Canon Discussion: The Empty House
Aug. 9th, 2015 08:03 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 Empty House. I’ve typed up a few thoughts and questions to get the discussion going—please leave your own ideas in the comments!
It was in the spring of the year 1894... Let me say to that public… they are not to blame me if I have not shared my knowledge with them, for I should have considered it my first duty to have done so had I not been barred by a positive prohibition from his own lips, which was only withdrawn upon the third of last month. EMPT was first published in September 1903. Why does Holmes not allow Watson to tell the public about him coming back for over nine years? And as the New Annotated points out—how does Holmes manage to attract ordinary clients during that period?
A tall, thin man with coloured glasses, whom I strongly suspected of being a plain-clothes detective, was pointing out some theory of his own… Stepping outside the Game, ACD obviously puts this character in to mislead the reader into thinking it’s Holmes. But playing the Game, any thoughts on who he might be? “For that reason I turned away from you this evening when you upset my books, for I was in danger at the time…” Is he connected to the late Moriarty?
There were at least three others whose desire for vengeance upon me would only be increased by the death of their leader. They were all most dangerous men. One or other would certainly get me. On the other hand, if all the world was convinced that I was dead they would take liberties… But in FINA, we have: In three days—that is to say, on Monday next—matters will be ripe, and the Professor, with all the principal members of his gang, will be in the hands of the police... "Moriarty?" "They have secured the whole gang with the exception of him.”
“Of course, the meaning of this was obvious. Moriarty had not been alone. A confederate — and even that one glance had told me how dangerous a man that confederate was — had kept guard while the Professor had attacked me.” Once again we have that contradiction—in FINA, all the main members of the gang had been arrested; here, we have Moran free and accompanying Moriarty. And doesn’t the fact Moriarty had Moran on guard suddenly change the professor’s motivations? In FINA, he appears to be a desperate man, careless of his own life. He has nothing left. And Holmes does say in EMPT: “He knew that his own game was up, and was only anxious to revenge himself upon me.” But if he had Moran on guard, that suddenly suggests he was expecting to walk away from the fight with Holmes. That he felt he had some kind of future. And if he felt that, surely he’d prefer to kill Holmes safely from a distance, rather than risk his own life.
“...and a week later I found myself in Florence with the certainty that no one in the world knew what had become of me.” Well, apart from Moran, and any of Moriarty’s other colleagues that Moran feels like telling… This makes no sense—Holmes’ enemies know that he’s alive. It’s only everybody that cares about him that thinks he’s dead. I suppose it’s important that Moran doesn’t know where Holmes is, but this doesn’t seem a good reason for Holmes allowing the world to believe him dead.
“I owe you many apologies, my dear Watson, but it was all-important that it should be thought I was dead…” Why? If Moran and his colleagues know that Holmes is still alive, what does it matter that Watson is mourning for him? But even if Holmes had got away without anyone at all knowing he’d survived, would he have been justified in deceiving Watson in this way?
“...the trial of the Moriarty gang left two of its most dangerous members, my own most vindictive enemies, at liberty.” So, I take it when Holmes refers earlier to the three with a wish for vengeance, he’s thinking of Moran (?) and these two others. But that would mean that immediately after Moriarty’s death, when Holmes determines to let the world believe he’s dead too, Holmes knew those two men were in custody and no danger to him. He only found out the men had been released—and therefore he should run and pretend to be dead—after he had already run and pretended to be dead. (My brain hurts.) And Holmes in FINA seemed to think all the major players—apart from Moriarty—had been arrested. But he recognises Moran at the Falls so he must have known who he was and known about his importance in the gang. Why didn’t he mention to Watson in FINA that Moran too hadn’t been arrested?
“I travelled for two years in Tibet, therefore…” So is Holmes travelling simply because he’s worried about attempts on his life? “You must remember that they knew, and only they knew, that I was still alive. Sooner or later they believed that I should come back to my rooms. They watched them continuously, and this morning they saw me arrive." And do Moran and the other two men make any attempt to track Holmes down? Or do they just remain in London hoping he’ll come back?
