BS: Works too successful for their own good

Subject: BS: Works too successful for their own good
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 May 12 - 01:48 PM

Some works are too successful for their own good. Look, e.g., at that familiar novel, RLS's The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. We have all heard of it, and know before we even open it what happens in it. But, if you try to come fresh to it, you will find it is a really well-constructed mystery, saving till a finely-judged denouement the solution to the mystery of who this evil and evasive Mr Hyde is, and how he contrives to keep appearing and disappearing.

But fresh·to·it is what it is impossible to come; and has been since its first appearance. Everyone knows the solution before they even pick the book up, and any sense of surprise is lost.

That's what you get for adding a phrase to the language!

~Michael~

One could make some of the same points in re, say, Frankenstein.

Other examples?

Subject: RE: BS: Works too successful for their own good
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 06 May 12 - 01:59 PM

I nominate Dickens's A Christmas Carol!

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Works too successful for their own good
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 May 12 - 02:04 PM

Why, Dave? I mean, what great surprise has Xmas Carol supposedly got at the end which is upstaged by one's previous osmotic knowledge of the plot? That is the phenomenon I was most concerned with.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Works too successful for their own good
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 May 12 - 02:44 PM

If a book depends on surprise, it has a limited shelf life. I've read A Christmas Carol 7 or 8 times and have seen film adaptations about 20 times. Some stories are classics.

Subject: RE: BS: Works too successful for their own good
From: gnu
Date: 06 May 12 - 02:47 PM

Huh? A first time reader doesn't know the story as a whole, no?

Subject: RE: BS: Works too successful for their own good
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 May 12 - 02:53 PM

It's not so much the 'dependency' on surprise, as the fact that a book's nature has been altered from the author's intention by all its secrets being known in advance, thus robbing it of any climactic effect when read. I mean, "Dr J & Mr H" remains well worth reading in its own right even so; but the adoption of the character's name[s] as a cliché of everyday speech has robed it of much of its intended effect. Nothing to be done about it. I have often wondered what Stevenson made of this ~~ the effect, the adoption of the phrase "a Jekyll-&-Hyde character" was almost immediate, and the book was a success nevertheless. But artistically it seems to me to have suffered from this.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Works too successful for their own good
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 06 May 12 - 03:49 PM

Pre-knowledge of the denouement does not destroy my sense of discovery upon reading a well-written book; e. g. Conrad, RLS, Eco, a. o. I seem to find something "new" each time I turn to one of these books- perhaps like Jack the Sailor does.

Subject: RE: BS: Works too successful for their own good
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 May 12 - 04:20 PM

Yes, Q & Jack. But however many times one reads a book, one of them must be the first. I observe in general that if the element of surprise is lacking in that first reading, pleasure is lost. Once it has had its effect, an infinity of subsequent rereadings can be enjoyed, often with something new being discovered each time. But a book which has disappointed on first read will scarcely be revisited, will it?

Subject: RE: BS: Works too successful for their own good
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 06 May 12 - 04:32 PM

"A book which has disappointed on firsr read" (or first paragraph)- now why did that book by Danielle Steel I picked up on the bus impress me in that way?
With regard to her books the sentence could end, "will never be revisited."

Subject: RE: BS: Works too successful for their own good
From: Jack Campin
Date: 06 May 12 - 04:53 PM

Stevenson once wrote that he regretted being the only person in the world who could never read "Treasure Island" for the first time.

Subject: RE: BS: Works too successful for their own good
From: Rapparee
Date: 06 May 12 - 04:58 PM

Why, then, do I re-read Shakespeare, Chaucer, Beowulf, Mark Twain? I know how Huck Finn turns out and likewise Connecticut Yankee, The Canterbury Tales and even Treatise Upon The Astrolabe. Garcia Marquez's Cien Años de Soledad or Cervantes or...well, you get the idea.

Don Quixote has been a film, a Broadway musical...I know the ending, and yet I re-read it.

I think that it's in the language, in the power and richness of the word.

