There is a scene in chapter one of the Sign of the Four that shines a light on the absurdity of how Sherlock Holmes solves crimes. The first step of Holmes' method is to have ludicrous amounts of detailed information about every topic at instantaneous recall. Second, you have to accept that definitive conclusions can be drawn based on casual observations and an encyclopedic knowledge of everything. Watson enters their apartment and Holmes observes that Watson sent a telegraph at the post office on Wigmore Street. Holmes points out that he recognizes the dirt on Watson's shoe and it can only be found in a particular London neighborhood and since there is construction outside the post office Watson must have gone there. If Holmes had suggested that Watson had been to Belgium because he recognized the dirt on his shoe I might have believed it, but I refuse to believe that the dirt in various London streets is so unique that it can be identified without a microscope. Secondly Holmes claims to have deduced that Watson sent a telegram based on his observations. Deduction means you have removed all other options and there is no other explanation remaining. What Holmes is doing is induction not deduction. He has proposed a plausible explanation but there are other possible explanations. Everything definitive thing Holmes claims to deduce is actually just a possible explanation based on casual observations and inductive reasoning.

Doyle is a very talented mystery writer and his stories are always entertaining, although Study in Scarlet has a massive digression in which half the novel turns into a Western set in Utah with a bunch of evil Mormons. I enjoy Doyle's writing, but it bugs me sometimes that people aspire to Holmes' level of brilliant deduction when Doyle had to know it was all smoke and mirrors.

Task 3:  Tell us: What author’s books would you consider yourself a veteran of (i.e., by which author have you read particularly many books – or maybe even all of them)?

I'm a completist and a re-reader-ist so there are a few authors I could use for this task, but really there can be only one.  And he's Scottish, so the possibly obscure movie/TV reference works.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.  Sherlock Holmes.  The former one of only two authors I'd go out of my way for the chance to have dinner with (assuming death is not an obstacle) and the latter my numero uno literary hero.

I have read the entire Sherlock Holmes canon multiple times and as you can see above, I own several editions of both the complete works and individual titles.  I'm pretty sure they're just the beginning too, because if I thought it was hard to pass by additional editions of Jane Austen's works (I have at least 2 of all her works, 3 of some, and I think I'm up to 4 P&P editions) it's downright impossible for me to pass by a good Sherlock Holmes - especially an older edition.

Even though I've read all the stories at least 4 times, there is a lot I learn every time - things I've forgotten or overlooked, or simply 'get' because of new life experiences.  This makes me hesitant to go toe-to-toe with anyone over most of the stories themselves, but I definitely consider myself enough of a 'veteran' to wade into any conversation about Holmes and Watson as characters with confidence.

Series: Lady Sherlock #1

This was a pleasant surprise. I honestly wasn't sure I would like it because I was coming into it pretty cold and I'm always a bit leery of late 19th century historical fiction. Too many authors just try to be clever when it comes to approaches to technology and feminist movements (and it doesn't quite work). I didn't feel like Thomas was trying to shoehorn modern women into 19th century characters. Sure, many of the women felt frustrated with their options in the book, but they weren't jumping ahead, so to speak.

I liked how Watson played out and how Baker Street came about. I honestly thought that Charlotte had something else up her sleeve at the start because she was being kind of stupid. I guess it just goes to show she's not infallible or inhuman. I was a little disappointed at how Moriarty played into things at the end but oh well. I might be tempted to say that it was the best gender-swapped Sherlock Homes that I've read but I've also read The Tea Master and the Detective, which is a gender-swapped Sherlock Homes with Watson as a spaceship in a Vietnamese-inspired futuristic empire...so I'm not sure that'd be true. Anyway, it was a really good read overall.

Now I just need to decide whether to listen to the next book in the series right away or wait till September 1st so I can have it count towards Halloween Bingo. Kate Reading, the narrator, is excellent, by the way. I'm counting this as my pre-read for Halloween Bingo 2018 for the "Diverse voices" square.

This is my opportunity to start on a library hold that came earlier than I expected. This way starting early should also not interfere with finishing up my other books this week (since it's an audiobook). I'm probably going to use this for "Diverse Voices".

So far it's going quite well!

Done with A Study in Scarlet. I really liked the first chapter of the second part, but like in my previous read, as the story unfolded, I started to get antsy to be done with it.

I'm listening to The Sign of the Four's Intro now. I did not know Doyle respected Wilde so far as to keep praising his work after the trials. There is also this amazing meta aspect, where Fry is concerned too that is making me smile.