Canon Discussion: The Greek Interpreter
Feb. 23rd, 2014 12:27 pm![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
scfrankles.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
sherlock60This week we’re looking at The Greek Interpreter – the story in which Mycroft makes his debut, and we get a glimpse of Holmes’ family history. As usual I've typed up a few thoughts to get the discussion underway.
During my long and intimate acquaintance with Mr. Sherlock Holmes I had never heard him refer to his relations, and hardly ever to his own early life. This reticence upon his part had increased the somewhat inhuman effect which he produced upon me… So, out of the blue Holmes reveals that he has a brother. It does seem a bit odd that he hasn’t mentioned this before, despite knowing Watson for several years. However, I have to point out that Watson doesn’t seem to be one for talking about his family either. In SIGN (which presumably takes place after GREE) Holmes knows that Watson’s father is dead but: “I assure you, however, that I never even knew that you had a brother until you handed me the watch." Strange that Watson shouldn’t mention his brother even to the point of keeping his bereavement to himself. (And odd he happily hands the watch over to be deduced.) But it is perhaps understandable that Watson wouldn’t want to discuss his alcoholic brother with Holmes, even though he’s a close friend.
It’s only embarrassingly recently that I realised two things: in SIGN, Watson’s brother has apparently only recently died, and therefore must have been alive when Watson and Holmes met. And in STUD, when Watson writes, I had neither kith nor kin in England that implies that he does have family elsewhere in the world. (I’d always interpreted it as simply meaning: “I had no family at all.”) The New Annotated points out that Watson mentions Ballarat in SIGN: “I have seen something of the sort on the side of a hill near Ballarat, where the prospectors had been at work.” This does rather imply he’s been in Australia, and the NA introduced me to two theories: either Watson has spent part of his childhood in Australia, or he’s been out in Australia visiting his brother. But the watch has the marks of English pawnbrokers on it, so H. Watson must have been living back in England for a while and has presumably died there. His watch was “sent” to Watson, so the brothers weren’t living near each other. It’s difficult to say when they were last in contact.
However, as the New Annotated says, Mycroft Holmes lives nearby and Holmes seems to regularly consult him. Is there some particular reason Holmes didn’t want Watson to meet Mycroft? He does seem very relaxed about his brother having greater powers of deduction – he isn’t jealous or trying to compete with Mycroft, and he appears to be very fond of him.
Despite Baring-Gould and his alleged third Holmes brother, I think what Holmes says in this story tells us fairly unambiguously that there were only two Holmes children. Holmes and Watson are talking about heredity and Holmes is a scientist. He wouldn’t cherry-pick his data. If he had more siblings I think he would have mentioned them, not just mentioned the one who shared his abilities. (Watson on the other hand possibly does have more siblings – we’re not given evidence about this one way or the other.) Re heredity: it’s curious Holmes doesn’t specifically mention his parents, and whether or not they had these kind of abilities. Perhaps Watson is partly right – Holmes is an orphan. His parents have died before he was old enough to remember them. (The NA mentions a theory that the brothers were orphans brought up in separate households by unaffectionate relatives – this leading to their unsociable personalities.)
“My ancestors were country squires…” Which rather suggests nobody in his immediate family is a country squire now. I wonder what happened to change things.
I’ve never quite understood the logic of the Diogenes Club – unsociable men going to a club to be unsociable together. Yes, there’s the business of liking comfortable chairs and the latest periodicals. But I would have thought it’d be easier and cheaper to buy your own comfy chair and magazines, and stay at home. (There must be an expensive subscription to belong to the club.)
Mycroft may have greater brain power but I’m not convinced he’s more intelligent than Holmes. He advertises for information about Paul and Sophy Kratides in all the daily papers, thus putting Melas in danger. And when Mycroft receives a letter telling him where Paul Kratides is imprisoned, he is unable to prioritise. He thinks they should go and find out more information from the letter writer rather than going straight to the address to rescue Kratides. Mycroft may deduce more, but Holmes knows how to sort and arrange the information. Holmes has made better use of his intelligence and abilities.
Who exactly is “J. Davenport”? Is he one of the friends Sophy was staying with? (And who washed his hands of the matter…)
I’m glad they didn’t, but why didn’t Latimer and Kemp murder Sophy instead of taking her with them? Presumably they definitely can’t get their hands on her property now, and Latimer has no interest in her beyond that. But they do pick a very hands-off way of killing the two men (giving enough time for Melas to be saved), so perhaps they simply didn’t have the stomach for killing a woman.
Months afterwards a curious newspaper cutting reached us from Buda-Pesth. As the NA asks, who sent the cutting..?
Next Sunday, 2nd March, we’ll be looking at The Naval Treaty. Hope to see you then.
During my long and intimate acquaintance with Mr. Sherlock Holmes I had never heard him refer to his relations, and hardly ever to his own early life. This reticence upon his part had increased the somewhat inhuman effect which he produced upon me… So, out of the blue Holmes reveals that he has a brother. It does seem a bit odd that he hasn’t mentioned this before, despite knowing Watson for several years. However, I have to point out that Watson doesn’t seem to be one for talking about his family either. In SIGN (which presumably takes place after GREE) Holmes knows that Watson’s father is dead but: “I assure you, however, that I never even knew that you had a brother until you handed me the watch." Strange that Watson shouldn’t mention his brother even to the point of keeping his bereavement to himself. (And odd he happily hands the watch over to be deduced.) But it is perhaps understandable that Watson wouldn’t want to discuss his alcoholic brother with Holmes, even though he’s a close friend.
