Canon Discussion: The Sign of Four, Chaps. 1 - 6

[scfrankles.livejournal.com]

This week we’re having a look at the first half of The Sign of Four. I’ve typed up a few thoughts to get the discussion going—please leave your own ideas in the comments!


The timeline for SIGN is perhaps a little odd. It’s set in 1888 (Miss Morstan’s father disappeared in 1878, ten years before), which is about seven years after STUD (going by the date of the Battle of Maiwand). And Watson does refer to the fact he’s lived with Holmes for “years”. Yet Watson is still getting over the effects of Afghanistan, STUD is referred to as though it’s just happened and Watson hasn’t been involved in any cases since, and though Holmes and Watson now know each other better (in STUD, Watson suspects Holmes of taking drugs; in SIGN, Holmes is doing it openly in front of him), they still aren’t close (Watson hesitates to tell Holmes of his disapproval about the cocaine). Stepping outside the Game, I suppose ACD was doing a mixture of starting again and trying to stay faithful to his previous story. Inside the Game though, it’s difficult to make sense of it.


Chap. 1

...but sat nursing my wounded leg. I had had a Jezail bullet through it some time before… And of course in STUD, Watson states the bullet from the Jezail hit his shoulder. Any thoughts?

“...deduction lets me know that when there you dispatched a telegram." Any thoughts on who Watson sent the telegram to? The person who sent his brother’s watch on to him perhaps?

I handed him over the watch with some slight feeling of amusement in my heart… Watson has kept his brother’s existence to himself, up to the point of keeping his bereavement to himself. He’s distressed by Holmes’ eventual deductions about his brother. Yet he lightheartedly hands over the watch to Holmes for him to try and deduce the former owner’s character. Yes, he believes that Holmes won’t be able to do so, but still—psychologically this seems a bit odd.

And why does he keep his brother to himself? Playing the Game and going by the internal timeline, SIGN takes place after Watson has been introduced to Holmes’ brother Mycroft (in GREE). Perfect point for Watson to mention he has a brother too, but he doesn’t. And he must have talked about his family a little because Holmes knows his father is dead.


Chap. 2

“...you once enabled my employer, Mrs. Cecil Forrester, to unravel a little domestic complication.” Any ideas about what the case might have entailed? Actually, any ideas about Mr. Cecil Forrester and the children of the household? I think we’re told absolutely nothing about them.

“About six years ago — to be exact, upon the fourth of May, 1882… I had at that time just entered the family of Mrs. Cecil Forrester in the capacity of governess.” Miss Morstan’s father disappears in 1878. I presume she went straight from her boarding school to starting work as a governess somewhere. But we’re told nothing about those 4 years from ‘78-’82. Any ideas?

"There is something positively inhuman in you at times." I have to say that I think Holmes treats Miss Morstan more fairly than Watson does—not going by first impressions, and being aware there may be more to her than meets the eye. Watson manufactures an entire personality for her perhaps, based on how she behaves at that first short meeting. (I’m not saying that Watson is wrong in his assumptions—Miss Morstan does seem to be an admirable woman.) I admire the way Holmes takes a step back and isn’t swayed by appearances and “personal qualities”. He waits for more data. In chap. 6, Athelney Jones says of Thaddeus Sholto: “His appearance is — well, not attractive” and apparently considers this significant.


Chap. 4

Holmes declares that he overheard me caution him against the great danger of taking more than two drops of castor-oil, while I recommended strychnine in large doses as a sedative. I can’t help but notice that Holmes didn’t jump in and correct Watson’s potentially deadly advice to poor Thaddeus Sholto…


Chap. 5

“I have seen something of the sort on the side of a hill near Ballarat, where the prospectors had been at work." It’s only relatively recently that I’ve heard about the theory Watson spent some of his childhood in Australia. This sentence does suggest he has actually been in Ballarat—he’s not just saying he’s seen a picture of the place.


Chap. 6

“I'll never forget how you lectured us all on causes and inferences and effects in the Bishopgate jewel case.” Any thoughts on this case?

"Well, whoever noticed it, it shows how our gentleman got away. Inspector!" "Yes, sir," from the passage. Rather a peculiar slip, Athelney Jones addressing his sergeant by his own title. Holmes must really have him rattled…


Next Sunday, 1st February, we’ll be completing The Sign of Four by having a look at chapters 7-12. Hope you can join us again for that.

Comments

[laurose8.livejournal.com]

It could be (inside the game) that here Watson left more to Doyle's editing, from rougher notes, than he did later, and Doyle just bunged in whatever kept the story going.

An interesting idea of Watson having been to Australia as a child. It does seem that's where it would have to be fitted in. I admit I'd think he'd mention memories of it more, but it would explain about that family in England (not) bit.

[scfrankles.livejournal.com]

I do like that idea ^^ It's not Watson giving us this peculiar version of events in his novel - it's an outside influence. It would make sense that someone interested in selling the book would want it to link up with Watson's previous story.

Watson's family being in Australia would certainly fit in nicely. The only thing is though, in BOSC Watson seems to be, in contrast, unfamiliar with Australia.

[laurose8.livejournal.com]

Yes, it does seem likely that, whether Black Jack was of Ballarat or Skagway, there would have been some mention made of Watson's Australian background.

Another guess is that Mary Marston would have been in another governess or companion post? (Actually, an earlier employer could be used in one of the modern fictions; to start or help with a case.)