Canon Discussion Post: The Mazarin Stone
Oct. 5th, 2013 11:05 pm![[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 Mazarin Stone? 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!
Discussion about the Granada TV adaptation of this story is available in this week's Granada discussion post.
- Widely believed to be the worst of the canon Sherlock Holmes stories, The Mazarin Stone is riddled with problems. There is in fact a long standing debate over its very canonicity, and this reread has actually convinced me of that theory. Does it feel like a real story to you? Do you think it was authored by Watson? It's written in third person perspective for no good reason (well, there is a reason, but we'll get to that), the plot is so derivative of The Empty House that even Holmes and Watson can't help but mention it repeatedly, and the behavior of virtually every character is either inexplicable or overtly stupid. Why does Holmes think his plan will work at all? It requires that Count Sylvius and his man Sam be beyond idiotic -- they have to not only mistake a gramophone recording for live playing, but they also have to believe that music gives them enough cover to openly discuss their entire criminal plan. And then they ALSO have to not notice Holmes sneaking through the room so he can have his grand reveal. It's madness. Why does Watson give in so easily after adamantly refusing to leave Holmes to face his would-be killer alone? What exactly is Count Sylvius' plan in coming to Baker Street? He arrives at the front door and sends up his card, waits patiently in the waiting room (which never existed previously in Baker Street, but at this point we can't be surprised by inconsistencies), and then he tries to bash Holmes' brain in as soon as he makes his way upstairs. How did he intend on getting away with that? And why after that initial attempt does he never try again? Holmes talks him out of it, but logic certainly didn't stop him before.
- So the reason for all this nonsense is something that cannot be pleasantly Gamed away: Arthur Conan Doyle originally wrote this story as a play. This explains the pointless third-person perspective: the narrator is the fourth wall, the audience watching. It also explains why everything feels so confined to one room for no clear reason: it is. We're trapped on the set. And beyond all that, it explains why the story is so intensely derivative of The Empty House: the villain was intended to be Sebastian Moran. He's the legendary hunter who wants to kill Sherlock Holmes, after all, not this random fool.
- "That boy is a problem, Watson. How far am I justified in allowing him to be in danger?" - Holmes encounters an ethical quandary here that is worth addressing: what right does he have to endanger the children in his employ? How far can he take these liberties with them before it becomes just too appalling to tolerate? The street urchin Irregulars he uses as his front line see danger frequently as his eyes and ears, and his young Baker Street page meets as many violent murderers as he does members of Parliament. So where does the line lie? Do you believe he's ever crossed it? Do you think Holmes thinks he has? What about Watson?
- Speaking of Billy, the house page, is this the same Billy we've seen before? It doesn't seem like it could possibly be, given the ages, but does that make sense? Has there been more than one Billy at Baker Street? How else to explain things? "You were in danger of your life then, my boy, and I can't do without you just yet." After all, good Billys are so hard to find these days.
- If you'll forgive me, but I just have to get one last complaint about this story off my chest. Holmes seldom laughed, but he got as near it as his old friend Watson could remember. Oh, screw you, story! Sherlock Holmes LAUGHS. He laughs frequently, as a matter of fact. Holmes has fun doing what he does. He loves his elaborate reveals, he loves figuring things out, and he loves playing little pranks and jokes. He has plenty of humor in him, despite what he says, and contrary to the complete nonsense of this story. Honestly, this no laughing claim is the #1 reason I don't consider this story canon. Watson was Holmes' friend for decades. He knew his companion loved to laugh, and to claim he thought otherwise means to me that The Mazarin Stone is definitely inauthentic.
Comment away, and join us starting next Sunday for The Creeping Man, Holmes and Watson's last case before the retirement years!
Discussion about the Granada TV adaptation of this story is available in this week's Granada discussion post.
