Canon Discussion: A Case of Identity

[scfrankles.livejournal.com]

This week we’re having a look at A Case of Identity. I’ve typed up a few thoughts to get the discussion going—please leave your own ideas in the comments!

“...The crudest of writers could invent nothing more crude." Wanted: good beta reader. Apply ℅ 221B, Baker Street, London.

"This is the Dundas separation case, and, as it happens, I was engaged in clearing up some small points in connection with it.” Curious that Holmes should have been involved in what appears to be a straightforward case of domestic abuse. What do you think the “small points” were?

“It is a little souvenir from the King of Bohemia in return for my assistance in the case of the Irene Adler papers." Bit puzzling that Holmes should have accepted a costly gift from the King, when at the end of SCAN all he wants is Irene Adler’s photograph and he apparently despises his client a little. Also it’s a bit odd that he refers to the photograph as “papers”. (Though to be fair, the King refers to “papers” too, towards the end of SCAN.)

"It was from the reigning family of Holland, though the matter in which I served them was of such delicacy that I cannot confide it even to you…”

“...one rather intricate matter which has been referred to me from Marseilles…”

“I heard of you from Mrs. Etherege, whose husband you found so easy when the police and everyone had given him up for dead.” Any thoughts on these cases?

“I would give it all to know what has become of Mr. Hosmer Angel." It’s such an odd name—it practically shouts out that it’s fake. Why on earth did Windibank choose it? I sometimes wonder if there’s some kind of joke there.

“Mother was all in his favor from the first and was even fonder of him than I was.” It’s deeply discomforting that Miss Sutherland’s mother should have taken an active part in the deception. Any thoughts on the relationship between mother and daughter? "She was angry, and said that I was never to speak of the matter again." Could this have been genuine anger—directed at Windibank? Was she perhaps at last feeling guilty about the trick they played on her daughter, and wishing they hadn’t gone through with it?

A professional case of great gravity was engaging my own attention at the time, and the whole of next day I was busy at the bedside of the sufferer. Any thoughts on this? We don’t often hear about Watson’s own work.

"That fellow will rise from crime to crime until he does something very bad, and ends on a gallows.” Any thoughts on Windibank’s future schemes?

"And Miss Sutherland?" "If I tell her she will not believe me.” This is such a frustrating ending. Holmes may have solved the case but Windibank gets away without punishment. Not only that, he obtains the desired result from his plot. Miss Sutherland, and her money, will remain at the family home, waiting for Hosmer Angel to return. Surely Holmes has a moral and professional responsibility to his client. He says she won’t believe him, but shouldn’t he at least try to convince her?

Next Sunday, 1st March, we’ll having a look at The Boscombe Valley Mystery. Hope you can join us then.

Comments

[lindahoyland.livejournal.com]

The ending annoys me too. Holmes should tell her.

[scfrankles.livejournal.com]

Absolutely. I don't think Holmes has a choice - he accepted the case; he has a responsibility to his client to tell her the full details.

[thesmallhobbit.livejournal.com]

Holmes should have told her - because she's left at the mercy of a man we know to be completely unscrupulous.

[scfrankles.livejournal.com]

It's a very good point. Miss Sutherland might be in actual danger from Windibank. Holmes himself says Windibank is likely to do something bad enough to end up "on a gallows".

[tardisjournal.livejournal.com]

Perhaps Holmes thinks Miss Sutherland is safer at home, going along with the scheme, than learning the truth and possibly openly defying her stepfather?

Yeah, I'm really reaching here. I can't fathom Holmes's reasoning either.

[scfrankles.livejournal.com]

As far as I can see, Holmes is merely taking the coward's way out. He doesn't want to tell Miss Sutherland the truth because he thinks she won't believe him - and he also seems to think she will be angry with him if he attempts to take her "delusion" away.

It is possible that Windibank would react in a dangerous way if Miss Sutherland confronted him about what had happened. But surely this could be avoided. Holmes knows the truth, and could warn Windibank he would go straight to the police if anything happened to his stepdaughter. And Miss Sutherland has her work and a private income - she could move away any time she liked. She wouldn't have to wait for marriage.

[morelindo.livejournal.com]

It's so uncharacteristic of him as well - he's so ready to take justice into his own hands in numerous other cases, this just makes no sense to me.

[laurose8.livejournal.com]

I fully agree with the 'should have said', and find it strange that at least two later fiction writers copied this idea.

I don't know whether the Poirot teleplay was a Christie story, or the adaptor's contribution.

In the Prozini novel it was particularly silly. His Nameless Detective didn't tell his female client (it's always a female), but rushed off and told everyone else. In Nameless' San Francisco, people don't bother to advertise on tv or anything, they just tell this liscenced detective in confidence.

I thought you might like to know that in the collection of Holmes pastiches, Holmes for the Holidays, Gwen Moffat has Holmes dealing with the bad consequences of this kind of silence, done by another detective.

