Canon Discussion: The Hound of the Baskervilles, Chaps. 8-15

[scfrankles.livejournal.com]

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


Chap. 8

...transcribing my own letters to Mr. Sherlock Holmes which lie before me on the table. One page is missing, but otherwise they are exactly as written… Wonder what happened to the missing page. Has it been lost, or has it been deliberately withheld? Though we know what Holmes is like with his papers, so the page probably was just lost.

I am no antiquarian, but I could imagine that they were some unwarlike and harried race who were forced to accept that which none other would occupy. This is such a poignant piece of imagining from Watson. And it makes me think of Holmes in a way—he rejects the rules of society and stands up for the weak.

...he took us both to show us the spot where the legend of the wicked Hugo is supposed to have had its origin. Any thoughts on how much truth there is in the legend? What were the facts that led to the story of the hound?


Chap. 9

“The man is rather deaf…” Is it odd that Sir Henry has observed this but Watson hasn’t? After all, they’ve both known Barrymore for the same length of time, and Watson is a doctor. But then, Mortimer may have discreetly mentioned it to Sir Henry, or Barrymore himself may have pointed it out to his new employer.

To act the spy upon a friend was a hateful task. Bit of foreshadowing from Watson. Does Holmes have any misgivings at all about keeping an eye on Watson without telling him he’s there?

...and that the lady should accept the situation without protest… I suppose this is a good example of the difference between Watson and Holmes. Watson sees that the Stapletons don’t look alike; he sees they don’t have similar personalities; he sees that they don’t act like siblings, but he doesn’t take the final step and think: well, maybe they’re not siblings then.

“Speak out, then! What does it mean?” Did the Barrymores really need to tell their secret? After all, they’d inherited money and didn’t need the job. It would have been harder to contact Selden and give him food if they had to stay somewhere a bit further from the moor but it could have been done.


Chap. 10

I asked him casually to what type Frankland’s skull belonged, and so heard nothing but craniology for the rest of our drive. I have not lived for years with Sherlock Holmes for nothing. This is an amusingly ambiguous statement. Does Watson mean he’s learnt this technique from Holmes, or does he mean he uses this technique on Holmes?


Chap. 12

“I thought that you were in Baker Street working out that case of blackmailing.” “That was what I wished you to think.” Did the blackmailing case actually exist or not..?

“In truth, it was partly for your own sake that I did it, and it was my appreciation of the danger which you ran which led me to come down and examine the matter for myself.” But from what Holmes says at the very end, he had planned from the beginning to come down in secret. It was nothing to do with Watson.

“Had I been with Sir Henry and you it is evident that my point of view would have been the same as yours, and my presence would have warned our very formidable opponents to be on their guard.” But Stapleton already knew from when he was in London that Holmes had taken up the case. And Watson’s presence surely warned Stapleton to be on his guard.

“As it is, I have been able to get about as I could not possibly have done had I been living at the Hall…” But in other cases, Holmes is always putting on disguises or following people without them realising. Did he really have to hide out on the moor?


Chap. 13

He burst into one of his rare fits of laughter as he turned away from the picture. I have not heard him laugh often, and it has always boded ill to somebody. Rather a sad thing to say. When they first met, they always seemed to be bursting into laughter together.

“I wish you to drive to Merripit House. Send back your trap, however, and let them know that you intend to walk home.” Stapleton will have the hound ready to release after Sir Henry. But how could he know that Sir Henry would decide to walk home?


Chap. 14

ONE of Sherlock Holmes’s defects—if, indeed, one may call it a defect—was that he was exceedingly loth to communicate his full plans to any other person until the instant of their fulfilment. Oh, let’s call it a defect. Watson gives a good explanation for his colleague’s behaviour, but surely it was a reckless thing to do—not to state clearly: the hound will be released—be ready to shoot it.

The two of them were destined to travel together round the world before Sir Henry had become once more the hale, hearty man that he had been before he became master of that ill-omened estate. What of Sir Henry’s future? Did he eventually go back to live at the hall? Or does he get someone else to manage the estate?

If the earth told a true story, then Stapleton never reached that island of refuge… Is there any possibility Stapleton did escape? Any thoughts?


Chap. 15

Since the tragic upshot of our visit to Devonshire he had been engaged in two affairs of the utmost importance, in the first of which he had exposed the atrocious conduct of Colonel Upwood in connection with the famous card scandal of the Nonpareil Club, while in the second he had defended the unfortunate Mme. Montpensier from the charge of murder which hung over her in connection with the death of her step-daughter, Mlle. Carére, the young lady who, as it will be remembered, was found six months later alive and married in New York. Any thoughts on these cases?

“If Stapleton came into the succession, how could he explain the fact that he, the heir, had been living unannounced under another name so close to the property? How could he claim it without causing suspicion and inquiry?” Well, Holmes relates three possible courses of action that Stapleton had discussed with his wife. Any thoughts of your own?


