Reading response(5)
I have read The Valley Of Fear. The whole book was interesting and exciting. I learnt a lot. Let's talk about the wisest people in the world: Sherlock Holmes. After reading this book, I found out that Sherlock Holmes had felt two emotions during the case: the excitement and hatred.
Solving a case is difficult. It requires logic thinking and agility. Lots of clues are here, but they are useless if you don't know how to use them properly. When Sherlock Holmes solved the key problem of cases, he would always be exciting. He sometimes would not show it on his face, but according to his words, we could know that he was exciting...... Usually, the cases that Sherlock faced were done by criminals. He always did his best to find out the truth and caught the chief. Doing this was not only because it was his job, but also because the hatred to the criminals...... Otherwise, why would he be a detective?
When I finised the book, I noticed that Moriaty was the man Sherlock Holmes hated most. But he never met Moriaty...... As we all know, John Watson was the assistant of Sherlock Holmes. So I think: If Watson saw Moriaty and Sherlock Holmes talking face to face, what would he do?
If I were him, I would listen to what they talked about secretly. Sherlock Holmes and Moriaty were both very clever. One of them was justice and the other was evil. When they met each other, they would not fight or argue. Instead, they would talk. But what they talked about were important, The words they said might be very ordinary, but what they really meant were deep. If I heard what they were talking about, I might know what Moriaty would do and Sherlock Holmes might solve. Therefore, I could help Sherlock and let the case solve more quickly. On the other hand, if Watson met the problem, he might shot Moriaty, for he was a soldier. That was really convenient. He killed Moriaty and stopped him doing crimes......
Sherlock Holmes taught me a lot. There was a short passage that connects to my life. 'From a drop of water, a logicain could infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara without having seen or heard of one or the other. So all life is a great chain, the nature of which is known whenever we are shown a single link of it. Like all other arts, the Science of Deduction and Analyiss is one which can only be acquired by long and patient study, nor is life long enough to allow any mortal to attain the highest possible perfection in it.' In this part Sherlock Holmes told why he knew Watson just came from Afghanistan. I realized that almost everything has reasons. We need to observe. If we learn how to observe and use our knowledge, we will find out a lot of things we don't know.
Sherlock Holmes was a great man. I respect him. He was clever and a man who always be justice. I an looking forward to other novels of Sherlock Holmes......
Solving a case is difficult. It requires logic thinking and agility. Lots of clues are here, but they are useless if you don't know how to use them properly. When Sherlock Holmes solved the key problem of cases, he would always be exciting. He sometimes would not show it on his face, but according to his words, we could know that he was exciting...... Usually, the cases that Sherlock faced were done by criminals. He always did his best to find out the truth and caught the chief. Doing this was not only because it was his job, but also because the hatred to the criminals...... Otherwise, why would he be a detective?
When I finised the book, I noticed that Moriaty was the man Sherlock Holmes hated most. But he never met Moriaty...... As we all know, John Watson was the assistant of Sherlock Holmes. So I think: If Watson saw Moriaty and Sherlock Holmes talking face to face, what would he do?
If I were him, I would listen to what they talked about secretly. Sherlock Holmes and Moriaty were both very clever. One of them was justice and the other was evil. When they met each other, they would not fight or argue. Instead, they would talk. But what they talked about were important, The words they said might be very ordinary, but what they really meant were deep. If I heard what they were talking about, I might know what Moriaty would do and Sherlock Holmes might solve. Therefore, I could help Sherlock and let the case solve more quickly. On the other hand, if Watson met the problem, he might shot Moriaty, for he was a soldier. That was really convenient. He killed Moriaty and stopped him doing crimes......
Sherlock Holmes taught me a lot. There was a short passage that connects to my life. 'From a drop of water, a logicain could infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara without having seen or heard of one or the other. So all life is a great chain, the nature of which is known whenever we are shown a single link of it. Like all other arts, the Science of Deduction and Analyiss is one which can only be acquired by long and patient study, nor is life long enough to allow any mortal to attain the highest possible perfection in it.' In this part Sherlock Holmes told why he knew Watson just came from Afghanistan. I realized that almost everything has reasons. We need to observe. If we learn how to observe and use our knowledge, we will find out a lot of things we don't know.
