Canon Discussion: The Norwood Builder

[scfrankles.livejournal.com]

We’re looking at The Norwood Builder this week. As always, I’ve typed up a few thoughts to get the discussion underway.

Well, the New Annotated Sherlock Holmes has had to go back (another library member was selfish enough to want to borrow it), so I’m flying solo this week…

"London has become a singularly uninteresting city since the death of the late lamented Professor Moriarty." I’m sure Holmes means this to some extent but I wonder how serious he’s being. After all, Moriarty nearly caused his death and led to the situation of him spending three years away from home. I wonder if what we’re hearing here is ACD’s POV. He regrets the fact that he killed Moriarty off and left Holmes without an archenemy. (He couldn’t really have had them both cheating death and disappearing for several years – that would be slightly ridiculous.) Though when he does use Moriarty again in VALL, a story set in the past, it’s only as a minor part of the story and only offstage.

"I can hardly think that you would find many decent citizens to agree with you," I answered. I must say here that I loathe Moriarty. He truly frightens me – it’s a relief that he dies. I suppose I prefer the adventures in which: everything is all right, something terrible happens, and then Holmes makes everything all right again. If Moriarty were a regular part of the stories, then evil would be permanently there in the background. Which seems rather too much like real life to me.

“…I, at his request, had sold my practice and returned to share the old quarters in Baker Street. There’s rather a complex situation, surely, behind this simple statement. Holmes asks Watson to give up his business and home… and Watson says OK. What exactly is going on in Holmes’ mind? Is it simply that he’s missing Watson? Or is he worried about Watson – thinking he’s lonely and missing his wife? Has the practice started to do badly, so Watson was considering selling anyway?

A young doctor, named Verner… Verner was a distant relation of Holmes's… (In his preface for The Penguin Complete Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, Christopher Morley puts forward the opinion that “Verner” is an Anglicisation of “Vernet”, which does seem likely.) Verner is Holmes’ younger relative – I suppose it’s perfectly permissible for Holmes to help him financially. Holmes isn’t strictly speaking giving the money to Watson – he’s giving it to Verner, so he can buy a practice. I think that’s how Holmes, and later Watson, would justify it. Otherwise, it might have made things uncomfortable between the two friends. But Verner was a distant relative – it is perhaps stretching things that Holmes would have felt an obligation to assist him. I assume Watson was always foremost in his mind – Holmes may even have searched for a young doctor amongst his acquaintances, so he had an excuse for buying the practice.

"Arrest you!" said Holmes. "This is really most grati -- most interesting.” Oh, I love this line… At least Holmes remembers his manners in time.

“His name was familiar to me, for many years ago my parents were acquainted with him…” “…she spoke of him with such bitterness…” It is perhaps odd that McFarlane’s parents have mentioned Oldacre enough that McFarlane knows his name but they have managed to keep all animosity out of their references, so their son doesn’t realise Oldacre is someone not to be trusted. I wonder in what contexts Oldacre was talked about.

"He was able to fix up his own little hiding-place without any confederate…” “He intended to change his name altogether, draw this money, and vanish, starting life again elsewhere." I honestly can’t make up my mind if hiding in the house was a brilliant idea or a really stupid idea. Whether it was a good thing to let the excitement die down before leaving to start his new life (he might have been spotted by someone who recognised him), or whether he should have scarpered the night he was “murdered”, before the police arrived.

"I have to thank you for a good deal," said he. "Perhaps I'll pay my debt some day." Well, we know Holmes is still OK in 1914 but I wonder if Oldacre ever did attempt to wreak revenge…

Next Sunday, 16th March, we’ll be looking at The Dancing Men. Hope to see you then.

Comments

[darkest-alchemy.livejournal.com]

"I’m sure Holmes means this to some extent but I wonder how serious he’s being."
I think he's completely serious in the sense that on a personal level he needs Moriarty or someone like him to make his life interesting. Most crime and most criminals are very boring, most criminals act for the most 'petty' or uninteresting of reasons (a simple need to survive, jealousy, greed, whatever) - nothing very complex that's any real interest or challenge to Holmes's mind. Holmes is not totally naive, he knows if someone is a threat to lots of people they need to be removed, but on a personal level he needs someone to tax his brain; a real opponent.

"He couldn’t really have had them both cheating death and disappearing for several years – that would be slightly ridiculous."
Not so ridiculous. I've seen multiple authors pull it off in ways that are no more ridiculous than many of the elements of canon. (I have my own headcanon about it too.)

