Canon Discussion: The Five Orange Pips
Jul. 27th, 2014 09:56 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 Five Orange Pips. As always, I’ve typed up a few thoughts to get the discussion started.
The year '87 furnished us with a long series of cases… My wife was on a visit to her mother's… "Save, perhaps, the Sign of Four." Well, this is a bit of a puzzle. Watson refers to SIGN which takes place a year after this story is set, he refers to a wife although he first meets Miss Morstan during SIGN in 1888, and he says his wife is at “her mother’s” although Miss Morstan clearly stated her mother had died when she was a child.
There are many theories to account for all this. On sherlockian.net, Rosemary Michaud wonders: “Is that who Mary told her husband she was going to visit? Was her "mother" really her aunt, as is written in some editions of the story? Or is "on a visit to her mother's" a Victorian euphemism for "my wife left me," or some other embarrassing circumstance?” (I gather “aunt” was a change made by later editors and was nothing to do with ACD.) And this very interesting article As I Was Going to St. Ives briefly looks at the theories behind Watson having up to seven different wives.
For my last 60 for FIVE I did have a go at explaining why the former Miss Morstan now had a mother. I thought she might have been an illegitimate child who had been left with her father, and the young mother had been sent back to England. My suggestion was that Mary’s mother had tracked her down to try and help her, and was eventually revealed to be Mrs. Cecil Forrester. (I do remember seeing a theory elsewhere that suggested Mary was visiting Mrs. Forrester—not because Mrs. Forrester was literally her mother, but because Mary thought of her as a mother.)
…the adventure of the Paradol Chamber, of the Amateur Mendicant Society, who held a luxurious club in the lower vault of a furniture warehouse, of the facts connected with the loss of the British bark Sophy Anderson, of the singular adventures of the Grice Patersons in the island of Uffa, and finally of the Camberwell poisoning case. Any thoughts on any of these cases..?
"I have been beaten four times - three times by men, and once by a woman." This is rather intriguing. We know who the woman was. I wonder who the men were.
“I think that it is quite clear that there must be more than one of them. A single man could not have carried out two deaths in such a way as to deceive a coroner's jury.” I am curious though to find out how they managed to carry out the murders with no signs of violence.
“…the sudden breaking up of the society was coincident with the disappearance of Openshaw from America with their papers. It may well have been cause and effect.” Again, I’m curious as to why Elias Openshaw stole the papers and ran. From what we know of him, I would have thought he’d be highly sympathetic to the KKK’s views and aims. And once he knew he was in mortal danger, why didn’t he take the papers to the authorities?
All day I was engaged in my professional work, and it was late in the evening before I returned to Baker Street. It’s perhaps surprising that Watson is staying at Baker Street. Surely his own home is where his surgery is?
Next Sunday, 3rd August, we’ll be taking a look at The Man with the Twisted Lip. Hope you can join us then.
PS I noticed that the 22nd was the comm’s third birthday. So happy (belated) birthday, Sherlock60! Here’s to many more ^^
The year '87 furnished us with a long series of cases… My wife was on a visit to her mother's… "Save, perhaps, the Sign of Four." Well, this is a bit of a puzzle. Watson refers to SIGN which takes place a year after this story is set, he refers to a wife although he first meets Miss Morstan during SIGN in 1888, and he says his wife is at “her mother’s” although Miss Morstan clearly stated her mother had died when she was a child.
There are many theories to account for all this. On sherlockian.net, Rosemary Michaud wonders: “Is that who Mary told her husband she was going to visit? Was her "mother" really her aunt, as is written in some editions of the story? Or is "on a visit to her mother's" a Victorian euphemism for "my wife left me," or some other embarrassing circumstance?” (I gather “aunt” was a change made by later editors and was nothing to do with ACD.) And this very interesting article As I Was Going to St. Ives briefly looks at the theories behind Watson having up to seven different wives.