[scfrankles.livejournal.com]

I can only applaud your knowledge of detective fiction - I hadn't heard of Prozini or Holmes for the Holidays before.

Stepping outside of the Game - ACD couldn't have Holmes telling Miss Sutherland immediately that her stepfather was Angel because that would have spoiled the final reveal. And he might have added that bit at the end about "she will not believe me" to give an explanation as to why Holmes hadn't just told Miss Sutherland at her consultation.

But I do feel ACD could still have given us a better ending - Holmes could have found some indirect way to help Miss Sutherland.

[laurose8.livejournal.com]

Still outside: actually, I find Holmes cheating his client also means Doyle cheats his reader. I think even a soapy confrontation scene would have been better.

edit: by the way, if you're looking for printed canon, rather than on-line fanon, I always rec van Gulik's Judge Dee series. But the (printed) fanfic from his canon is poor to terrible.

[debriswoman]

I wonder if Holmes had a similar case when all was revealed and it ended badly?

[laurose8.livejournal.com]

A great idea - thanks!

[scfrankles.livejournal.com]

That does seem a distinct possibility... Good thinking, that debriswoman ^_^ Holmes seems so certain that he shouldn't tell Miss Sutherland - and there doesn't appear to be a good reason why.

[debriswoman]

*is pleased with self*

[vaysh]

Wow, how interesting that you all find the ending so unsatisfying. For me it was clear that ACD constructed the ending in this way to show the plight of unmarried women in his times. If not even Sherlock Holmes could find a legal loophole to punish Windibank for his deception, then that means that the law is at fault and needs changing. That's totally how I read it.

For all the supposed sexism that ACD is accused of, I found this a very touching and pro-women story. Yes, of course, ACD (and Sherlock Holmes) are always talking from within the gender ideology of their time, but what a fascinating portrayal of a strong-minded, independent, and yet caring and loving young woman Miss Sutherland is.

[scfrankles.livejournal.com]

I would agree with you that Miss Sutherland is portrayed in a sympathetic way by ACD - even if Watson seems rather snobbish about her, and thinks she has a "vacuous face" ^^ But I really can't agree with you about anything else.

"The plight of unmarried women..." But I don't think it's particularly important that the victim of the "crime" is female and unmarried. This is a story about someone being taken advantage of by family members, which is something that could happen to anyone, of any marital status.

And Windibank couldn't be touched by the law (and maybe the law did need changing) but that's not the only way someone could be punished. (And I'm not talking about attacking someone with a hunting crop ^^") Holmes could have spoken to Windibank's employers, for instance. Or, more importantly, he could have told Miss Sutherland what was going on! The reason he gives for not telling her is so patronising and sexist about women in general.

Miss Sutherland's situation is a great deal better than that of most Victorian women. She has a private income and her work. She can leave home any time - she doesn't have to wait for marriage. The ending is so unsatisfying because Holmes leaves everything as he found it - he doesn't sort things out for his client, even though it is in his power to do so. He could tell Miss Sutherland the full facts of the case, and she could leave home, taking her money with her.

[vaysh]

I think you overestimate the freedom unmarried women had in Victorian England. It may have been possible for Miss Sutherland to leave her home and family but she would have been pretty much an outcast in society.

But it really is a question of how one interprets literature. I understand you guys see the story very much as a personal story, that you want to identify with the characters and understand Holmes' actions as if he (and Miss Sutherland) was a contemporary of us. I am looking more from a historian's perspective, and am interested in how such a story was received at the time. It's two different ways of looking at the ACD stories, both legitimate.

[debriswoman]

It would be interesting to know if the female readers when it was published were as indignant on Miss Sutherland's behalf as some of us are. Holmes revealed some unpleasant truths in other stories...but kept quiet in others.

[vaysh]

That would indeed be interesting. :) I am sure it's possible to find out about the audience reception of ACD in regards to women at his own time, but it would need a lot of research.

[debriswoman]

Yes...a fair bit of work involved...

sherlock60 Canon Discussion A Case of Identity

[livejournal.livejournal.com]

User maimat referenced to your post from sherlock60 Canon Discussion A Case of Identity (http://watsons-woes.livejournal.com/1241950.html) saying: [...] I find it absolutely awesome to read the discussion going on.   A Case of Identity Discussion [...]

[gardnerhill.livejournal.com]

This is why fanfic was invented. I'm writing a coda where Watson takes it upon himself to inform her. He's taken worse in the service of justice than a slapped face, after all.

[scfrankles.livejournal.com]

Sounds good. (The coda, not the slapped face ^^") It seems the sort of noble and gentlemanly thing that Watson would do - and IDEN does need some kind of proper resolution to it. (And can I just say, I'm rather thrilled someone followed the link from WW to have a look at the discussion ^^)

[gardnerhill.livejournal.com]

Thanks! Probably caught my eye precisely because I'm working on a piece directly based on IDEN. Watson has a better grasp on women than his gay misanthropic friend does, and probably has a bit more respect for what they can endure.