Canon Discussion: The Retired Colourman
Jan. 11th, 2015 08:29 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 Retired Colourman. As always, I’ve typed up a few thoughts to get the discussion going.
“But is not all life pathetic and futile? Is not his story a microcosm of the whole? We reach. We grasp. And what is left in our hands at the end? A shadow. Or worse than a shadow -- misery." This is a surprisingly strong reaction to simply meeting a client, however “pathetic and futile” he may be. I wonder if Amberley is reminding Holmes of something specific in his life, past or present.
“Early in 1897 he married a woman twenty years younger than himself -- a good-looking woman, too…” When a successful, wealthy older man wants a wife, he marries a younger woman. That’s just biology and the rules of attraction. It doesn’t mean that Mrs. Amberley was simply after his money and didn’t love her husband. She may have had hopes that they would be happy together. But you have to wonder about that courtship. Aside from the fact he becomes a murderer, we find out later: “He has the local repute of being a miser as well as a harsh and exacting husband.” But then, Mrs. Amberley would be over 40 when she married. (Perhaps a recent widow?) There wouldn’t have been many opportunities for a woman to support herself properly. Maybe she just saw marriage to Amberley as her best choice.
“You know that I am preoccupied with this case of the two Coptic Patriarchs, which should come to a head to-day.” This is a particularly intriguing reference. Any thoughts?
“Early in 1897 he married a woman twenty years younger than himself…” “And yet within two years…” So this story is set in 1898 (the weather is later described as hot, so it can’t be set as late as the beginning of ‘89). And Watson is getting that telling off again from Holmes: “...in your mission you have missed everything of importance…”, that he got in SOLI (set in 1895): ...his austere face was even more severe than usual as he commented upon the things that I had done and the things that I had not. I’m not sure if Watson should be paying more attention to Holmes’ methods, or if Holmes should be making more of an effort to train Watson…
A white pellet fell from between his gasping lips. Why is Amberley carrying around the means to commit suicide? He seems confident that no-one is onto him up until this point.
"You had not met Barker, Watson. He is my hated rival upon the Surrey shore.” What are your thoughts about Barker? Is he a follower of Holmes’ methods or has he developed his own? “...and as to Barker, he has done nothing save what I told him." Barker does appear to defer slightly to Holmes. And why has Watson not heard of Barker before? Holmes declares Barker a “rival”, but his name can’t be well-known in the same way Holmes’ is..
“I sent an agent to the most impossible village I could think of…” Any thoughts on who this agent is?
“By what devilish device he decoyed them there I do not know…” So how do you think Amberley did lure his victims into the strongroom?
“If you find an indelible pencil on the body --" But surely if a dying man was writing on the skirting, and “he lost his senses before he could finish”, then the pencil would simply drop on the floor.
"Well, well, MacKinnon is a good fellow," said Holmes with a tolerant smile. Any thoughts on the future career of MacKinnon? I think we meet him only this once.
And that concludes Round 3!![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
thesmallhobbit and I would like to thank everyone who had a go at a 60 or a clerihew, who joined in with the discussions, who left a comment, or who simply took the time to read the posts. Thank you so much for ensuring that ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
sherlock60 continued to be a proper community. And we must give a special thank you to laurose8, who has been with us pretty much all the way through: thank you for your enthusiasm, and your many insightful comments during the discussions!
However, the story never really ends for Sherlock Holmes and next week we’ll be starting Round 4. We’ll be carrying on with the 60s and discussion posts as usual; the separate clerihew posts are being retired but in their stead Mrs. Hudson will be making her debut as the editor of Mrs. Hudson’s Poetry Page. All forms of poetry inspired by each week’s canon story will be welcome—just leave your submission as a comment on Mrs. Hudson’s post.
So we hope to see you all next Sunday, 18th January, when we’ll be going right back to the beginning with A Study in Scarlet!
“But is not all life pathetic and futile? Is not his story a microcosm of the whole? We reach. We grasp. And what is left in our hands at the end? A shadow. Or worse than a shadow -- misery." This is a surprisingly strong reaction to simply meeting a client, however “pathetic and futile” he may be. I wonder if Amberley is reminding Holmes of something specific in his life, past or present.
“Early in 1897 he married a woman twenty years younger than himself -- a good-looking woman, too…” When a successful, wealthy older man wants a wife, he marries a younger woman. That’s just biology and the rules of attraction. It doesn’t mean that Mrs. Amberley was simply after his money and didn’t love her husband. She may have had hopes that they would be happy together. But you have to wonder about that courtship. Aside from the fact he becomes a murderer, we find out later: “He has the local repute of being a miser as well as a harsh and exacting husband.” But then, Mrs. Amberley would be over 40 when she married. (Perhaps a recent widow?) There wouldn’t have been many opportunities for a woman to support herself properly. Maybe she just saw marriage to Amberley as her best choice.
“You know that I am preoccupied with this case of the two Coptic Patriarchs, which should come to a head to-day.” This is a particularly intriguing reference. Any thoughts?
“Early in 1897 he married a woman twenty years younger than himself…” “And yet within two years…” So this story is set in 1898 (the weather is later described as hot, so it can’t be set as late as the beginning of ‘89). And Watson is getting that telling off again from Holmes: “...in your mission you have missed everything of importance…”, that he got in SOLI (set in 1895): ...his austere face was even more severe than usual as he commented upon the things that I had done and the things that I had not. I’m not sure if Watson should be paying more attention to Holmes’ methods, or if Holmes should be making more of an effort to train Watson…
A white pellet fell from between his gasping lips. Why is Amberley carrying around the means to commit suicide? He seems confident that no-one is onto him up until this point.