Muchos años después, frente al pelotón de fusilamiento, el coronel Aureliano Buendía había de recordar aquella tarde remota en que su padre lo llevó a conocer el hielo. Macondo era entonces una aldea de veinte casas de barro y cañabrava construidas a la orilla de un río de aguas diáfanas que se precipitaban por un lecho de piedras pulidas, blancas y enormes como huevos prehistóricos. El mundo era tan reciente, que muchas cosas carecían de nombre, y para
mencionarlas había que señalarías con el dedo. Todos los años, por el mes de marzo, una familia de gitanos desarrapados plantaba su carpa cerca de la aldea, y con un grande alboroto de pitos y timbales daban a conocer los nuevos inventos. Primero llevaron el imán. Un gitano corpulento, de barba montaraz y manos de gorrión, que se presentó con el nombre de Melquiades, hizo una truculenta demostración pública de lo que él mismo llamaba la octava maravilla de los sabios
alquimistas de Macedonia. Fue de casa en casa arrastrando dos lingotes metálicos, y todo el mundo se espantó al ver que los calderos, las pailas, las tenazas y los anafes se caían de su sitio,
y las maderas crujían por la desesperación de los clavos y los tornillos tratando de desenclavarse, y aun los objetos perdidos desde hacía mucho tiempo aparecían por donde más se les había buscado, y se arrastraban en desbandada turbulenta detrás de los fierros mágicos de Melquíades.

Lovely!

Subject: RE: BS: Works too successful for their own good
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 May 12 - 06:24 PM

---Why, then, do I re-read Shakespeare, Chaucer, Beowulf, Mark Twain? I know how Huck Finn turns out and likewise Connecticut Yankee, The Canterbury Tales and even Treatise Upon The Astrolabe. Garcia Marquez's Cien Años de Soledad or Cervantes or...well, you get the idea.---
.,,.,.

No, Rap: it is you who won't 'get the idea': you once read every one of the works you mention FOR THE FIRST TIME. The first time you read Huck Finn, you didn't realise that Widow Douglas had set Jim free in her Will & Tom was only 'rescuing' him 'for the style'; or that the body in the floating cabin was Huck's father. Don't kid yourself ~~ you didn't. If you had then it wouldn't have worked the magic that makes you [& me ~~ one of the world's really great novels!] go back to it again & again.

There is of course more than one sort of surprise. With Shaxper or Chaucer, often one knows the story in advance, but it is the felicitous magical phrase that can surprise & bring the frisson. But some such is essential to make the work part of oneself in the way you rubricate.

Subject: RE: BS: Works too successful for their own good
From: Rapparee
Date: 06 May 12 - 07:18 PM

Problem is, I read these for the first time so long ago that I simply don't remember if I was surprised or not. I think I was about eight when I first read "Huck Finn" and started the Holmes Canon -- precocious little runt. I must have been in 9th grade when I first read Chaucer (in "translation") -- I would have been about 14 or 15 years old then and yes, we read "The Miller's Tale."

Subject: RE: BS: Works too successful for their own good
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 11 May 12 - 09:48 AM

I admit that I misread MtheGM's premise when I nominated
A Christmas Carol. But my attitude toward ACC is
still one of intense ennui. The story was all right
the first time, I suppose, or even the sixth or tenth
time, but how many gallons of sugar syrup can one swallow,
and on how many occasions? I pretty well like every
OTHER story from Dickens I've read, but this one was thin
and syrupy to begin with, and went downhill from there.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Works too successful for their own good
From: Wesley S
Date: 11 May 12 - 10:31 AM

"Murder on the Orient Express. Even though I knew who the killer{s} were I can still enjoy the ride to get to the solution.

Subject: RE: BS: Works too successful for their own good
From: GUEST,Whistle Stop
Date: 11 May 12 - 10:46 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Works too successful for their own good
From: GUEST,Whistle Stop
Date: 11 May 12 - 10:49 AM

Me again; sorry about that.

I would nominate Beethoven's Fifth and Ninth symphonies: the fifth because the theme has become trite from overplaying (out of context), and our familiarity with it breeds contempt; the ninth because the only part people remember, or seemingly want to hear, is a portion of the fourth movement (the Ode to Joy), which is probably the least interesting part from a musical standpoint.

