WITH JHONNY BECAUSE ME ND HIM HAVE THE SAME CONCEPT AND THINKING ABOUT THE NOVEL
i agree with amanda and hayely because it does add extra mistery scince me may not no what holmes is thinking. and watson is more of an average person so we get to see what it may be like for us instead of a genious like holmes, as amanda said
doyle has watson narate the story instead of holmes so that we could keep guessing about what was really going on scince watson doesnt no but he tends make holmes think and achieve the right answer.
the drawback is we might get more confused scince we dont no exactly wut is going on
the benifit is we get to keep guessing and makeing our own stories in our head
i agree with Elinor T because, letting watson tell the story is more mysterious. i mean if holmes was telling the story, you wouldn’t really have to think about anything, as soon as he found something out, you would know about it. and it would make the story boring because i think in those kind of stories the reader’s most interest is trying to figure out things by themselves
2nd Part
I agree both with Katherine and Brianna. Watson does tel what he feels and his thoughts. I agree with both of them
I also agree with Kathryn-kay if Holmes told the story he would have never put so much detail about himself. He would have only told us his good qualities but never his bad ones. By having Watson tell the story it lets us know some bad stuff on Holmes. This might be useful to the readers in some parts of this book.
I agree with Ornella’s answer Holmes is a much better detective but by him not telling the story makes it more mysterious and keeps us guessing how Holmes really feels about this mystery.
*part two- my response
I agree wtih Dervere because Watson knows Holmes very well and probably can pin point characteristics about him that holmes himself doesn’t even realize he posseses. I also agree that having Holmes as the narrater would give to much of the book away to fast and take away the suspense.
I agree wtih Dervere because Watson knows Holmes very well and probably can in point characteristics about him that holmes himself doesn’t even realize he posseses. I also that having Holmes as the narrater would give to much of the book away to fast and take away the suspense.
PART 2 – MY RESPONSE.
i agree with hayley’s answer because it says everything with great detail and she is right about the part that says that Holmes might be lying or hiding important information.
the benefits of Watson narrating is that the author won’t give the mystery away & that we get to know who the real detective Holmes is.
the drawbacks are that we can’t know about Homes thoughts and what he thinks about the mystery he has to solve.
i think that Doyle chose Watson to narrate the story instead of Holmes because Watson is able to give his opinion toward Holmes and be completely honest about it. Holmes could always lie about himself in some way if he were to narrate it. also, i think he chose Watson so it would be more of a mystery story then just giving the answer away since Holmes is the better detective in the first place.
Responce to Hayley R:
I agree with Hayley because yes you wont be able to here the secrets of Homes thats hes got locked up in his head or possibly somewhere else. ]
Ps: thanks for the assignment Mr. Moshe!!!!!
I think Doyle chose watson to narrate the Hound of the Baskervilles because you get to read the story from a co-stars (if you will) point of view instead of the star (in this case Homes). Watson also ads mystery to the story because you dont get the story from the detective (Homes). The positives to this are that you get more mystery instead of Homes solving the mystery quickly. The negatives are that your hearing the “Nuckle Head”(Watson) if you will instead of the “genious detective”(Homes) making it interesting. It’s kind of a paradox.
i agree with hayley because holmes may be lieing or have already figured out what was going on, from his true thoughts.
I agree with Liana because she stated that certain things couldnt be said about Holmes if Watson wasn’t teliing the story.
I think that Doyle had Watson narrate the story, to give the reader the story from another character’s point of view. Instead of Holmes telling about himself solving the mystery, Watson is giving an outside view of Holmes in action.
A benefit of this, would be that Watson, could give the reader a better feel of what’s going on in the story.
A drawback would be that there wouldn’t be as much details as if there would be I think if Holmes was telling the story.
I agree with Hayley because having watson narrate could keep us all hidden from watsons deepest thoughts thus making the book ten times exciting.
I think Doyle chose Watson to narrate the hound because he probaly thoght it would be easier to explain holmes character through someone who knows Holmes very well like Watson.The pros of having Watson narrate the hound would be that he knows Holmes very well and could give the reader alot of information on holmes.the cons would be that he could also tell too much about holmes which could ruin the book.
Part 2- response
I agree with Kathryn that with watson narrating the story it gives a whole new edge and line of mystery. Rather than having Holmes tell the story and having it become an average mystery. Also… since holmes is not telling the story it gives watson’s perspective on him, and yes, if holmes was narrating the story we wouldn’t know much truly about him.