(I don't find Moriarty scary though (not in canon or in very canonically faithful portrayals like Eric Porter's). He had huge potential for something more but he's just... underdeveloped. It's a combination of Michael Kurland's take on him and Jared Harris's portrayal of him that made him fascinating to me; canonically I really don't see why he's so scary or "evil".)

[scfrankles.livejournal.com]

(Utterly thrilled that you came back to comment again ^^)

I've just been rereading The Final Problem to try and get my thoughts in order about Moriarty.

Of late I have been tempted to look into the problems furnished by nature rather than those more superficial ones for which our artificial state of society is responsible. At the beginning of the story, Holmes talks about concentrating on his chemical researches after beating Moriarty, and then again towards the end Holmes is apparently thinking about abandoning crime investigating. And we know he eventually does retire to study bees. So I'm not sure he does need an archenemy to make his life interesting or to intellectually stretch him.

(I suppose on a personal level, I don't really want Holmes to have an intellectual equal. I want him to be the best, the one who always gets things right - the one who always beats the baddie.)

Finding Moriarty frightening in canon: I think it's not directly to do with Moriarty himself - I think it's the whole story. Holmes turns up at Watson's home and he's physically changed - the stress is having an effect on him. That's the first thing to make the reader uneasy. And Holmes is continually in danger in this story - at every moment. Then Holmes and Watson leave London. Everything is strange and unsettling. And of course at the end of the story Holmes is gone. It's the effect that Moriarty has on Holmes' life that makes him so frightening.

I would agree that Moriarty is a little undeveloped. But there's something about his body language, and the way that Holmes describes his speech that makes him... unwholesome. And that glimpse that Watson has of him at the end, striding towards the fall - it's like something out of a M.R James story. Moriarty feels like a supernatural and unnatural creature. He's perhaps at his best in canon when he's offstage or just glimpsed.

I agree that it's rather a sweeping statement for me to say that them both surviving would be ridiculous. Skilled writers can always come up with explanations that are convincing to the reader. Would you be willing to share your headcanon..?

And I was greatly impressed by Jared Harris' portrayal of Moriarty - that calm, well-respected surface with evil underneath. An excellent interpretation and development of what ACD gives us.

[darkest-alchemy.livejournal.com]

(I always pop up when someone mentions Moriarty or Moran. ;D
I'm afraid I'm a bit out of touch with the rest of canon though what with focusing on Moriarty/Moran these days)

Holmes wants someone worthy of his talents to go against though; without that he complains about people's trivial problems or how commonplace other crimes are or he turns to drugs to relieve the boredom. (The early retirement/bees though, I still don't know why ACD did that (apart from spite maybe because he was pissed off at Holmes) because I still don't find it convincing that Holmes would be satisfied or happy with that life.) Even though he's scared of Moriarty and knows he has to stop him, he misses the thrill of going up against someone who wasn't commonplace (I think in a way going against Moriarty was his equivalent of something like extreme sports, being scared by it and perhaps knowing that there's a point where you just can't do that sort of thing any more or you'll probably die, but also getting a thrill out of it).

With Moriarty it's like the great thing about him is he's underdeveloped so you can do so much with him (even make him a pretty decent person, like Kurland has) but then the bad thing about him is also that he's underdeveloped so there's nothing very concrete about him, everything he does happens 'off-screen' and at best we see it secondhand except for the one glimpse Watson has of him. And I do find that rather infuriating because there are hints about his character and his personal life etc but Moriarty to me didn't really become a real character in canon. It took other people to do that, to develop him into an actual person. This is why I can't really find him scary (that and that he kind of sounds/looks (in Paget's images) sort of... unrealistic, like Doyle gave him these traits to indicate certain things but they don't really sound like the traits of a real person. And he is so abstract; unlike most of the other villains who we meet through Watson, we don't meet Moriarty - it's Holmes and MacDonald who tell Watson who tells us about meeting him. And yes perhaps there even is a supernatural sense about him at times, which adds even further to that unreality to him. From the way he's portrayed throughout it's plausible he's not even real. All these ideas from various books/films/etc that Holmes *is* Moriarty or that Holmes imagined him or he twisted a harmless professor into a criminal genius in his mind because of drug-fueled paranoia are really just as believable as Moriarty being a criminal mastermind who was behind countless crimes for years even though we never heard of him before The Final Problem (well except for Valley of Fear but then that was written later).