Subject: RE: BS: Works too successful for their own good
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 11 May 12 - 12:08 PM

I'm a bit like someone from Groundhog Day, because I read and re-read the same old books dozens of times, and still get the pleasure from them that I did the first time round. Obviously, I know 'how they end', but it's the language and the atmosphere that always please me. If I've been reading Jane Austen or Dickens, or Alexander McCall Smith, it's as if I've been living in the book, always an uplifting experience. (Don't tell anyone, but even Enid Blyton's books transport me back to the fifties ans sixties. Lashings of ginger beer!) In a changing world, I cling to the familiar, I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: Works too successful for their own good
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 May 12 - 12:48 PM

Absolutely, Eliza. I am indeed the same. I have so many favourites, and 'comfort' books; from Mansfield Park & Emma [how many times must I have read those? 20? or 50? or 100? ~ no idea], via Treasure Island, Huckleberry Finn, Wodehouse and Dorothy L Sayers and Evelyn Waugh and George MacDonald Fraser's Flashman, to Julian Fellowes' Snobs, probably the latest entrant to my canon. The William books were probably the earliest, followed by the Sayers [on whom I have written entries for three literary reference books].

But my point, as throughout the thread, is that they must all have made the impact on first reading, or I should not have read them a second time ~~ let alone a 22nd!

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Works too successful for their own good
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 11 May 12 - 02:32 PM

I agree, MtheGM, because some literature I was introduced to in the sixth form and at Uni didn't impress or inspire me at all. I never did re-read, for example D H Lawrence, Middlemarch, or any of Joseph Conrad's books, or Balzac, Albert Camus, Rimbaud, Goethe. In fact, I must be a fussy old thing! Funnily enough, your list sits on my bookshelves almost in its entirety. Mansfield Park! I'm almost sure I could reproduce it verbatim; the book is literally worn out. And Just William! Looking back, I think I've lived 'in' books as much as I've lived 'in' the real world! Should've been a contemplative nun ((which I once seriously considered); they read A LOT and have the time and the peace to do so without interruption!

Subject: RE: BS: Works too successful for their own good
From: Charley Noble
Date: 11 May 12 - 03:37 PM

The same might be said of the Bible, but then I never did read it straight through from the beginning. I went straight to "Revelations."

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Works too successful for their own good
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 11 May 12 - 03:41 PM

...where presumably, all was revealed!

Subject: RE: BS: Works too successful for their own good
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 11 May 12 - 03:47 PM

"the Ode to Joy.......is probably the least interesting part from a musical standpoint."

But I keep hoping that this time they'll get the words the right way round.

Subject: RE: BS: Works too successful for their own good
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 May 12 - 04:40 PM

Eliza ~ Thank you for your response. I admire, though don't all that much love, most Conrad, though do like The Secret Agent and Under Western Eyes; do in fact love Middlemarch, and Felix Holt and Silas Marner; and hate Lawrence with a horrible hate [except for his underrated plays, oddly, which I think much better than his novels]. All those others ... yes indeed.

Glad you share my feelings for Mansfield Park, which I regard as perhaps the greatest novel ever written.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Works too successful for their own good
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 11 May 12 - 04:56 PM

And yet Mansfield Park is not much known or lauded. Some commentaries I've read take a rather too modern view and consider Fanny Price as over-submissive, passive and, in short,a wimp! ("Fotherington-Thomas is wet and a weed...") You're the first person I've ever heard 'regard it as the greatest novel ever written' and it cheers me, because I've thought so too for more than half a century!

Subject: RE: BS: Works too successful for their own good
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 May 12 - 05:33 PM

Mary Wolstoncraft Shelley's Frankenstein: or the Modern Prometheus is a brilliant novel. It is a classic of the Gothic genre and is often said to be the first actual science fiction novel, because it is based on an extrapolation from known science at the time, rather than fantasy.

Unfortunately, it has suffered at the hands of the motion picture industry.

In 1816, Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin and her soon-to-be husband, poet Percy Shelley, along with a Dr. John Polidori and another friend, joined Lord Byron in Switzerland, with the idea of spending a pleasant summer together. But a year before, there had been a titanic volcanic eruption in Indonesia (made Krakatoa look like a firecracker), that lofted megatons of volcanic ash into the upper atmosphere that drifted around the earth and affected the world's weather for a couple of years afterward. In Europe and elsewhere, 1816 was known as "the year without a summer." They found themselves rained in, and soon became bored stiff with their confinement. So they decide to amuse each other by writing "ghost stories."