I believe that Doyle had many reasons to choose Watson as the narrater instead of Holmes. One of the big main reasons is to keep the reader hidden from Holmes real thoughts. By doing this Doyle is taking the book to another level of mystery beyond just trying to keep the death of the Baskervilles a secret. Another reason is probably as Holmes already said in the book Watson “is himself not very luminous, but you are a conductor of light.” ,so with Watson as the narrater he triggers our thoughts and gets us thinking. He does for us what he does for Holmes. Later on in the book we will probably find out other reasons for why Doyle chose Watson as the narrater. I think that It is a good thing that he chose Watson instead of Holmes because we are hidden from Holmes’s true thoughts. One drawback is that we will never know when Holmes is hiding important information or lying.
Part 2~response
I agree with Jhonny because when Watson narrates the story it makes it more interesting or “entertaining” to read. When you don’t know everything that Holmes is thinking you may be missing some important pieces to the whole puzzle, making it more mysterious, like a mystery is supposed to be.
I agree with Katherine on how if Holmes told the story it would probally be more knowledge based.I agree with Katherine because Watson is basically reporting inferences and observations not what he really knows.If Holmes narrated the book we would get sraight facts and clues.
I think Doyle made Watson narrate the book instead of Holmes himself so the book could have more of a mysterious edge and so there could be that one detail that we want to know, but don’t know so we keep reading the book.The benefits of having the book like this is that we get to see what Holmes is like from a different point of view instead of having Holmes talk about himself.The drawbacks of having the book like this is that we don’t really get the full story on what Holmes is thinking and saying.
2nd Part of Discussion.
I agree with Alex’s point about the drawbacks of letting Watson narrate. If Holmes does find a clue when split up, this can cause Watson and the reader to fall behind in understanding and solving the mystery. I also agree with Alex’s point on Advantages. With Watson describing and narrating he describes Holmes in ways Holmes might now describe himself, like when Watson noticed Holmes was smoking so much, and Holmes didnt notice at all.
2nd attempt.
I think Doyle chose Watson to narrate the book, instead of Watson, because it gives a different type of perspective. By letting Watson tell the story it gives a different point of view. Also by letting Watson narrate the story, the reader gets to understand the mystery and problems as he learns them. Some drawbacks of this are that Holmes, who would think differently than Watson would, doesnt get to narrate and the reader cant understand it through his point of view.
You wouldnt be able to understand the way Holmes solves his mysteries. The reader wouldnt be able to get into Shelocks head and find out how he thinks his mysteries through to find his solution. But if Doyle did let Sherlock narrate, the reader would come to the end of the story much quicker, because Sherlock would solve the problem quicker than WAtson would, and through Watson we get to understand the story as if the reader was in it, because of his naiveness and his understanding isnt at the level of Sherlock’s.
i agree with Anthony because everybody has a different point of view. That made me think that if Holmes told the story we would figure the mystery more easily. With Watson it makes us think a little bit harder. That is a really good mystery book, when it makes think harder that normal.
I think the author uses Dr. Watson instead of Holmes because that is what makes the story interesting. If Holmes was the narrator the story wouldn’t be as interesting at all. Also Holmes is the smart one. As in the story Holmes said that he wasn’t that smart. That is one reason why Watson can’t be the main character. Holmes is just a classic. If Watson was the main character readers would lose interest.
One benefit of this is that there is more suspence in the book. It makes readers to keep reading and reading. One drawback of this is that we don’t see the full potenial of Dr. Watson. No one knows what Watson can do. He may be really great at figuring out things.
from my point of view doyle had watson tell the story so that you would have to wonder about what holmes was thinking and you would have to keep guessing because watson doesn no everything but it seems that holmes does.
a drawback would be that we dont get to see everything going on as clearly as we would if it were holmes telling the story. we might get confused more.
a benifit would be that we get to see other peoles point of views of holmes and what they think might be going on. scince watson it more of an average person we get to see wut it might be like for us to be in that position. instead of holmes who is a genious and would no everything going on.
a
I think Doyle chose Watson to tell this story because he wanted the readers not to know what Holmes was really thinking and how he feels, that way this story is more mysterious. This way he leaves his readers curious and thinking like a detective. Also in the story Holmes said 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”. Which means Watson helps other people figure out things, so by him telling the story it may be much easier to understand rather then Holmes telling it.
The benefits to this are that we get to see a whole different side of the story, that wouldn’t be possible if Holmes told the story. This also gives the story more suspense.
