3

Referring to this question.

Rather than continuing the rollback war that has occurred on the question, I instead decided to ask for opinions on meta. I believe that the edits made to the question change the meaning enough to make the answer given seem out of place, though @TheBitByte disagrees with me, saying that the edit was made for formatting and grammatical reasons. Is this an appropriate edit?

1

As I mentioned in my question I believe that it changes the meaning too much. I believe that the question was changed too much if the answer no longer fits the question. Lets look at the new question alongside with the old answer. The TL:DR of the answer is:

TL;DR: a close reading of "The Final Problem" says YES, but a broader analysis would tend to reject this evidence and possibly to say NO instead.

To which question he is referring to I could not tell you, if I were a new user to Literature stacks I would be very confused by this answer and it's positive reaction because it seems to answer a slightly different, albeit similar question.

I also noticed some discrepancies between the two answers, the most obvious is the focus of the questions. The original question really focused on Moriarty as the arch-enemy of Holmes, where as the new question IMO focuses on him compared with the rest of the Holmes universe.

Even if @Randal'Thor touches upon these things, he does it as a means to get to the final goal of Moriarty as the enemy of Holmes, rather than the character himself.

-3

Question link.

Original:

Title: Is Professor Moriarty really Sherlock Holmes' arch-enemy in the way some people think?


Some people view Professor James Moriarty as the ultimate arch-enemy to Sherlock Holmes, and that perhaps he may have been a major character in the stories and novels.

If you've watched a TV series or movie adaptation, chances are the major villain was probably Professor Moriarty, but in the Sherlock Holmes written canon, is any of this actually the case?

Is Moriarty truly the major character some people view him as? Does he appear in a lot of Sherlock Holmes stories and is a mostly central character in them? Or is he not what some people might think he is?

Grammar/wording fix:

Title: Two questions about Professor Moriarty


Some people view Professor James Moriarty as the ultimate arch-enemy to Sherlock Holmes, and that perhaps he may have been a major character in the overall Sherlock Holmes canon.

If you've watched a TV series or movie adaptation, chances are the major villain might probably be Professor Moriarty.

My questions are:

  1. Is Professor Moriarty indeed a major character in the overall Sherlock Holmes canon?

  2. In the canon, is he portrayed as one of the most dangerous criminals that Sherlock Holmes and Waston et al have faced?



Comparison of the intention of the original vs wording fix:

Original:

If you've watched a TV series or movie adaptation, chances are the major villain was probably Professor Moriarty, but in the Sherlock Holmes written canon, is any of this actually the case?

Implied meaning: "Is Professor Moriarty a major character?"

Wording fix:

  1. Is Professor Moriarty indeed a major character in the overall Sherlock Holmes canon?

Implied meaning: "Is Professor Moriarty a major character?"

Original:

Some people view Professor James Moriarty as the ultimate arch-enemy to Sherlock Holmes, and that perhaps he may have been a major character in the stories and novels.

Implied meaning: "Some people may view Professor Moriarty as the most dangerous and/or powerful villain in the Sherlock Holmes canon."

Wording fix:

  1. In the canon, is he portrayed as one of the most dangerous criminals that Sherlock Holmes and Waston et al have faced?

Implied meaning: "Some people may view Professor Moriarty as the most dangerous and/or powerful villain in the Sherlock Holmes canon. Is he truly so?"



  • Direct question(s) asked by original: "major character"

  • Direct question(s) asked by wording fix: "major character" + "most powerful villain"

The answer touches upon both questions, and this was already present in the answer before the wording fix.

Answer touches on question #1 in wording fix:

"*It's also interesting how few of the stories Moriarty actually appears in. Counting mentions of him as well as actual appearances, he can be found in only seven of the Holmes stories. If he really was Holmes's arch-enemy, then surely a conscientious biographer of Holmes would devote more time to him among sixty stories? This is an (admittedly weak) piece of evidence that perhaps Moriarty should not be considered Holmes's arch-enemy."

Answer touches on question #2 in wording fix:

"He also describes Moriarty's right-hand man, Colonel Sebastian Moran, as "The second most dangerous man in London." Presumably Moriarty, then, is whom Holmes considers to be the most dangerous man in London - a high accolade, given how many criminals Holmes has met."

  • Disregarding the overall discussion and nature of the edit and its validity, I'm not sure the "implied meaning" of the original second part presented here is entirely accurate. – Cahir Mawr Dyffryn æp Ceallach Apr 7 '17 at 2:33
  • I feel that you made it less clear. In your original, you ask about specific things. In your second, you ask about 'major' characters. What does that mean? The first was clearer. I've locked the question for now, until this is resolved (or when the lock expires, as I made it temporary). – Mithrandir Apr 7 '17 at 6:25
  • 2
    It is clear from this before-and-after comparison that the changes make the question much less clear and change the meaning significantly. If I had seen this in the edit review queue, I would have rejected it with the 'vandalism' option. – Chenmunka Apr 7 '17 at 12:38
  • @Chenmuka It's not clear how is it clear. 😀 – Buffer Over Read Apr 23 '17 at 17:33

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .