Canon Discussion: The Abbey Grange
Oct. 25th, 2015 08:17 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 Abbey Grange. I’ve typed up a few thoughts and questions to get the discussion going—please leave your own ideas in the comments!
Holmes nestled in silence into his heavy coat, and I was glad to do the same… *giggles at the ambiguity of this sentence* (Easily amused.)
"I fancy that every one of his cases has found its way into your collection…” Holmes is speaking here in 1897 when Watson isn’t publishing his stories—he doesn’t start again until 1901. So Holmes must be referring to unpublished stories. "Hopkins has called me in seven times, and on each occasion his summons has been entirely justified," said Holmes. I don’t think we do get Hopkins’ full seven cases from Watson, even though Holmes thought they were worth his time. Were some of those stories rejected by Watson’s publisher?
“...I propose to devote my declining years to the composition of a textbook, which shall focus the whole art of detection into one volume.” Does Holmes ever write this this textbook? Certainly Watson never refers to it. But then, in RETI, which is set a year later in 1898, we do have an appearance by Barker—who Holmes refers to as his rival and who was apparently using similar sorts of methods. Perhaps by the time Holmes retired he simply didn’t think it was necessary to write a textbook—perhaps there were several detectives working in his style, and he felt he didn’t need to put anything down formally.
"He was a good-hearted man when he was sober, but a perfect fiend when he was drunk…” What do you think about Sir Eustace’s personality? Was he ever truly “good-hearted”? I can understand alcohol reducing his inhibitions, and violence coming out—as in the instance of him throwing a decanter at Theresa Wright. But drenching a dog with petroleum and setting it on fire and stabbing at his wife’s arm with a hatpin? Those acts seem more calculated and sadistic. Was he simply a psychopath and good at pretence and manipulation, or was he a Jekyll and Hyde character?
“Yes, it was her first voyage—she had never been from home before. He won her with his title and his money and his false London ways. If she made a mistake she has paid for it, if ever a woman did.” So what’s the story here? Did Lady Brackenstall come over to England hoping for a rich husband? I assume she’s from a relatively wealthy family herself. Or did she just get caught up in the romance of the situation—being courted by someone with high status?
His record was magnificent. There was not an officer in the fleet to touch him. As to his character, he was reliable on duty, but a wild, desperate fellow off the deck of his ship— hotheaded, excitable, but loyal, honest, and kindhearted. Doesn’t Crocker’s description rather match Sir Eustace’s to some extent? Is Lady Brackenstall about to make another awful mistake—a second terrible marriage..?
“In a doubtful case I would not put him in so painful a position, and so I reserve my information until my own mind is clear upon the matter." But Holmes never tells Hopkins the truth. Presumably Watson changed a great many details when he finally published the story, but wouldn’t Hopkins recognise it? How did he feel when he knew Holmes hadn’t been frank with him?
“It was all love on my side, and all good comradeship and friendship on hers.” What was going on in the former Mary Fraser’s mind during this friendship? Was she aware of Crocker’s feelings but didn’t consider him husband material? Or was she simply unaware of his interest?
“I had sprung for the poker, and it was a fair fight between us. See here, on my arm, where his first blow fell.” Was it a fair fight..? Sir Eustace goes for the arm; Croker immediately goes for the head—and I presume the poker would always do more damage than a stick.
“It was his life or mine, but far more than that, it was his life or hers, for how could I leave her in the power of this madman? Doesn’t the latter part of that statement rather suggest that Crocker is admitting it wasn’t self-defence—he killed Sir Eustace deliberately in order to free Lady Brackenstall?
“...and it was someone of her own class of life, since she was trying hard to shield him, and so showing that she loved him.” I can’t make my mind up if that’s a snobbish point of view for Holmes to take, or a pragmatic point of view…
“Do you find the prisoner guilty or not guilty?" "Not guilty, my lord," said I. Were Holmes and Watson right to make this decision, and not hand Crocker over to the police?
Next Sunday, 1st November, we’ll be having a look at The Second Stain. Hope you can join us then.
Holmes nestled in silence into his heavy coat, and I was glad to do the same… *giggles at the ambiguity of this sentence* (Easily amused.)
"I fancy that every one of his cases has found its way into your collection…” Holmes is speaking here in 1897 when Watson isn’t publishing his stories—he doesn’t start again until 1901. So Holmes must be referring to unpublished stories. "Hopkins has called me in seven times, and on each occasion his summons has been entirely justified," said Holmes. I don’t think we do get Hopkins’ full seven cases from Watson, even though Holmes thought they were worth his time. Were some of those stories rejected by Watson’s publisher?