The drawbacks to this is that we don’t know what Holmes is really thinking, feeling or if he’s lying to Watson. All we know is what Watson assumes of Holmes.
I agree with Kathryn because Watson does tell how he views his thoughts and the situation .
I think Doyle let Watson be the narrator because maybe watson is a better narrator and could make the book more fasinating . The drawbacks of doing it this way are holmes could have made the book intersting to. The book maybe would have been okay
I personally think that Doyle let Watson be the narrator instead of Holmes because Watson could make the story more interesting, such as more mysterious, more entertaining. The story could of changed in many ways. The book would have been probably more interesting to read then Holmes version. The drawbacks are that Holmes could of made the story more interesting also. It probably would have been or worse.
i think that Doyle let Watson be the narrator instead of holmes because it has more suspense. holmes is the detective he would have just tell you everything he’s thinking about the case. and the story would be short.
the benefits are your get more points of view and its detailed
the drawback is even if holmes finds a clue, you won’t know it right away.
I think Doyle chose Watson to tell the story instead of Holmes to put a more mysterious feeling into the story. Since Holmes is the mastermind behind the detective agency, and he is very smart, it would give the mystery away as soon as someone gives an important clue to Holmes and he makes a theory. With Watson narrating, we do not know what Holmes is thinking which makes the reader more curious.
An upside of Watson telling the story, he describes Holmes very accuratley, as well as his thoughts about people and situations. It also hides the mystery from the reader as I mentioned before.
A downside of Watson narrating is if the two are to split up, and Holmes finds an important clue, we will not know about what he thinks of it.
My Answer To The Questions!
I believe the reason why Doyle did not let Holmes narrate the story and used Waston instead is becuase Holmes is their to solve the mystery and Watson is saying how he solves it step by step. The benifet of this is how Waston describes Holmes time after time giving me a viewpoint on how Waston is always there where Sherlock is. The negetive side is that there really much isn’t any narrating from Waston. Holmes wouldv’e talked more. That is my opinion.
My Respones to other Classmates
I like the point Liana pointed out when saying we can’t really find Wastons personality, only by his actions.
Nice job, Kathryn-kay!!
Not sucking up here but i think my answer was a “WOW”
I think that Doyle choose Watson to be the narrator of the story rather than Holmes because when Watson tells how he views Holmes and his thoughts of the whole situation, it gives the story a different edge. For example, Holmes is the main character of the story, the legendary detective, if Holmes told the story it would just become one of those typical mystery stories.
Some benefits of having Watson narrate are, for one thing you get to experience the true Holmes. On the first page of the book its said Holmes usually runs late in the mornings, if Holes were to tell the story, we would’t know a simple detail like that.
A down side to Watson telling the story is, that from the 3 chapters we read so far I think that Holmes is the more experienced detective. If Holmes narrated the mystery, we could probably get a more knowledge-based point of view.
I’m not completely certain on this, but I think it was me who said, “Smoking Kills!” – not Watson. Interesting, eh?
Your answers are good, but not amazing. I think someone said somehting about the WOW factor. Period 3 has it. For Sure!! Many students are falling just shor tof the really awesome answer. You’re both almost there.
Check out Period 3 Discussion. DO NOT POST TO THEIR DISCUSSION, but read some of their entries.
Then return here and give it another try.
Have fun with this discussion!! I’m impressed with your honest expression of your thoughts.
Remember that to really grow, we have to be willing to accept the truth if we are not seeing the whole picture. It’s actually an honorable thing to give in and grow past our limitations.
Check out Period 3 Discussion, return here, and let fly with a new deeper post.
This can be serious and fun. Try to blend learning with fun open communication. Grow on.
Enjoy!!
FIRST SECTION
I think that doyle had watson narrate the story instead of holmes himself, because watson can describe holmes, and show his point of vieew about holmes. Watson can say the bad things that he thinks about holmes, but holmes would’nt say that he smokes too much and that he can die from it, when he’s narrating himself. that’s why i think doyle had watson narrate, so watson can say the positive and negative things about holmes. The benefits about watson narrating, is that we can see from watson’ point of view, but the drawbacks are that you can’t read what holmes thinks of himself, and you can’t read what watson thinks of himself.
I think Doyle chose Watson to narrate the book, instead of Watson, because it gives a different type of perspective. By letting Watson tell the story it gives a different point of view. Also by letting Watson narrate the story, the reader gets to understand the mystery and problems as he learns them. Some drawbacks of this are that Holmes, who would think differently than Watson would, doesnt get to narrate and the reader cant understand it through his point of view.