“...and learning that only one of my enemies was now left in London…” What had become of the other two?
“...threw Mrs. Hudson into violent hysterics…” Anyone like to recreate this scene..? (Poor Mrs. Hudson—she is so loyal to the wretched man.)
In some manner he had learned of my own sad bereavement… When does Mary die? FINA was published in December 1893, and Watson gives no indication in it that Mary is dead. But if she did die after that, then in EMPT she must have at most died a few months ago. And Watson does not give us a portrait of a recently bereaved man. Grief takes up the whole of your mind and leaves you in your own reality, looking out. Watson is engaging with the world, and he’s fascinated by the murder.
And is “the bereavement” actually Mary? There is the theory that it’s a baby who’s died.
"I think you want a little unofficial help. Three undetected murders in one year won't do, Lestrade.” Is this why Holmes changes his mind? I tell you, Watson, in all seriousness, that if I could beat that man, if I could free society of him, I should feel that my own career had reached its summit, and I should be prepared to turn to some more placid line in life. (FINA)
“...you had not heard the name of Professor James Moriarty…” (EMPT) ..the recent letters in which Colonel James Moriarty defends the memory of his brother… (FINA) Any thoughts?
Next Sunday, 16th August, we’ll be having a look at The Norwood Builder. Hope you can join us then.
It was in the spring of the year 1894... Let me say to that public… they are not to blame me if I have not shared my knowledge with them, for I should have considered it my first duty to have done so had I not been barred by a positive prohibition from his own lips, which was only withdrawn upon the third of last month. EMPT was first published in September 1903. Why does Holmes not allow Watson to tell the public about him coming back for over nine years? And as the New Annotated points out—how does Holmes manage to attract ordinary clients during that period?
A tall, thin man with coloured glasses, whom I strongly suspected of being a plain-clothes detective, was pointing out some theory of his own… Stepping outside the Game, ACD obviously puts this character in to mislead the reader into thinking it’s Holmes. But playing the Game, any thoughts on who he might be? “For that reason I turned away from you this evening when you upset my books, for I was in danger at the time…” Is he connected to the late Moriarty?
There were at least three others whose desire for vengeance upon me would only be increased by the death of their leader. They were all most dangerous men. One or other would certainly get me. On the other hand, if all the world was convinced that I was dead they would take liberties… But in FINA, we have: In three days—that is to say, on Monday next—matters will be ripe, and the Professor, with all the principal members of his gang, will be in the hands of the police... "Moriarty?" "They have secured the whole gang with the exception of him.”
“Of course, the meaning of this was obvious. Moriarty had not been alone. A confederate — and even that one glance had told me how dangerous a man that confederate was — had kept guard while the Professor had attacked me.” Once again we have that contradiction—in FINA, all the main members of the gang had been arrested; here, we have Moran free and accompanying Moriarty. And doesn’t the fact Moriarty had Moran on guard suddenly change the professor’s motivations? In FINA, he appears to be a desperate man, careless of his own life. He has nothing left. And Holmes does say in EMPT: “He knew that his own game was up, and was only anxious to revenge himself upon me.” But if he had Moran on guard, that suddenly suggests he was expecting to walk away from the fight with Holmes. That he felt he had some kind of future. And if he felt that, surely he’d prefer to kill Holmes safely from a distance, rather than risk his own life.
“...and a week later I found myself in Florence with the certainty that no one in the world knew what had become of me.” Well, apart from Moran, and any of Moriarty’s other colleagues that Moran feels like telling… This makes no sense—Holmes’ enemies know that he’s alive. It’s only everybody that cares about him that thinks he’s dead. I suppose it’s important that Moran doesn’t know where Holmes is, but this doesn’t seem a good reason for Holmes allowing the world to believe him dead.
“I owe you many apologies, my dear Watson, but it was all-important that it should be thought I was dead…” Why? If Moran and his colleagues know that Holmes is still alive, what does it matter that Watson is mourning for him? But even if Holmes had got away without anyone at all knowing he’d survived, would he have been justified in deceiving Watson in this way?
“...the trial of the Moriarty gang left two of its most dangerous members, my own most vindictive enemies, at liberty.” So, I take it when Holmes refers earlier to the three with a wish for vengeance, he’s thinking of Moran (?) and these two others. But that would mean that immediately after Moriarty’s death, when Holmes determines to let the world believe he’s dead too, Holmes knew those two men were in custody and no danger to him. He only found out the men had been released—and therefore he should run and pretend to be dead—after he had already run and pretended to be dead. (My brain hurts.) And Holmes in FINA seemed to think all the major players—apart from Moriarty—had been arrested. But he recognises Moran at the Falls so he must have known who he was and known about his importance in the gang. Why didn’t he mention to Watson in FINA that Moran too hadn’t been arrested?
“I travelled for two years in Tibet, therefore…” So is Holmes travelling simply because he’s worried about attempts on his life? “You must remember that they knew, and only they knew, that I was still alive. Sooner or later they believed that I should come back to my rooms. They watched them continuously, and this morning they saw me arrive." And do Moran and the other two men make any attempt to track Holmes down? Or do they just remain in London hoping he’ll come back?
“...and learning that only one of my enemies was now left in London…” What had become of the other two?
“...threw Mrs. Hudson into violent hysterics…” Anyone like to recreate this scene..? (Poor Mrs. Hudson—she is so loyal to the wretched man.)
In some manner he had learned of my own sad bereavement… When does Mary die? FINA was published in December 1893, and Watson gives no indication in it that Mary is dead. But if she did die after that, then in EMPT she must have at most died a few months ago. And Watson does not give us a portrait of a recently bereaved man. Grief takes up the whole of your mind and leaves you in your own reality, looking out. Watson is engaging with the world, and he’s fascinated by the murder.
And is “the bereavement” actually Mary? There is the theory that it’s a baby who’s died.
"I think you want a little unofficial help. Three undetected murders in one year won't do, Lestrade.” Is this why Holmes changes his mind? I tell you, Watson, in all seriousness, that if I could beat that man, if I could free society of him, I should feel that my own career had reached its summit, and I should be prepared to turn to some more placid line in life. (FINA)
“...you had not heard the name of Professor James Moriarty…” (EMPT) ..the recent letters in which Colonel James Moriarty defends the memory of his brother… (FINA) Any thoughts?
Next Sunday, 16th August, we’ll be having a look at The Norwood Builder. Hope you can join us then.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2015-08-09 01:17 pm (UTC)And that because ACD is so cavalier with time frames I can get away with some hand-waving myself?
I suppose it's possible an unnamed gang member could have escaped if no-one realised until later he was involved?
Colonel Moriarty was christened Nebuchadnezzar James, but for some reason preferred to use his middle name?
no subject
Date: 2015-08-09 02:26 pm (UTC)By "unnamed gang member", do you mean Moran? I know Holmes doesn't name him immediately to Watson (so we can have the big reveal at the end) but I got the impression Holmes recognised Moran at the Falls and knew exactly who he was: "...and even that one glance had told me how dangerous a man that confederate was..." And if Holmes knew who he was, then he would have given this information to the police and they would have known to include Moran in the arrests.
Colonel Moriarty was christened Nebuchadnezzar James, but for some reason preferred to use his middle name? Very amusing :P But I think you may be right in general. Both Colonel and Professor may have had a string of Christian names with James in there somewhere, and both brothers opted to use James as adults.
no subject
Date: 2015-08-09 01:46 pm (UTC)Heaven knows he's the forgiving type (http://ghostbees.tumblr.com/post/118141889660)
no subject
Date: 2015-08-09 02:12 pm (UTC)And really looking forward to your contribution to the discussion! ^^
no subject
Date: 2015-08-09 07:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-08-09 07:12 pm (UTC)I think my problems with Reichenbach have a lot to do with my personal tastes -- for me one friend or partner seriously lying to another is a major hot button issue and pretty much guaranteed to upset me. I have major problems with Holmes's lies/manipulation/lack of trust throughout the stories, and this is the worst example, given how emotionally damaging and long-term the deception was, combined with how totally unnecessary it was. All the worst bad guys knew the truth. All they would have to do to get Holmes to surrender is to threaten to hurt or kill someone he cares about, like Mycroft or Watson. One anonymous message in a newspaper; one warning shot through the Diogenes window or Watson's surgery, and Holmes would get the message and almost certainly turn himself over to them. Heck, they could have done that even if they merely suspected Holmes's survival, rather than knowing it for sure, to flush him out of hiding.
