The Hound of the Baskervilles Period 6 – DQ #1
PERIOD 6
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?
I think Doyle choosed Watson to narrate, because Watson knows how to make people recognize the little things that is in the book and because I also think Doyle wanted Watson to explain Holmes character in his point of view since Holmes the main character.
Benefits:
– Having Watson narrate the story is that he makes the reader want to figure out, on what happens next. Also, he gives the readers more insight on what the problem is with the legacy of baskerville.
Drawbacks:
– We can’t see what Holmes is thinking or feels about the mystery.
I Agree with Naomi M.
I also agree with maya b. on how the author the made Watson the narrorator of the story because he’s obviously Holmes’ right hand man. (and that also goes back to my first posting)
As I read I see that most of us believe that Watson is the better narrater because of the fact that we can see Holmes in a better which is probly the shortest simplist way to sum up what the majority belives.
I agree with Sydney because she has a good point in thinking that you can see a difference in the points of view between Sherlock and Watson.
i believe that when Watson makes an opinion about Holmes he obviously has a good outlook on him. considering the fact that he must know him offly well to makes such crude and or fair remarks about him. Even though i honestly must say that a lot of people must find the book confusing in certain areas it is really a very interesting book that has a lot of mystery and suspense behind it.
I think Doyle chose Watson to narrate because the way Watson would narrate the story. Watson would simplify the story so the average reader would be better able to understand it. If Sherlock would be narrating the story average readers would not be able to understand the story.
The benefits of Doyle’s choice would be that the average reader would be able to keep their interest in the story.
The drawbacks would be that it is possible that some readers would complain that Sherlock himself is not narrating the story.
I believe that Doyle choose Watson to narrate the story because sometimes the best way to understand, relate, and enjoy a character is to see them from another’s view. Holmes is a great and well-developed character and to see the story from is perspective would be a tremendous difference but it wouldent be the same because it would almost seem like he would be too close to us ,like he was our friend and he was telling us a story, which I think most people would not enjoy. Like me, most people would rather see Holmes as a person and not be able to read his thoughts but for us to draw our own conclusions from his actions and words to others. Watson is more of a ‘regular guy’ so we can relate to him more and his thoughts about events and characters which is definitely a n upside of having Watson narrate the book. A drawback may be that its harder to see how brillently Holmes’ mind works when he solves cases it is also a little frustrating how Holmes can be quite obsecure to what he really means and what he thinks not only towards Watson but to anything or anyone. But I can tell whoever narrates the book it will be good
i totally and completely agree with NAOMI M. when she said we kind of get to guess what Holmes’ is thinking. isn’t that what a mystery is all about trying to figure things out your self?
I think Doyle choose Watson to narrate hound instead of Holmes because Holmes would make it confusing for the readers to understand the book.Unlike how Watson makes things more simpler in a way that the reader can understand the novel alot better.The benefits of having Watson narrate instead of Homles is that having Watson narrate helps us understand the mystery more and is not as complicated as Holmes.The drawbacks are that we miss out on a whole lot of information that Holmes would have stated and we dont really get to know all of Holmes opions.
I agree with Naghma’s answer because as she stated that if Holmes told the story he would give us so many clues to the answer that it would be a mystery for us readers.Which means that it would be confusing for us readers,which is what i stated in my answer.
i think that Doyle made Watson the narrator because he is Holmes’ right hand man so you know he will be there for everything.and since Holmes is a “master mind” i think the people reading the book would not understand it as easily.
the upside of Watson narrating is that we can understand the story from a normal person’s point of view.
the downside is that if something major in the story happens and Watson wasn’t there to see it, we never know about it until Holmes tells him.
I think that watson is the narrator to hounds of baskerville because he is not the the main character so we get to know that main character from the view of another person. Also we sort of get to wonder what holmes is thinking.
The upside of Watson being the narrator is that he gives us the story in the view of the outsider looking in.
The down side is that we dont get the whole little bits and piece of the puzzel until the end of the book which i guess in one way is also good
i agree with layla s.
I think that the author chose Watson to be the narrator because he is not the main focus of the story so he coulds sort of give is an insight of holmes character. And also we him narrating we really dont get the whole picture until the end of the book.
The upside of watson narrating the book is that we dont get the whole story thrown at us we get it in bits and pieces.
The down side is that we dont really get to know what holmes is thinking.