Mary (all of 18 years old at the time) had heard of the works of Luigi Galvani, along with Alessandro Volta, and their experiments with "Galvanism" (electricity). And how they discovered that, by applying an electric shock to a dead frog, they could make its legs jerk and twitch. With this idea to play with, Mary said that the idea for the story itself came to her in a dream.

Both of young Dr. Victor Frankenstein's parents had died of scarlet fever when he was very young, and, as a doctor, he was obsessed with the idea that medical science seemed so powerless at times. So he turned his considerable scientific and medical education to the idea of restoring life, if at all possible.

Mary does not describe the means by which Frankenstein strove to do this, other than references to "Galvanism." No Benjamin Franklin style kite-flying in the middle of a thunder storm and no mad cries of "It's ALIVE! It's ALIVE!"

Nor, for that matter, does Dr. Frankenstein have a hunchbacked lab assistant named "Igor." And although the thing he is creating is made up of spare parts harvested from cadavers intended for dissection and medical research, it is not depicted as having electrodes sticking out of its neck or a stitched-up gash running down its forehead. Nor does it lumber about in thick-soled combat boots. It's quite agile and athletic, in fact.

When Frankenstein applies his undescribed procedure, nothing happens. He thinks his experiment is a failure, and he goes to bed exhausted. Then, in a fevered dream, he awakes and sees his creation standing by his bed looking down at him. He faints! When he awakens in the morning, he thinks it was a nightmare. Until he goes to his laboratory and discovers that his creation is gone!

Later, Dr. Frankenstein and his creation meet. And the creature tells him what happened to him and what he has been doing since he first awoke to consciousness and found himself wandering in the woods. Almost in ecstacy, he gloried in the sights, sounds, and smells, the songs of birds . . . and wondered how he got there, who he was, and—what he was.

The creature is quite articulate, and does NOT talk in groans and grunts. This section contains some very lyrical writing.

Then the story goes on from there. The creature makes one request of Frankenstein. Which Frankenstein agrees to. Then he reneges on. And that's when it hits the fan!

This novel is bloody brilliant. And although some entertaining horror movies have been derived from it, none of them measure up to the richness—and the depth—of Mary Shelley's novel.

Written by an eighteen-year-old girl.

Read it. You'll be surprised.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Works too successful for their own good
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 11 May 12 - 05:38 PM

Eliza, I too am a reader and re-reader and re-reader (and so on into the night.)

Notably, my dog-eared copies of The Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion. As well as Tolkien's posthumous volumes, The Book of Lost Tales", "The Book of Unfinished Tales" and so on. And then Tolkien's shorter (though I am reluctant to call them lesser) stories, such as Farmer Giles of Ham or Leaf by Niggle, and their ilk.

I have, however read The Hobbit only once, and do not expect to do so again. Comparatively thin stuff.

And Patrick O'Brian's Aubrey-Maturin novel sequence (often referred to as Master and Commander) is a never-failing delight to me.

My Beautiful Wife, a classical musician, is nonplussed by, and I think scornful of, my repetitive nonstop reading of these and other favorites. My reply is essentially that "Because Tolkien" (or O'Brian) "writes SO WELL! SO BEAUTIFULLY! You don't object to listening to Beethoven's 9th or Rachmaninoff 4 just because you've heard them in the past, do you?" I always fail to convince her, though.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Works too successful for their own good
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 May 12 - 12:30 AM

Ah, Eliza: haven't we all suffered from those who just don't get Fanny Price! ~~ what it must have taken, with that temperament and under those pressures, to refuse to give in to a proposition which flies in the face of all the principles which have blessed her, in contrast to those of all those 'superiors' among whom her lot has cast her ~~ even Sir Thomas, as always principled but imperceptive. Even Edmund's principles can't keep up when he becomes besotted with the obnoxious Mary Crawford. She takes no pride in or pleasure from these tenets: indeed they bring her nothing but grief. But she steadfastly knows what is right and what isn't, and nothing can divert her from this knowledge. And those who purport to admire the Crawfords, and feel JA used them unfairly, must have been asleep when they read that masterful chapter in which Henry outlines his plans for Fanny to Mary, who can only reply, in protection of her 'dearest friend', "Aaah: don't hurt the poor ickle thing too much!": one of the most spine-chilling passages of writing anywhere!.

