Canon Discussion: The Golden Pince-Nez
Apr. 13th, 2014 08:52 am![[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 having a look at The Golden Pince-Nez. As always, I’ve typed up a few thoughts to get the discussion started.
When I look at the three massive manuscript volumes… Watson is tormenting us again with unwritten cases. Any thoughts on the leech, the barrow, the succession or the Boulevard assassin? Murder by leech? Accidental death by leech? The leech has been framed and had been used as a front for poisoning? Perhaps archaeologists found a freshly murdered corpse or only recently stolen gold objects in an apparently undisturbed ancient barrow?
It was young Stanley Hopkins, a promising detective, in whose career Holmes had several times shown a very practical interest. Can I just query this “practical interest”? As far as I can tell, it consists of Hopkins trying to put Holmes’ methods into practice and then Holmes telling him he’s an idiot and solving the case himself. (Though perhaps this is the grown-up version of little boys pulling the pigtails of the girls they like...) There never seems to be any actual teaching going on.
We saw the cold winter sun rise over the dreary marshes of the Thames and the long, sullen reaches of the river, which I shall ever associate with our pursuit of the Andaman Islander in the earlier days of our career. Is it significant Watson doesn’t mention his late wife at this point? Is that too sad a recollection to put down in the story?
I may have remarked before that Holmes had, when he liked, a peculiarly ingratiating way with women, and that he very readily established terms of confidence with them. Well, this is interesting. Has Watson mentioned it before? Later on in DYIN (though that story is set earlier, while Watson is married) we have: …he had a remarkable gentleness and courtesy in his dealings with women. He disliked and distrusted the sex, but he was always a chivalrous opponent. And in REDC Holmes is able to calm Mrs Warren down. (But I don’t think there’s anything to say this is an effect he only uses on women—he does have to calm down John Hector McFarlane in NORW for instance. Though this is with a cigarette, rather than with an “almost hypnotic power of soothing”.)
In![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
laurose8’s discussion post we had a look at Holmes’ upbringing. I did wonder if Holmes has had little contact with women (no sisters, educated only with other males, then has no inclination to form romantic relationships with women, so chooses not to have contact with them as an adult) and that is why he doesn’t trust them. But then when has he learnt to ingratiate himself with women? Has he just in general learnt how to deal with people for his work? In MISS we have: Sherlock Holmes was a past-master in the art of putting a humble witness at his ease...—the witness in this particular case being male.
He had bounded across the room and had wrenched a small phial from her hand. Why is Anna carrying a phial of poison to commit suicide with? (Or to use on someone else..?) She isn’t a wanted criminal when she goes to the house—she’s already completed her sentence. She surely wouldn’t have killed herself if she’d only been caught stealing (and it’s not even strictly speaking stealing—she’s recovering her own property from her husband’s home), and she hadn’t gone there with the intention of killing Smith. If it was a long-held habit, carrying poison and being prepared to kill herself, surely she would have committed suicide when arrested for the death of the policeman in Russia.
Maybe it is a new habit. Maybe after Siberia she decided she would rather choose death than ever be in someone else’s power again. She didn’t take the poison with her thinking she would need it that particular day—she had always carried it since being released after her sentence.
“However, it is not for me to cause the frail thread to be snapped before God's time. I have enough already upon my soul since I crossed the threshold of this cursed house.” Is she telling the truth when she says she wouldn’t have murdered her husband? After all, she’s committed suicide, which is a graver sin. And she was involved in the death of a policeman. Perhaps the horror of unintentionally killing Smith has brought home to her that she could never have killed her husband in cold blood.
“You are going to head-quarters, no doubt. I think, Watson, you and I will drive together to the Russian Embassy." This is a nice little insight into Holmes’ personality. He remains emotionally detached for the case—he enjoys solving the case, even though a man has been murdered. But once the case is over, he immediately takes the proof to the Russian Embassy to get the wheels in motion to get an innocent man released. He does have concern for other people. (As we also see when he tries (as he thinks) to stop Anna from killing herself.)
Next Sunday, 20th April, we will be taking a look at The Missing Three-Quarter. Hope to see you then.
When I look at the three massive manuscript volumes… Watson is tormenting us again with unwritten cases. Any thoughts on the leech, the barrow, the succession or the Boulevard assassin? Murder by leech? Accidental death by leech? The leech has been framed and had been used as a front for poisoning? Perhaps archaeologists found a freshly murdered corpse or only recently stolen gold objects in an apparently undisturbed ancient barrow?
It was young Stanley Hopkins, a promising detective, in whose career Holmes had several times shown a very practical interest. Can I just query this “practical interest”? As far as I can tell, it consists of Hopkins trying to put Holmes’ methods into practice and then Holmes telling him he’s an idiot and solving the case himself. (Though perhaps this is the grown-up version of little boys pulling the pigtails of the girls they like...) There never seems to be any actual teaching going on.
