Canon Discussion: The Second Stain
Nov. 1st, 2015 08:01 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 Second Stain. I’ve typed up a few thoughts and questions to get the discussion going—please leave your own ideas in the comments!
So long as he was in actual professional practice the records of his successes were of some practical value to him; but since he has definitely retired from London and betaken himself to study and bee-farming on the Sussex Downs, notoriety has become hateful to him, and he has peremptorily requested that his wishes in this matter should be strictly observed. SECO was first published in December 1904, so at that point Holmes must have been definitely retired. But I wonder when exactly he retired. HOUN was first published between August 1901 and April 1902, and Watson began publishing his short stories again in September 1903. Was Holmes still a detective for some of that batch of stories? Or was it Holmes’ retirement that prompted Watson to start publishing again? (Holmes eventually getting fed up with it and telling Watson to stop.)
There is: So long as he was in actual professional practice the records of his successes were of some practical value to him—for all of the short stories before HOUN Holmes wasn’t in practice. All of those were published during the Hiatus. So that might imply some of the next batch of stories were published when Holmes was still a detective.
It was, then, in a year, and even in a decade, that shall be nameless… Anyone want to put forward a theory as to when this story takes place?
“Each member of the Cabinet was informed of it yesterday… Besides the members of the Cabinet there are two, or possibly three, departmental officials who know of the letter. No one else in England, Mr. Holmes, I assure you.” “He had some spy in the office who had told him of its existence.” Which of these men was the spy who told Lucas about the letter? Or if it was someone else, how did they find out about the letter?
“Ask Lady Hilda Trelawney Hope if she will be kind enough to step up,” said he. I remember last time we discussed SECO, Lady Hilda provoked passionately negative feelings from some members. But I must admit I have sympathy for her—I generally do understand and have sympathy for the characters who do bad things out of weakness, rather than through maliciousness.
It does seem incredible that she didn’t realise that the paper would be important and I agree she was being selfish. But I also have sympathy for her desperation—yes, she didn’t want to lose her social position but I believe she dearly loved her husband and genuinely couldn’t bear the thought of causing him pain. And it’s not an excuse, but she does seem to be very young. I think the spy in the office and Lucas should bear the major part of the guilt—though intelligent, Lady Hilda was perhaps still naive and easily manipulated. Also, I think she redeems herself somewhat by her bold and brave retrieval of the document later.
“Now, Watson, the fair sex is your department,” said Holmes, with a smile… It has to be said though, that Holmes does seem to understand Lady Hilda better than Watson, despite this protestation.
Lestrade’s bulldog features gazed out at us from the front window… It’s curious that Watson has gone from comparing Lestrade to a ferret to comparing him to a bulldog. Not much similarity in those animals. It does also strike me that Lestrade’s personality isn’t quite as before. Could it be that “Lestrade” was just a pseudonym Watson used, and here he’s using it for a different detective than the one we generally think of as Lestrade?
“It was a letter of mine, Mr. Holmes, an indiscreet letter written before my marriage—a foolish letter, a letter of an impulsive, loving girl. I meant no harm, and yet he would have thought it criminal.” “Criminal” seems a very strong word. A love letter sent to a married man perhaps?
“Had he read that letter his confidence would have been for ever destroyed.” I wonder what would have happened if Lady Hilda had been honest with her husband. Would his reaction have been this extreme or was it all just in Lady Hilda’s panicked imagination?
“Then at last I heard from this man, Lucas, that it had passed into his hands…” How did Lucas get hold of Lady Hilda’s letter? How did he know that the letter existed? It all seems very neat—Lucas managing to get hold of a letter just in time to blackmail the wife of the statesman in possession of a valuable document. Perhaps he was like Charles Augustus Milverton—getting blackmail material in advance and then waiting to see when it would be useful.
Next Sunday, 8th November, we’ll be having a look at The Adventure of Wisteria Lodge. Hope you can join us then.
So long as he was in actual professional practice the records of his successes were of some practical value to him; but since he has definitely retired from London and betaken himself to study and bee-farming on the Sussex Downs, notoriety has become hateful to him, and he has peremptorily requested that his wishes in this matter should be strictly observed. SECO was first published in December 1904, so at that point Holmes must have been definitely retired. But I wonder when exactly he retired. HOUN was first published between August 1901 and April 1902, and Watson began publishing his short stories again in September 1903. Was Holmes still a detective for some of that batch of stories? Or was it Holmes’ retirement that prompted Watson to start publishing again? (Holmes eventually getting fed up with it and telling Watson to stop.)