Sherlock Holmes was a great man. I respect him. He was clever and a man who always be justice. I an looking forward to other novels of Sherlock Holmes......
Reading response(4)I
I will soon finish 'Sherlock Holmes'. So before I finish it, I would like to describe my least and most favourite character.
Many readers may like Sherlock Holmes, but John Watson is my most favourite character. He used to be an army doctor and a soldier. Then he became an assistant of Sherlock Holmes and described his experience with Sherlock. Why could he be my most favourite character? First, he had a strong heart. He used to stay with army, I believe he had felt the pain and sufferings on the battlefield. That made him afraid of almost nothing. Second, he valued the friendship with Sherlock Holmes. He did a lot of thing for Sherlock and never asked for return. He was willingly to do his best to help Sherlock Holmes solve problems. Third, he was very focusing on cases. He took down his notes very carefully and completely. He described almost all the details in cases and fully highlighted the brilliant of Sherlock Holmes. What he wrote was impressive, and I can't but agree Watson was my favourite character.
On the other hand, my least favourite character is Enoch Drebber. He was a victim of Part 1, but I don't take pity on him. He deserved it. You know, he was a Mormon. He borned in a rich family. At that time, richer a family was, more powerful it was. He relied on his power and dragged a poor girl from her father. He broke her innocent heart. That girl was a lovely and lively girl. She could live for a long time happily. Because of Drebber, she died within a week without any freedom. That was not all. After the girl died, he realized someone was on his way to kill him. So he ran away to foreign countries. But he still lived the life he liked. He drank half of the time, insulted honest girls...... Anyway, he did a lot of bad things. I hated him very much. He still thought himself a powerful person in other conturies. Those made him be my least favourite character.
The writer of this book, Conan Doyle, was a great man. He created a brilliant person and a doctor who defended the justice. He was no doubt a great person! 'Sherlock Holmes' was a really wonderful detective story. I love reading it!
Many readers may like Sherlock Holmes, but John Watson is my most favourite character. He used to be an army doctor and a soldier. Then he became an assistant of Sherlock Holmes and described his experience with Sherlock. Why could he be my most favourite character? First, he had a strong heart. He used to stay with army, I believe he had felt the pain and sufferings on the battlefield. That made him afraid of almost nothing. Second, he valued the friendship with Sherlock Holmes. He did a lot of thing for Sherlock and never asked for return. He was willingly to do his best to help Sherlock Holmes solve problems. Third, he was very focusing on cases. He took down his notes very carefully and completely. He described almost all the details in cases and fully highlighted the brilliant of Sherlock Holmes. What he wrote was impressive, and I can't but agree Watson was my favourite character.
On the other hand, my least favourite character is Enoch Drebber. He was a victim of Part 1, but I don't take pity on him. He deserved it. You know, he was a Mormon. He borned in a rich family. At that time, richer a family was, more powerful it was. He relied on his power and dragged a poor girl from her father. He broke her innocent heart. That girl was a lovely and lively girl. She could live for a long time happily. Because of Drebber, she died within a week without any freedom. That was not all. After the girl died, he realized someone was on his way to kill him. So he ran away to foreign countries. But he still lived the life he liked. He drank half of the time, insulted honest girls...... Anyway, he did a lot of bad things. I hated him very much. He still thought himself a powerful person in other conturies. Those made him be my least favourite character.
The writer of this book, Conan Doyle, was a great man. He created a brilliant person and a doctor who defended the justice. He was no doubt a great person! 'Sherlock Holmes' was a really wonderful detective story. I love reading it!
Reading response(3)
I am still reading Sherlock Holmes. There are 369pages. So it will take me a long time to finish it. I started Part 2: The Valley of Fear. It sounds more scaring than Part 1, but the story in Part 2 could highlight Sherlock Holmes's talent more effectively.