“...I propose to devote my declining years to the composition of a textbook, which shall focus the whole art of detection into one volume.” Does Holmes ever write this this textbook? Certainly Watson never refers to it. But then, in RETI, which is set a year later in 1898, we do have an appearance by Barker—who Holmes refers to as his rival and who was apparently using similar sorts of methods. Perhaps by the time Holmes retired he simply didn’t think it was necessary to write a textbook—perhaps there were several detectives working in his style, and he felt he didn’t need to put anything down formally.
"He was a good-hearted man when he was sober, but a perfect fiend when he was drunk…” What do you think about Sir Eustace’s personality? Was he ever truly “good-hearted”? I can understand alcohol reducing his inhibitions, and violence coming out—as in the instance of him throwing a decanter at Theresa Wright. But drenching a dog with petroleum and setting it on fire and stabbing at his wife’s arm with a hatpin? Those acts seem more calculated and sadistic. Was he simply a psychopath and good at pretence and manipulation, or was he a Jekyll and Hyde character?
“Yes, it was her first voyage—she had never been from home before. He won her with his title and his money and his false London ways. If she made a mistake she has paid for it, if ever a woman did.” So what’s the story here? Did Lady Brackenstall come over to England hoping for a rich husband? I assume she’s from a relatively wealthy family herself. Or did she just get caught up in the romance of the situation—being courted by someone with high status?
His record was magnificent. There was not an officer in the fleet to touch him. As to his character, he was reliable on duty, but a wild, desperate fellow off the deck of his ship— hotheaded, excitable, but loyal, honest, and kindhearted. Doesn’t Crocker’s description rather match Sir Eustace’s to some extent? Is Lady Brackenstall about to make another awful mistake—a second terrible marriage..?
“In a doubtful case I would not put him in so painful a position, and so I reserve my information until my own mind is clear upon the matter." But Holmes never tells Hopkins the truth. Presumably Watson changed a great many details when he finally published the story, but wouldn’t Hopkins recognise it? How did he feel when he knew Holmes hadn’t been frank with him?
“It was all love on my side, and all good comradeship and friendship on hers.” What was going on in the former Mary Fraser’s mind during this friendship? Was she aware of Crocker’s feelings but didn’t consider him husband material? Or was she simply unaware of his interest?
“I had sprung for the poker, and it was a fair fight between us. See here, on my arm, where his first blow fell.” Was it a fair fight..? Sir Eustace goes for the arm; Croker immediately goes for the head—and I presume the poker would always do more damage than a stick.
“It was his life or mine, but far more than that, it was his life or hers, for how could I leave her in the power of this madman? Doesn’t the latter part of that statement rather suggest that Crocker is admitting it wasn’t self-defence—he killed Sir Eustace deliberately in order to free Lady Brackenstall?
“...and it was someone of her own class of life, since she was trying hard to shield him, and so showing that she loved him.” I can’t make my mind up if that’s a snobbish point of view for Holmes to take, or a pragmatic point of view…
“Do you find the prisoner guilty or not guilty?" "Not guilty, my lord," said I. Were Holmes and Watson right to make this decision, and not hand Crocker over to the police?
Next Sunday, 1st November, we’ll be having a look at The Second Stain. Hope you can join us then.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2015-10-25 10:04 am (UTC)I do wonder whether there will be further consequences for Holmes and Watson letting Crocker go free.
no subject
Date: 2015-10-25 04:36 pm (UTC)I do wonder whether there will be further consequences for Holmes and Watson letting Crocker go free. Yes, I'm not convinced this was a straightforward case of self-defence. Crocker seems to be someone who can't control himself when emotional - mightn't that violence not eventually be used against Lady Brackenstall if they marry?
And Sir Eustace was an awful man who behaved abominably to his wife but surely like everyone else he had the right to justice and for the circumstances of his death to be looked at fully - rather than Holmes and Watson making the decision on their own and letting Crocker go.
no subject
Date: 2015-10-25 11:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-10-25 04:55 pm (UTC)And maybe Holmes and Watson are allowing a dangerous man to go free - maybe if Crocker marries Lady Brackenstall he'll eventually start physically abusing her, just as her first husband did.
I like my lurid little side head canon that she and the maid are gal-pals and damn the gentlemen all around. Theresa Wright and Lady Brackenstall do have a remarkably strong bond. I wonder if Theresa might have actually subtly engineered Sir Eustace's death - she knew what was likely to happen. There's that bit: Theresa was always my friend, for she loved Mary and hated this villain almost as much as I did. From her I learned the ways of the house. From there it's not such a step to wonder if both Theresa and Lady Brackenstall were playing Crocker - using one violent man to get rid of another.
Maybe the bees distracted Holmes from writing his textbook :) Yes - maybe once Holmes stopped being a detective and changed to being a beekeeper, he simply lost interest in his old profession.
no subject
Date: 2015-10-25 11:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-10-25 04:59 pm (UTC)