I agree with Monica M. answers
RESPONSE TO SHAUNA-KAYE S.
I agree with Shauna’s answer. She stated that Doyle chose Watson over Holmes to narrate Hound becuase, “the author wants us to notice the smaller details of the mystery and not look at it like one big picture.” That is basically what i said in my answer. But not in those words.
RESPONSE TO SHAUNA-KAYE S.
I agree with Shauna’s answer. She stated that Doyle chose Watson over Holmes to narrate Hound becuase, the author wants us to notice the smaller details of the mystery and not look at it like one big picture. That is basically what i said in my answer. But not in those words.
I think Doyle chose Watson to narrate Hound instead of making Holmes narrate it is, because Holmes is so smart, and a detective. If Holmes told the story, he would give us so many clues of what the answer is to the mystery, and that really would not make it a mystery for us, the readers. The benefits of have Watson narrate the story are, readers can actually see how Watson is feeling about everything that is going on. Also, it will help us more understand the book, since Watson is a normal thinker like most of us. Unlike Holmes, a detective. The drawbacks are, that we can not see what Holmes thinks of everything going on. And all the other charachter’s thoughts and opinions.
I agree with you Anjelica M. when you said that “Watson could tell you what happens and you would comprehend the idea of the whole story” because its true. The way he tells the story makes you want to keep on reading and I like books like that so I agree. If it were Mr. Holmes, the story would probably be boring sort of.
Why I think Doyle choose Watson to narrate Hound instead of having Holmes tell the story himself is because Watson could give a detailed account of the events that took place in the story. Watson could also tell you his point of veiw and you would be able to understand the material. Watson could tell you what happens and you would comprehend the idea of the whole story. Watson tells you things straight forward which can help by him doing this. The benefits of him telling you is that your getting someones facts and opinions on things. When he tells the story he’s actually going through the story, which can be a benefit. However the drawbacks of doing it this way is that your getting someone else’s facts. Holmes might have a different outcome on things then Watson. So you can’t actually know what he thinks or his perspective on things.
I agree with Dayna B. because Watson tells you the “whole picture” as she puts it. This helps you process things better and his words are easier to understand.
I think Doyle choose Watson to narrate the story because he give details about everything he knows about in the story. Like he tells us what he knows about holmes and what he hears and understands about the baskerville curse. The advantages of having Watson tell the story are he tells details and not what everyone else is thinking.”The whole picture”. The drawback are that sometimes he might give you the wrong information. Like in the begining of the story he tells what he thinks of the walking stick. He went into great detail and i thought he was right antil Holmes pointed out that he was actually wrong.
I agee with Justin V. because I also think Watson gets to the point. Also Holmes is smarter than Watson and i would like to hear his opinion in the story than watson.
Doyle chose Watson to narrate the hound because he is neutral to the cases that he and Mr. Holmes have. Watson doesn’t judge to quickly about a topic and can easily be a good narrator. The benefits of Watson being the narrator is that he would tell you the facts without being judgemental. The drawbacks would be that Waton would not get all of the facts straight and may miss important details.
I agree with Gerardo R. because Mr. Holmes and Watson wouldn’t know the true details of what happened those nights of the murders. They would only get what they read in the newspapers. Without Dr. Mortimer Mr. Holmes and Watson wouldn’t even have a case.
I think that Doyle chose Watson to be the author because Holmes makes things confusing throughout the story with the words he uses and I’ve noticed how Watson breaks things down for me to understand those big words that Holmes uses (which is similar to what Gerardo said in his last statement).
The benefits of Watson narrarating the story is that Watson gets down to the point and doesn’t throw in all that extra irrelevant garbage that Holmes does.
The drawbacks of Watson telling the story is because Holmes is on a higher level of thinking and understanding than Watson and it would be better to apply those methods of Holmes to our own prior knowledge.
I agree with Gerardo because brings up the fact that Holmes nor Watson completely knew of the mysterious attacks.
I think that one reason Doyle made Watson tell the story to be different from other writers who make the main character tell the story. Also, I think Doyle did this to make the story understandable. If Holmes was telling the story it could be confusing because of the way he thinks. The benefits of having Watson tell the story are that ii is easier to understand and you get to know a side character instead of the main character. The drawback to having Watson tell the story is that you don’t know how Holmes thinks.