It was still a murder case. The dead man was Mr Douglas. After plenty of investigations, Sherlock Holmes showed other detectives the truth behind this strange case: The dead man wasn't Mr Douglas. In fact, he was probably the murder. After that, he told the story of him. This actually confuses me. Like the case in Part 1, there was always an extremely long story. But the thing that really confuses me is that how did Sherlock Holmes know about the story of murders that happens a long time ago? He just telegraphed, asked someone and knew the truth. I only knew that he used tiny details in the crime scene and the answer to the questions which he telegraphed. But how he combined these? That really confuses me a lot. I hope I would receive an answer as soon as possible.
Skip the question that confused me, I really would like to meet the main character in the book: Sherlock Holmes. Let me describe him simply. Sherlock Holmes was borned in 1854. He graduated from Oxford University. He was tall, about 188cm. He likes smoking, and had weird habits. Usually he stayed at home, doing nothing, but when he got a case, he would put his whole heart in the case. He was the most wisest person in the world. If I met him, I would ask him some questions, if he didn't mind.
1) Why did you want to forget the thing that was not useful in your work?
I think his answer was" It is important to forget things that are not useful so that you can remember the things that are useful. I know you may say that things that I think are useless in my work sometimes are useful because in some special situations they are useful. However, means of crimes are likely the same. All I have to do is to observe these means and use various ways to finish the case."
2) How did you combined tiny details and solved cases according to them?
He might say" Well, it depends upon your ability of logic thinking. First, you had to find them. Then you have to use your knowledge and combined them step-by-step. If you are poor at this kind of ability, you must improve it. It was very important."
3) Your job was to investigate. Why did you like to do chemical experiment?
He would likely said" It was a hobby. On the other hand, doing chemical experimet can keep my mind busy so that I can improve my ability of logic thinking."
4) Did you think your job was dull?
I think the answer was" NO! The cases I faced was strange and exciting. Besides, I like to see other detectives' surprising faces when I showed them the truth......"
Sherlock Holmes was clever. It would be my honor if I met him.
It was still a murder case. The dead man was Mr Douglas. After plenty of investigations, Sherlock Holmes showed other detectives the truth behind this strange case: The dead man wasn't Mr Douglas. In fact, he was probably the murder. After that, he told the story of him. This actually confuses me. Like the case in Part 1, there was always an extremely long story. But the thing that really confuses me is that how did Sherlock Holmes know about the story of murders that happens a long time ago? He just telegraphed, asked someone and knew the truth. I only knew that he used tiny details in the crime scene and the answer to the questions which he telegraphed. But how he combined these? That really confuses me a lot. I hope I would receive an answer as soon as possible.
Skip the question that confused me, I really would like to meet the main character in the book: Sherlock Holmes. Let me describe him simply. Sherlock Holmes was borned in 1854. He graduated from Oxford University. He was tall, about 188cm. He likes smoking, and had weird habits. Usually he stayed at home, doing nothing, but when he got a case, he would put his whole heart in the case. He was the most wisest person in the world. If I met him, I would ask him some questions, if he didn't mind.
1) Why did you want to forget the thing that was not useful in your work?
I think his answer was" It is important to forget things that are not useful so that you can remember the things that are useful. I know you may say that things that I think are useless in my work sometimes are useful because in some special situations they are useful. However, means of crimes are likely the same. All I have to do is to observe these means and use various ways to finish the case."
2) How did you combined tiny details and solved cases according to them?
He might say" Well, it depends upon your ability of logic thinking. First, you had to find them. Then you have to use your knowledge and combined them step-by-step. If you are poor at this kind of ability, you must improve it. It was very important."
3) Your job was to investigate. Why did you like to do chemical experiment?
He would likely said" It was a hobby. On the other hand, doing chemical experimet can keep my mind busy so that I can improve my ability of logic thinking."
4) Did you think your job was dull?
I think the answer was" NO! The cases I faced was strange and exciting. Besides, I like to see other detectives' surprising faces when I showed them the truth......"