There is: So long as he was in actual professional practice the records of his successes were of some practical value to him—for all of the short stories before HOUN Holmes wasn’t in practice. All of those were published during the Hiatus. So that might imply some of the next batch of stories were published when Holmes was still a detective.
It was, then, in a year, and even in a decade, that shall be nameless… Anyone want to put forward a theory as to when this story takes place?
“Each member of the Cabinet was informed of it yesterday… Besides the members of the Cabinet there are two, or possibly three, departmental officials who know of the letter. No one else in England, Mr. Holmes, I assure you.” “He had some spy in the office who had told him of its existence.” Which of these men was the spy who told Lucas about the letter? Or if it was someone else, how did they find out about the letter?
“Ask Lady Hilda Trelawney Hope if she will be kind enough to step up,” said he. I remember last time we discussed SECO, Lady Hilda provoked passionately negative feelings from some members. But I must admit I have sympathy for her—I generally do understand and have sympathy for the characters who do bad things out of weakness, rather than through maliciousness.
It does seem incredible that she didn’t realise that the paper would be important and I agree she was being selfish. But I also have sympathy for her desperation—yes, she didn’t want to lose her social position but I believe she dearly loved her husband and genuinely couldn’t bear the thought of causing him pain. And it’s not an excuse, but she does seem to be very young. I think the spy in the office and Lucas should bear the major part of the guilt—though intelligent, Lady Hilda was perhaps still naive and easily manipulated. Also, I think she redeems herself somewhat by her bold and brave retrieval of the document later.
“Now, Watson, the fair sex is your department,” said Holmes, with a smile… It has to be said though, that Holmes does seem to understand Lady Hilda better than Watson, despite this protestation.
Lestrade’s bulldog features gazed out at us from the front window… It’s curious that Watson has gone from comparing Lestrade to a ferret to comparing him to a bulldog. Not much similarity in those animals. It does also strike me that Lestrade’s personality isn’t quite as before. Could it be that “Lestrade” was just a pseudonym Watson used, and here he’s using it for a different detective than the one we generally think of as Lestrade?
“It was a letter of mine, Mr. Holmes, an indiscreet letter written before my marriage—a foolish letter, a letter of an impulsive, loving girl. I meant no harm, and yet he would have thought it criminal.” “Criminal” seems a very strong word. A love letter sent to a married man perhaps?
“Had he read that letter his confidence would have been for ever destroyed.” I wonder what would have happened if Lady Hilda had been honest with her husband. Would his reaction have been this extreme or was it all just in Lady Hilda’s panicked imagination?
“Then at last I heard from this man, Lucas, that it had passed into his hands…” How did Lucas get hold of Lady Hilda’s letter? How did he know that the letter existed? It all seems very neat—Lucas managing to get hold of a letter just in time to blackmail the wife of the statesman in possession of a valuable document. Perhaps he was like Charles Augustus Milverton—getting blackmail material in advance and then waiting to see when it would be useful.
Next Sunday, 8th November, we’ll be having a look at The Adventure of Wisteria Lodge. Hope you can join us then.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2015-11-01 04:51 pm (UTC)I have a strong suspicion that Bellinger will suggest to Hope that Hope is suffering from bad health and needs to retire immediately.
edit: probably I'm being parochial, but I consider Watson's enthusiastic description of Hope makes this about the slashiest of the canon stories.
no subject
Date: 2015-11-01 06:36 pm (UTC)I must admit I hadn't considered that Bellinger might discreetly remove Hope from office - the story does seem to indicate the Prime Minister has faith in Hope despite what's happened. But yes, it does appear to be a possibility - Bellinger may suspect a member of the household must have been involved, and so doesn't want to take any further risks - wants to tie up a loose end.
