[BakerStreetBabe]

This subject has always interested me; some Holmesians say that the Holmes that emerged after Reichanbach was a dramatically different man than the Holmes of earlier tales.
What do you guys think? If you think he was different, what are some examples? Why do you think he had or hadn't 'changed'?

As for me....I'll save my opinion and let you guys take it from here!

[TKR9]

He was more friendly. He seemed to be more caring and human than the pre-Hiatus Holmes (which I put down to his visiting the llamas... His mate was an alpaca called Dalai...) And his spiritual side blossomed.

I shall back it up with examples when I have my head back from the evil-spawn-of-the-devil-database that has been sucking my brain. I haven;t said anything sensible for weeks here on this forum.

[Lady Halle]

I think Holmes was more mature after Reichenbach. Doyle may not have made a conscious effort to change the character, but when one takes ten years or whatever it was off, your perspective obviously changes. I just finished the first book of Don Quixote (yay!) and have started the first four chapters of the second book, which was published ten years after the first. I've noticed a very similar change in the character of Don Quixote. He seems more aware of his insanity, if that makes any sense. I don't know if that was Cervantes deliberately changing the character, or Cervantes coming to his character an older and more mature man. I think a similar thing happened with Holmes and Doyle.

[Purple]

And yet DYIN was the cruelest trick Holmes ever played on Watson.

[the painter]

But necessary. Dear old Watson is no actor. He's just got too honest a face for that.

[TKR9]

And yet DYIN was the cruelest trick Holmes ever played on Watson.

I had NO sympathy for Watson in that. The minute he entered the room and Holmes yelled 'keep back' you know he's faking it. Seriously, any sane person who knew Holmes that well would walk in, have Holmes yell keep back and then they'd say 'Yeah, right, pull the other one, it's got bells on.'

I knew he was faking it, because it's what Holmes does.

I have to say it's amongst my Granada favourites. Jonathan Hyde's voice, mamma mia! He is just so deliciously evil, with that lovely, lovely pur of his, and though he's not a great looker he has a lovely back (just watch the bit where he goes to the mantelpiece to get the box. Miaow). But his voice, OMG his voice.

*Sinks into warm fuzziness*

[lymelight]

-I haven;t said anything sensible for weeks here on this forum.

Join the club......and it may be just me, but try as I might I find very little to differentiate between Holmes pre-hiatus and Holmes post-hiatus.

[Lady Halle]

And yet DYIN was the cruelest trick Holmes ever played on Watson.

This is very true, and Mazarin Stone Holmes was almost laughably immature.

Soooo...now I have to re-think my ideas, DARNIT. But I do feel when I read the stories back to back that there is some change in him, although definitely not very pronounced. It might be a slight change of style on Doyle's part that leads me to believe there's a difference.

Also, TKR9 and Lymelight - you both contribute so much here. Don't ever say you don't.

[lymelight]

This is very true, and Mazarin Stone Holmes was almost laughably immature.

Soooo...now I have to re-think my ideas, DARNIT. But I do feel when I read the stories back to back that there is some change in him, although definitely not very pronounced. It might be a slight change of style on Doyle's part that leads me to believe there's a difference.

Also, TKR9 and Lymelight - you both contribute so much here. Don't ever say you don't.

With you on the not very pronounced, as I said before I see no change at all really. Perhaps that says more about me.

[BakerStreetBabe]

I think that I read somewhere, that if you read the post-Hiatus stories first, and then the pre-hiatus ones, it would be harder to spot the difference.
That's what I did
And you have that story of some guy telling ACD that, while he was glad that ACD brough Holmes back, he didn't think that Holmes was the same man....

Maybe he was more....mellow?
Ok. I'm gonna go and read all the stories again and see if I can come up with something....

[lymelight]

I think that I read somewhere, that if you read the post-Hiatus stories first, and then the pre-hiatus ones, it would be harder to spot the difference.
That's what I did
And you have that story of some guy telling ACD that, while he was glad that ACD brough Holmes back, he didn't think that Holmes was the same man....

Maybe he was more....mellow?
Ok. I'm gonna go and read all the stories again and see if I can come up with something....

