21–30 of 31 posts
Holmes is the great rational detective. Father Brown the great moral detective. Both English. But what would Arsène Lupin, the great romantic thief from France, teach? Great artists steal.
Holmes is the great rational detective. Father Brown the great moral detective. Both English. But what would Arsène Lupin, the great romantic thief from France, teach? Great artists steal.
That is a false dichotomy. Morality is a matter of reason and every human action is a matter of morality. The decision to reason correctly and submit to reason, as opposed to engaging in sophistry or frustrating and subverting reason to smuggle in immoral action, is a moral decision.
Everyone has heard of Sherlock Holmes, but probably fewer (in the US) have ever heard of Father Brown. It’s a great series (from the BBC?) that I recommend to anyone looking for a nice calm detective series.
I'd really recommend the books rather than the series (though the latter isn't bad). Chesterton is one of my favourite writers, and the stories are short and easily digestible.
Holmes is the great rational detective. Father Brown the great moral detective. Both English. But what would Arsène Lupin, the great romantic thief from France, teach? Great artists steal.
(Side note, but I’ve produced all-but-one of the US-PD Arsène Lupins for Standard Ebooks, and am currently transcribing Memoirs of Arsène Lupin —new for 2021—to go up soon. All free and libre: https://standardebooks.org/collections/arsene-lupin )
I think there's just one lesson, a no-brainer, to be learned here: That any halfway competent author can make his character appear superior in whatever way he chooses, because he obviously and literally has complete control of the narrative. Implying that the rational character of Sherlock Holmes is morally challenged when compared with a character acting predominantly on his gut feelings is, I think, a contemptible…
Sure, Marlowe is the quintessential hard-boiled private detective, but when you read the books you discover that he is largely an intuitive/emotional detective. He applies logic/reasoning and his knowledge of the world he lives in to his intuition/emotions but he's not all-knowing. Marlowe doesn't have the mystery solved on page 23 when the reader still has 174 pages left to go.
While still a fantasy, I tend to think Marlowe is a more realistic detective than Holmes ever was - or at least, one with whom I can identify more readily.
I think there is always a temptation, a danger, for those of us in STEM careers to hold our own feelings and emotions (not to mention those of others) in contempt, as if they are somehow invalid by definition.
We shouldn't do that! Instead, we should accept the emotional and intuitive aspects of ourselves and try to reason through them, understand where those feelings are coming from and make conscious decisions about how to move forward.
Sorry to preach! I just love fictional detectives and the applicability of the lessons they can teach us to the real world. :)
I think there's just one lesson, a no-brainer, to be learned here: That any halfway competent author can make his character appear superior in whatever way he chooses, because he obviously and literally has complete control of the narrative. Implying that the rational character of Sherlock Holmes is morally challenged when compared with a character acting predominantly on his gut feelings is, I think, a contemptible…
I think there's just one lesson, a no-brainer, to be learned here: That any halfway competent author can make his character appear superior in whatever way he chooses, because he obviously and literally has complete control of the narrative. Implying that the rational character of Sherlock Holmes is morally challenged when compared with a character acting predominantly on his gut feelings is, I think, a contemptible…
I grew up a huge Sherlock Holmes fan. But as I have gotten older (39 in a couple of months), I much prefer Philip Marlowe and the writing of Raymond Chandler. Sure, Marlowe is the quintessential hard-boiled private detective, but when you read the books you discover that he is largely an intuitive/emotional detective. He applies logic/reasoning and his knowledge of the world he lives in to his intuition/emotions but…
> Instead, we should accept the emotional and intuitive aspects of ourselves and try to reason through them, understand where those feelings are coming from and make conscious decisions about how to move forward.
I agree completely. I'm distrustful of my emotions (if I feel uncomfortable with someone, is it because of things I know, or things I assume? Both are possible), but it's a fact that I experience them, and that they affect my day to day. Reason isn't what gets me out of bed in the morning. Emotions likely evolved because they were useful for survival. They can be very useful for directing our attention, or they can mislead us. If I feel something, I try to figure out if it's based on things I know instead of things I imagine, and then I try to act.
I think there's just one lesson, a no-brainer, to be learned here: That any halfway competent author can make his character appear superior in whatever way he chooses, because he obviously and literally has complete control of the narrative. Implying that the rational character of Sherlock Holmes is morally challenged when compared with a character acting predominantly on his gut feelings is, I think, a contemptible…
No bias obvious in this comment :D
I think there's just one lesson, a no-brainer, to be learned here: That any halfway competent author can make his character appear superior in whatever way he chooses, because he obviously and literally has complete control of the narrative. Implying that the rational character of Sherlock Holmes is morally challenged when compared with a character acting predominantly on his gut feelings is, I think, a contemptible…
I grew up a huge Sherlock Holmes fan. But as I have gotten older (39 in a couple of months), I much prefer Philip Marlowe and the writing of Raymond Chandler. Sure, Marlowe is the quintessential hard-boiled private detective, but when you read the books you discover that he is largely an intuitive/emotional detective. He applies logic/reasoning and his knowledge of the world he lives in to his intuition/emotions but…