"You had not met Barker, Watson. He is my hated rival upon the Surrey shore.” What are your thoughts about Barker? Is he a follower of Holmes’ methods or has he developed his own? “...and as to Barker, he has done nothing save what I told him." Barker does appear to defer slightly to Holmes. And why has Watson not heard of Barker before? Holmes declares Barker a “rival”, but his name can’t be well-known in the same way Holmes’ is..
“I sent an agent to the most impossible village I could think of…” Any thoughts on who this agent is?
“By what devilish device he decoyed them there I do not know…” So how do you think Amberley did lure his victims into the strongroom?
“If you find an indelible pencil on the body --" But surely if a dying man was writing on the skirting, and “he lost his senses before he could finish”, then the pencil would simply drop on the floor.
"Well, well, MacKinnon is a good fellow," said Holmes with a tolerant smile. Any thoughts on the future career of MacKinnon? I think we meet him only this once.
And that concludes Round 3!
thesmallhobbit and I would like to thank everyone who had a go at a 60 or a clerihew, who joined in with the discussions, who left a comment, or who simply took the time to read the posts. Thank you so much for ensuring that sherlock60 continued to be a proper community. And we must give a special thank you to laurose8, who has been with us pretty much all the way through: thank you for your enthusiasm, and your many insightful comments during the discussions!However, the story never really ends for Sherlock Holmes and next week we’ll be starting Round 4. We’ll be carrying on with the 60s and discussion posts as usual; the separate clerihew posts are being retired but in their stead Mrs. Hudson will be making her debut as the editor of Mrs. Hudson’s Poetry Page. All forms of poetry inspired by each week’s canon story will be welcome—just leave your submission as a comment on Mrs. Hudson’s post.
So we hope to see you all next Sunday, 18th January, when we’ll be going right back to the beginning with A Study in Scarlet!
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2015-01-11 02:13 pm (UTC)Looking forward to the immortal words said by Stamford "Dr Watson, Mr Sherlock Holmes."
no subject
Date: 2015-01-11 05:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-01-11 04:19 pm (UTC)I have a vague idea, not nearly as good as thesmallhobbit's, that a past Coptic Patriarch might have left a coded message for a successor. Something, perhaps the invasion of Ethipia or Egypt, made it urgent?
Of Holmes' agent - perhaps some Baker Street Irregulars feel nostalgia for the old days, like Watson?
Thank you for pointing out about Amberley's suicide pill. Is it possible that he was in actual pain, and thinking of suicide anyway? Not guilt, I'd think, or he'd show them the bodies.
no subject
Date: 2015-01-11 05:29 pm (UTC)That is a great idea - I love specifically the idea that, re the two Coptic Patriarchs, one is in the past and one is in the present. And solving a code is so typically Holmes. I think you're on to a winner here...
Again, I like it ^^ A former Irregular now grown up (and hopefully life has improved for him) but still assisting Holmes from time to time.
Holmes does mention that excelling at chess marked Amberley out as having a scheming mind. Is it possible that Amberley thought ahead, working out many different outcomes, in the same way he'd think many moves ahead in chess? He didn't seriously expect to have to commit suicide, but he had that possibility covered. He wanted to "win" whatever happened.
no subject
Date: 2015-01-11 06:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-01-12 09:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-01-12 01:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-01-12 04:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-01-15 01:22 pm (UTC)As for the unfortunate Mrs Amberley, I think the subtext of the story does suggest that she was after Amberley's money, and that this was not a marriage based in love or mutual care.
I am wholly intrigued by Barker, Holmes' "friend" and "rival". Too bad we only ever hear of Moriarty as Holmes' rival. I found this article which wonderfully summarises all facts and possible speculation about Barker. The author speculates that Barker may have been the "tall, thin man with coloured glasses" that Watson encounters on the street in "The Adventure of the Empty House" and whom he takes for a plain clothes detective. I keeping wondering about the "dark" in Watson's descriptions. Now, I am sure if Barker was supposed to be a man of colour, Arthur Conan Doyle would have it made it much clearer (and probably had less good things to say about him). But I find it interesting to think of Barker, who obviously is very good at what he does, as a POC. :)
no subject
Date: 2015-01-15 01:35 pm (UTC)I think Barker is an interesting character. I'm particularly struck with Holmes referring to him as his rival from the Surrey shore. I imagine that those with cases living south of the River Thames (i.e. the Surrey side) taking them to Barker, whilst those north of the Thames (Middlesex side) still going to Holmes. So Holmes is losing cases!
no subject
Date: 2015-01-15 05:44 pm (UTC)I too have learned an enormous amount. I had read all the stories before but not with such careful attention. I'm hoping even more people join in with the discussions this time - there's always something new brought up that had never occurred to me before ^^
That is a very interesting article about Barker. (I hadn't thought about him in such detail.) Must admit, I myself don't think he can be the man in EMPT: showing off to a crowd, and Watson finding his theories "absurd" just doesn't sound like Barker. But re him possibly being a man of colour: what about him maybe being an Anglo-Indian..? Here's a BBC article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20857969).
And so, I'll see you on Sunday for Round 4! ^^