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.
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.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
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.