уиии!

[Св.]

В новой книге Фрайни Фишер встречается с неким Рупертом Шеффилдом, который читает лекцию по "науке дедукции" (И конечно, у него есть спутник, безнадежно влюбленный в него Джон Уилсон, бывший военный медик, раненый в ногу). Описывается он так:

A beautiful voice. A voice that was English, educated without being shrill, deep, rich and perfectly pitched. A voice which could only be compared to Irish coffee with chocolate on top.
She looked at the speaker.
Oh, my.
He was tall and slender. He moved with the assurance of a dancer, occasionally flinging out a hand for emphasis or to point out an equation on the lantern slide. He had a mop of dark curls and a long, pale, sculptured face. Greek? If so, Ancient Greek. Strong. Disdainful, as though he knew that his audience couldn’t possibly be bright enough to really appreciate him. And the oddest eyes that Phryne had ever seen. Liquid, quick, set at a cat-like angle, chillingly observant and, Phryne could swear, in some lights lavender or silver.

@настроение: хихичет в углу

@темы: .книги

Comments

[Irit]

Кто-то со вкусом насмотрелся ВВС? )))))

[Св.]

Irit, о да ))) И двигается он "как большой кот, пантера".
Я чувствую, что дальше будет еще круче - это же только начало, и Фрайни уже явно точит зубки на Шерлока Руперта и его дедукцию ))) А еще я надеюсь, что она будет сводничать и помогать своему старому другу Джону в обретении сердечного счастья.

[рика инверс вредная и ленивая]

держите нас в курсе,пожалуйста

[Св.]

По итогам первой трети книжки:

спойлеры

это очаровательный джонлоковый фанфик, вписанный как одна из линий в обычную книгу про Фрайни. Причем и автор, и Фрайни не одобряют Шерлока за свинское поведение, но всячески болеют за Джона. Дополнительное мимими - сцена, где Фрайни объясняет Джону, что гомосексуальность не грех, с цитатами из Библии (сидя с ним в ванне и держа его за живое).

[рика инверс вредная и ленивая]

фрайни всегда так прекрасна

[Эйтн]

Черт, я прямо болею тоже

[Св.]

Вести с полей: сводничество успешно реализовалось к концу второй трети книги в довольно любопытной сцене, которая могла бы быть горячей, но мне в качестве таковой не зашла. В целом у меня ощущение, что этого фанфика могло бы быть и поменьше, потому что пришитая к нему сюжетная линия ощущалась как обслуживающая фанфик, а не наоборот - обычно Гринвуд этим не страдает, но тут как-то раздражало. В целом это не самая сильная книга цикла, имхо.

Любопытные авторские заметки по теме:

