![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
spacemutineer.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
sherlock60Welcome back, everyone! Let's have some canon Sherlock Holmes discussion, shall we? What did you all think of The Retired Colourman? As always, I've written up a few of my own random thoughts and questions, which are behind the jump. Please add your own in the comments!
There is no Granada episode to discuss this week.
- Reading this story just after The Dancing Men, knowing the chronological sequence I was struck by the difference in Holmes' investigative decision making. In DANC, Holmes is unwilling to move without very concrete proof. He puts all of his ducks in a row before heading to Surrey to help the Cubitts, but at great cost, losing his client to his delay. So reading RETI, I thought perhaps Holmes had learned from that experience. Here he is willing to accuse a man of murder without any concrete proof whatsoever. The physical evidence Holmes possesses is all circumstantial: a sealed room, smelly paint, old wells, unused tickets. He makes his move anyway, rather than possibly wait too long for a perfect chain of proof.
But then I looked up the Baring-Gould's timeline. According to this chronology, The Retired Colourman doesn't happen after The Dancing Men, it's during it, taking place in the three days just following Hilton Cubitt's first visit to Baker Street. The painful lesson DANC imparts has not happened yet by the time Holmes investigates RETI. So why the difference in the handling of the two cases? When viewing the case of a crazy man who killed his wife and her lover, but is not obviously of any danger to anyone else, Holmes moves with all speed, even without a great deal of evidence. But a case involving ominous messages and a very possibly violent threat looming? Sherlock Holmes takes his time to make sure he has all his evidence collected and ready before presenting, or even warning, his client. Why?
- This timing of the cases leads to another question. Holmes was playful with Watson and curious for the beginning of Hilton Cubitt's case with its challenging code of dancing men. But the very next day, at the start of Josiah Amberley's case, he's beyond despondent. "But is not all life pathetic and futile?" he asks. "We reach. We grasp. And what is left in our hands at the end? A shadow. Or worse than a shadow -- misery." What happened to him? It can't just be the effect of meeting the miserable Amberley, can it? Is something else going on in his life (or his mind) or is this just one of Sherlock Holmes' normal mood swings?
- Holmes was right about the case, of course, even down to the small details like the disused well. He even got the adjective right. But what if he hadn't been correct on everything? Or at least never found any evidence to prove his theories about Amberley? What would have happened if, say, they'd never found the bodies? Sure, they have the suicide attempt, but that's still not a real confession. What would the Yard have done about it? What would Holmes have done?
- "With your natural advantages..." - Our Dr. John Watson is a ladykiller. Sherlock Holmes is well aware of this fact, sending his friend out to investigate first, expecting him to turn his "soft nothings" into hard information from some of the local women early on in the case. Watson didn't think to use his innate sex appeal that way, although he is ready and willing to go back to town and make that seduction happen if it's what Holmes wants. The whole little incident made me smile.
Comment away, and join us next week for a fun one: Charles Augustus Milverton!
There is no Granada episode to discuss this week.
- Reading this story just after The Dancing Men, knowing the chronological sequence I was struck by the difference in Holmes' investigative decision making. In DANC, Holmes is unwilling to move without very concrete proof. He puts all of his ducks in a row before heading to Surrey to help the Cubitts, but at great cost, losing his client to his delay. So reading RETI, I thought perhaps Holmes had learned from that experience. Here he is willing to accuse a man of murder without any concrete proof whatsoever. The physical evidence Holmes possesses is all circumstantial: a sealed room, smelly paint, old wells, unused tickets. He makes his move anyway, rather than possibly wait too long for a perfect chain of proof.
But then I looked up the Baring-Gould's timeline. According to this chronology, The Retired Colourman doesn't happen after The Dancing Men, it's during it, taking place in the three days just following Hilton Cubitt's first visit to Baker Street. The painful lesson DANC imparts has not happened yet by the time Holmes investigates RETI. So why the difference in the handling of the two cases? When viewing the case of a crazy man who killed his wife and her lover, but is not obviously of any danger to anyone else, Holmes moves with all speed, even without a great deal of evidence. But a case involving ominous messages and a very possibly violent threat looming? Sherlock Holmes takes his time to make sure he has all his evidence collected and ready before presenting, or even warning, his client. Why?
- This timing of the cases leads to another question. Holmes was playful with Watson and curious for the beginning of Hilton Cubitt's case with its challenging code of dancing men. But the very next day, at the start of Josiah Amberley's case, he's beyond despondent. "But is not all life pathetic and futile?" he asks. "We reach. We grasp. And what is left in our hands at the end? A shadow. Or worse than a shadow -- misery." What happened to him? It can't just be the effect of meeting the miserable Amberley, can it? Is something else going on in his life (or his mind) or is this just one of Sherlock Holmes' normal mood swings?
- Holmes was right about the case, of course, even down to the small details like the disused well. He even got the adjective right. But what if he hadn't been correct on everything? Or at least never found any evidence to prove his theories about Amberley? What would have happened if, say, they'd never found the bodies? Sure, they have the suicide attempt, but that's still not a real confession. What would the Yard have done about it? What would Holmes have done?
- "With your natural advantages..." - Our Dr. John Watson is a ladykiller. Sherlock Holmes is well aware of this fact, sending his friend out to investigate first, expecting him to turn his "soft nothings" into hard information from some of the local women early on in the case. Watson didn't think to use his innate sex appeal that way, although he is ready and willing to go back to town and make that seduction happen if it's what Holmes wants. The whole little incident made me smile.
Comment away, and join us next week for a fun one: Charles Augustus Milverton!
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Sunday, 14 July 2013
Date: 2013-07-14 09:24 pm (UTC)