http://scfrankles.livejournal.com/ (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
scfrankles.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
sherlock602014-11-30 08:10 am
scfrankles.livejournal.com) wrote in sherlock602014-11-30 08:10 am
Entry tags:
Canon Discussion: The Sussex Vampire
This week we’re having a look at The Sussex Vampire. As always, I’ve typed up a few thoughts to get the discussion started.
Our client, Mr. Robert Ferguson, of Ferguson and Muirhead, tea brokers, of Mincing Lane, has made some inquiry from us in a communication of even date concerning vampires. Bit odd perhaps that Ferguson goes to his solicitors to talk about his wife’s behaviour—specifically his worries about vampirism. Not quite sure what he was expecting them to do. I suppose if he was thinking about divorce, or thinking about the legalities of protecting his children from his wife… (Though, of course, they’re the wrong sort of lawyers anyway.) But he seems to want answers rather, about what exactly is going on.
"Matilda Briggs… was a ship which is associated with the giant rat of Sumatra, a story for which the world is not yet prepared.” I would ask readers for their thoughts on this but I have known![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
thesmallhobbit and debriswoman long enough now to realise that this is probably not a good idea.
"Voyage of the Gloria Scott… Victor Lynch, the forger…” (What a peculiar way Holmes has with indexing. You would have thought the Gloria Scott would be under “G” and Lynch would be under “L”.) But any thoughts on the many other cases mentioned?
It was one of the peculiarities of his proud, self-contained nature that though he docketed any fresh information very quietly and accurately in his brain, he seldom made any acknowledgment to the giver. I can sense this being written with gritted teeth. But it does seem a bit of information out of the blue. Can anyone remember offhand any occasion when Holmes does graciously acknowledge that someone has known something he didn’t?
…the fact of her foreign birth and of her alien religion always caused a separation of interests and of feelings between husband and wife, so that after a time his love may have cooled towards her and he may have come to regard their union as a mistake. So does the Fergusons’ marriage survive? They seem to have had even more problems than the older son attempting to harm his half-brother.
To him it seemed as wild a tale as it may now seem to you. He knew his wife to be a loving wife, and, save for the assaults upon her stepson, a loving mother. Why, then, should she wound her own dear little baby? It is a wild tale, but it does seem odd that Ferguson completely rejects the possibility that his wife has been harming her baby until he sees her apparently doing it with his own eyes. Surely a woman who appears to attack her stepchild for no reason might be considered to be a danger to her own child.
"I never get your limits, Watson," said he. "There are unexplored possibilities about you.” Both Holmes and Watson seem to be men who keep their cards close to their chest, not talking much about their pasts. Baring-Gould dates this case as taking place in 1896 but here’s Holmes still finding out new things about his friend.
Finally he shook one of the dimpled fists which waved in front of him. This is rather charming. Holmes may perhaps not be a paternal man but he does always seem comfortable with children.
“…a heart of gold, and devoted to the child." Yet Mrs. Mason took a bribe instead of straightaway reporting her fears to Ferguson.
“Your wife feared such an attack. She saw it made and saved the child's life…” I don’t doubt that the baby would have died but I wonder what Jack’s intentions were. He knew the dog hadn’t died. Was Jack trying to paralyse his brother—give him a physical disability like himself? Or was he trying to murder him? I suppose a 15 year old might not be clear in his own mind what he was trying to do—he just wanted to hurt his stepmother’s child.
"I think a year at sea would be my prescription for Master Jacky…” But Jack has a significant disability. And would this really sort things out anyway? Jack can’t really stay with the family—the baby has to be protected—but I don’t think there’s any point in getting the law involved. I would have thought finding him a good boarding school might be a good idea—but then the schools would probably baulk at taking a physically disabled child. Even putting to one side the worries about Jack’s behaviour.
Next Sunday, 7th December, we’ll be having a look at The Three Garridebs. Hope you can join us then.
Our client, Mr. Robert Ferguson, of Ferguson and Muirhead, tea brokers, of Mincing Lane, has made some inquiry from us in a communication of even date concerning vampires. Bit odd perhaps that Ferguson goes to his solicitors to talk about his wife’s behaviour—specifically his worries about vampirism. Not quite sure what he was expecting them to do. I suppose if he was thinking about divorce, or thinking about the legalities of protecting his children from his wife… (Though, of course, they’re the wrong sort of lawyers anyway.) But he seems to want answers rather, about what exactly is going on.
"Matilda Briggs… was a ship which is associated with the giant rat of Sumatra, a story for which the world is not yet prepared.” I would ask readers for their thoughts on this but I have known
thesmallhobbit and debriswoman long enough now to realise that this is probably not a good idea."Voyage of the Gloria Scott… Victor Lynch, the forger…” (What a peculiar way Holmes has with indexing. You would have thought the Gloria Scott would be under “G” and Lynch would be under “L”.) But any thoughts on the many other cases mentioned?
It was one of the peculiarities of his proud, self-contained nature that though he docketed any fresh information very quietly and accurately in his brain, he seldom made any acknowledgment to the giver. I can sense this being written with gritted teeth. But it does seem a bit of information out of the blue. Can anyone remember offhand any occasion when Holmes does graciously acknowledge that someone has known something he didn’t?
…the fact of her foreign birth and of her alien religion always caused a separation of interests and of feelings between husband and wife, so that after a time his love may have cooled towards her and he may have come to regard their union as a mistake. So does the Fergusons’ marriage survive? They seem to have had even more problems than the older son attempting to harm his half-brother.