Absolute moral magic. I do get cross with those who can't see it. So nice to find a fellow-admirer at last.

Tastes vary, of course, Uncle D. Can't do Tolkien myself at any price. But do agree about O'Brian, and would add C S Forester to my list moreover.


~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Works too successful for their own good
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 May 12 - 01:22 AM

BTW, Eliza: "Fotherington-Thomas is uterly wet and a weed, and i will tough him up". Moreover - "He is a girlie."!

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Works too successful for their own good
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 12 May 12 - 10:38 AM

LOL MtheGM! Poor old Fotherington-Thomas! I do love Down With Skool! (Wasn't Nigel Molesworth's school called St Custard's?) As for Fanny Price, she seemed to me to be the only character in the book who had unshakeable moral principles and in spite of her timidity held her ground, as you say. Not a weak lady but a very strong one. I do find Mary Crawford witty and droll, but somehow despicable too.
Uncle DaveO, glad yet another contributor likes to read and re-read. I'm obviously not so eccentric as I thought!

Subject: RE: BS: Works too successful for their own good
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 13 May 12 - 05:27 AM

The first time you read Huck Finn, you didn't realise that Widow Douglas had set Jim free in her Will & Tom was only 'rescuing' him 'for the style'; or that the body in the floating cabin was Huck's father.

Oh, give the plot away then! I was going to read it but there's no point now …. mutter, mutter, mumble …..

Subject: RE: BS: Works too successful for their own good
From: DMcG
Date: 13 May 12 - 09:00 AM

Ah, as a skoller, then, what are your views on the character derivations of Walter in the Beano and Fotherington-Thomas? I remember wondering which came first when I was around 8, but that was not the kind of thing encyclopedias helped with in those days. Now, a Google search suggests the characters were created at very nearly the same time - but which came first, I wonder?

Subject: RE: BS: Works too successful for their own good
From: Bill D
Date: 13 May 12 - 12:36 PM

Reading thru this thread, it dawns on me that some of our brains work quiet differently.
I do not read as much as I used to...partly because of several years of vision problems which made it hard to focus at one distance. But I still have lists of books I try to re-read whenever possible.....and I find that, although I 'know' some aspects of the plot, I do not always remember "how it comes out" or even exactly how major twists & turns develop. It is very much like reading a story that was described to me at one time.
As many of you know, I am a woodturner, and I had much the same issue in making certain design features in things like lidded jars as I do in reading.....I didn't 'remember' exactly how I had proceeded thru steps. (After numerous repetitions of the same procedure, I can then remember & describe it pretty well.) Thus, my display at a show is always different as I seem to have difficulty making 'the same thing twice'. (Of course, over time, there ARE very close repetitions, as certain forms are almost automatic).
I seem to remember general conceptual formats and that I LIKED certain books....and can remember titles and authors and can even quote paragraphs from some....but rereading a book is 'almost' like reading it for the first time. I simply do not always know who is going to do what or what the final outcome will be.

(I have the same problem with my life in general...I have difficulty remembering what events came in what order... or the dates. I know people who mentally catalog it all as if taking noted for a biography. Me? I just rerun little movies of items of interest and have to sit down and WORK to calculate exactly when they happened.)

I'm just beginning to re-read Isaac Asimov's "Foundation" series, and am quite curious to see how it all develops... ☺.

Subject: RE: BS: Works too successful for their own good
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 13 May 12 - 12:43 PM

DMcG, apparently, Walter the Softy first appeared in Beano Issue 557, on 21st March 1953. Down With Skool was first published in October 1953. So Walter wins!

Subject: RE: BS: Works too successful for their own good
From: DMcG
Date: 14 May 12 - 07:54 AM

Maybe, Eliza, but characters in comics were probably mere days from first concept to publication, whereas FT was in a book, with a long gestation period involving editors and publishers. I'm not convinced we can be *quite* sure yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Works too successful for their own good
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 14 May 12 - 09:39 AM

I wonder if their respective creators knew eachother, or communicated from time to time?

Subject: RE: BS: Works too successful for their own good
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 14 May 12 - 02:54 PM

A bit late here, but my thought is that the plot line is a necessarily evil, particularly in mysteries(where it is most necessary), where we are really interested in the chase itself. The resolution is always a letdown, if for no other reason than that it signals the end of our journey.

