Talk:The Adventure of the Speckled Band

Comment 1
It might be worth noting that a snake couldn't hear a whistle. i think this book is lame —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.79.145.128 (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment 2
Cheetahs were present in India until they became extinct in 1950's tamalhazra 10:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment 3
The whistle wasn't used to signal the snake to attack, it was used to signal the snake to return. The sound that Watson heard was a hiss. I'm changing the article accordingly. 24.199.113.126 23:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment 4
The snake/deaf thing has been removed 3 times, eventhough the whole debacle was cited in the link. Just so this thing won't be removed again, here's the quote hosted on San Diego Natural History museum: "But these discrepancies in the choice of some specific snake are immaterial compared with the basic fact that the culprit could not, by any possibility, have been a snake at all. Consider these obvious absurdities: The creature lives on milk, not the natural food of any snake, and one that it will accept only rarely as a substitute for water, if the latter be unobtainable. [b]It is recalled to the doctor's room by a whistle: how could this be when it is well known that snakes are quite deaf? It is true that they are extraordinarily sensitive to vibrations of the substratum upon which they rest, so they often appear to hear sounds of sufficient magnitude to affect such a vibrator as a box in which they may be kept; but this could not be the case with a snake clinging tenuously to a flimsy bell-rope[\b]. Finally, while admitting that a snake might slide down a bell-rope, it could certainly not climb up one, particularly with the lower end swinging loose above the fatal bed. For snakes do not climb -- as many think -- by twining themselves around an object; they climb by wedging their bodies into any crannies and interstices, taking advantage of every irregularity or protrusion upon which a loop of body may be hooked. It is by this method that they progress rapidly up the rough bark of branching trees or the tangled skein of a vine. And, to add to the difficulty of the Roylott snake, it is required to climb on a cold night, for one tragedy took place when the "wind was howling outside, and the rain was beating and splashing against the windows" and the other when there was "a chill wind blowing in our faces." Central heating, of course, was unheard of then; and we know that no grate fire[10] was burning in either room at the time of the final fatality because Holmes insisted "We must sit without a light. He [Roylott] would see it through the ventilator"; and after midnight, when the doctor's stealthy activities began, there was a "momentary gleam of light up in the direction of the ventilator." So we have a creature performing the -- for it -- impossible feat of climbing a loose bell-rope at a temperature at which an ectothermic animal, such as a snake, would be practically comatose. There are eleven other reasons, evident to any beginner in ophiology, why the theory of a snake having caused either death is untenable, but I shall not labor the subject. A small work of my own upon the principles involved can be seen at the British Museum." [] Suredeath 22:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

But this article is not about "ophiology" is it? You should stick to your museum work and natural sciences. This is about literature.

-

Snakes aren't deaf. They have ears, just not external ones. If you're going to discuss the merits and flaws of a story on the basis of science, get your science straight.

http://pet-snakes.com/how-snakes-hear —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.143.194 (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

That Article
I hate that article. It puts all the blame on poor, innocent John Watson and completely ignores Sherlock Holmes's part in the inaccuracies. Holmes was the one who perpetuated the bizarre story of the Indian swamp adder and it was he who should have checked Dr. Watson's report for any misunderstandings or inaccuracies. The article so conveniently neglects to mention his part and instead foists a crazy, insulting theory upon the reader. While it is academically sound, I find that its total lack of objectivity with regards to the results of Watson's and Holmes's mistakes is downright shameful.
 * Excuse me? What shameful theory? Everything said in that article is the truth. Its such a relief to hear it. it boils me to hear so many people talk as though Holmes stories have some clever solutions.Its easy to have a clever solution if you make up physical facts. Like that a snake can hear. The article calls out the fact that the Holmes stories are full of inaccuracies. They are not blaming the fictional characters, but the author for having so little knowledge and doing no research at all!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.148.192 (talk) 02:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Ummmmmm, you do realise that both Holmes and Watson are fictional characters, don't you?