I think the most fascinating thing concerning Moriarty though that's there in potential at least (even if it was never properly explored) is the way Holmes and Watson and Moriarty and Moran connect together. Holmes's true equal and opposite is Watson because Watson complements him perfectly because he isn't like Holmes. But Holmes's equal and opposite in the sense of being a dark mirror image of him is Moriarty (whose true equal and opposite who complements him is Moran, who is a dark mirror image of Watson). So when Moriarty is gone, Holmes's 'reflection' has gone, so he's going to feel that loss keenly, and even miss him.
I'm glad it wasn't shown that Moriarty was behind almost every single thing that ever happened in canon because it would be daft anyway and I think that idea has got pretty old and cliched in a lot of adaptations but I wish there had been more than what there was, that Doyle had brought him (and Moran) in once or twice before The Final Problem and not just sprung him on us effectively out of the blue.

I have the idea that Moriarty survives the fall (though not undamaged) but Moran thinks he's dead so he's pursuing Holmes while Moriarty (for various reasons I don't really want to go into since this is something I'd ideally like to write/publish some day) is unable to tell Moran he's still alive. Once he does return I think he and his priorities have changed because of everything he's lost and suffered during the 'hiatus' so he's not the threat he once was and he is as good as dead to Holmes.

[scfrankles.livejournal.com]

(I suppose we'll see you again in September then, for FINA ^__^)

It is an odd about-face for Holmes I admit: in CARD, Watson explicitly says that Holmes has no interest in nature or the country, and needs to be around lots of people. But Holmes seems to be absolutely sincere in his later interest in bees and nature in general. I do like your analogy with extreme sports - that makes a lot of sense.

And I agree that Moriarty is undeveloped. I think the thing with FINA is that there's no puzzle or mystery to be worked out - we're just coming in at the end of a much bigger story. The centre of FINA is Holmes being in danger, rather than what Moriarty has been up to. Moriarty is only a supporting player when he should have been a lead player. ACD has given us notes for a character, rather than the rounded finished version.

I also like your description of Holmes and Watson, and Moriarty and Moran - the way they all fit together. I suppose I can understand that Holmes could be relieved Moriarty is gone, but still miss him too. And you've got some very interesting ideas about what might have happened to Moriarty - I wish you luck in your writing.

So, see you in September? ^_^

[sabrinaphynn.livejournal.com]

*suddenly has idea about Verner*

What if Holmes decided to "invest" in his cousin like Sutton invested in Dr. Percy Trevelyan.?
Just because the idea came from a baddie doesn't make it a bad idea. And it got him what he wanted, his friend back along side of him.
(Cracky idea- Maman or Grandmere twisted his arm into helping out his cousin)

Of course, Doyle just needed an excuse to get these two back at 221B together. :D

[scfrankles.livejournal.com]

That is an interesting idea about Holmes investing in his cousin. I don't think Holmes would do it out of wanting to be richer (he shows very little interest in money on the whole, and in FINA he says he now has enough money to live on) but perhaps he's considering his and Watson's retirement. Perhaps at this point he's hoping Watson might retire with him..? And I do like the idea that there might be an elderly French lady in the background pushing Holmes into finding something for young Verner ^_^

And yes, you're right - it's a case of ACD wanting to get Holmes and Watson back together again. I do feel a bit sad about Mary though. She dies so abruptly offstage - we don't even know what she died of. I wish ACD had been a bit kinder to her.

[laurose8.livejournal.com]

I agree with you about Moriarty. Fighting organised crime regularly would give the series a darker, and to me drabber, taste; with less detective work and more Drummond-stuff.

I rather wonder if McFarlane expected Oldacre to exploit his legal knowledge and contacts. It would be less something for nothing than Oldacre said, and still perhaps a good deal for McFarlane.

I love all the opening. (I think Watson was probably glad to leave his widower's house.)

The poorest part of the story, I think, is Lestrade's accepting not-too-charred buttons but no recognisably human bones at all. I think a darker fic, where Oldacre had killed a tramp, would have been more believable. I'm sure Holmes would have pointed it out to Lestarde, if his taste for the theatric hadn't made him prefer 'Hey, presto!'

I wonder if the housekeeper confederated on the promise of marriage, in which case she wouldn't want him scarpering without her.

[scfrankles.livejournal.com]

(Drummond... Are we talking "Bulldog Drummond"? Don't know an awful lot about that character ^^")

It is personal taste but I am glad Moriarty didn't become a regular character - I suppose I prefer a more lighthearted feel to the adventures. (Though I do so admire CARD.)

I do wonder if Holmes understood that Watson was lonely and grieving, and wanted to be tactful. And so instead of asking Watson if he'd like to come back to Baker Street, which might have seemed patronising, he turned it around and asked him to come back for his (Holmes') benefit.

