Canon Discussion Post: The Greek Interpreter

[spacemutineer.livejournal.com]

It's canon discussion time, everybody! What did you think about The Greek Interpreter? As always, I've written up a few of my own random thoughts and questions, which are behind the jump. Add your own in the comments!

Granada TV adaptation discussion is available in the Granada discussion post.

Special note: Next week is the first half of The Sign of Four (chapters 1-6) here at sherlock60, so get reading, everybody!


- The opening segment of this story involves one of the harshest assessments of Sherlock Holmes by his biographer, when Watson calls him "a brain without a heart". It's perhaps informative to note that this story is set in 1888 and was published in 1893. Holmes and Watson had been friends for seven years by 1888, which truly is a long time for Watson not to have met his friend's brother. 1893, on the other hand, is while Holmes was dead -- to Watson, at least. Perhaps thinking back on how reticent and secretive Holmes was about his life when he was alive, even to his closest/only friend makes Watson a bit bitter, leading to the rough treatment here.

- We have to talk about Mycroft, of course, who is fabulously Holmesian in his way. He and Sherlock are very brotherly in their similarities and differences. They're both excellent at thinking through clues logically, but Mycroft never feels like gallivanting about on some adventure, and he doesn't particularly care whether other people know he's right or not. His brother loves for people to know he's right. That's the best part, after all.

- Does Holmes consult his brother regularly on cases? He seems to, as Mycroft expresses surprise that he did not receive a visit over the Manor House case. But if Holmes is using his brother as a resource for both cases and help, he's doing so completely secretly, because Watson, his usual partner, did not even know Mycroft even existed until today. More things hidden from poor Watson, apparently.

- No one is careful enough about the safety of poor Mr. Melas. His situation is no minor matter. These criminals are holding a man hostage, starving him to death, and they kidnapped Melas earlier, threatening a hideous fate if he talked to anyone. Now they know he betrayed them, because Mycroft blasted that information out in every paper in the city. Shouldn't he be kept somewhere safe, with someone to keep an eye on him until the danger has passed? They find him alive in the end, albeit barely, and he survives only with the benefit of Watson's quick doctoring skill. But the ending of this story could have been much darker very easily, with Melas suffering the fate of John Openshaw from The Five Orange Pips.

Comments

[hisietari.livejournal.com]

Weeeeeeeee Mycroft! =D I must admit that the case was a major letdown for me when I read that story for the first time, not continuing those delicious family tales Holmes had just started at all. XD

I have very big issues concerning "a brain without a heart" and the "machine" description. Watson likes to say that, as cases continue, but it's not shown and proved as far as I know. On the contrary, we see Holmes very passionate more than often, and even protective or morally instructive towards his clients. I see this as a dangerous misconception about those who act true to their common sense as opposed to those who display emotion based on what society wants them to do.

What's been bothering me is that Mycroft's position should be highly secretive. He knows all that stuff, and he's not a very physical actor, so if he was, say, kidnapped and tortured, how much could he reveal? There's a lot at risk with such a brain, and the only explanation as to why he's not locked up or guarded like the Crown Jewels would be that he appears like a normal, unimportant office worker as long as no fuss is made about him. Still, it'd explain why Sherlock keeps his brother a secret as long as possible. Watson's a writer, after all.

[spacemutineer.livejournal.com]

I see this as a dangerous misconception about those who act true to their common sense as opposed to those who display emotion based on what society wants them to do.

I totally agree. And I think it is extremely unfair to the character (in both senses) of Sherlock Holmes, who, as you mention, clearly is passionate and protective about his cases and his clients. Just because he isn't as demonstrative about his feelings does not in any way mean those feelings do not exist, and it's dismaying to see Watson not realize that fact. He lives with the man, how could he think he was an automaton?

As for your theory about Holmes keeping Mycroft a secret deliberately to protect him as a national resource -- YES. That fits so perfectly and makes complete sense of all the evidence. Headcanon accepted!

[hisietari.livejournal.com]

That's the one fail canon!Watson has for me. But he shows a lot of blindness often enough, it's probably rooted in that somewhere.

We still don't have all evidence, so let's keep it as a mere theory. ;P

[mundungus42.livejournal.com]

As Watson is a writer, I think perhaps he was exaggerating Holmes's dispassionate qualities to set up the dramatic revelation of a humanizing detail: that he has a smarter older brother. I agree, it's not an accurate characterization, but Holmes and Watson have been friends for many years, I shouldn't imagine Holmes would be too fussed about it, as long as he gets to be right and everybody knows he's right.

[hisietari.livejournal.com]

Might just as well have been his way to shoot back whenever Holmes bickered about his uselessly sensationalist writing style - tsktsktsk, these schoolboys... one way or the other, it has influenced readership profoundly, and not in a friendly way.

Sunday, 23 December 2012

[livejournal.livejournal.com]

User thisprettywren referenced to your post from Sunday, 23 December 2012 (http://holmesian-news.livejournal.com/257628.html) saying: [...] at (All) Canon Discussion Post: The Greek Interpreter [...]