Discussion Forum Sample #1

Discussion of "Silver Blaze"

Student #1 The one thing I found most helpful in reading "Silver Blaze" was Holmes' attention to detail. This trait was made clear to me at the beginning of the story when he and Watson were on the train. Holmes calculated the speed of the train based on the poles which they passed. He also took note of the smallest of clues such as the type of dish that was served to the stable boy and the kind of knife in the dead man's hand. This attentiveness would be beneficial to a historian who wanted to discover every aspect of an event in history. A second characteristic of Holmes which made it possible to solve the crime was his imagination. He would have never found the tracks of the horse unless he made a hypthosis about its behavior. This same imagination led him to the lamenss of the sheep. Making an inference about facts of history could lead a historian to something that is not visible on the surface.

My response: This semester everyone will read many "primary sources" from the past and much of what you find there may be confusing to you. But, like a careful detective, you need to think carefully about what each sentence says (or doesn't say). You never know when something you find in a source will be the dog that doesn't bark.

Student #2: Sherlock Holmes demonstrated a unique way of uncovering a mystery. He never revealed his ideas to anyone until he discovered whether or not they were legitimate assumptions. Holmes also made sure that he had all the evidence before he started jumping to conclusions. Once he was satisfied with the evidence brought to him, he then began brainstorming possible outcomes. But instead of trying to figure out what happened, he first tried to figure out what couldn’t have happened. For example, when he was trying to figure out where the horse has disappeared to, he first tried to figure out where the horse didn’t go. From this, I have learned a very useful way to analyze historical evidence. Instead of trying to figure out why (for example) the Germans invaded Poland, maybe I should first understand why they would not have invaded Poland. Once I know why the Germans would not have invaded Poland, I would be left with only evidence as to why they did invade Poland. Once I am left with only legitimate assumptions as to why the Germans did invade Poland, just as Sherlock Holmes would have, I could then analyze this evidence and discover what the actual reason was. Finally, once I have reached a conclusion as to why the Germans invaded Poland, I could then express my ideas with a great amount of confidence.

My response: There is another lesson one could learn about writing history from the comments you've made here. That lesson is that good historical writing should not tell the reader everything in the first paragraph...leave a little something for a "bang" at the end. After all, how interesting would a detective story be if you found out on page 1 who the killer was, why he did it, and what evidence he left behind?

Student #3: First, I would like to say that I really enjoyed reading Silver Blaze.

There are many good lessons that are presented from the dective process Sherlock Holmes used in solving the disappearance of a famous, racing-horse called Silver Blaze, and the murder of its trainer. I now understand that a good historian, like a good detective, must use very similar procedures in order to analyze a case or a historical event. The first step involved focusing only on the facts. This is a very important lesson because all facts must be supported by some evidence. I agree with the consensus of the class in that a good historian must possess the quality of paying attention to detail, no matter what size the evidence may be. Once the facts are gathered, only then may a good historian establish his/her theories and then test them as well. Another valuable lesson presented by Sherlock Holmes is that one must be knowledgeable of the key players and events surrounding the case. For example, Sherlock Holmes knew the history of Silver Blaze, its owner and trainer, and he also knew the betting odds of the horse race. Holmes also knew all the events that included the maid, Edith Baxter, the three lads responsible for guarding the stable overnight, the stranger, and the weather condition during the time of the crime. What I really found interesting was the lesson that one must also be knowledgeable in other areas, such as, in animal behaviors. For example, Sherlock Holmes used this method by testing his hypothesis on how Silver Blaze would behave when lost in the moor. He showed the importance of imagination by taking a self-perspective view of a situation. This is a quality that a good historian must possess in order to find the facts. I plan to use these valuable lessons while studying history during this semester, and also use these lessons to improve my problem-solving skills in the future.

My response: Your comment about "knowing all the players" is an important insight into how historians work. During our research, we always run into people, places, or things that we do not recognize, but a careful historian immerses him or herself in the secondary literature (in your case that would be the textbook) so that we know as much as possible about the general outline of events, the players, and other pieces evidence we anticipate encountering before we ever hit the archives.  Why? Because, as we discussed in class, every work of history is created as part of a conversation between historians, some of whom have already written about the subject of interest to the author. One can save lots of time and effort by knowing in advance who and what will probably be encountered in the archives (or in your case, your primary source readings). Moreover, if you are familiar with what others have written already, you will see how they have used (or not used) the various piece of evidence you encounter.

Student #4: Sherlock Holmes is a great detective. Even if he is not real. Sherlock Holmes uses all the information that is available to him. No matter how little of importance the bits of information is he treats each piece of information equally. Holmes used his imagination to fill in any bits of information that he did not have. For instance he imagined that the horse was left alone outside. He knew that the horse would use his instincts to either return to King’s Pyland or Mapleton. Knowing that the horse was not at King’s Pyland Holmes went to Mapleton. At mapleton Holmes used another technique. He used his imagination to get Silas Brown to confess that he had the horse. He had Brown thinking that Holmes was watching him. Historians have to use their imagination to fill in parts of information that they do not have or to link information together. Just like Holmes historians are detectives. Historians try to figure out what happened in the past. This semester I must gather all the facts I can about events that we go over in class. I have to form my own opinion about what happened in the past. I may not always be right like Holmes, but historians are not always right. Even Holmes was wrong. He confessed that the theories that he formed from newspaper reports were wrong. He still did not have all the facts, but he was already making assumptions. Historians have to keep coming up with ideas on what happened until all options are exhausted. They have to keep revising there theories until there is no where else to go with their theories. Holmes always comes out on top. In class I will form my own opinion based on the facts. I may be right or wrong, but historians are not always right like Holmes or Columbo.

Student Response: I agree with everything that T. says in his response. Especially with the idea of treating all information the same no matter how insignificant it may seem at the time. I also like the examples of filling in the unknown bits of information with your own ideas. I think that the most important lesson that this story gives us, which Tim touched on a little, is to take secondary information such as newspaper articles as exactly what they are, secondary information. I think it is very easy for people to let a newspapers opinion take over as fact. The truth is that the newspaper has to fill in facts just like everyone else. There is no reason, however to assume that the newspaper is absolutely correct. Early on in this story, Mr. Holmes states "The difficulty is to detach the framework of fact-of absolut undeniable fact-from the embellishments of theorists and reporters."  I think this is a testament to the absolute necessity of primary sources to be able to make your own conclusion, and I believe this is the most important idea that this stroy conveys.

Student Response to response message: To add a little bit to what you were saying about filling in the blanks. Certainly there are a lot of missing spots in the history of our civilization, even in what might be considered 'modern' history. Imagination really does play a large part in filling in the blanks, but historians are human too. It's easy to make assumptions based on learned behavior that might not be applicable to what one is researching. It's hard to accurately predict things when one is so far removed from the society in question. That's why it's important to have someone to bounce ideas off; especially if that someone is quite different from you. That's why Watson and Holmes worked so well together. Watson was able to provide a way for Holmes to test his theories. He could see if they were down to earth (which they always were, heh) or perhaps some really creative thinking that sounded good in his mind, but was really kind of silly.