 * Yes. The important thing is that people realize that the Holmes stories are not logical. I think thats why these huge errors made by Conan Doyle must be included. i agree it is very on topic, and needs to be a part of the article. Its not a question of Holmes or Watson being wrong, but Conan Doyle not being a very bright guy. I insist it be included.

Let's be serious
Notwithstanding that the Klauber article is published in what looks like a reputable source, I think it's clearly a joke (and the lowest form, in that it's a pun). I wonder if Wikipedia should be citing it as factual. The comments on this page that appear to be playing along with the joke, aren't helping. 129.97.79.144 18:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that the author of the story did no research and put in huge mistakes is not relevant? especially an author so esteemed for his intellect as Doyle did not even know that snakes are deaf even though he usus one as a murder weapon in the story. I disagree.Many people think that these stories are truly clever solutions to physically possible problems. that the story is built on nothing but errors is certainly a big part of its description. I will not allow it to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.148.192 (talk) 02:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don`t agree, that's why I deleted it. The discussion about the very emotional reception of the characters Holmes and Watson, and the confusion of fact and fiction should be the topic of another article, don`t you think? Although I admit it is an important part of the reader`s reception but this rather belongs to "reception of the story" or sth. like that. This does not have anything to do with sound interpretation.

ps. no, the scientific accuracy of the story is not relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.160.186.26 (talk) 10:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * As you admit, it is about "reception of the story", which should be a section of this article; such info generally cannot have a separate article of its own. I reverted your blanking. --BorgQueen (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

but then, at least, shouldn`t it be under a new header like "reception of the story"? I think the way it is now, one might think this is actually an important fact to the story itself... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.0.148.50 (talk) 07:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Out of Place
Should the whole article on the Swamp Adder be included on this page? I think thats kind of off topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.88.240 (talk) 23:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see Talk:Swamp adder (Sherlock Holmes). --BorgQueen 02:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine, but the errors in the story are a very important part of its description. Any story that tries to pass itself of as clever, but is in fact full of malarky should be noted as such. Please make sure some mention of the errors in logic are included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.148.192 (talk) 01:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Bungarus fasciatus?
Wouldn`t this snake be a good guess? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.11.146 (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not really understand the discussion about the snake, the question is whether the story as piece of literature has anything to do with the fact that a certain snake could have existed in reality? I think this fact is not important for the interpretation of the story as a piece of literature... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.160.186.26 (talk) 09:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Literature vs. Science
I think the discussion of the snake relates to a common misunderstanding of literature as a scientific report whereas in literature such positivist confirmation (as: is it this or that snake for real?) are only of minor importance... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.160.186.26 (talk) 09:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

open to changes???
Since all my proposals to changes are "rejected", I give up, because this is childish to me. This is not even a semi-scientific discussion, it seems to me people just want to push their ego here... Just another reason why not to use wikipedia.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.0.148.50 (talk) 07:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * To me the value of a piece of "literature" is damaged if the story could not even happen.  "The Speckled Band" is not the only example.  The tragic ending of Ibsen's "Ghosts"  involves the male lead being driven insane by "hereditary syphilis".   Syphilis is not hereditary and this was already known in Ibsen's time.  2601:C2:201:2B85:40B0:DBB:CA21:AE5F (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Summary Mistake
After Helen leaves, Dr. Roylott comes to visit Holmes, having traced his stepdaughter. He demands to know what Helen has said to Holmes, but Holmes refuses to say. Dr. Roylott bends an iron poker into a curve in an attempt to intimidate Holmes, but Holmes is unaffected as he maintains a rather jovial demeanor during the encounter. After Roylott leaves, Holmes straightens the poker out again, "thus showing that he is just as strong as the doctor." The part in quotes is wrong, last time I checked it is harder to unbend an object than to bend it. So it should be mentioned that Holmes is stronger than the Doctor. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.76.75 (talk) 23:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 07:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)