The Hound of the Baskervilles Period 5 – DQ #1
PERIOD 5
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?
I agree with John because Dr.Watson and Sherlock Holmes are together a lot.So who’s best to talk about him better than Dr.Watson?
I think the author,Sir Arthur Conan Doyle chose Dr.Watson to narrate the story because if Sherlock Holmes narrated the story it would be boring because he would just be talking about himself over and over.
I agree with Invictus’ thoughts on why Sir Doyle chose Watson to narrate the story, and I also believe that if Sir Doyle didnt choose anyone to narrate his book, it would make even less sense to me than it already does, I barely understand the book as it is!
I think the author, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, chose Dr. Watson to narrate this story because they work side by side. It wouldnt be as interesting if Holmes told the story himself…He’s kind of boring, not saying that Watson is fun or anything.. But im sure he’s not as bad as Sherlock Holmes would be…Another benefit, you can learn more about Holmes, im sure that if he was narrating, he wouldnt describe himself, that would be kind of weird! A drawback would be hearing Dr. Watsons opinions on Holmes, no matter how long they’ve been partners, they can’t know everything about each other, so the drawback would be not knowing the truth about Holmes!
I agree with dana because if holmes were telling the story it woldn’t be as good as watson telling it beacuse it is about holmes.
I think doyle chose watson to narrate the story to see it for some one elses perspective about holmes. Also so you can here what watson has to say other then holmes.
I think doyle chose watson to narrate the story to see it for some one elses perspective about holmes. Also so you can here what watson has to say then holmes.
I agree with charles, it woald not have any mystery because he would have already known what would happen next.
I think Doyle chose Watson to narrate the book so we would see it from anothere view point about holms. And So we can have a better understanding of what is going on in the story.
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 think Doyle chose Watson to narrate because Watson probably knows more of what happened in the story than Sherlock Holmes.But the drawback is that we don’t get to know what Sherlock Holmes thinks about parts of the story or some of the clues.
I agree with James because the story has more suspense or mystery not know what the main character thinks.
I think that Dolye chose Dr.Watson to narrate the story because it is more of a mystery to not know what Mr.Holmes thinks during the book, and to know what his views on what is happening. The benefits are there is more of a surprising factor because Mr.Holmes might say something and do something different. The drawbacks are you don’t know the emotions or how Mr.Holmes feels towards characters and what’s happening.
I think Doyle chose Watson to narrate this story because it shows what happens through someone else’s eyes. If Holmes would have narrated the story, I think that no one would understand because of his high level of thinking. I think the benefits of this is that it allows the reader to understand easier what is going on in the story.The drawbacks are that you wont know exactly what is going on Holmes’ head. you would have an idea since Watson is Holmes’ best friend but you still dont know exactly what to expect.
I agree with Simone because I think that it does allow the reader to understand and get an overall perspective of Mr. Holmes personality and get to understand Mr. Holmes through Mr. Watsons view of him.
Doyle chose Waston to narrate this specific novel because Holmes is the main character,and to have the main character as the narrator ruins some specific novels,and in this case,this is one of those novels.
I agree with Charles W. because having the main character narrate the story ruins it.
Doyle choose Watson to narrate Hound instead of having Holmes tell the story himself so you could hear the story from a different pointy of view. Benifits are that it is much easier to understand the story because of the descriptions. the drawbacks are that you do not know what holmes is thinking all of the time.
I agree with Breanna M. because when watson is telling the story you dont know what is happening in holmes head at all and dont know what hypothesis he has made.
I think that Dolye chose Watson to narrate the story beacause watson is more quiet rather than Holmes that always speaks his mind and what he thinks.
I agree with gabby beacause its better to hear and understand it from someone elses mind rather than holmes.
I think that He chose Watson to narrate the book, because in doing so we can know what watson thinks about holmes and what things are like from his point of veiw.
I agree with Gabby when she says that Doyle chose Watson to narrate the story because he wanted us to hear it from a different perspective.
I have to disagree with Invictus because I don’t think its that Watson knows Holmes better than himself, its that Watson is following what Holmes discoveres, like how Holmes said Watson isn’t that smart, but can bring the smart out of people.
I think Doyle wanted the book to be seen through Watson’s eyes because he’s an observer, if it was seen through Holmes eyes, the book wouldn’t have the same mystery feel, since Holmes knows alot more than Watson does.
I disagree with Invictus because Mr. Holme’s thoughts can add much more detail of imagery making you feel like you were at the crime scene being the actual detective trying to get answers. From the thoughts I believe there are more things you can find out that are not so obvious from Holmes much easier than Watson.
