Canon Discussion: The Second Stain
Apr. 27th, 2014 07:55 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 looking at The Second Stain. As always, I’ve typed up a few thoughts to get the discussion started.
…I had given a promise that "The Adventure of the Second Stain" should be published when the times were ripe… In NAVA, Watson does indeed mention “The Adventure of the Second Stain”, which can’t be made public “for many years.” But, as the New Annotated Sherlock Holmes pointed out, when you look at the details in NAVA and compare them to SECO itself, the two cases don’t appear to be the same one. Most importantly, in NAVA Watson mentions Holmes’ interview with Dubugue of the Paris police, and Von Waldbaum, “the well-known specialist of Dantzig”. In SECO we find: "Have you informed the police?" "We have not done so, nor is it possible that we should do so. To inform the police must, in the long run, mean to inform the public. This is what we particularly desire to avoid.” It looks as though SECO involved a second second stain.
They sat side by side upon our paper-littered settee… As part of the discussion for MUSG,![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
dustbunny105 and myself talked about Holmes’ untidiness and clients’ possible reaction to it. And here we have an actual example of Holmes’ mess and Holmes’ clients appearing in the same sentence. These two important men seem entirely unconcerned about the disorder. Well, obviously they have bigger things on their mind. But it looks like Holmes’ reputation entirely outweighs any reservations they may have about his eccentricities.
I had opened the morning paper and was immersed in a sensational crime which had occurred in London the night before… I do realise this is important for the plot, but isn’t Watson acting oddly by settling down comfortably with the paper? On a few occasions he mentions that, while Holmes can detach himself from a case when there’s nothing useful he can do for the present, Watson himself can’t. He’s just been told a highly sensitive document is missing and if its contents are made public there will be a war. And yet he seems entirely relaxed. …it was with a sense of exultation that I realized how completely I had astonished him. Again, seems odd behaviour from Watson—it’s a little hard hearted when a man has been murdered (even if he is a spy), and he’s being rather pleased over something quite petty in the midst of a serious case.
"What was the fair lady's game? What did she really want?" When Lady Hilda comes to see Holmes she already knows that she has to get the document back; she doesn’t really need Holmes to confirm how important it is. Although she is brave and resourceful enough to retrieve the document on her own, is this visit maybe an indirect (and unconscious) request for help? Is she looking for an ally? She does eventually end up literally begging Holmes for help.
"And yet the motives of women are so inscrutable.” Ah, women—we’re such complex little creatures… Holmes does still observe more about Lady Hilda though than Watson does. But then, he doesn’t have any trouble with observations. Out of interest, can anyone think of an example when he does seem to understand a woman’s motives?
Lestrade's bulldog features gazed out at us from the front window… Watson is continuing his animal theme when it comes to the good inspector but I can’t help recalling he referred to him as “ferret-like” in CARD. Does Mr. Lestrade have a yo-yoing weight problem? Or is this a reference to his personality? A “British bulldog”, tenacious and resolute.
“It is not a very manly thing, Mr. Holmes, to come here and browbeat a woman.” It strikes me that, in fact, Holmes treats Lady Hilda fairly and as an equal. I find it rather touching that when she relents and gives Holmes the letter, he seems almost as desperate as she is to preserve her secret and find a method of returning the letter without giving her away to her husband.
“…in a matter of politics I could not understand the consequences…” This seems so unlikely. She’s obviously an intelligent woman—she must have guessed any document she was being blackmailed for would be a vitally important one.