I agree with Gerardo about neither Watson nor Holmes knows anything about the mystery. Dr. Mortimer does. Watson is very good at observing but not at seeing the whole picture unlike Holmes who sees both but not ALL the details.
I think Doyle chose Watson to narrate the story because Watson won’t tell the whole story, he tells the story in parts that he knows. If Holmes was narrating the story he would give away the answer to the mystery so quickly that the book would be much shorter and less interesting.
The benefits of having Watson narrating the bookis that we get a better view of the story and it is based on someone else’s perspective.The drawbacks is that you only get Watson’s perspective .
I agree with Shauna-Kaye S., Gyan J., and Monica M. because they said that the readers would be getting the story in parts instead of the whole entire story.
I think the arthur chose Watson to be the narrator because Watson knows the story better and has a different point of view.
The benifits of Watson narrating the story is that we get a better understanding of the story. If, Holmes were narrating the story you would proably be very confused.
The drawbacks of Watson narrating the story is that he would proably go in to a lot of detail and go on and on. Also he will keep talking about one topic.
I agree with Sydney because she stated that if Holmes were narrating the story you wouldn’t have gotten the story Watson would have told it. Also Holmes would have made the story very confusing.
I disagree with Monica M.,Shauna-Kaye S. and Gyan J.,because they said that if Holmes was narrating they could have gotten more information of the mystery,but in the story the person that knows the mystery completely is not Holmes(or Watson), the person telling the mystery is Dr. Mortimer who has close relationship with the Baskervilles. Holmes absolutely didnt know nothing about the mysterious hound attack, and also in the story ,Holmes himself says that Watson describes and makes people understand better than him.
I think Doyle chose Watson to narrate the story instead of Holmes because with Watson you can get a personal opinion of the story and know what is happening completely and clearly, and you dont have other characters making the story longer and make it confusing.The benefits of Watson telling the story is that he is describing the situations going on around him clearly, and that he is not jumping to conclusions like Holmes was doing at the beginning of the story. But some drawbacks are that we only know the story in Watson’s point of view and dont know what the other characters are thinking, we only know their actions,so it makes it more difficult to predict what they will MOST likely do as the story goes on.
I think Doyle choose Watson to narrate the story because, as other people had mentioned before , Watson wont tell the whole mystery he will only tell what he knows and not what is on Holmes thoughts he wont be giving the answer to the mystery away so quickly and the book would be much shorter. The benefits of having Watson narrate the story is that he describes the characters in the book alot so we could kind of get to know them in a way so we could think about what they might be thinking about. one of the drawbacks of having Watson narrate the story is that he wont really explain the whole idea of whats supposed to be going on because hes not one of the main characters if he was then i would understand the story just a little bit better.
i agree with Shauna-Kaye S. and Gyan J. because they said that the reader would be getting the story piece by piece instead of the whole thing.
Your correct Mr. Moshe.
Head over to Gutenberg.org and reread the conversation between Holmes and Watson.
Nhyameki, you said, “how it [the cane] got here from the city.”
Dr. Mortimer’s walking stick came to be at the doorstep because Dr. Mortimer, a country practitioner, left it there. The walking stick was a gift Dr. Mortimer received from his colleagues at the C.C.H. when he left there. You see, he married and moved to the country where he became the family doctor to the Baskervilles.
An example is that when Watson found the cane/walking stick in the office he started to explain who it could belong to by giving every detail about where it was used, for how long, who would use it or recieve one as a gift which he pointed out seeing how expencive it was; yet even though he didn’t see the big picture of how it got here from the city where he figured it was used but Holmes figured it out without giving us really any detail except what we could have found out on our own.
i think they chose watson to narrate the story so they could see the story through a different point of view.
If holmes was telling the story you proably wouldnt has gotten the story this way.
I agree with Shauna-Kaye because if Holmes would have narrated the story the reader would have had the whole mystery at one time but since Watson is narraing the story the reader is getting it piece by piece
i agree and disagree with Paige J. beacause I dont think it is the fact that Watson knows the characters its just that he sees the smaller details of the other characters. I agree with her because Watson does tell the story a bit on his opinion but he is also just telling what others in the story said. If Holmes told the story then it would be a little easier to figure it out because we would know his thoughts but with Watson we jsut get the story like a bystander. So yes Watson is the better narrator.
