Canon Discussion: The Dancing Men

[scfrankles.livejournal.com]

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

...a chemical vessel in which he was brewing a particularly malodorous product. Any thoughts on the experiment Holmes is doing?

“3. You never play billiards except with Thurston.” Any thoughts on Thurston? Is this a friendship that only exists within the club?

“5. Your cheque-book is locked in my drawer, and you have not asked for the key.” I know there is the famous theory that Watson is an inveterate gambler who has to have his cheque book locked away because he can’t control himself. But I really, really don’t buy it. I think the only reference we have to Watson being a gambler is in SHOS, when he says (in answer to Holmes checking to see if he knows anything about racing): “I ought to. I pay for it with about half my wound pension.” That strikes me in context as a lighthearted exaggeration. And the fact he specifies “wound pension” rather than income in general suggests he only uses money he can afford to lose.

I just don’t believe he would blithely announce to his reading public that he has so little self-control that his fellow lodger had to take charge of his finances. I think it’s simply that the drawer is a secure, lockable place in the flat for them both to store their valuables. It’s technically Holmes’ drawer and he has the only key but Watson can ask for it at any time to retrieve his own possessions.

"'What, be driven out of our own house by a practical joker?' said I. 'Why, we should have the whole county laughing at us.'” What is going through Cubitt’s mind when he says this? He knows it’s not a practical joker; he knows there’s something far more sinister going on. He also knows that his wife is terrified—why not agree to her suggestion of travelling and leave Holmes to sort out the mystery?

"Then we shall breakfast early and take the very first [train] in the morning," said Holmes. Could Holmes have done more to try and avert this tragedy? He’s just solved a coded message which is an unambiguous death threat against Mrs. Cubitt, and he also then gets a telegram telling him how dangerous Abe Slaney is. Last time we looked at DANC, thesmallhobbit did some research and found this page on victorianlondon.org. There were telegraph offices in London open 24 hours a day, and there was also one in Norwich (the city nearest to the Cubitts’ home) open 24 hours a day. Whether telegrams could also be delivered throughout the night is not so clear, but it looks like there was a possibility of a telegram getting through to Cubitt. Or why didn’t Holmes just contact the police? Cubitt earlier talks about the possibility of approaching them—he didn’t because he thought they wouldn’t take him seriously, not because he didn’t want them interfering in his private life. I don’t think he would have objected to Holmes going to the police when Holmes thought the couple in serious danger.

"I suppose that you are the detectives from London?" said he. A look of annoyance passed over Holmes's face. I never quite understand this bit. Why a look of annoyance?

It was equally conceivable that he had shot her and then himself, or that she had been the criminal… Though Mrs. Cubitt wasn’t her husband’s killer, she was still technically a criminal because attempting suicide was against the law at that time. It’s perhaps interesting that nobody mentions this, and indeed Holmes seems sympathetic towards her. From the brief (and not terribly in depth) research I did last time, I gather that most people who survived attempted suicide wouldn’t be prosecuted and those that did go to trial mostly wouldn’t have been punished. But people were sometimes sent to prison over this.

“I therefore cabled to my friend, Wilson Hargreave, of the New York Police Bureau, who has more than once made use of my knowledge of London crime.” This is rather intriguing. Any thoughts on how this mutually beneficial professional relationship began?

“It was only after her marriage to this Englishman that I was able to find out where she was. I wrote to her, but got no answer.” How exactly was Slaney able to find out where Mrs. Cubitt lived?

"If you use the code which I have explained," said Holmes, "you will find that it simply means 'Come here at once.' I was convinced that it was an invitation which he would not refuse, since he could never imagine that it could come from anyone but the lady.” Is it likely that Slaney wouldn’t have been suspicious at all? Mrs. Cubitt had consistently refused to have anything to do with him and as far as he knew, he’d probably killed her husband. Would she really then have changed her mind and wanted to see him? Surely a trap (Mrs. Cubitt wanting him to get arrested) is the first thing Slaney would have thought of.

Next Sunday, 30th August, we’ll be having a look at The Solitary Cyclist. Hope you can join us then.

Comments

[thesmallhobbit.livejournal.com]

I agree about the cheque book. Holmes is completely matter-of-fact about it, which as you say Watson wouldn't have reported if it was anything else.