Sherlock Holmes and me (a love/hate relationship)
I read all of the works of Arthur Conan Doyle as a child, including The Lost World and Professor Challenger, his appearances in the cross-correspondences after death, the Brigadier Gerard stories, and all of the Sherlock Holmes stories. I was mildly annoyed while I was fascinated, because what Holmes was doing—his Science of Deduction—was a common female skill and, like all female skills, was awarded no applause and even sneered at as ‘women’s intuition’. Picture the scene: my mother and I are working in the kitchen when my brother staggers in, white as a sheet where he isn’t green, and collapses to the floor doing a very good imitation of a dying child. My mother gave him one raking, comprehensive look and said, ‘I told you not to eat those apricots.’ When he started throwing up it was clear that he had, indeed, climbed the apricot tree and eaten a lot of green ones, which he had been strictly forbidden to do. I was relieved. I am fond of my brother. And I was also impressed. I demanded to know how my mother knew that he hadn’t been stabbed in the stomach or was dying of beri beri or the Black Death (you can imagine my reading at the time). She had to think about it, then she rattled off, all in one breath, ‘Scuffs on his shoes, bark in his hair, juice stains on his T-shirt, sap on his front, bark in his fingernails, drying juice around his mouth. And he was guilty.’
That is Sherlock Holmes’s deduction at its best. The basis of Holmes’s method is exceedingly close observation. He needs to use deduction on criminals because they won’t tell him the truth. Had my mother demanded of my brother what he had been eating, he would have denied eating anything, for the same reason as any other law-breaker. Women have deductive method because they need it. As the gatherers in hunter/gatherer societies, and the providers of the bulk of the food, they have to be able to keep an eye on everything, while grabbing the straying toddler and trying not to walk on thorns. It’s an unfocused, all-encompassing, panoramic attention. It’s special.
Which is why Sherlock annoyed me. As the Duchess says in Dorothy Sayer’s novel Clouds of Witness (at page 106), ‘My dear child, you may give it a long name if you like, but I’m an old-fashioned woman and I call it mother wit, and it’s so rare for a man to have it that if he does you write a book about him and call him Sherlock Holmes.’
I actually wrote a Sherlock Holmes homage and pastiche story for a collection of food-related mysteries which I wrote with Jenny Pausacker, Recipes For Crime. It was called ‘The Baroness’ Companion’, and was a fair working Sherlock Holmes story. Conan Doyle plots very well, but he writes not very brilliant Victorian prose, not hard to imitate if you leash the adverbs and severely limit the use of adjectives. And employ occasional Victorian metaphors like ‘the wind cried like a child in the chimney’. The experience of writing it was illuminating. I knew his methods, (Watson). I employed them.
Then people started making movies. Basil Rathbone was good, but his Watson was too bumbling—not like the man of action in the books. Jeremy Brett was a marvellous canonical Sherlock, the best there will ever be. His Watson was a very Conan Doyle Watson. Then a movie was made which emphasised the almost homoerotic edge of Sherlock and Watson. I had already thought about this because of a novel called My Dearest Holmes by Rohase Piercy, where they finally got together after the Reichenbach Falls. Touching. The original allows such an interpretation. ‘It was worth a wound; it was worth many wounds; to know the depth of loyalty and love which lay behind that cold mask.’ ‘I am here to be used.’
The BBC then decided to rethink Sherlock Holmes for a modern technological age and it is mind-boggling (though I’m not altogether sure that I wanted my mind to be boggled this much). BBC Sherlock is a borderline Asperger’s prodigy, amazingly rude to everyone (which the original Sherlock never is), his PTSD army doctor Watson is beyond excellent, and his Moriarty is not the Victorian Capitalist Villain of the original but a genuine psychopath. ‘I’ll burn the heart out of you.’ I’ve met murderous psychopaths in my legal practice and BBC Moriarty is exact. Also, Benedict Cumberbatch is astoundingly, strangely, beautiful. I still haven’t been able to watch him fling himself off the top of St Bart’s Hospital.
I saw half of one episode of Elementary, where Sherlock is in America and his Watson is a woman, and it’s silly. The BBC Sherlock possesses the imagination.
But I can’t write a psychopath. I have to get inside a character to put them in a novel and I have enough nightmares as it is. Really. Those uninterested eyes—the same if they are looking at an apple, a chair or a dying woman—frighten me even in retrospect. So my villain at least has reasons for doing what he does, and my Sherlock-type character is a mathematician. His companion is a Great War doctor. During that obscenity of a conflict, the British Army did drag students out of the medical schools to run casualty clearing stations. Even for wars, that is unbelievably cruel. What they were doing is now called triage. God knows what that experience did to them. Actually, I have a pretty good idea. So, me and Sherlock. I naturally own no rights in any of the incarnations of the divine detective. And if I met the original, I would be hard pressed as to whether I would kiss him, or belt him over the head with a brick.
Possibly both.

[Irit]

Какая прелесть. ))))

[Irit]

Слушаю, ржу как понь. ))) И Боунз, мед.студент, среди хористов.
А то, что Джон - Уилсон, тоже кивок, как думаешь? ))))

[Св.]

Irit, Боунз - это, как я понимаю, типовое прозвище врачей ))) Но он прекрасен )))
И вообще там все отлично. Хотя с точки зрения качества книги как книги я несколько разочарована, но...

[Irit]

Св., вот не уверен... ))) Но да. ))
Я на двух третях пока, и соглашусь. Местами сыро, местами затянуто, вспышки любования главгероиней несколько внезапны, а история с этой парочкой из аллюзии кренится ближе к фанфику уже. Не то, чтобы я против фанфикшена as is, ты понимаешь, но...

[Св.]

Irit, Именно. При всей милоте слэшной линии, она как-то непонятно соотносится с основным сюжетом - если она плот Б, то ее слишком много, а если плот А (которым она явно не предполагалась, но лезет), то у нее детективная составляющая слабая. И еще Шерлок слишком резко перекидывается из отморозка в собственника, внизапнэ. Плот А тоже странный, особенно к финалу. В общем, сыроватое ощущение. Хотя все равно мимими.

[Irit]

Согласен.

[Irit]

Смотрю "Шерлока", не могу не думать о том, что как-то уж очень явно параллелятся сербский подвал с турецким пленом. )))))

[Irit]

Очень настроенческий и встильный фанарт, по-моему. ))

"A very decorative young man" (c) miss Fisher )))