Canon Discussion: A Scandal in Bohemia
Jul. 13th, 2014 08:28 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 A Scandal in Bohemia. As usual I’ve typed up a few thoughts to get the discussion started.
I heard some vague account of his doings: of his summons to Odessa in the case of the Trepoff murder, of his clearing up of the singular tragedy of the Atkinson brothers at Trincomalee, and finally of the mission which he had accomplished so delicately and successfully for the reigning family of Holland. Any thoughts on these other cases?
One night—it was on the 20th of March, 1888—I was returning from a journey to a patient… And yet in SIGN we’re told that Watson only meets Miss Morstan in September 1888…
“I am lost without my Boswell.” I wonder how seriously Holmes means this. In HOUN he refers to Watson as his “conductor of light”. Has being without Watson affected his work?
“Then I must begin,” said he, “by binding you both to absolute secrecy for two years, at the end of that time the matter will be of no importance.” Why secrecy for ‘two years’? The King doesn’t want his betrothed to know about his affair, so I would have thought either he’d never want the case to come to light, or it could stop being secret as soon as he was safely married to the poor woman.
“Then I fail to follow your Majesty. If this young person should produce her letters for blackmailing or other purposes, how is she to prove their authenticity?” Slightly uncomfortable with this. Holmes seems to be straightforwardly advocating lying to get out of a sticky situation. In VEIL, which takes place in 1896, a slightly older Holmes says to Mrs. Ronder: “It is usually wiser to tell the truth.”
“Rather than I should marry another woman, there are no lengths to which she would not go—none.” Always a bit puzzled by the plot of this story. We begin with the King indifferent to Irene Adler, and Miss Adler apparently obsessed with the King and intending to use the photograph as a form of attack. We end the story with the King apparently still obsessed with Irene Adler, and her indifferent to the King and intending to keep the photograph as a form of defence.
And why the abrupt, urgent marriage between Norton and Miss Adler? I don’t really understand the point of it.
The wedding seems to be Godfrey Norton’s idea. He spends half an hour in Irene Adler’s home “pacing up and down, talking excitedly and waving his arms.” Presumably he’s trying to convince her to get married. Have they discussed marriage before? Or is it the case they were always going to get married, but he’s just trying to convince her they should get married today? I assume the fact he’s cutting it so fine in the timing is to do with the special licence. But surely if Miss Adler knew the licence was being organised and that then they could get married immediately, there would have been no need for discussion. Mr. Norton needn’t have come round even—he could just have sent a message asking her to meet him at the church. It does rather suggest the wedding was completely sprung on her.
And why do they seem to want to keep the marriage secret? They travel to the church separately and part immediately afterwards.
Just how much does Norton know? Holmes says: “The photograph becomes a double-edged weapon now. The chances are that she would be as averse to its being seen by Mr. Godfrey Norton, as our client is to its coming to the eyes of his Princess.” So Holmes seems to think that Norton knows nothing of his new wife’s previous affair. But in her letter, Irene Adler says: [I] started for the Temple to see my husband. We both thought the best resource was flight, when pursued by so formidable an antagonist… That does imply that her husband already knew what her situation was, if she’s discussing with him being hounded by Holmes.
“When Mrs. Turner has brought in the tray I will make it clear to you.” Mrs. Hudson appears to have changed her name in this story. The New Annotated Sherlock Holmes does put forward the theory that Mrs. Turner could possibly be the maid—though using a title for a maid’s form of address would be unusual. In my previous 60 for SCAN I suggested Mrs. Hudson had remarried to a bigamist. When everything came to light, she decided to revert to Hudson (and form a sewing circle with her sister wives).
“In the case of the Darlington Substitution Scandal it was of use to me, and also in the Arnsworth Castle business.” Any thoughts on these cases?
I slept at Baker-street that night… Where is Mrs. Watson in all this? She’s seems to be greatly understanding that her husband has disappeared off on an adventure.