I imagine Watson was friendly with Thurston, but their paths didn't cross except at their club and whilst they enjoyed each others company there, they had no other shared interests.

[scfrankles.livejournal.com]

I think I would agree with you about Thurston. Holmes does say in HOUN that he knows Watson must have gone to his club because he has no "intimate friends". Which does suggest his club acquaintances are simply club acquaintances.

[gardnerhill.livejournal.com]

"My god our client's very life is in danger! ...Right, Watson, we'll turn in early tonight, have breakfast, take a walk around London, I'll finish my experiment - and then we can possibly think about a train out to Norfolk to warn her."

This from the guy in ABBE who yanked Watson out of bed at oh god thirty to grab the next train so they could go look at a CORPSE.

[scfrankles.livejournal.com]

To be fair to Holmes, he is prepared to leave immediately but the last train has gone. And the implication is that he and Watson leave first thing the next morning. But I do think he could have tried to warn Cubitt in some way before physically going to see him.

[laurose8.livejournal.com]

Two not very good guesses at the annoyed look...One is that Holmes decided that if Elsie had considered the Cubitts seriously in danger, she would have told her husband more; and Holmes thought she knew enough for her opinion to be right. His annoyance could be mingled at Elsie and his own wrong opinions. Two is that he didn't like to be caught on the back foot, and not know what was happening.

I did wonder why Elsie didn't tell her husband more if she truly had nothing to be ashamed of. I should think she got close, at least, to criminal acts. Possibly Watson, chivalrously, rather glossed over this. Especially since she's suffered so already, and had a productive life to lead. Her neighbours might very well relaise who 'Mrs Cubitt' is.

Rather irrelevant, but I loved Watson's brief description of Norfolk, and wish he'd written a bit more.

[scfrankles.livejournal.com]

Regarding your thoughts about why Holmes was annoyed: I think I incline towards the second idea. Perhaps Holmes thought either Mr. or Mrs. Cubitt had finally called the police in, and he was annoyed they hadn't let him know they were going to?

I do believe that Mrs. Cubitt had done nothing wrong herself. I think she was genuinely worried about keeping her husband's reputation clear, and concerned about how he might react if he knew all the details about her past. Looking from the outside you might think, well, if she's innocent she's got nothing to fear. But people, including her husband, might have considered her guilty by association, or assumed she must have been involved in criminal acts. I sympathise - I think it would be a big step to tell her husband.

And Watson's description is lovely. Though it does always strike me as a slightly inappropriate place in the story to be waxing lyrical about the countryside - they are travelling to investigate Cubitt's murder.

[rachelindeed.livejournal.com]

I must admit I like the gambling because it seems like a believable flaw for Watson and not one that particularly diminishes my love or enjoyment of the character. He seems like a man who craves excitement, and I could see that getting translated into expensive games of chance. I agree with you that he is not an out-of-control addict, but I do think he shows more than once that he is a bit reckless with money. In A Study in Scarlet he is quite aware that he is living beyond his income but he indulges himself in that until he reaches a point where he's almost broke and acknowledges that he needs to change his lifestyle. When he works cases with Holmes it is never made clear whether and to what extent Holmes shares any pay with him -- he certainly never objects when Holmes remits his fees. When he marries and works as a general practitioner he is willing to give his business to neighbors in order to keep his hand in with the cases (and I believe that his wife is aware of what this means for them financially and is fine with it).

I think Watson is aware that he sometimes impulsively spends more than he should or is tempted toward risky investments that promise high returns, like this gold-mine business. But what I really like is that he recognizes these things about himself and takes some reasonable steps to make sure he doesn't lose control to any serious extent. I don't think he has given Holmes a right to refuse him his cheque-book if he asks for it, and in fact we see from later references that Holmes has not made him stop gambling away half his wound pension. But I think Watson is wise to have organized his domestic affairs in such a way that he is never tempted to spend in secret. Holmes knows when he pays out, just as I'm sure Mary did when they were married, and I think that's a way that Watson protects them and himself from the problems that arise from furtive and desperate gambling. He does it in the open, he lets the people he lives with see, and presumably if his judgment did grow to be impaired enough that he starting getting himself into serious financial straits, there would be the opportunity for intervention. And I think it fits in an interesting way with the theory, which legionseagle put forward HERE (http://legionseagle.dreamwidth.org/305002.html), that when you look closely at the class markers in the stories it seems that Watson may be from a slightly higher class position in society than Holmes. His approach to money may be tinged with a certain aristocratic - or as he calls it, bohemian - carelessness.

