Both are early archetypal characters which created the 'ratiocinitive detective. These authors are widely believed to have created the detective figure and crime fiction genre which has led to film noir, femme fatal, gangster movies and modern shows such as CSI.
As for charecteristics:
Rationality/Logic
Huge Intelligence
Social Isolation
Tact
Use of deduction to solve mysteries
Both have a close companion (Watson + the unnamed narrator)
Gentleman
Morality
There were no connections between the two. Remember that Jack the Ripper was real and Sherlock Holmes was a fictitious character. There have been a couple of attempts to merge the two and there is at least one movie that connects the two.
No, but he was based off of Joe Bell, the author, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's old teacher.
Victoria was the Queen of the United Kingdom and the commonwealth (Reigning 1 May 1876 -to 22 January 1901) hence the term "Victorian era". The character Sherlock Holmes' career was based in time between 1877 and 1903 with at least two cases after his retirement in 1907 and 1914. Therefore Her Majesty covered more than twenty years of it. George V was King from 1901 and would have covered the remainder.
Holmes and Dr. Grimesby Roylott
David Burke left the Sherlock Holmes series due to creative differences with the production team. He reportedly disagreed with the direction the show was taking and the portrayal of his character, Dr. John Watson. Additionally, Burke wanted to pursue other acting opportunities and felt it was time to move on from the role.
Auguste Piccard has written: 'Between earth and sky'
There were no connections between the two. Remember that Jack the Ripper was real and Sherlock Holmes was a fictitious character. There have been a couple of attempts to merge the two and there is at least one movie that connects the two.
Between Batman and Sherlock Holmes, Batman is better, given that he is a good detective.
direct characterization- is when the author directly states something about the character. indirect characterization-when you learn about the character through their action and dialogue.
No, but he was based off of Joe Bell, the author, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's old teacher.
The character House is actually based on Sherlock Holmes. You can find a site on google about it. Because of this a comparison between the two characters is hardly fair to either. Each excels in his field.
Sherlock HolmesSherlock Holmes was a fictional character, and therefore did not write any stories. The narrator of most of the stories was Holmes' friend Dr. John H. Watson though Holmes' character did write two of the 60 stories along with many trifling monographs.The stories were written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and published between 1887 (19th Century) and 1927 (20thCentury.)
Oh this is a saddd question!! Irene Adler was the only woman ever to escape Sherlock Holmes. Holmes held a much greater and deeper respect for women after that. And he always referred to her as "the woman". You'll hear a lot and I mean a LOT of rumors about some chemistry/romance between the two....but believe me, it is not not not NOTtrue!!! There was never anything between them. Sherlock Holmes was never interested in women and he laughed at romance.
In literature, a character who is either the opposite or very similar to the main character is known as a foil. Foils help highlight certain traits or characteristics of the main character through the contrast or similarities between them. This literary device is commonly used to add depth and complexity to the main character.
It was tedious and boring.
Dr. Joseph Bell was a real person and a skilled Scottish surgeon known for his deductive reasoning and attention to detail, while Sherlock Holmes is a fictional detective created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle who is based on Dr. Bell. Holmes possesses extraordinary deductive abilities and uses them to solve complex mysteries in Doyle's stories. While Dr. Bell inspired the character of Holmes, the two differ in that Holmes is a fictional character with exaggerated abilities.
The relation between the fact that there was blood everywhere, yet no wound.