But they don't do this. They just post somebody to keep an eye on his flat and go their merry way. Moran is living the high life cheating at cards, and apparently the other two wander out of London to pursue their lives of crime and never bother with Holmes again. So the idea that their surveillance is so all-pervasive that if Watson knew the truth he would somehow endanger Holmes's life is not in the least plausible.
I hate that Holmes tells Watson that he chose not to trust him because he didn't think Watson could keep a secret even if Holmes's life depended on it. That is just...hugely demoralizing to me. And it doesn't fit at all with my own view of Watson's character and capacities. I also hate that Watson makes absolutely no reproach to Holmes about all this, but just unquestioningly welcomes him back and instantly goes back to business as usual.
I basically resent that all of fandom has to deal with this nonsensical plot, because once you invest it with emotional realism - which Doyle never did, IMO - it becomes an incredibly traumatic experience for Watson and I see almost no way to justify it on Holmes's part. I've read a lot of stories that try to argue that Holmes only did what was necessary and that Watson has to work through his resentment enough to recognize that Holmes really had no other choice. But I have never been able to believe that. Alternatively, there are other stories that suggest that Holmes wanted to break with Watson because of unrequited romantic feelings, and that's why he didn't tell him he was alive. But I really don't like that either, because it means that Holmes was so focused on his own pain that he thought whatever pain he caused Watson was justified, and, to paraphrase Watson, 'you might call that love, but I should call it selfishness.' I have a lot of trouble believing that any friendship or romance could survive a deception of that length of time and depth of emotion.
I've spent years feeling frustrated with my inability to figure out a way to make my peace with Holmes's behavior. In my own head, I have basically decided to believe that Moran did the sensible thing and threatened Watson if Holmes did not come out of hiding and give himself up. And Holmes accordingly did give himself up, and Moran shot him, and he spent a long time at death's door before pulling through by the skin of his teeth and very gradually recovering in secret. So at that point Moran did think he was dead. And when Moran got careless, Holmes was finally recovered enough to come back and catch him (though the pale, livid quality of his skin told Watson that his life recently had not been a healthy one). And he lied to Watson (badly) about those missing three years because he didn't want Watson to feel guilty that Holmes had turned himself over to be killed in order to protect him. It's convoluted and melodramatic, but it's the only peace I can make with the darn thing :)
no subject
Date: 2015-08-10 07:06 pm (UTC)I do have some sympathy with ACD though when it comes to resurrecting Holmes. He was just trying to write an adventure story, and he hadn't been planning for Holmes to be away and come back. I suppose I cope with Holmes' nonsensical explanation by just ignoring it ^^" I assume there was a good reason for Holmes staying away and letting Watson believe him dead - we just don't get it ^^" I suppose I don't want my noble Holmes to have been selfish and unthinking about Watson's feelings.
But I don't think Holmes' deceptions on the whole upset me as much as they upset you - in DYIN, for example, I think Holmes does what is necessary, or at least what he genuinely believes to be necessary. There's a nobility to his deception - he's doing it for the sake of the case. It's not that he doesn't trust Watson and Mrs. Hudson.