Next Sunday, 9th August, Holmes is back! We’ll be having a look at his return in The Empty House. Hope you can join us then.

Comments

[thesmallhobbit.livejournal.com]

I'm sure Watson uses the same technique on Holmes as he used on Mortimer, "How exactly did you deduce ..."

I'd say the blackmailing case existed, but Holmes didn't have sufficient information to make any progress at the time. Always better to work with as much truth as possible.

[scfrankles.livejournal.com]

I'm sure Watson uses the same technique on Holmes as he used on Mortimer, "How exactly did you deduce ..." That's my thinking on the subject too ^_^

Yes, that makes sense to me about the blackmailing case. Watson might have been taken aback if Holmes had just mentioned a case out of the blue, and might have queried it in front of Mortimer and Sir Henry.

[laurose8.livejournal.com]

Thanks for these good questions. Of chapter 10, I did wonder if Watson had been ambiguous deliberately.

A suggestion only...Holmes might have found the time on the moor a refreshing break in routine,a sort of camping week end; even if he did insist on excusing it as work.

Of Stapleton survivng (excuse the spoiler) you've probably read Boyer's The Giant Rat of Sumatra..? Definitely one of the better fictions; but a warning, a baby gets killed early on.

[scfrankles.livejournal.com]

Yes, perhaps Watson is indulging in a little in-joke there with that ambiguous statement ^_^

That is a possibility I suppose - Holmes just wanted a little adventure on the moor ^^ But I don't personally think it really fits in with his concern over Sir Henry's safety - and Watson's safety too. I feel he must have truly felt it was important to be out of the way hiding on the moor.

Must admit I haven't read that novel - it does sound interesting though.

[rachelindeed.livejournal.com]

The man is rather deaf…” Is it odd that Sir Henry has observed this but Watson hasn’t?

Perhaps Barrymore attends Sir Henry more like a valet (the Hall seems lacking in other servants) -- that would put the two of them in close quarters repeatedly and give Sir Henry more opportunities to talk with the man and thereby notice any slips.

To act the spy upon a friend was a hateful task. Bit of foreshadowing from Watson. Does Holmes have any misgivings at all about keeping an eye on Watson without telling him he’s there?

Oh, I would dearly love to credit Holmes with such misgivings! But alas I do not.

I suppose this is a good example of the difference between Watson and Holmes...he doesn’t take the final step and think: well, maybe they’re not siblings then.

I really like the way you break that down! Yes. Holmes keeps saying that the world is full of people who see every link in a chain of observation and yet don't go one step further and follow it to the necessary conclusion. Although, on the other hand, I know plenty of siblings who don't look alike or have similar personalities (people never guess that my brother and I are related, we look so different.) And I think in a patriarchal society in which a woman moves from her family's household to her husband's, it might have been hard to distinguish the behavioral patterns of a domineering brother from those of a domineering husband. Watson does seem to have instinctively felt that something was amiss, but I don't really blame him for not jumping to what would have been a somewhat extreme conclusion at that point.

This is an amusingly ambiguous statement. Does Watson mean he’s learnt this technique from Holmes, or does he mean he uses this technique on Holmes?

Do you know, that is one of my favorite of Watson's lines, and until now I never noticed the ambiguity you point out?! That makes it *twice as hilarious* <3 <3 I love snarky Watson. "I am certainly developing the wisdom of the serpent" -- I can just hear him saying it! I've always believed he must have an excellent deadpan.

“In truth, it was partly for your own sake that I did it...

OK, that right there is the part of Holmes's character that angers me. The fact that he almost never genuinely apologizes, but instead says some variation of 'I treat you this way for your own good,' and Watson always swallows that line. It's so painfully condescending, and to me it seems very sad that Holmes's need to control the case leads him so often to manipulate Watson rather than collaborate with him. Watson's line in this story - "You use me, but you do not trust me" - is the most direct reproach he ever utters, and I agree with him whole-heartedly. I have never bought the 'you are incapable of subterfuge' excuse. But I will have more to say about that next week, I'm sure!

He burst into one of his rare fits of laughter as he turned away from the picture. I have not heard him laugh often, and it has always boded ill to somebody. Rather a sad thing to say. When they first met, they always seemed to be bursting into laughter together.

I think I can salvage that line from a sad interpretation! In "Blue Carbuncle," Watson describes Holmes taking a moment to laugh at having out-psychologized the bird vendor: "A few yards off he stopped under a lamp-post and laughed in the hearty, noiseless fashion which was peculiar to him." Holmes's everyday sort of mirth is glorious but silent. I think to *hear* him laugh aloud in the middle of a case may be a sign of a different kind of emotion in him, an adrenaline-fuelled and determined confidence which guarantees that the evil-doer's time is up and the sword of justice is about to bloody swing. I think Watson finds that rather a thrilling thing.

Oh, let’s call it a defect.

YES, LET'S!

If the earth told a true story, then Stapleton never reached that island of refuge… Is there any possibility Stapleton did escape? Any thoughts?

