Canon Discussion: The Illustrious Client

[scfrankles.livejournal.com]

This week, we’re having a look at The Illustrious Client. As always, I’ve typed up a few thoughts to get the discussion started.

"It can't hurt now," was Mr. Sherlock Holmes's comment when, for the tenth time in as many years, I asked his leave to reveal the following narrative. Any thoughts on why it won’t matter now if Watson publishes the case? Surely not everyone involved can have died.

I was living in my own rooms in Queen Anne Street at the time… Well, this is all very intriguing. Why isn’t Watson at Baker Street any more? Living in “rooms”, to me, doesn’t suggest Watson has remarried. (Though in BLAN, Holmes does say Watson has “deserted” him for “a wife”. BLAN is set in January 1903—that isn’t long after this story, which is set in September 1902.) It also doesn’t suggest he has his own practice again. (Watson does tell Gruner he is a doctor in practice but that may be simply for his cover story. Holmes says: “You may as well be a medical man, since that is a part which you can play without duplicity.”) The friendship between Holmes and Watson is still solid. It’s just odd that they are abruptly living apart. And living apart so close together. (The streets appear to be less than a mile from each other.)

“The villain attached himself to the lady, and with such effect that he has completely and absolutely won her heart.” I wonder what is going through Gruner’s mind with reference to marrying Miss de Merville. He certainly doesn’t love her—he talks of controlling her with hypnotism. Is it simply lust and marriage is the only way he can have her because of her social position? Then when he’s bored, he’ll dispose of her and move on to the next woman.

…for I had some pressing professional business of my own… What is this business? Again, the wording doesn’t suggest to me a medical matter.

"Must you interfere? Does it really matter if he marries the girl?" This seems an oddly dispassionate thing for the kind Watson to say. Holmes in comparison is positively anxious about Miss de Merville: "I was sorry for her, Watson. I thought of her for the moment as I would have thought of a daughter of my own.”

“But what I am Adelbert Gruner made me.” Put bluntly, I assume Miss Winter lost her virginity and reputation to Gruner and after she left him she became a prostitute. But I don’t think we’re getting the full story somehow. Later, there’s evidence that comes out at Kitty Winter’s trial that reduces her sentence to the lowest possible.

There was a curious secretive streak in the man which led to many dramatic effects, but left even his closest friend guessing as to what his exact plans might be. Wouldn’t it have been more sensible for Holmes to tell Watson what was going on? The poor man doesn’t realise that he’s supposed to be keeping Gruner busy while Holmes burgles the place. It’s a dangerous situation for both of them.

“I knew I had only a few minutes in which to act, for my time was limited by your knowledge of Chinese pottery.” Yes—so why not come up with a better diversion!

Such extenuating circumstances came out in the trial that the sentence, as will be remembered was the lowest that was possible for such an offence. How do you feel about Kitty Winter’s attack on Gruner? It is stomach churning, reading about the man’s injuries—and I don’t think she was justified in taking her revenge in this way. But it is difficult to be concerned about Gruner.

Next Sunday, 16th November, we’ll be having a look at The Mazarin Stone. Hope you can join us then.

Comments

[winryweiss.livejournal.com]

There is a thing I simply need to point out.
This story starts on 3rd of September 1902. Now, Holmes returned in April 1894. That is nearly ten years. So how come he is able to state this in cold blood: "If your man is more dangerous than the late Professor Moriarty, or than the living Colonel Sebastian Moran, then he is indeed worth meeting." Living?! How could Moran be still alive? He was arrested for the murder of Ronald Adair. Excuse me, but I thought that the punishment for murder in England back then was gallows. Did he escape? That hardly seems possible, he was all over revenging the Professor's death, so Holmes, and Watson particularly, wouldn't be to relaxed about it.
So ... any ideas? I have one.

[laurose8.livejournal.com]

And very well you've put it, too. I'd love to hear what happened when Moran got out..?

A suggestion, only. Moran does have bravery and loyalty. Perhaps his military record was so good, and army acquaintances could swear to a heroic action or two, that his sentance was lower than Adair's family considered just.

[winryweiss.livejournal.com]

I'd love to hear what happened when Moran got out..?
... Gosh NO! Stay away, you wild plotbunny! Stay away!
I really didn't plan to expand this idea, but now ... it intrigues me more and more.

[laurose8.livejournal.com]

*ferocious and inescapable nose wiggle*

[scfrankles.livejournal.com]

That is a very good point. I had vaguely assumed Moran was still in prison during ILLU, but you're quite right - he should have been hanged for murdering Ronald Adair. I can't see any extenuating circumstances. The only possibility I can think of is that there wasn't enough evidence to convict Moran of Ronald Adair's murder, so it was decided to put Moran on trial for Holmes' attempted murder after all. Moran would have got a long prison sentence but wouldn't have been hanged. (Found a clipping from a newspaper online, which said the last hanging for attempted murder in England was in 1861 - because that was the year the law was changed.)

[winryweiss.livejournal.com]

Or perhaps Watson was misleading in his datation of events yet again. ^^

Hmmm, I think that Mycroft would have pulled all possible strings to get Colonel out of the way for definite, hence protecting his younger brother.
Do you think that the execution could have been delayed for so long for any reason, like another grave accusations?

[scfrankles.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure Mycroft would have that kind of clout to pull strings and keep Moran in prison. In BRUC, Holmes does talk about Mycroft gathering together information and deciding "national policy" but it appears he always remains a subordinate - it's other people who truly have the power.

I know pretty much nothing about the law in Victorian times (or the law now, to be honest ^^) but that's a thought - I suppose it's possible Moran's execution might be delayed if he was going to be tried for other crimes. But delayed for 8 years..? I don't know.