I like to think that Watson mentioned that detail in print out of a sense of fair play. He presents Holmes's addictions to the public, and describes what he sees as the weaknesses as well as the strengths in his character (he repeatedly mentions Holmes's vanity, his coldness, and of course his cocaine). I think it is admirable that he therefore also publishes hints at his own less than stellar record with money, while also frequently poking fun at himself for his mental slowness. He is human, not perfect, and I like that he is willing to say so.

[scfrankles.livejournal.com]

Well, obviously the gambling is canon, and we can agree that Watson isn’t an addict. But I don’t think there is enough evidence to show that the gambling was anything but a bit of fun that never got out of control. Yes, in STUD, Watson does let his spending get out of control. But he is on a low income, which he must be unused to. He’s ill and alone and needs distractions. And as soon as he comes to the realisation his finances have got completely out of control, he immediately decides to make a sensible change.

When he marries and works as a general practitioner he is willing to give his business to neighbors in order to keep his hand in with the cases… This is a very good point. But Watson does talk about these arrangements with his neighbours as being mutual--maybe the money always evened out.

I like to think that Watson mentioned that detail in print out of a sense of fair play… This is another very, very good point. It’s not something I’ve considered before--Watson does talk openly about Holmes’ faults. It would be only fair to refer to his own. However, I suppose my interpretation of this is that when Watson talks about Holmes in this way, he is partly saying “Look how strange and unusual my friend is.” It’s partly a positive thing--he’s making Holmes seem more exotic and glamorous. But to me, hinting that you’ve asked your flatmate to lock up your cheque book because you have trouble controlling your spending seems humiliating, rather than just admitting you’re human and have faults. I do realise that’s a personal reaction though--I myself would find that a humiliating thing to have to admit to. But also, I think there’s the fact Watson discusses Holmes’ personality in his stories--he doesn’t just give blunt statements about it. I would agree Watson sometimes doesn’t appear to be terribly good with money--in STUD, and in CARD when he says he can’t afford to go away. But again, he explicitly talks about his finances. In DANC, we just have Holmes saying that the cheque book is in his drawer, and Watson doesn’t give any further details about the situation. I feel if there was more going on than simply the drawer is a shared safe place for valuables, then Watson would have said more about it.

He is human, not perfect, and I like that he is willing to say so. I would absolutely agree with this. I just don’t think I can agree Watson ever had serious problems managing his money.

Btw, that was a very interesting article--thank you for the link ^^ I was rather surprised that Watson might be considered to have a slightly higher social status than Holmes.

[rachelindeed.livejournal.com]

It’s partly a positive thing--he’s making Holmes seem more exotic and glamorous.

Certainly Watson's huge admiration for Holmes shines through and keeps any complaints or critiques in perspective as small matters in comparison to Holmes's brilliance. And I agree that the bits about Holmes being "a brain without a heart, as deficient in human emotion as he was pre-eminent in intelligence" do have a sort of exoticism about them which might add to Holmes's superhuman image. However, then you have the more straightforward "I was repelled by the egotism which I had more than once observed to be a strong part of my friend's singular character." *shrugs* That doesn't seem very positive to me, but then again, fortunately Holmes does not rank modesty among the virtues :)

But to me, hinting that you’ve asked your flatmate to lock up your cheque book because you have trouble controlling your spending seems humiliating, rather than just admitting you’re human and have faults. I do realise that’s a personal reaction though--I myself would find that a humiliating thing to have to admit to.

Sure, how we react to these things depends a lot on how we feel about particular issues, and the nice thing is that Watson talks so little about himself that we are free to interpret his statements quite widely and latch onto things or ignore things depending on how we like to imagine him. I love that about Watson. With Holmes, as you say, "Watson discusses Holmes's personality...he doesn't just give blunt statements about it." So with Holmes, it seems like we have more of his character pretty strongly canonically established. But with Watson, there's so much room in there to build what we want to build. I mean, for example, I personally choose not to interpret Watson's "experience of women across three separate continents" comment as a sexual boast, because that doesn't fit my personal take on the character, whereas the gambling theory does fit for me. But of course other people will have different preferences and interpretations, and really there's rarely enough evidence on any of these points to prove anything.