Well, since that's my favorite death scene in the canon, I think I'll keep it. Watson's reconstruction of that night is marvelously creepy :)

[scfrankles.livejournal.com]

Yes, I can accept that Sir Henry would have closer contact with Barrymore, and so be better able to pick up on his hearing loss. After all, it doesn't seem to be a major hearing loss - Watson doesn't mention anything unusual about Barrymore's speech, for instance.

And also I would agree with you that Holmes isn't bothered in the slightest about not letting Watson know he's there ^^"

In the last round, thesmallhobbit wrote a HOUN 60: Siblings (http://sherlock60.livejournal.com/370624.html), which focused on the Stapletons' behaviour towards each other and so encouraged me to look deeper into this area this time round. I would agree that siblings don't always look alike and have the same personality - and in fact if the Stapletons had been siblings there's no reason why they had to have the same parents. They could have been half-siblings; or one of them could have been an orphan adopted into the family. I assume both these situations would have been pretty common at the time, and Watson would have been aware of those possibilities. In my own family my sister and myself are so alike strangers tend to assume we're twins, but I don't look like my younger brother at all. However, I remember someone commenting on how alike we are in manner - we speak in the same way, and use similar body language. Which might be genetics (we do definitely have the same parents ^^) but might be down to growing up together. Watson may have been aware to some extent that that subtle similarity was missing. Also, though you say: ...it might have been hard to distinguish the behavioral patterns of a domineering brother from those of a domineering husband, Watson does seem to consciously acknowledge that it is an odd way for a brother and sister to behave - the brother turns down a suitor for her without asking her what she thinks, and the sister doesn't protest. But I would absolutely agree that it is a huge jump for the average person to override what they're being told and consider maybe siblings are in fact a couple instead.

When I first read the stories in my late teens, the little touches of humour that Watson puts into them went right over my head - I really appreciate them now ^_^

I can't say that Holmes' tendency to keep Watson in the dark angers me - I think he genuinely believes that he has to do it for the sake of the case. But sometimes it just doesn't seem necessary - he would be far better off letting Watson know exactly what's going on. And I certainly look forward to hearing your views on EMPT and the Hiatus ^^

It's just I was thinking about their shared laughter in SIGN (which of course thinking about it, isn't when they first meet. They've known each other several years by that point) when Toby follows the wrong scent. I mean that's laughing aloud in the middle of the case but I wouldn't really say it "boded ill to someone" - it seemed more to be a reaction to the ridiculousness of the situation. And there's the similar occasion of the two of them laughing at Jabez Wilson - which is a bit impolite and thoughtless but rather endearing. The two friends on exactly the same wavelength.

YES, LET'S! This made me giggle a fair bit ^^

That's something that surprised me when I first read the novel - that Stapleton's death was "off-screen". It took me a while to adjust to it - because naturally every film and TV adaptation always shows such a dramatic part of the story.

[rachelindeed.livejournal.com]

Watson does seem to consciously acknowledge that it is an odd way for a brother and sister to behave - the brother turns down a suitor for her without asking her what she thinks, and the sister doesn't protest.

Yes, good point. You're right, he and Sir Henry are both picking up on the weirdness of Stapleton's possessiveness and are baffled by it, so it must not be covered by "brotherly" cultural expectations. Thanks for the link to that story!

I can't say that Holmes' tendency to keep Watson in the dark angers me - I think he genuinely believes that he has to do it for the sake of the case. But sometimes it just doesn't seem necessary

I agree that Holmes does it because he thinks it's necessary (or at least more expedient than any other way of running things) and because he has a deep aversion to sharing more information than he has to (Watson says somewhere else (Illustrious Client, maybe?) that Holmes took to an extreme the maxim that the only safe plotter is he who plots alone...'I was nearer him than anyone else, but always conscious of the gap between.') But, like you, I also often disagree with Holmes's assessment of the necessity of keeping Watson in ignorance. In almost every case there would be better ways of doing things (though of course I think, from a more meta perspective, the reason Holmes was written this way is that it's more dramatic for the reader if Watson is kept in the dark as much as possible, so that we go through the adventures with a POV-character who doesn't already know what's going on). I understand why the stories are written that way, but for me it's a big stumbling block when it comes to imagining the Holmes-Watson friendship with emotional realism, because for Holmes to treat a friend that way repeatedly seems hurtful to me. And it's hard to forgive him, for me, precisely because he doesn't acknowledge that he's done anything wrong. I mean, I can forgive the smaller deceptions, like Baskerville. But the bigger ones, like Dying Detective or the Hiatus, are bigger problems for me. It's the side of Holmes's character that I find hardest to deal with.

And yes, good points about those other laughing out loud scenes. I think perhaps this is another example of Doyle describing Holmes one way but then showing him in contradictory ways in other stories. Character continuity was not always his lodestar! Hee! But I do love that little description of Holmes's peculiar, silent laughter. It's an idiosyncratic detail that makes me happy :)