Sherlock Holmes was clever. It would be my honor if I met him.
Reading response (2)
Because of the flu and my trip to Qiandao Lake, I didn't read much. So I just finished Part 1 of Sherlock Holmes: A Study in Searlet. The name sounds scaring, actually it was not. It was about a man who wanted to revenge. He killed two person: Stangerson and Drebber, who took this man's girl and killed the girl's father. He followed them for about 20 years, and was suffering all the time in order to revenge. The story behind this case was very real but complicated. However, Sherlock Holmes was very clever. He solved it very quickly.
When he was pretending to move the case, he asked a cabman to help. Suddenly, he used a pattern and arrested the cabman. He said confidently that this man, Jefferson Hope, was the murderer of Drebber and of Stangerson. How did he know? I think it depended on his ability of logic thinking. From the begining to the end, Jefferson Hope never turned up. Sherlock observed the crime scene. He knew the dead man was poison, but there were blood beside it. So Sherlock thought that this man was ruddy-faced. The reason was that there were no signs of a struggle in the scene. The blood must belong to the murderer, and he was very full-blooded as the blood broke out through emotion. Therefore, he was probably a ruddy-face man. He got the clue, and all that remained was to secure the murderer. So logic thinking was very important.
Then Sherlock telegraphed to the head of the police and asked about the marriage of the victims. After that he discovered Hope's job and successfully solved the case. I skipped the details as there were so many. But did you find out that the way Sherlock solved the case was regular? Sherlock Holmes was the main character, and he was very calm and confident. If I were him, I would probably mess up if I faced a really important event. Even Sherlock Holmes was nervous when he met it. However, he believed that he was right and he rethought the problem in his head, trying not to make his head become a mess. Cheerfully, he solved the event. He reacted very calm and great.
Sherlock Holmes reaction and logic thinking was great. I think he was no doubt the cleverest person in the world.
When he was pretending to move the case, he asked a cabman to help. Suddenly, he used a pattern and arrested the cabman. He said confidently that this man, Jefferson Hope, was the murderer of Drebber and of Stangerson. How did he know? I think it depended on his ability of logic thinking. From the begining to the end, Jefferson Hope never turned up. Sherlock observed the crime scene. He knew the dead man was poison, but there were blood beside it. So Sherlock thought that this man was ruddy-faced. The reason was that there were no signs of a struggle in the scene. The blood must belong to the murderer, and he was very full-blooded as the blood broke out through emotion. Therefore, he was probably a ruddy-face man. He got the clue, and all that remained was to secure the murderer. So logic thinking was very important.
Then Sherlock telegraphed to the head of the police and asked about the marriage of the victims. After that he discovered Hope's job and successfully solved the case. I skipped the details as there were so many. But did you find out that the way Sherlock solved the case was regular? Sherlock Holmes was the main character, and he was very calm and confident. If I were him, I would probably mess up if I faced a really important event. Even Sherlock Holmes was nervous when he met it. However, he believed that he was right and he rethought the problem in his head, trying not to make his head become a mess. Cheerfully, he solved the event. He reacted very calm and great.
Sherlock Holmes reaction and logic thinking was great. I think he was no doubt the cleverest person in the world.
rEADing response (1)
I bought a book called Sherlock Holmes recently. I used to read it online, but not for a long time. so I only knew a little about Sherlock . After reading Chapter 1,2,3, I realized that he was a extremely brilliant person.
Reading this book was not easy. New words and syntactical structure I didn't know made the story difficult to understand. I betted that even foreigners could not understand some of the words, such as "by Jove" or "portmanteaur" and so on. Luckily, Chinese translation there helped me to understand it well......