Next Sunday, 4th May, we’ll be having a look at the first seven chapters of The Hound of the Baskervilles. (Feel like I’m setting homework ^^”) Hope you can join us for that ^^
…I had given a promise that "The Adventure of the Second Stain" should be published when the times were ripe… In NAVA, Watson does indeed mention “The Adventure of the Second Stain”, which can’t be made public “for many years.” But, as the New Annotated Sherlock Holmes pointed out, when you look at the details in NAVA and compare them to SECO itself, the two cases don’t appear to be the same one. Most importantly, in NAVA Watson mentions Holmes’ interview with Dubugue of the Paris police, and Von Waldbaum, “the well-known specialist of Dantzig”. In SECO we find: "Have you informed the police?" "We have not done so, nor is it possible that we should do so. To inform the police must, in the long run, mean to inform the public. This is what we particularly desire to avoid.” It looks as though SECO involved a second second stain.
They sat side by side upon our paper-littered settee… As part of the discussion for MUSG,
dustbunny105 and myself talked about Holmes’ untidiness and clients’ possible reaction to it. And here we have an actual example of Holmes’ mess and Holmes’ clients appearing in the same sentence. These two important men seem entirely unconcerned about the disorder. Well, obviously they have bigger things on their mind. But it looks like Holmes’ reputation entirely outweighs any reservations they may have about his eccentricities. I had opened the morning paper and was immersed in a sensational crime which had occurred in London the night before… I do realise this is important for the plot, but isn’t Watson acting oddly by settling down comfortably with the paper? On a few occasions he mentions that, while Holmes can detach himself from a case when there’s nothing useful he can do for the present, Watson himself can’t. He’s just been told a highly sensitive document is missing and if its contents are made public there will be a war. And yet he seems entirely relaxed. …it was with a sense of exultation that I realized how completely I had astonished him. Again, seems odd behaviour from Watson—it’s a little hard hearted when a man has been murdered (even if he is a spy), and he’s being rather pleased over something quite petty in the midst of a serious case.
"What was the fair lady's game? What did she really want?" When Lady Hilda comes to see Holmes she already knows that she has to get the document back; she doesn’t really need Holmes to confirm how important it is. Although she is brave and resourceful enough to retrieve the document on her own, is this visit maybe an indirect (and unconscious) request for help? Is she looking for an ally? She does eventually end up literally begging Holmes for help.
"And yet the motives of women are so inscrutable.” Ah, women—we’re such complex little creatures… Holmes does still observe more about Lady Hilda though than Watson does. But then, he doesn’t have any trouble with observations. Out of interest, can anyone think of an example when he does seem to understand a woman’s motives?
Lestrade's bulldog features gazed out at us from the front window… Watson is continuing his animal theme when it comes to the good inspector but I can’t help recalling he referred to him as “ferret-like” in CARD. Does Mr. Lestrade have a yo-yoing weight problem? Or is this a reference to his personality? A “British bulldog”, tenacious and resolute.
“It is not a very manly thing, Mr. Holmes, to come here and browbeat a woman.” It strikes me that, in fact, Holmes treats Lady Hilda fairly and as an equal. I find it rather touching that when she relents and gives Holmes the letter, he seems almost as desperate as she is to preserve her secret and find a method of returning the letter without giving her away to her husband.
“…in a matter of politics I could not understand the consequences…” This seems so unlikely. She’s obviously an intelligent woman—she must have guessed any document she was being blackmailed for would be a vitally important one.
Next Sunday, 4th May, we’ll be having a look at the first seven chapters of The Hound of the Baskervilles. (Feel like I’m setting homework ^^”) Hope you can join us for that ^^
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2014-04-29 09:00 pm (UTC)I truly think you're being too hard on her. Yes, she acted selfishly but there are a lot of mixed motives there. She didn't want to lose her marriage and social position, but she also genuinely seems to be thinking of her husband's feelings - it would break his heart if he found out both about her letter and her stealing the document. She knew taking the document was "terrible" but I think she fooled herself into believing it would cause no real harm, because she was so desperate. She seems to me very human in her behaviour, someone to pity and think of "there but for the grace of God..."
I really don't think she'll transgress again. She stole in very specific circumstances - because she was being blackmailed. I don't believe she is an inherently dishonest person.
no subject
Date: 2014-04-29 10:56 pm (UTC)