[laurose8.livejournal.com]

About Watson's query about interfering. I did think Watson just hadn't gathered how dangerous it was to marry Gruner.

A not very good suggestion as to why Holmes doesn't tell Watson (besides his compulsion to secrecy). Perhaps he thought Gruner would find someone trying to fool him more interesting than a talk about crockery.

Kitty Winter was the one who stopped Gruner going after a fresh victim, after all.

[scfrankles.livejournal.com]

It is a bit odd though that Holmes has to remind Watson that Gruner is a murderer and dangerous - Holmes and Sir James Damery did discuss this in front of him.

Well, whatever was going through Holmes' mind as the reason Gruner would be distracted by Watson, I think he really should have told his colleague the truth - for his own safety as well as Watson's. Watson didn't know he was supposed to be distracting Gruner for as long as possible.

Kitty Winter did save Violet de Merville by helping Holmes get the book. But throwing the vitriol was a purely private revenge. And that might not have meant Gruner didn't go on to have further victims. Gruner is left blinded and disfigured, but he has money and social status - I'm not sure this means he will stop preying on women. His looks aren't his only charm.

[vaysh]

Fascinating thoughts and questions, as every week. :) I was quite intrigued by this story - dealing with sexual violence against women, I think, even when it is never directly spelled out. I am sure Doyle's contemporaries, though, understood that Gruner is supposed to be sadist who not only takes women's virginity but rapes, tortures and mutilates them to satisfy his own perverted sexual pleasures.

How do you feel about Kitty Winter’s attack on Gruner? It is stomach churning, reading about the man’s injuries—and I don’t think she was justified in taking her revenge in this way.
I do think Kitty Winter was justified in taking this kind of revenge. If I am reading the clues the story gives us correctly than Gruner did not only sleep with her but rape her.

The descriptions of the effect of the vitriol on Gruner's face are described horribly - it's extremely well written. I don't think many people can read this scene without flinching and feeling the utter pain and horror that Gruner must have felt. Doyle emphasises it by having Gruner reach for Watson to help him. I did feel sympathy for him, in this moment.

But I don't think that was actually Doyle's intention. The story clearly is written in a way that is supposed to make us despise Gruner. But Doyle, a soundly Victorian writer, couldn't describe what the man did to the women he tortured, not in 1924. It is interesting to watch the Grenada film adaptation where we actually get to see what Gruner did to Kitty. In the movie, my sympathies were wholly with Kitty and the women Gruner used.

It may that in an odd reversal of victim and perpetrator, Conan Doyle did try to bring across what great harm had been done to the women, by highlighting Gruner's suffering of the same deeds so emphatically.


I found the few references to hypnotism interesting. The story seems to imply that Gruner hypnotised Violet de Merville to gain her love, even if Doyle never quite comes out to state it directly. I wonder why he didn't just say so. Hypnotism certainly would have convinced me more than that a woman like Violet could so completely fall for a man who obviously is complete jerk - even if she did not believe he actually perpetrated the crimes he was accused of.

[scfrankles.livejournal.com]

I can sympathise with and understand Kitty Winter's actions but I don't think they can be morally justified. Her suffering doesn't make it all right for her to do the same to her attacker - especially in a planned assault in cold blood. Though I appreciate the police wouldn't be terribly interested in gaining justice for her through the official channels.

I do like your idea that Gruner's suffering is almost a metaphor. We can't be shown what he did to Kitty Winter, so the vitriol attack is a stand-in. What we are actually seeing is a reflection of the suffering he inflicted on others.

Actually, I do think that ACD states pretty clearly that hypnotism has been used on Violet de Merville in order to make her fall in love. Gruner isn't completely straight with Holmes about that but I don't think there's anything truly ambiguous in his statement.

[vaysh]

I did not mean that Kitty's attack was morally justified, but psychologically and emotionally justified. Although the morality of the Old Testament is all on Kitty's side. ;)

I agree that Gruner's statement was pretty clear: He had used hypnotism on Violet. But then I am wondering about all the innuendo about women not knowing there own mind, about the "power of love" etc. - in the dialogue between Holmes and Damary, and Holmes and Watson. Also, if the hypnotism had been taken serious, then one of the ways to try to get Violet out of Gruner's clutches would be to use methods to undo the hypnotic suggestion. But nobody in the story seems to think that way. Which makes me think Doyle did not want to say outright that she was hypnotised.

[scfrankles.livejournal.com]

That is a good point that nobody in the story seems to seriously think that Miss de Merville has been hypnotised. Holmes certainly only tries to appeal to her rationality in order to get her to see the marriage is a bad idea.

[laurose8.livejournal.com]

Thanks for that thoughtful contribution. I did think Kitty was in love with Gruner, because of what she says about forgiving and believing him even about the book, but that could have been before he did rape and hurt her.

I did think Kitty might have suffered great pain through an illegal abortion. It would have been worse than Gruner suffered from vitriol, since he had a doctor handy.

[scfrankles.livejournal.com]

I suppose it's not impossible that both things were true - Kitty was in love with him even though he hurt her. Gruner is very good at psychological manipulation, and what seems bizarre from the outside can seem very different to the person trapped inside the relationship.

That is an interesting idea, that Kitty had an illegal abortion. As well as the pain, Gruner certainly wouldn't want to be bothered with children and might have forced her into it.

[laurose8.livejournal.com]

That's an excellent idea, about Gruner making her. As I'm sure you know, contemporary feminism (in the US, anyway) included women not being made to have an abortion they didn't want.