For my last 60 for FIVE I did have a go at explaining why the former Miss Morstan now had a mother. I thought she might have been an illegitimate child who had been left with her father, and the young mother had been sent back to England. My suggestion was that Mary’s mother had tracked her down to try and help her, and was eventually revealed to be Mrs. Cecil Forrester. (I do remember seeing a theory elsewhere that suggested Mary was visiting Mrs. Forrester—not because Mrs. Forrester was literally her mother, but because Mary thought of her as a mother.)
…the adventure of the Paradol Chamber, of the Amateur Mendicant Society, who held a luxurious club in the lower vault of a furniture warehouse, of the facts connected with the loss of the British bark Sophy Anderson, of the singular adventures of the Grice Patersons in the island of Uffa, and finally of the Camberwell poisoning case. Any thoughts on any of these cases..?
"I have been beaten four times - three times by men, and once by a woman." This is rather intriguing. We know who the woman was. I wonder who the men were.
“I think that it is quite clear that there must be more than one of them. A single man could not have carried out two deaths in such a way as to deceive a coroner's jury.” I am curious though to find out how they managed to carry out the murders with no signs of violence.
“…the sudden breaking up of the society was coincident with the disappearance of Openshaw from America with their papers. It may well have been cause and effect.” Again, I’m curious as to why Elias Openshaw stole the papers and ran. From what we know of him, I would have thought he’d be highly sympathetic to the KKK’s views and aims. And once he knew he was in mortal danger, why didn’t he take the papers to the authorities?
All day I was engaged in my professional work, and it was late in the evening before I returned to Baker Street. It’s perhaps surprising that Watson is staying at Baker Street. Surely his own home is where his surgery is?
Next Sunday, 3rd August, we’ll be taking a look at The Man with the Twisted Lip. Hope you can join us then.
PS I noticed that the 22nd was the comm’s third birthday. So happy (belated) birthday, Sherlock60! Here’s to many more ^^
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2014-07-27 12:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-07-27 02:24 pm (UTC)I think I personally incline to the print setter getting it wrong. Or perhaps Watson misreading his own notes. I can believe that a loving husband might be vague about the exact year he met his wife, but I would have thought he'd write down in his notes when each case happened. And I assume he must have used some notes to write up the cases.
But then, Watson might have had ACD's habit of never dating things ^^ (I gather ACD rarely dated his letters.)
no subject
Date: 2014-07-27 06:50 pm (UTC)I do wonder if some of this confusion is caused by an overtidy housemaid or housekeeper, either of Watson or Doyle. Tidiness can be helpful, but should be used with care, and under professional advice.
It does sound as if Openshaw was guilty of murder himself. He might have meant to use the papers for blackmail, either for security or money.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-27 08:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-07-27 08:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-07-27 09:10 pm (UTC)Yes, tidiness must always be used with discretion - it can be dangerous in the wrong hands. Well, we know that Holmes very sensibly never indulged in it ^^" (^^)
That's a good point about Elias Openshaw probably being a murderer himself. He may have got tired of the KKK's ways and wanted to start afresh.
But I still don't understand why he took the papers. If he'd simply run away to England the KKK would probably have left him alone. It was the fact he'd taken the papers that caused them to carry on dogging him. If he'd taken the papers for a definite aim, why didn't he carry out that aim? If he thought they'd give him security, why burn them? Why not take them to the authorities - even anonymously?
Did he take the papers specifically because he was trying to break up the KKK? That would be a brave thing to do - but it just doesn't seem to fit in with what we know of his personality.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-28 07:07 am (UTC)Elias possibly kept the papers because his pursuers would have been more confident they were destroyed if they did it themselves.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-28 08:47 pm (UTC)As you say, he may have wanted to make a deal with someone to hand the papers over. But if that fell through, I don't really understand why he hung on to them. He destroyed them as soon as he knew the KKK were coming for him, so why not destroy them earlier?
no subject
Date: 2014-07-29 10:55 pm (UTC)