Next Sunday, 20th July, we’ll be having a look at A Case of Identity. Hope you can join us then.
I heard some vague account of his doings: of his summons to Odessa in the case of the Trepoff murder, of his clearing up of the singular tragedy of the Atkinson brothers at Trincomalee, and finally of the mission which he had accomplished so delicately and successfully for the reigning family of Holland. Any thoughts on these other cases?
One night—it was on the 20th of March, 1888—I was returning from a journey to a patient… And yet in SIGN we’re told that Watson only meets Miss Morstan in September 1888…
“I am lost without my Boswell.” I wonder how seriously Holmes means this. In HOUN he refers to Watson as his “conductor of light”. Has being without Watson affected his work?
“Then I must begin,” said he, “by binding you both to absolute secrecy for two years, at the end of that time the matter will be of no importance.” Why secrecy for ‘two years’? The King doesn’t want his betrothed to know about his affair, so I would have thought either he’d never want the case to come to light, or it could stop being secret as soon as he was safely married to the poor woman.
“Then I fail to follow your Majesty. If this young person should produce her letters for blackmailing or other purposes, how is she to prove their authenticity?” Slightly uncomfortable with this. Holmes seems to be straightforwardly advocating lying to get out of a sticky situation. In VEIL, which takes place in 1896, a slightly older Holmes says to Mrs. Ronder: “It is usually wiser to tell the truth.”
“Rather than I should marry another woman, there are no lengths to which she would not go—none.” Always a bit puzzled by the plot of this story. We begin with the King indifferent to Irene Adler, and Miss Adler apparently obsessed with the King and intending to use the photograph as a form of attack. We end the story with the King apparently still obsessed with Irene Adler, and her indifferent to the King and intending to keep the photograph as a form of defence.
And why the abrupt, urgent marriage between Norton and Miss Adler? I don’t really understand the point of it.
The wedding seems to be Godfrey Norton’s idea. He spends half an hour in Irene Adler’s home “pacing up and down, talking excitedly and waving his arms.” Presumably he’s trying to convince her to get married. Have they discussed marriage before? Or is it the case they were always going to get married, but he’s just trying to convince her they should get married today? I assume the fact he’s cutting it so fine in the timing is to do with the special licence. But surely if Miss Adler knew the licence was being organised and that then they could get married immediately, there would have been no need for discussion. Mr. Norton needn’t have come round even—he could just have sent a message asking her to meet him at the church. It does rather suggest the wedding was completely sprung on her.
And why do they seem to want to keep the marriage secret? They travel to the church separately and part immediately afterwards.
Just how much does Norton know? Holmes says: “The photograph becomes a double-edged weapon now. The chances are that she would be as averse to its being seen by Mr. Godfrey Norton, as our client is to its coming to the eyes of his Princess.” So Holmes seems to think that Norton knows nothing of his new wife’s previous affair. But in her letter, Irene Adler says: [I] started for the Temple to see my husband. We both thought the best resource was flight, when pursued by so formidable an antagonist… That does imply that her husband already knew what her situation was, if she’s discussing with him being hounded by Holmes.
“When Mrs. Turner has brought in the tray I will make it clear to you.” Mrs. Hudson appears to have changed her name in this story. The New Annotated Sherlock Holmes does put forward the theory that Mrs. Turner could possibly be the maid—though using a title for a maid’s form of address would be unusual. In my previous 60 for SCAN I suggested Mrs. Hudson had remarried to a bigamist. When everything came to light, she decided to revert to Hudson (and form a sewing circle with her sister wives).
“In the case of the Darlington Substitution Scandal it was of use to me, and also in the Arnsworth Castle business.” Any thoughts on these cases?
I slept at Baker-street that night… Where is Mrs. Watson in all this? She’s seems to be greatly understanding that her husband has disappeared off on an adventure.
Next Sunday, 20th July, we’ll be having a look at A Case of Identity. Hope you can join us then.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}