I hate that Holmes tells Watson that he chose not to trust him because he didn't think Watson could keep a secret even if Holmes's life depended on it. I must admit I don't view that aspect as negatively as you: "...but always I feared lest your affectionate regard for me should tempt you to some indiscretion which would betray my secret." I've always viewed that as Holmes acknowledging the deep bond between them. Maybe Holmes also feared the reverse - that his affectionate regard for Watson might lead to him accidentally giving himself away to his enemies in some manner?
no subject
Date: 2015-08-10 09:17 pm (UTC)Oh, absolutely, so do I. ACD's concern was always to write a dramatic, fun tale, and in the case of the Empty House it seems clear that his approach was, "he's back! *handwave explanation* happy now? great, let's get on with it." I completely understand that attitude and it makes complete sense why that was Doyle's priority. I'm just not always reading with the same priorities in mind. If you read primarily looking at the relationship between characters, and try to imaginatively flesh it out and make it ring emotionally true, then some of these dramatic turns start to raise problems that I doubt Doyle was ever particularly concerned about. I don't think he ever thought, "Well, that would be rather an awful thing to do to Watson, wouldn't it?" But I think that fairly often :)
I suppose I cope with Holmes' nonsensical explanation by just ignoring it
I think that is definitely the most sane policy!
But I don't think Holmes' deceptions on the whole upset me as much as they upset you
That is again a very sane reaction -- I am aware that I'm unusually sensitive to this issue and thus unusually hard on Holmes. I think perhaps it's because Watson rarely speaks up for himself that I feel the need to do so :)
in DYIN, for example, I think Holmes does what is necessary, or at least what he genuinely believes to be necessary. There's a nobility to his deception - he's doing it for the sake of the case. It's not that he doesn't trust Watson and Mrs. Hudson.
Sure, I can see that interpretation. I certainly think that is the canonical interpretation (as in, that's what Doyle meant for us to feel about Holmes's ploy). And of course three days (for Mrs. Hudson) or three hours (for Watson) of misery might well seem like a small price to pay to catch a murderer. But, personally, I can think of a lot of ways Holmes could have gone about it that would have been less cruel. I'd like to talk about that once we get to DYIN for our rereading this round! But of course, the bottom line is that Doyle chose to have Holmes deceive Watson and the reader because that was more dramatic than any other way to tell the story -- and as an author, he was quite right to do so! But as a fan, especially one who is invested in Watson and the H-W friendship above all, I get to pick holes :)
I must admit I don't view that aspect as negatively as you: "...but always I feared lest your affectionate regard for me should tempt you to some indiscretion which would betray my secret." I've always viewed that as Holmes acknowledging the deep bond between them.
Yes, your more positive interpretation certainly works. But for me, that line is my least favorite in the story. Because in my eyes, what Holmes is saying is that it was his knowledge of the depth of Watson's affection that decided him against relieving Watson's grief. And that stinks. He seems to think that affection = emotionalism = unreliability, and that Watson could not be trusted to do as Holmes asked and keep his secret. I think that does a great disservice to Watson -- if Holmes got word to Watson (through Mycroft or whatever other clever means he could devise), I would expect his message to look something like this: "My dear friend, I am alive. It is vital that I remain in hiding, my life depends on your secrecy. I promise I will see you again when the time is right -- trust me to judge when that will be, and wait in patience." I cannot imagine that Watson would fail to respect that. I cannot imagine that saying that much would have been dangerous to anyone. But instead, we have Holmes basically implying that if only Watson were less emotionally affectionate (more like Mycroft, perhaps), Holmes could have trusted him more and spared him years of pain. UGH.
But yes, I seem to have a chip on my shoulder about this storyline, but there's no reason in the world why other readers shouldn't spin it more positively. It's just me -- I don't find this one easy to deal with at all.
no subject
Date: 2015-08-09 07:31 pm (UTC)I don't know when she died -- Watson's dates are always confused. But I think you're right that it was not recent, but that enough time had passed for life to normalize again, before Holmes returned.
no subject
Date: 2015-08-10 06:29 pm (UTC)I am convinced by Watson's behaviour in EMPT that Mary must have died over a year before. Which would mean of course that she was dead when he published FINA. But he doesn't say one way or the other whether she's alive or dead in December 1893 - and it may still just have felt too recent and private to mention in the story. Mary would have been dead several years by the time EMPT was written and published, so perhaps it was easier then to mention her death.