Sherlock Holmes's cleverness really impressed me. His logic thinking made him the most intelligent person in the world. In order to solve different strange cases, he used his useful knowledge to deal with problems. He said,"I consider that a man's brain originally is like a little empty attic, and you have to stock it with such furniture as you choose. A fool takes in all the lumber of every sort that he comes across, so that the knowledge which might be useful to him gets crowded out, or at best is jumbled up with a lot of other things, so that he has a difficilty in laying his hands upon it...... Depend upon it there comes a time when for every addition of knowledge you forget something that you knew before. It is of highest importance, therefore, not to have useless facts elbowing out the useful ones."
The words that Sherlock Holmes said was so many that I can't tell you all, but what he really wanted to say was that we should learn something useful to us. Of course, at present, we must learn some that even useless so that we can communicate to someone. But not too much. So we'd better learn something useful to us.
Holmes thought that every little details is by far the most important. In my opinion, I thought he was a real people because what he said was right, and mankind do have the ability to observe. Not everyone can do that because they probably don't patience to observe tiny details. But I believe some people can do that. For example, when he was facing the problem of The Lauriston Garoen Mystery, there was a blood-red letter on the wall: RACHE. It was German. Sherlock Holmes observed the word and made a conclusion: the writer was not a German and he had long finger-nails. He found that the writing on the wall was done with a man's forefinger dipped in blood. The plaster was slightly scratched in doing it, which would not have been the case if the man's nail had been trimmed. And what about whether the man was German? He observed that the A was printed somewhat after the German fashion. A real German invariably prints in the Latin charater, but this man was a clumsy imitator. So he easily discovered those by observing.
The story is kind of different from experiences in my own life because Sherlock Holmes belonged to 18 century. So I cannot experience his adventure. After all, I am in 21 century. Different cultures and different lifestyles make all the things differernt. For example, we use smart phones, they used telegram. The trouble in communicating made the job inconvenient. You know, time is money, and they need time. This was a big difference. But I hope he could come to our world, so that he could show his talent in this challenging world.
Reading this book was not easy. New words and syntactical structure I didn't know made the story difficult to understand. I betted that even foreigners could not understand some of the words, such as "by Jove" or "portmanteaur" and so on. Luckily, Chinese translation there helped me to understand it well......
Sherlock Holmes's cleverness really impressed me. His logic thinking made him the most intelligent person in the world. In order to solve different strange cases, he used his useful knowledge to deal with problems. He said,"I consider that a man's brain originally is like a little empty attic, and you have to stock it with such furniture as you choose. A fool takes in all the lumber of every sort that he comes across, so that the knowledge which might be useful to him gets crowded out, or at best is jumbled up with a lot of other things, so that he has a difficilty in laying his hands upon it...... Depend upon it there comes a time when for every addition of knowledge you forget something that you knew before. It is of highest importance, therefore, not to have useless facts elbowing out the useful ones."
The words that Sherlock Holmes said was so many that I can't tell you all, but what he really wanted to say was that we should learn something useful to us. Of course, at present, we must learn some that even useless so that we can communicate to someone. But not too much. So we'd better learn something useful to us.
Holmes thought that every little details is by far the most important. In my opinion, I thought he was a real people because what he said was right, and mankind do have the ability to observe. Not everyone can do that because they probably don't patience to observe tiny details. But I believe some people can do that. For example, when he was facing the problem of The Lauriston Garoen Mystery, there was a blood-red letter on the wall: RACHE. It was German. Sherlock Holmes observed the word and made a conclusion: the writer was not a German and he had long finger-nails. He found that the writing on the wall was done with a man's forefinger dipped in blood. The plaster was slightly scratched in doing it, which would not have been the case if the man's nail had been trimmed. And what about whether the man was German? He observed that the A was printed somewhat after the German fashion. A real German invariably prints in the Latin charater, but this man was a clumsy imitator. So he easily discovered those by observing.
The story is kind of different from experiences in my own life because Sherlock Holmes belonged to 18 century. So I cannot experience his adventure. After all, I am in 21 century. Different cultures and different lifestyles make all the things differernt. For example, we use smart phones, they used telegram. The trouble in communicating made the job inconvenient. You know, time is money, and they need time. This was a big difference. But I hope he could come to our world, so that he could show his talent in this challenging world.