I believe that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle had Dr. Watson narrate the story because he does not explain thoughts like Sherlock Holmes.The benefits are that it becomes less confusing of what has happened and what Holmes believes to be true.The drawback to this is Watson can only explain his, not Holme’s thoughts making less point of views to see what happens in the story.
I would have to agree with what Gabby A said becasue having watson tell the story is really easier to understand and then you are getting his thoughts and opinins other than Holmes.
I think Doyle choose Watson to narrate the story because Doyle felt that since Watson knew Holmes better than himself he could tell the story from a different perspective kinda like a thrid person .
Doyle choose Watson to narrate Hound instead of having Holmes tell the story himself so you could hear the story from a different perspective. Benifits are that it is easier to understand. Drawbacks are that you don’t know what Holmes is thinking.
I would have to agree with Breanna, because with Watson telling the story you do not know what is going on in holmes’s head or observations that he has made.
I think that Doyle chose Watson to narrate Hound instead so you would not know what Holmes is thinking. If Holmes narrated the story then he would think about the answer to the mystery and then you will know. The benefits are that you also get Watson’s point of view and Holmes always speak what is on his mind and tells Watson. The drawbacks are that you do not always know what Holmes is thinking and you may not know what Holmes is thinking.
I disagree with Rachel because I do not think that Watson is speaking in 2nd person. He is talking in 1st person and is talking in reference of himself and Holmes. Don’t you agree?
I would have to disagree with Jodi-ann. Her opinion about Holmes speaking in 2nd person is kind of a weird opinion for me, because Watson is also speaking in 2nd person also. If another character was speaking narrating the story instead of Watson, wouldn’t it be 2nd person also?
1a.Why did Doyle choose Watson to narrate Hound instead of having Holmes tell the story himself?
1a.The reason why I think Doyle used Watson for the narration position is because he probably used Mr. Holmes to narrate other stories, well if he wrote other stories about Sir Holmes, anyways as I was saying, since he probably used Holmes already he probably wanted to show a story in a different characters view instead of using his main character all the time.
1b.What are the benefits and drawbacks of doing it this way?
1b.It is better that Watson tells the story. The reason I say this is because I would have to say that from a different character’s point of view would better than having the main character tell the story all the time. Sometimes it gets boring hearing this person over and over again. So that is one benefit for me.
But then again there is a drawback. Sometimes stories does have a different character’s point of view but at times there are parts you can’t really understand. What I am saying is that some people aren’t used to changes. Some people like the same character talking over and over again because they’re used to them talking instead of a different person everytime, and also sometimes it gets kind of irritating to hear a different voice in your head everytime you read a book. So that is one drawback.
I agree with Jasmine and Symone because the advantage is that we get to read the story from an “average” persons point of view and the disadvantages are that we don’t know Holmes’ thoughts or opinions on the subject unless he tells Watson.
I think Doyle let Watson narrate the story because Doyle wanted to let the reader hear the story from Watsons part of view since he wasn’t making a lot of observations about the Baskervilles.If Holmes was doing it then he would have to speak in 2nd person.
I think Doyle chose Watson to be the narrator of the story because then you get to see the story from someone else’s point of view and you can read about
his thoughts and opinions about the mystery, Dr. Mortimer, and Mr. Holmes. If it was Mr. Holmes telling the story then I think that the story would be more complicated to understand because he is (Mr. Holmes) is a “genious” so therefore he would be explaining all of his thoughts and then the book wouldn’t be much of a mystery to us. The benefit of this is that you get to see the story from an “average” person’s point of view that is easier to understand and the readers can try to figure the mystery out themselves. I agree with Simone that the drawbacks are that we don’t know Mr. Holmes’ thoughts and feelings about his investigations are, and how he plans to solve them since Holmes isn’t the one narrating the story. So he might know something that the other characters don’t know and we wouldn’t be able to know what he is thinking.
The Sir Doyle names Dr.Watson as the narrator because if the story was told through Sherlock Holmes more likely than not the mystery would be solved by the end of the story and Sherlock Holmes always solves his mystery. I agree with the others that one of the drawbacks is that you don’t have a clue what Holmes is thinking and one of the benefits is that the mystery will not be solved by the end of the story. Therefore, the story leaves you guessing.
“Watson” not “watson”
“through” not “thru”
“Mr. Holmes” not “mr. holmes”
Please use American Standard English properly spelled, capitalized and punctuated.
Thanks!
I think doyle had watson tell the story that way you see the book thru watson’s eyes. And that way when he describes mr. holmes you can invision how he(holmes) looks,and what he’s doing ect.