The final exposition is often the worst part in a mystery, because after an energetic romp, the writer and reader are compelled to sit thru an accounting of it all, much in the manner of preparing an expense report.

"Huckleberry Finn" ending has been a problem for literary essayists since it was published, and, would Stevenson have paired Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde in the title of his book, had he not wanted us to associate them from the beginning?

Here are Twenty Rules for Writing Detective Stories that are impossible for even the best writers to adhere to:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Works too successful for their own good
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 14 May 12 - 09:00 PM

Stim, I have to thank you for linking us to that essay.

BUT "impossible for even the best writers to adhere to"?
No way. Difficult, yes; even "almost impossible", perhaps.

If that essay sets up a real impossibility, as you suggest, then there are and will be no detective stories. Or certainly no GOOD detective
stories.

But to write a really proper detective story, applying those rules (as must be done) is damnably difficult.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Works too successful for their own good
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 15 May 12 - 12:03 AM

"...would Stevenson have paired Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde in the title of his book, had he not wanted us to associate them from the beginning?"
.,,.,.

Oh, yes, why not? After all, the mystery which isn't because [see OP &c], is, just who is this mysterious Mr Hyde, whence does he come, and what precisely is the hold he has on the respectable and virtuous Dr Jekyll? In other words, the relationship between these two men is the book's subject, so why not link their names together in the title? We don't think, on reading or hearing the title, that Romeo is Juliet, or the Master is Margharita, or Mr Perrin must be Mr Traill, do we?

Subject: RE: BS: Works too successful for their own good
From: Bert
Date: 15 May 12 - 12:15 AM

Stim, those twenty rules have completely wiped out just about everything that poor old Agatha Christie wrote.

Subject: RE: BS: Works too successful for their own good
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 15 May 12 - 03:55 AM

With respect, MthGM, it strikes me that DrJ/MrH is a study in the dualities that exist within the individual, and so it is necessary for the reader to have the sense from the beginning than Jekyll and Hyde are one.

In the first chapter, when Enfield tells Utterson the story of Hyde trampling a little girl, and subsequently paying her family with a check signed by Dr. Jekyll, he says "a man does not, in real life, walk into a cellar door at four in the morning and come out with another man's cheque for close upon a hundred pounds."   So thoughtful readers have a pretty good idea of what's coming.

Subject: RE: BS: Works too successful for their own good
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 15 May 12 - 08:49 AM

Ah, yes: 'thoughtful' readers ~~ the very people who solve a mystery early on. But that was not RLS's intention. He meant for the mystery to persist, as to what hold H had on J to get him to sign a cheque for such a purpose, gaining access via that mysterious side-door, &c. It all comes out bit by bit, according to the rules postulated in that post of yours, until the climax. But surely appreciaton doesn't depend on the reader's knowing the outcome before the start ~~ that would be as crazy as Dorothy L Sayers writing on the title page of Busman's Honeymoon "It was Crutchley. He weighted the cactus pot with shot & hung it over the radiogram to fall on Nokes's head". It was the adoption of the phrase "a J&H" into the language that blew the intentions.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Works too successful for their own good
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 15 May 12 - 01:31 PM

I don't know what RLS intention was, but I believe that he was not generally a writer of detective novels. It seems to me that we are meant to follow Utterson in his attempt to solve his mystery(which may or not be our mystery, depending on how 'thoughtful' we are), which is the relationship between J&H, while we reflect on a different and larger mystery concerning the dualities inherent in each of us.

At any rate, as you may guess, and at your behest, I am rereading the story, and am most gratified to find that RLS has been redeemed from the Children's Library, and put back in the main reading room, where he has always deserved to be.

I have also stumbled across a recent television version of "Treasure Island" which I mean to watch this evening;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Works too successful for their own good
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 15 May 12 - 02:28 PM

"Strange case" in the title seems to me to fix it to a just-about-getting-going genre ~~ post-Poe, post-BleakHouse; post-TheMoonstone; year before first Holmes, Study In Scarlet. Indications that intended to follow new fashion for mysteries, IMO. & Stevenson's surely-master work [tho unfinished], Weir Of Hermiston, has strong detective elements.

~M~