To him it seemed as wild a tale as it may now seem to you. He knew his wife to be a loving wife, and, save for the assaults upon her stepson, a loving mother. Why, then, should she wound her own dear little baby? It is a wild tale, but it does seem odd that Ferguson completely rejects the possibility that his wife has been harming her baby until he sees her apparently doing it with his own eyes. Surely a woman who appears to attack her stepchild for no reason might be considered to be a danger to her own child.
"I never get your limits, Watson," said he. "There are unexplored possibilities about you.” Both Holmes and Watson seem to be men who keep their cards close to their chest, not talking much about their pasts. Baring-Gould dates this case as taking place in 1896 but here’s Holmes still finding out new things about his friend.
Finally he shook one of the dimpled fists which waved in front of him. This is rather charming. Holmes may perhaps not be a paternal man but he does always seem comfortable with children.
“…a heart of gold, and devoted to the child." Yet Mrs. Mason took a bribe instead of straightaway reporting her fears to Ferguson.
“Your wife feared such an attack. She saw it made and saved the child's life…” I don’t doubt that the baby would have died but I wonder what Jack’s intentions were. He knew the dog hadn’t died. Was Jack trying to paralyse his brother—give him a physical disability like himself? Or was he trying to murder him? I suppose a 15 year old might not be clear in his own mind what he was trying to do—he just wanted to hurt his stepmother’s child.
"I think a year at sea would be my prescription for Master Jacky…” But Jack has a significant disability. And would this really sort things out anyway? Jack can’t really stay with the family—the baby has to be protected—but I don’t think there’s any point in getting the law involved. I would have thought finding him a good boarding school might be a good idea—but then the schools would probably baulk at taking a physically disabled child. Even putting to one side the worries about Jack’s behaviour.
Next Sunday, 7th December, we’ll be having a look at The Three Garridebs. Hope you can join us then.
maybe I am wrong
Re: maybe I am wrong
Re: maybe I am wrong
Re: maybe I am wrong
Re: maybe I am wrong
no subject
This isn't the first time someone with an 'exotic' wife has come to regret the marriage. I wonder whether the same thing would have happened had the second Mrs Ferguson been a respectable English lady.
no subject
The main issue I have with this story is how easy it is to demonize the effeminate disabled boy. No one even asks him what he thinks is happening.
no subject
Admittedly, he isn't spoken to and allowed to defend himself against the charges. But I think we can accept Holmes' judgment that Jack is the culprit, and to a certain extent we can accept the reasons Holmes gives for Jack's actions.
no subject
no subject
But Holmes does use "maniacal" to refer to Jack's love for his father, rather than Jack himself. I know it's splitting hairs but I interpret what Holmes says, not as him condemning the boy, but instead him condemning the awful behaviour of the boy.
no subject
no subject
I think the marriage problems are just a red herring in the story. But I do sympathise with the two of them. They didn't know each other well when they married, Mrs. Ferguson is having to cope with living in a foreign country, the two of them come from different cultures. I can completely understand that at times they might worry they've made a mistake.
no subject
no subject
My own theory, possibly inspired by too much Jonathon Kellerman, was that she was trying to get rid of both kids. The elder boy was a rival, the younger a burden. The reason she saved the baby once was that Jacky had got clear.
Then we have Ferguson's accepting Jacky's embraces, very unlike most fathers. I should say Holmes sending him to sea could have been meant for Jacky's good. Maybe in ten years, Jacky would tell Holmes that Holmes had done better by Jacky than he had by the baby.
no subject
Ferguson did perhaps contribute to Jack's problems. He should have encouraged his son to be more independent. But I don't think he can be held responsible for Jack trying to harm the baby.
I'm not sure that going to sea would be good for Jack - he's disabled and doesn't have the right personality - but he does need to get away from the household. He needs to grow up.
no subject
I have to admire Mrs. Ferguson. The marriage was certainly rushed, apparently her husband started to lose interest in her shortly after he got her into his bed (not that I'm blaming him for anything, but he himself admits that he was enchanted by her) and yet, while in completely foreign country and taking care of not welcoming stepchild, she still behaves like devoted wife.
I think she is yet another from Doyle's strong woman characters.
And now something completely different.
Did you read "Sherlock Holmes and the Giant Rat of Sumatra" by Alan Vanneman? I'm quite torn about that book, for I consider it to be one of the most gripping mystery novel, and yet at the same time the absolutely worst Sherlockian story I've ever read.
no subject
And no, I haven't read that novel. That's rather an intriguingly mixed review you give it ^^"
no subject
It was the very first non-canonical Holmesian novel I've read (various anthologies and other official short stories not counted) which probably influenced my opinion too, but ...
The start is, actually, very Holmesian, and the atmosphere, as well as the setting, is amazing. The mystery behind Sumatrian rats (yeah, plural) is intriguing, despite being very, very faaaar-fetched. Trully, at one point, close to the end, I was all like "What the ...?! What am I reading? Was the author on drugs or what? They're talking about atomic bomb! Well, it's not said roundly, I could not be, we're in the 1890's, but they were frigging talking about atomic bomb and the radiation sickness! What the Hell?!" Which was not the biggest problem. It blended well with the story. And the story is really good, it is gripping, it reads practically itself. In addtion, it draws from Indian mythology (Bhagavaghíta and such tales) which is always huge plus. (Any mythological innuendos are huge plus for me personally.)
But ... central character are not Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson. Well, maybe Watson is, afterall three-continents-worth-of-experience is canon, and he really has few remarkable scenes peppered with pawky humour. But Holmes ... no way, just no, I'd never believe such.
Had the author created his own detective duo, I'd love this book to pieces. But sadly, he did not. And it is not trully Holmesian for me.