The benefits to having watson narrate is you have someone else this” hot shot” detective named Sherlock holmes. A drawback to having watson narrate is you have no clue what he looks like and you also don’t know what mr. holmes is thinking.
I agree whith Chistopher j. But either way whether holmes or watson narrates. You’r going to wonder what the other is going to be thinking. And yes we do see what Watson thinks of Mr. Holmes but what does Holmes think of Watson?
I Think Doyle Makes Watson the narrator because he would see more about Holmes than Holmes would from him self and the benifits are that Watson would learn what Holmes Does in his life. The Drawbacks are that if Holmes was narrating we would know what would go on in his head
Ithink Michael P should also say that Sherlock Holmes needs to narrate to understand what he thinks.
Whoa!!!
I will not give you credit for:
“u” instead of “you”
“2” instead of “too”, “two”, “to”
“B4” instead of “before”
ETC. ETC.
Get it?
You have to type in properly written full sentences and paragraphs. THis means words for words, capitals where necessary, and proper punctuation.
I made that perfectly clear in class.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Other than that, keep posting.
This is GREAT!!
I have a pretty thorough undertanding of what goes on in Holmes’ head, and how Holmes’ head works.
This is especially true after Watson has a conversation with him, or after Watson talks (narrates) to us about him.
So, I implore you, Explain the benefits of having Watson narrate the tale.
Not sure where to go with this? Check out Period 3 Discussion. Read some entries, return here, nd get this discusison going!!
Have fun!!
I think Doyle made Watson the narrator because he states well
things about what is happening.
The drawbacks to this is you will not know what Sherlock
is thinking about what is going on.
The benefits are Watson is doing great things by helping Sherlock.
I belive the Sir Doyle made Dr. Watson narrate the story so you could see the story from an insider’s point of view. This adds to the effect of the mystery because you dont know what Mr. Holmes, or Mr. Mortimer are thinking about. For all we know they could be saying one thing and doing something completely opposite. The benifit is definitly to see the story from a character’s perspective, some one who’s involved in the story-line. The drawbacks, I agree with Jonathan, You dont know what Holmes is thinking, or anyone else for that fact, and , and we might never know how Dr. Watson himself looks. Plus, as Mr. Holmes clearly stated, Dr. Watson himself isn’t the brightest. He may be missing something that the other characters know about, leaving us behind.
I think Sir Arhtur Conan Doyle chose Watson as his narrator because he wanted to show what Watson thought about other characrters. He (DOYLE) didnt choose Holmes to narrate because would only be talking about the case and his thoughts on it. The benefits are that Watson gives you full details on what each character looks like and how they react ot each other. The drawbacks are that you wont be able to know what the other characters are thinking and what Watson himself looks like.
I agree with Robert, about the fact that readers can only see Dr. watson’s point of view of all of the characters and ordeals that occur in the story. The stoy is suppose to be based on Sherlock Holmes, and his perspective of the cases.
The benefits of doing the story this way, is that all readers can get a better understanding of Mr. Holmes’ overall character. A drawback is that we are unable to Know Mr. Holmes’ thoughts and feelings about his investigations, and how he plans to solve them.
I feel that Mr. Doyle chose Dr. Watson to narrate “hound”, because he wanted the readers to get a view of the story from another character’s view to “learn”, Mr. Holmes’ personality. Personally i feel thay if Mr. Holmes were to narrate the novel, readers wouldn’t be able to obtain all of his characteristics, and full personality. Being that Dr. Watson is a friend he can describe him more thoroughly.
I agree with Michael about not having someomone else tell the stor instead of Mr.Holmes because Mr.Holmes shouldn’t be the only “hot shot.”
I think Sir Arthur Conan Doyle had Watson narrate Hound instaed of Holmes because he (Doyle) wanted you to view the story through Watson’s view and how he sees the other characters. The benefits of this is Watson’s view of all the other characters. The drawbacks are you don’t know how Holmes really feels
when he is saying things. Also you only get Watson’s
point of view.
I agree with Michael beacuse if it was (the story) told through Holmes’ eyes you would probably only get the thoughts of Holmes’ about the mystery.
the benefits to having watson narrate is u have someone else this” hot shot” detective named sherlock holmes. A drawback to having watson narrate is u have no clue what he looks like and u also don’t know what mr. holmes is thinking.
i think doyle had watson tell the story that way u see the book thru watson’s eyes and that way when he describes mr. holmes you can invision how he(holmes) look,what he’s doing ect.