Doyle chose Watson to narrate the Hound instead of Holmes because Watson knows how to make people realize small things. I think the author wants us to notice the smaller details of the mystery and not look at it like one big picture.The benefits of having Watson narrate the story are that we get to see the smaller details and we also get a better view of the story. The drawbacks of having Watson narrate are that we don’t get to see the story from the detctive,Holmes, perspective. If Holmes were telling the story we might get a little more information on the mystery.
I think that the author chose Watson to narrate this because he wanted to let Watson tell from a different point of view because if Holmes would have narrate it it would have been different.The benifits to having Watson narrate it would be that we could get from another charcter is cool instead of letting the dective tell it and also the benifits would be to letting somebody tell the story so that it can be more interesting to know what they think about it. The drawbacks to it would be that the character might not look at it the way Holmes might and Holmes might tell the story really differenlty being the dective. Also Holmes might have things exciting to say making it boring if Watson wouldn’t say something at all.
Hmmm… examples, like with Watson you could only hear what Watson thinks and not Holmes, like when Dr. Mortermer came in you only heard what Watson thought and not Holmes which is a bad thing because Holmes is a little bit better than Watson and you couldn’t hear what he said about the problem.
I think the author, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, chose Watson to be the narrator rather than Holmes because Watson knows the characters extremely well. As Holmes said, Watson isn’t the smartest person in the world , but he helps people realize things that they don’t know about themselves. The benefit of having Watson narrate the tale is that he explains good and bad things about each character. For example, at the beginning of the tale, Watson said that Holmes is frequently late. He also said other things about other characters. So obviously, Watson is a better narrator. The disadvantage of having Watson as the narrator is that he tells the story on his opinion. For example, if Holmes said something it wouldn’t be exactly what he said because Watson would explain it in his own perspective.
Now you’re onto it. Can you find an example of this is in the story?
I forgot the drawbacks with Watson, : Watson may not be where Holmes is at the same time and that he may have heard what Holmes said.
Why I think Doyle choose Watson to narrate the story is that Watson may think very differently than Mr. Holmes and may think that Holmes may be wrong about certain things and that Watson may think of a another idea. And maybe because Mr. Holmes smokes alot and maybe messed up his memory?
I also agree with Paige that Mr. Holmes has a ego that is kinda wierd so….
I just read period three’s discussion and it got me thinking a little more about why Doyle picked Watson. I agree with the part of period three’s discussion about Watson being an average peson that we can understand and that not knowing Holme’s thoughts make it more of a mystery. What i have to add is that it said Watson is a person who can get all the details but still will not see the big picture; so that would be making the story a little more deeper in the story that if it was Holmes who would see only the big aspect of the mystery leaving us with les information amd giving the mystery away easier because he is the main character.
Nhyameki L-
You’re just going to have to check back throughout the weekend. Don’t drive yourself crazy, though. Just check back once a day.
Trust me, one of these days here, you’ll have something to respond to.
Enjoy your weekend.
Someone said, “The benefits to this are that Watson has a whole different idea of the story.”
Give examples, please. How does Watson see the story differently than Holmes?
Opps is there anyone there to discuss this with
I there anyone on here to discuss this,
Paige & Gyan I disagree with the both of you because you don’t only get Watsons view you get everyone’s because Watson is just telling you like he heard & saw it done as if he were telling the story for investagation.
The reason I beleave Doyle had Watson instead of Holmes himself tell the story is because you get the story in full without all the personal opinions of the main character Holmes except the importent ones that make the story. The advantages of having Watson tell the story is that he is seeing everything that is happening or is informed so he can give you the story in a complete ideal manner. The drawbacks are that you don’t get the complete joy of feeling like your in the middle of the story because Watson is really just a side character.
Gyan I agree with because Mr.watson and Mr.holmes have different personalities with Doyle who had chose Mr. watson he would able to read with any question, but with Mr.Holmes he has an ego so there would be something said.
the benefits are is Mr .watson can read the story without saying any thing because he is obidient not like Mr holmes.
The drawbacks are like Mr.holmes is has an ego and wouldn’t have the trait Mr.watson has to read story without a opinion.
Doyle choose watson to narrate the story because watson and Mr.holmes have distinctive thoughts of the hound story.
The benefits are watson is
What are the drawbacks of doing it this way?
Doyle chose Watson to narrate the story instead of Holmes because Watson has a different perspective of the story than Holmes does. The benefits to this are that Watson has a whole different idea of the story. The drawbacks are that you only get Watson’s perspective