Canon Discussion: The Blue Carbuncle
Mar. 22nd, 2015 08:04 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 Blue Carbuncle. I’ve typed up a few thoughts to get the discussion going—please leave your own ideas in the comments!
I had called upon my friend Sherlock Holmes upon the second morning after Christmas… I wonder if Holmes celebrated in any way. And I wonder how the Watsons celebrated—neither of them has any family (in England anyway), and neither had any friends when they met, apart from the people they lived with. I suppose it would be just them on the day itself, but perhaps now they’re married, they’ve made friends with other couples who could come for a party during the Christmas period. Or perhaps the neighbours would come round to celebrate. And Holmes would remain staunchly Bohemian and not attend, no matter how much Watson and Mary begged. (I found this article about Victorian parlour games. Kissing ladies seems to come up quite a lot, which is perhaps why Holmes resolutely refuses to be sociable. Oh, and there’s also a game mentioned called “Are You There, Moriarty?” Which seems like a very bad idea...)
"A thousand pounds! Great Lord of mercy!" The commissionaire plumped down into a chair… So who gets the reward? It was Peterson who actually found the jewel, and Holmes was the one who solved the mystery of how it got there. But it was in Henry Baker’s goose. Doesn’t he perhaps deserve part of the reward?
“I have reason to know that there are sentimental considerations in the background which would induce the Countess to part with half her fortune if she could but recover the gem." Any thoughts on these “sentimental considerations”? Interesting phrasing on Holmes’ part: “I have reason to know…” So the reasons aren’t common knowledge then?
“There have been two murders, a vitriol-throwing, a suicide, and several robberies brought about for the sake of this forty-grain weight of crystallized charcoal.” Any thoughts on these incidents in the carbuncle’s past?
“But I shall come back in the evening at the hour you have mentioned…” Once again Mrs. Watson just fades out of the picture. Watson doesn’t seem to feel the need to tell her he’s off on an adventure. Any thoughts? Has she gone away on a visit?
"No more words. Get out!" Was Holmes right to let Ryder go? Ryder is rather pathetic I suppose, and I can agree with Holmes that if you “send him to jail now… you make him a jail-bird for life.” And I can sympathise to some extent with Ryder giving into greed—being surrounded by wealthy people at the hotel, and wanting to take some of that wealth for himself. But coolly selecting someone to take the blame for the crime? That’s harder to forgive. Did he maybe deserve punishment for that if nothing else?
And what about his accomplice, Catherine Cusack? If he runs away, that will imply he’s guilty. Won’t attention then maybe turn to Cusack, and she’ll get arrested? Holmes doesn’t seem to weigh her in the equation at all—he doesn’t seem bothered about whether she deserves punishment or not. But perhaps Ryder will take Cusack with him when he goes. Or at least warn her she should run too.
“If Horner were in danger it would be another thing; but this fellow will not appear against him, and the case must collapse.” Is Ryder’s flight going to be enough to make certain Horner is released? I’m not sure what the legal situation would be. Yes, a major witness won’t be speaking against Horner but there must be other people in the hotel who saw him entering the room in order to do his work. And Horner himself has presumably confirmed that he was in the hotel. Might he not end up in prison as an easy scapegoat anyway? Despite the Countess having her jewel back, someone still having to be seen to be punished?
Next week, 29th March, we’ll be having a look at The Speckled Band. Hope you can join us then.
I had called upon my friend Sherlock Holmes upon the second morning after Christmas… I wonder if Holmes celebrated in any way. And I wonder how the Watsons celebrated—neither of them has any family (in England anyway), and neither had any friends when they met, apart from the people they lived with. I suppose it would be just them on the day itself, but perhaps now they’re married, they’ve made friends with other couples who could come for a party during the Christmas period. Or perhaps the neighbours would come round to celebrate. And Holmes would remain staunchly Bohemian and not attend, no matter how much Watson and Mary begged. (I found this article about Victorian parlour games. Kissing ladies seems to come up quite a lot, which is perhaps why Holmes resolutely refuses to be sociable. Oh, and there’s also a game mentioned called “Are You There, Moriarty?” Which seems like a very bad idea...)
"A thousand pounds! Great Lord of mercy!" The commissionaire plumped down into a chair… So who gets the reward? It was Peterson who actually found the jewel, and Holmes was the one who solved the mystery of how it got there. But it was in Henry Baker’s goose. Doesn’t he perhaps deserve part of the reward?