It's been a while since I've seen it but I think in the Granada version there really is a body in the fire. I can't remember the details though and I may be getting confused with something else. But, yes, it is Lestrade looking for clues to bolster what he already believes has happened, and not looking too closely at what might disprove his case.

And I like your idea of the housekeeper expecting marriage - Oldacre probably wouldn't want to risk leaving without her. She might then give him away out of anger, suspecting she'd been abandoned.

[laurose8.livejournal.com]

Sorry, yes, I meant Bulldog Drummond. At its best, it's pretty repetitive, and one of the strengths of Doyle is the variety in his short stories. I, too, prefer the lghter stories, and a dead tramp would have made it too dark.

Though in an Agatha Christie rip off (Murder on the Links), she has a tramp conveniently fall dead of apoplexy, when she needs a body. At least, a secondary villain claims that's why he's dead.

Holmes asking Watson like that does sound convincing.

[scfrankles.livejournal.com]

Well, as capt_facepalm has pointed out, in the Granada version, Oldacre does murder a tramp and put his body on the fire. That is pretty dark but Holmes, of course, solves everything and Oldacre is arrested. At the end everything is OK again. Apart for the poor tramp ^^"

And I did wonder if I was getting confused with an Agatha Christie story - that must be the one ^^

[capt-facepalm.livejournal.com]

I devoted some time this morning to watching the Granada retelling of this story and I find this is one time that they have successfully created a version which is better than the original canon. The murder of the tramp reveals Oldacre to be a villain of the darkest sort, and an actual crime for which he can be imprisoned, if not hanged. In the canon version, Oldacre could only be tried for mischief. He hadn't even had the time to the fraud against his creditors to take effect. Although, Oldacre's threat of revenge at the end could only be carried out if he was to be imprisoned, and not hanged. (Plot bunnies abound for the fan fiction author!)

[scfrankles.livejournal.com]

I have a very dim memory of that episode - haven't seen it in years and years. I said to laurose8 that I thought there was a human body in the fire but I couldn't remember the exact details. It does really increase the drama, doesn't it?

In the original story Oldacre does seem to be heading for prison. I think his threatening Holmes is all talk but it would be interesting to consider what form his revenge would have taken. After all, his plan to escape his creditors was quite devilishly inventive ^^

[vaysh]

Ah, I definitely will have to watch that episode then. :)

[vaysh]

Just adding to your always fascinating thoughts and the discussion in comments that I had to laugh out loud at the interaction between Lestrade and Holmes in this episode. It may have something to do with the fact that I listened to the audiobook version of the story, and the reader did an amazing job of bringing the two characters to life. But Holmes was just so very smug about showing Lestrade off. :)

[scfrankles.livejournal.com]

There is a fair amount of one-upmanship going on in this story, isn't there? ^_^ Lestrade is so proud when he thinks he's beaten Holmes, and Holmes does his big dramatic reveal in order to make fun of Lestrade really ^^

But I like the fact Lestrade is a big enough man to thank Holmes for coming up with the solution.

[capt-facepalm.livejournal.com]

The problem of Moriarty can be summed up as the unexpected early arrival of the End Boss. Of course ACD needed a way to close the Sherlock Holmes saga and had no mind at the time to continue it at all. Enter the criminal mastermind (wait a second...) behind most of the crime in London (but...) and who has been there all the time (WHAT???) but not to worry, Holmes has died to remove this malignancy from society once and for all. Rest in peace. (that makes no sense!) The end. (You utter, utter bastard!)

Little did he know that public pressure would demand Holmes return. In the end, it teaches writers the valuable lesson of creating build up in our stories and to have a story arc in mind. The best example I can think of at the moment is Lord Voldemort. Although JK Rowling's buildup to the final confrontation between the protagonist and the arch-enemy is telegraphed from the first book, it is illustrative of how the End Boss should be used.

Moriarty appeared out of the blue, with no foreshadowing to speak of. For my mind, Stapleton and Milverton, and to a lesser extent, John Clay, are far more interesting villains than Moriarty ever was.

[scfrankles.livejournal.com]

I do agree with everything you say in your first paragraph. ACD really was making it up as he went along ^^ Moriarty did need some build-up - ACD sprang rather a lot on us at one go.

I think I agree and disagree about there being more interesting villains. Inside his story (FINA), Moriarty doesn't have that much to do - it's more his effect on Holmes that unnerves me. But Moriarty is a villain that grows in the imagination. I can understand the fascination he has held for Holmes adapters over the years.