OK off you go then.....

[Sonata]

I can't feel any "dramatically" change of Holmes, but I do feel he changed gradually, not just from pre-hiatus to post-hiatus, but from story to story. Conan himself may changed gradually when time passed by. Here's some details as examples:

Before he got well known, he got anxious when he had no interesting case or when inspectors appeared more close to the truth than himself (STUD, 1881). After his name became known, he got bored without interesting cases, and gained more humor on the competitions of inspectors and himself (NORW, 1894).

He pardoned the murderer at last in BOSC (1889), but was seen with a pained exp​ression in the perplexing position, and asked Watson for advices. He pardoned the murderer with only a little consideration in ABBE (1897), He didn't feel sorry when playing tricks with the law then.

In The Adventures of SH he went out for a walk alone (NOBL, written in 1892). In The Memoirs of SH he went out for a walk with Watson. First Watson suggested a walk together (YELL, written in 1893.2), then Holmes suggested a walk together (RESI, written in 1893.8).

In SIGN (1888) he said nothing of himself and did nothing when Watson left him for marriage. (What could he do or say.) In BLAN (1903) when Watson left him for marriage the second time, again he did nothing but he said something. He said Watson deserted himself and called it a selfish action.

Maybe some details were just picked randomly by Conan and do not represent the real intentions of him, yet they may tell us something even Conan himself may possiblly ignored. For what I have read, the changes of Holmes seems to me less dramatical than some minor characters (such as Mycroft or inspector Jones), but gradually they appeared.

[Professor Challenger]

I suspect that one of the reasons that SH is a different man is that ACD was a different man in 1903 to what he was in 1887. At the start they are both pushy youngsters trying to get ahead. ACD had a much more bohemian home life when he wrote STUD. By the time he wrote RETURN he had a family, and was a popular writer. This would undoubtedly reflect itself in the way that the character was written. In a fictional sense, the post-Reichenbach Holmes is a much calmer, more secure person. When we first meet him he is struggling to be recognized, even by FINA he is known to kings and prime ministers. He no longer has to prove anything. By the way, I think that DYIN is usually thought to be a pre-Reichenbach story. It's not definite, but it does seem likely.

[Lady Halle]

He no longer has to prove anything. By the way, I think that DYIN is usually thought to be a pre-Reichenbach story. It's not definite, but it does seem likely.

Yeah. Watson says that it takes place after his second anniversary but there is nothing to say if it was his first or second (or third or fourth or fifth) marriage.

[Sonata]

An evidence of Holmes' calmness after Reichenbach. He was furious when he failed to protect his client from death in FIVE (1889), and was melancholy when he failed in DANC (1898).

[Sherlockian]

Yeah. Watson says that it takes place after his second anniversary but there is nothing to say if it was his first or second (or third or fourth or fifth) marriage.

or sixth.

[Silver Blaze]

I can notice a definite difference after the Return, but it's hard to put my finger on exactly what is changed. But like my mom said, no-one comes back from Tibet without some kind of change. Oh, and the Annotated says Dyin happened in the late 1880's - Mary Morstan Watson was the missus at that time.

[Sherlockian]

Oh, and the Annotated says Dyin happened in the late 1880's - Mary Morstan Watson was the missus at that time.

Did Klinger (assuming that you have the new annotated) give any reason why he thinks DYIN happened in the late 1880s?

[Silver Blaze]

Did Klinger (assuming that you have the new annotated) give any reason why he thinks DYIN happened in the last 1880s?

Actually, I have the old Annotated. Sorry. I gave that date from memory, and I messed up big-time on one part. It was November 1887 - Mary Morstan hadn't met Watson yet according to Baring-Gould, who I am in agreement with. So Watson was married to Miss Ann O. Nymous at that time. Sorry again.

[mdutr0]

I agree with Sliver Blaze. I don't see the change happening immediately upon his return. The Holmes of The Return seems like the same old chap - though perhaps a bit more nostalgic.

For me though, the stories after The Return just don't have the same tone or feel as the older ones - though of course there are exceptions. Some of it is Holmes himself but I think that some of it is the fact that Doyle's writing style seems to have changed somewhat.

Micah