It’s only embarrassingly recently that I realised two things: in SIGN, Watson’s brother has apparently only recently died, and therefore must have been alive when Watson and Holmes met. And in STUD, when Watson writes, I had neither kith nor kin in England that implies that he does have family elsewhere in the world. (I’d always interpreted it as simply meaning: “I had no family at all.”) The New Annotated points out that Watson mentions Ballarat in SIGN: “I have seen something of the sort on the side of a hill near Ballarat, where the prospectors had been at work.” This does rather imply he’s been in Australia, and the NA introduced me to two theories: either Watson has spent part of his childhood in Australia, or he’s been out in Australia visiting his brother. But the watch has the marks of English pawnbrokers on it, so H. Watson must have been living back in England for a while and has presumably died there. His watch was “sent” to Watson, so the brothers weren’t living near each other. It’s difficult to say when they were last in contact.
However, as the New Annotated says, Mycroft Holmes lives nearby and Holmes seems to regularly consult him. Is there some particular reason Holmes didn’t want Watson to meet Mycroft? He does seem very relaxed about his brother having greater powers of deduction – he isn’t jealous or trying to compete with Mycroft, and he appears to be very fond of him.
Despite Baring-Gould and his alleged third Holmes brother, I think what Holmes says in this story tells us fairly unambiguously that there were only two Holmes children. Holmes and Watson are talking about heredity and Holmes is a scientist. He wouldn’t cherry-pick his data. If he had more siblings I think he would have mentioned them, not just mentioned the one who shared his abilities. (Watson on the other hand possibly does have more siblings – we’re not given evidence about this one way or the other.) Re heredity: it’s curious Holmes doesn’t specifically mention his parents, and whether or not they had these kind of abilities. Perhaps Watson is partly right – Holmes is an orphan. His parents have died before he was old enough to remember them. (The NA mentions a theory that the brothers were orphans brought up in separate households by unaffectionate relatives – this leading to their unsociable personalities.)
“My ancestors were country squires…” Which rather suggests nobody in his immediate family is a country squire now. I wonder what happened to change things.
I’ve never quite understood the logic of the Diogenes Club – unsociable men going to a club to be unsociable together. Yes, there’s the business of liking comfortable chairs and the latest periodicals. But I would have thought it’d be easier and cheaper to buy your own comfy chair and magazines, and stay at home. (There must be an expensive subscription to belong to the club.)
Mycroft may have greater brain power but I’m not convinced he’s more intelligent than Holmes. He advertises for information about Paul and Sophy Kratides in all the daily papers, thus putting Melas in danger. And when Mycroft receives a letter telling him where Paul Kratides is imprisoned, he is unable to prioritise. He thinks they should go and find out more information from the letter writer rather than going straight to the address to rescue Kratides. Mycroft may deduce more, but Holmes knows how to sort and arrange the information. Holmes has made better use of his intelligence and abilities.
Who exactly is “J. Davenport”? Is he one of the friends Sophy was staying with? (And who washed his hands of the matter…)
I’m glad they didn’t, but why didn’t Latimer and Kemp murder Sophy instead of taking her with them? Presumably they definitely can’t get their hands on her property now, and Latimer has no interest in her beyond that. But they do pick a very hands-off way of killing the two men (giving enough time for Melas to be saved), so perhaps they simply didn’t have the stomach for killing a woman.
Months afterwards a curious newspaper cutting reached us from Buda-Pesth. As the NA asks, who sent the cutting..?
Next Sunday, 2nd March, we’ll be looking at The Naval Treaty. Hope to see you then.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2014-02-23 01:40 pm (UTC)I'm sure that their parents are dead now, but maybe died when their sons were young adults. We tend to forget that people didn't live as long then.
And, at the risk of being a killjoy, we shouldn't really try to build a world for these characters when ACD never did. He brought in additional relatives as and when he thought they would prove useful, without any reflection as to what had already been said.
no subject
Date: 2014-02-23 04:15 pm (UTC)I found it interesting, though, how ACD portrays the difference between the Holmes brothers. Mycroft, who has the same or even superior intellectual powers as Sherlock, does not make much use of them in a practical way, whereas in this story we see an unusually active and decisive Sherlock.
no subject
Date: 2014-02-23 04:16 pm (UTC)I agree about Mycroft. Great at paper work, but...It might go with his physical laziness. Both God and the devil are in the details, and he doesn't bother with the details.
J. Davenport could be taken as slightly sinister, if only in their eagerness to wash their hands. Sophie couldn't go to friends (a very poor prison, that house was) so ended up wih murder and - suicide? Doyle doesn't make clear to me, anyway, what happened to her in the end.
edit: I enjoy the Holmes-ian fun of trying to make the inconsistent consistent.
no subject
Date: 2014-02-23 07:43 pm (UTC)ACD doesn't spell it out but there's nothing to say that Sophy died too. In fact, Holmes definitely believes she's still alive. Hopefully she managed to make a life for herself somewhere.
We shouldn't take it all too seriously but I have started to enjoy The Game ^^ And I suppose "making the inconsistent consistent" is what fan fiction is all about ^_^