Gay Cruising Signals To Make

study in red, by Arthur Conan Doyle

As a teenager I was crazy about Sherlock Holmes. I liked her very scientific way to solve cases, its aura of "superhero" and even the gloomy atmosphere and a 'Gothic' of his novels (which normally abhor). I read several stories, and The Hound of the Baskervilles. Some time later I found this book at the home of Uncle Indiana, one night I slept there, and I decided to read it. I liked the story of the encounter between Holmes and Watson, the beginnings of their friendship, and I appreciated the news about their past, which helped me to better understand some references found in other books. The story took me, as always: a lot of strange clues, some tracks more or less plausible, then the twist. Holmes discovers the murderess, a guy never seen or heard before. Fine.
It begins the story of a heartbreaking thing that has nothing to do. I read it for a few pages but it was just too heartbreaking for me, and I closed the book. A
question arises: what??
I mean, you, the king of yellow, I write a story from the most acclaimed in which the investigator takes a guy ever heard, said to be the murderess, but then does not show how he discovered, or why? It does not take a genius to write a certain yellow like that ....
What I did not understand at the time, used to tell was that the second part of the book was not a story in itself, but was linked (after a dozen or more pages) to the story read in part one. I noticed a few days ago when I re-read.
I must be frank, I really enjoyed it. I like Sherlock Holmes' brilliant deductions, the investigations, the most of the smoky atmosphere London, 50 pages of history almost completely separated from the main mystery, with the aggravating circumstance of the final sad not for me. I'll be back to read the stories, I appreciate them more.