I feel if there was more going on than simply the drawer is a shared safe place for valuables, then Watson would have said more about it.

I see what you're saying. But just to play devil's advocate, if the drawer was a shared safe place for valuables, then why wouldn't Holmes make a copy of the key for Watson? Or hide the key somewhere in the flat which would be hard for a stranger or thief to find but easily accessible to Holmes and Watson? But instead of doing these things, Holmes makes no copy and keeps the key on his person, presumably, since Watson has to ask him for it. So...Watson has no access to any of his valuables without Holmes being there to unlock the drawer? What happens when Holmes vanishes for a few days on a case, or goes abroad? Watson just has no money? To me, that seems like a very strange way for two flatmates to arrange their finances.

Btw, that was a very interesting article--thank you for the link ^^ I was rather surprised that Watson might be considered to have a slightly higher social status than Holmes.

Oh, I'm glad you enjoyed it! I was also surprised to learn about those status details. Particularly the bit where she pointed out that Watson's watch in SIGN would be worth over 20,000 pounds -- I had no idea that's what 50 guineas meant! Watson's brother must indeed have been far gone to have scratched it up and taken so little care of something so valuable. Fascinating.

[scfrankles.livejournal.com]

D’you know, thinking about it again, I’m wondering if equating 50 guineas with £20,000 today isn’t rather an overestimate. We know from ACD’s stories that the average salary for a governess was £40 a year. So 50 guineas would be just over 15 months wages for governesses. But as far as I know they were paid a pittance--they were part of the genteel poor. I think (I may not be remembering correctly) the New Annotated says £1 then would be £68 now. But I had a quick look online earlier today and someone did say that it’s hard to make exact comparisons because life was so different back then. But maybe we could say that the watch was worth at most £5,000 in today’s money? Yes, it was very expensive--something that a working class person could only dream of owning--but it wasn’t a huge amount of money for a middle class professional man.

And just to continue the pleasure of arguing with you… ^^

However, then you have the more straightforward "I was repelled by the egotism which I had more than once observed to be a strong part of my friend's singular character." *shrugs* That doesn't seem very positive to me… I agree that doesn’t show Holmes in a particularly positive light. But you still have that phrase singular character--there’s still a mixture of “here is one of my friend’s faults; isn’t he an unusual man?”

But with Watson, there's so much room in there to build what we want to build. Absolutely. Though I love a good argument, I think it’s wonderful there are so many possible interpretations.

I mean, for example, I personally choose not to interpret Watson's "experience of women across three separate continents" comment as a sexual boast, because that doesn't fit my personal take on the character, whereas the gambling theory does fit for me. But of course other people will have different preferences and interpretations, and really there's rarely enough evidence on any of these points to prove anything. I refer you to my previous statement about enjoying a good argument ^^ I am now going to agree with you and argue with you simultaneously.

I also think that Watson’s comment isn’t a sexual boast--but I would say there is evidence in the text for this. Or rather the context tells us this--Watson goes on to say that his experience with women allows him to deduce Mary’s nature.

...why wouldn't Holmes make a copy of the key for Watson? Or hide the key somewhere in the flat which would be hard for a stranger or thief to find but easily accessible to Holmes and Watson? But instead of doing these things, Holmes makes no copy and keeps the key on his person, presumably, since Watson has to ask him for it. So...Watson has no access to any of his valuables without Holmes being there to unlock the drawer? What happens when Holmes vanishes for a few days on a case, or goes abroad?

Well, I suppose I can’t really argue with you there ^^ I can only assume that Holmes does at least hand over the key to Watson whenever he goes away on his own. Though I am rather taken with the idea he sometimes forgets and there is a certain amount of “Holmes, what the hell”-ing on his return ^_^

[rachelindeed.livejournal.com]

Hello! Sorry to be so late, but I just wanted to say I enjoyed reading your comments, as ever, and thank you for researching the value of the watch! I continue to find that quite a fascinating hint at Watson's backstory that I had never really understood or closely examined before.