We saw the cold winter sun rise over the dreary marshes of the Thames and the long, sullen reaches of the river, which I shall ever associate with our pursuit of the Andaman Islander in the earlier days of our career. Is it significant Watson doesn’t mention his late wife at this point? Is that too sad a recollection to put down in the story?
I may have remarked before that Holmes had, when he liked, a peculiarly ingratiating way with women, and that he very readily established terms of confidence with them. Well, this is interesting. Has Watson mentioned it before? Later on in DYIN (though that story is set earlier, while Watson is married) we have: …he had a remarkable gentleness and courtesy in his dealings with women. He disliked and distrusted the sex, but he was always a chivalrous opponent. And in REDC Holmes is able to calm Mrs Warren down. (But I don’t think there’s anything to say this is an effect he only uses on women—he does have to calm down John Hector McFarlane in NORW for instance. Though this is with a cigarette, rather than with an “almost hypnotic power of soothing”.)
In
laurose8’s discussion post we had a look at Holmes’ upbringing. I did wonder if Holmes has had little contact with women (no sisters, educated only with other males, then has no inclination to form romantic relationships with women, so chooses not to have contact with them as an adult) and that is why he doesn’t trust them. But then when has he learnt to ingratiate himself with women? Has he just in general learnt how to deal with people for his work? In MISS we have: Sherlock Holmes was a past-master in the art of putting a humble witness at his ease...—the witness in this particular case being male.He had bounded across the room and had wrenched a small phial from her hand. Why is Anna carrying a phial of poison to commit suicide with? (Or to use on someone else..?) She isn’t a wanted criminal when she goes to the house—she’s already completed her sentence. She surely wouldn’t have killed herself if she’d only been caught stealing (and it’s not even strictly speaking stealing—she’s recovering her own property from her husband’s home), and she hadn’t gone there with the intention of killing Smith. If it was a long-held habit, carrying poison and being prepared to kill herself, surely she would have committed suicide when arrested for the death of the policeman in Russia.
Maybe it is a new habit. Maybe after Siberia she decided she would rather choose death than ever be in someone else’s power again. She didn’t take the poison with her thinking she would need it that particular day—she had always carried it since being released after her sentence.
“However, it is not for me to cause the frail thread to be snapped before God's time. I have enough already upon my soul since I crossed the threshold of this cursed house.” Is she telling the truth when she says she wouldn’t have murdered her husband? After all, she’s committed suicide, which is a graver sin. And she was involved in the death of a policeman. Perhaps the horror of unintentionally killing Smith has brought home to her that she could never have killed her husband in cold blood.
“You are going to head-quarters, no doubt. I think, Watson, you and I will drive together to the Russian Embassy." This is a nice little insight into Holmes’ personality. He remains emotionally detached for the case—he enjoys solving the case, even though a man has been murdered. But once the case is over, he immediately takes the proof to the Russian Embassy to get the wheels in motion to get an innocent man released. He does have concern for other people. (As we also see when he tries (as he thinks) to stop Anna from killing herself.)
Next Sunday, 20th April, we will be taking a look at The Missing Three-Quarter. Hope to see you then.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2014-04-13 10:33 am (UTC)I wonder whether Anna was already seriously ill - her time in Siberia would have done her health no favours - and she carried the poison with the thought that if she was in too much pain she could end it.
I doubt Anna would have murdered her husband in cold blood. Her involvement in the death of the policeman was only because she was involved in the Nihilist riot. Had she been in anyway responsible for the death she would have hanged, instead like all those involved (apart from her traitorous husband) she was sent to Siberia. Anna didn't even tell the Brotherhood where her husband was living, knowing that to do so would have resulted in his death.
no subject
Date: 2014-04-13 07:58 pm (UTC)Historical scholarship seems to be quite regular with Holmes: the Three Students and now here. It is a good use of detective skills.
When Mike Ashley had some of Watson's notes exhumed and written up by various authors, I thought David Langford's 'The Repulsive Story of the Red Leech' just about the best.
no subject
Date: 2014-04-13 09:04 pm (UTC)But going on from that - I like your idea that her health is gone and she's in pain. Perhaps she has only recently procured the poison and is planning on killing herself soon after recovering the letters and diary, and passing them on to the authorities.
no subject
Date: 2014-04-13 09:21 pm (UTC)You've brought up a point that I hadn't thought about - Anna does greatly overreact when she's seized by Smith, doesn't she? She has to go into the house by stealth because she knows her husband won't give her the letters and diary voluntarily. But when she encounters Smith, she could have tried appealing to him rather than attacking him with a weapon. She's an intelligent woman but she automatically reacts with violence first. It does make sense that she was so terrified of being sent back into custody, that she'd fight to get away.
Holmes does seem to be rather a scholar, doesn't he? He isn't solely interested in solving crime. It's not the subject as such - it's the investigating and solving puzzles aspect that appeals.