- Widely believed to be the worst of the canon Sherlock Holmes stories, The Mazarin Stone is riddled with problems. There is in fact a long standing debate over its very canonicity, and this reread has actually convinced me of that theory. Does it feel like a real story to you? Do you think it was authored by Watson? It's written in third person perspective for no good reason (well, there is a reason, but we'll get to that), the plot is so derivative of The Empty House that even Holmes and Watson can't help but mention it repeatedly, and the behavior of virtually every character is either inexplicable or overtly stupid. Why does Holmes think his plan will work at all? It requires that Count Sylvius and his man Sam be beyond idiotic -- they have to not only mistake a gramophone recording for live playing, but they also have to believe that music gives them enough cover to openly discuss their entire criminal plan. And then they ALSO have to not notice Holmes sneaking through the room so he can have his grand reveal. It's madness. Why does Watson give in so easily after adamantly refusing to leave Holmes to face his would-be killer alone? What exactly is Count Sylvius' plan in coming to Baker Street? He arrives at the front door and sends up his card, waits patiently in the waiting room (which never existed previously in Baker Street, but at this point we can't be surprised by inconsistencies), and then he tries to bash Holmes' brain in as soon as he makes his way upstairs. How did he intend on getting away with that? And why after that initial attempt does he never try again? Holmes talks him out of it, but logic certainly didn't stop him before.
- So the reason for all this nonsense is something that cannot be pleasantly Gamed away: Arthur Conan Doyle originally wrote this story as a play. This explains the pointless third-person perspective: the narrator is the fourth wall, the audience watching. It also explains why everything feels so confined to one room for no clear reason: it is. We're trapped on the set. And beyond all that, it explains why the story is so intensely derivative of The Empty House: the villain was intended to be Sebastian Moran. He's the legendary hunter who wants to kill Sherlock Holmes, after all, not this random fool.
- "That boy is a problem, Watson. How far am I justified in allowing him to be in danger?" - Holmes encounters an ethical quandary here that is worth addressing: what right does he have to endanger the children in his employ? How far can he take these liberties with them before it becomes just too appalling to tolerate? The street urchin Irregulars he uses as his front line see danger frequently as his eyes and ears, and his young Baker Street page meets as many violent murderers as he does members of Parliament. So where does the line lie? Do you believe he's ever crossed it? Do you think Holmes thinks he has? What about Watson?
- Speaking of Billy, the house page, is this the same Billy we've seen before? It doesn't seem like it could possibly be, given the ages, but does that make sense? Has there been more than one Billy at Baker Street? How else to explain things? "You were in danger of your life then, my boy, and I can't do without you just yet." After all, good Billys are so hard to find these days.
- If you'll forgive me, but I just have to get one last complaint about this story off my chest. Holmes seldom laughed, but he got as near it as his old friend Watson could remember. Oh, screw you, story! Sherlock Holmes LAUGHS. He laughs frequently, as a matter of fact. Holmes has fun doing what he does. He loves his elaborate reveals, he loves figuring things out, and he loves playing little pranks and jokes. He has plenty of humor in him, despite what he says, and contrary to the complete nonsense of this story. Honestly, this no laughing claim is the #1 reason I don't consider this story canon. Watson was Holmes' friend for decades. He knew his companion loved to laugh, and to claim he thought otherwise means to me that The Mazarin Stone is definitely inauthentic.
Comment away, and join us starting next Sunday for The Creeping Man, Holmes and Watson's last case before the retirement years!
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2013-10-06 05:23 am (UTC)I hope that's what it is, because if it isn't then it's another one of those odd lines that crop up every once in a while in the stories that feel like Watson saying "Holmes is this really difficult person to be around and I don't really know why I stay, but there you have it." Those lines always leave me a little cold, because they just feel wrong to both characters.
Interesting about the story originally being a play! I did not know that.
no subject
Date: 2013-10-06 09:13 am (UTC)I admit to feeling really hemmed in with trying to write this week's Ocelot tale - there are only so many creatures that Mrs Hudson would tolerate in 221B.
I do, however, think it plausible that there were more than one Billy in Holmes' years in Baker Street. Queen Victoria's uncle was William IV so it would have become a popular name that was passed down within families.
no subject
Date: 2013-10-06 12:39 pm (UTC)I have a theory... *waggles eyebrows* Billy, the young but very wise and tactful page... That's a rather flattering portrait. Maybe it's a self-portrait. The page has had a go at writing his own Sherlock Holmes story, using parts of previous stories, what he knows from personal experience, and the rest from his imagination. (Hence Holmes' bedroom suddenly having exits leading off in all directions.) He's consciously or unconsciously attempting to emulate Watson's style.
He's perhaps used the name of a previous page, "Billy", in order to give himself anonymity. The story isn't terribly good because he's just starting out as a writer (we all have to start somewhere) and he doesn't really know about Holmes' methods. And he's never been in danger - it's more he wishes that Mr Holmes would involve him in his adventures.