“I have reason to know that there are sentimental considerations in the background which would induce the Countess to part with half her fortune if she could but recover the gem." Any thoughts on these “sentimental considerations”? Interesting phrasing on Holmes’ part: “I have reason to know…” So the reasons aren’t common knowledge then?
“There have been two murders, a vitriol-throwing, a suicide, and several robberies brought about for the sake of this forty-grain weight of crystallized charcoal.” Any thoughts on these incidents in the carbuncle’s past?
“But I shall come back in the evening at the hour you have mentioned…” Once again Mrs. Watson just fades out of the picture. Watson doesn’t seem to feel the need to tell her he’s off on an adventure. Any thoughts? Has she gone away on a visit?
"No more words. Get out!" Was Holmes right to let Ryder go? Ryder is rather pathetic I suppose, and I can agree with Holmes that if you “send him to jail now… you make him a jail-bird for life.” And I can sympathise to some extent with Ryder giving into greed—being surrounded by wealthy people at the hotel, and wanting to take some of that wealth for himself. But coolly selecting someone to take the blame for the crime? That’s harder to forgive. Did he maybe deserve punishment for that if nothing else?
And what about his accomplice, Catherine Cusack? If he runs away, that will imply he’s guilty. Won’t attention then maybe turn to Cusack, and she’ll get arrested? Holmes doesn’t seem to weigh her in the equation at all—he doesn’t seem bothered about whether she deserves punishment or not. But perhaps Ryder will take Cusack with him when he goes. Or at least warn her she should run too.
“If Horner were in danger it would be another thing; but this fellow will not appear against him, and the case must collapse.” Is Ryder’s flight going to be enough to make certain Horner is released? I’m not sure what the legal situation would be. Yes, a major witness won’t be speaking against Horner but there must be other people in the hotel who saw him entering the room in order to do his work. And Horner himself has presumably confirmed that he was in the hotel. Might he not end up in prison as an easy scapegoat anyway? Despite the Countess having her jewel back, someone still having to be seen to be punished?
Next week, 29th March, we’ll be having a look at The Speckled Band. Hope you can join us then.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2015-03-22 02:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-03-22 02:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-03-22 04:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-03-22 04:29 pm (UTC)I admit the Catherine part isn't very tidy. To me it would seem in character for Holmes to drop a word of warning in Catherine's ear. It's more likely to take than with Ryder.
If the diamond continue to be considered stolen, Ryder is going to find it difficult to get a job. He might live with his sister and brother in law, and even do a bit of work for them. On the other hand, the police probably will be looking for him, they're not that dense. Being desperate, and having at least one friend who's a crook, I'm not sure at all Ryder wouldn't end up a career crook. Safe, weaselly, little jobs, of course; but he thought this one was safe.
Holmes does seem to know quite a bit about the Countess. Maybe he can arrange for the diamond to have only been lost? For all we know, the Countess might feel Christmassy, too; once she has the stone back.
Being insufficiently timid in drawing my inferences, I'll guess from a purple dressing gown, that the dressing gown was new, from not being his purple..., and that it was definitely purple. Now, Holmes doesn't seem the sort to buy purple, and clients don't give detective dressing gowns. Snuff boxes, yes; but not dressing gowns. Considering who was on clothes giving terms with Sherlock Holmes, and who very well might have a running joke with him about hand me downs, this could be considered the first intimationWatson received of Mycroft.
no subject
Date: 2015-03-22 09:14 pm (UTC)I'm not sure that Catherine Cusack deserves Holmes going to the trouble of seeking her out and warning her. But on the other hand, it wouldn't seem quite fair Ryder getting off completely while Cusack gets arrested.
Well, Ryder does say he's going to leave the country entirely. He'll be leaving his crooked friend behind. I suppose if Ryder changes his name and lies fairly low, he will be able to get a job and carry on with his life honestly somewhere else.
I like the idea of Holmes "arranging" for the jewel to have been "lost" ^^ (Like the letter in SECO I suppose.) But I'm not sure he could wangle it - both Ryder and Cusack declared that the bureau had been "forced open". (Which it had - but by them.) And if perhaps Holmes told the Countess the truth, would she really feel forgiving towards her maid and Ryder? It's quite a betrayal.
I love your idea that the purple dressing gown is a present from Mycroft - it's inspired ^_^ I've never thought about it - but, yes, the fact that Watson calls it "a purple dressing-gown" does imply he hasn't seen it before and it's new. I love the thought this is the first indirect reference to Mycroft - I am entirely convinced by your arguments ^^ You always come up with such wonderful interpretations of the text. I know you don't want to write fics yourself, but it has to be said you're an excellent source of plot bunnies ^_^