...every beauty of body and of mind... Watson does lay it on pretty thick, doesn't he? ^_^ But a different time I suppose - men were able to show appreciation of another man's appearance without it seeming automatically sexual.
no subject
Date: 2015-11-01 08:55 pm (UTC)Personally, I take a dim view of her. I am generally very bothered by 'romances' which rest on the basis of one partner lying and going behind their loved one's back. I hate stories, for example, where one partner commits infidelity and then decides to 'protect' their wife by not telling them about it so that they won't be unhappy. This drives me around the bend. It is so self-serving, it is so disrespectful. Once we decide that we are doing a loved one a favor by never allowing them to know about anything we are doing that they might disapprove of, I think the relationship has become very messed up.
Now, clearly we are not supposed to think that Lady Hilda was unfaithful, she was simply indiscreet in her youth and I think it's totally fair to side with her against a Victorian morality that would make her pay too heavy a price for something we might agree was essentially innocent. But, rather than call upon her husband to refuse to indulge a blackmailer and to place his faith in her current love and fidelity without drudging up the lowest moments of her past (which, if that marriage was worth preserving, I hope her husband would have agreed to), she decides instead to steal a government document from him even though she knows how much his professional career and integrity mean to him. This is a much more serious betrayal of him and his ideals than anything she could have written in that letter. Personally, I don't believe that she had no idea that the letter was important, or that she was so ignorant of politics that she couldn't comprehend what theft and treason mean.
I also don't believe for one moment that Hope's career survived this unscathed. Causing a serious war scare because you thought a vital document was stolen when it turned out you just hadn't looked for it thoroughly enough? That kind of incompetence would get anyone booted out of international diplomatic responsibilities.
In short, I take the view that Mr. Hope deserves to know what his wife did, and I find it very creepy to think he's going to spend the rest of his life obliviously married to a woman who probably destroyed his career, who certainly lied and stole from him, and who will never admit to anything she's done wrong and never even give him a chance to choose whether to forgive her.
no subject
Date: 2015-11-02 01:38 pm (UTC)Yes, me too--I dislike the idea of a partner being unfaithful and lying about it. I’ve never been in that situation but I gather the knowledge that you’ve been lied to can feel worse than the infidelity itself.
However, I can sympathise with the idea of a person being in love and thinking: “If you knew what I was really like, you wouldn’t want me. If you knew what I’d done in the past, you wouldn’t want me.” I can sympathise with the idea of Lady Hilda treating her marriage as a new start and not wanting to share every secret of her past.
But, rather than call upon her husband to refuse to indulge a blackmailer and to place his faith in her current love and fidelity without drudging up the lowest moments of her past (which, if that marriage was worth preserving, I hope her husband would have agreed to), she decides instead to steal a government document from him even though she knows how much his professional career and integrity mean to him. This is a much more serious betrayal of him and his ideals than anything she could have written in that letter.
I’m not saying that her actions were OK--they patently weren’t. But I think there are mitigating circumstances. The implication is that she’s young (the policeman on guard refers to her as a young woman)--I can sympathise with being immature and thinking that a secret is too awful to ever be shared, and if it was ever found out there would be dreadful, unthinkable consequences. I think if she’d been a few years older, she would have realised her husband would understand. She would have laughed at Lucas and gone straight to Hope to tell him.
But then again, maybe Hope would have rejected her if she’d told him of her past. And she might have been left with nothing. Her family and friends might have turned away from her, and all she’s trained for is being the wife of a rich man. That’s an understandable fear I think.
Also, I think Lady Hilda does deserve some sympathy for the fact she’s being blackmailed. She’s being manipulated, she must be under a great deal of stress, she must be feeling panic. It’s unlikely she’s thinking clearly and rationally. ...a much more serious betrayal of him and his ideals… This isn’t a decision she’s made calmly and coldly.
Personally, I don't believe that she had no idea that the letter was important, or that she was so ignorant of politics that she couldn't comprehend what theft and treason mean.
She must have realised that the letter was important. But I think spying and passing information is mainly about keeping a stalemate--I don’t think she could have been expected to realise that the letter was going to probably lead to a terrible war. I’m sure she was aware about the theft aspect but I doubt treason crossed her mind--before and after, the more personal aspects of the theft were taking up all of her thoughts.
no subject
Date: 2015-11-02 05:11 pm (UTC)She must have realised that the letter was important. But I think spying and passing information is mainly about keeping a stalemate--I don’t think she could have been expected to realise that the letter was going to probably lead to a terrible war.
Well, I grant you that probably no one would leap instantly to the idea that this bit of info was going to immediately throw their country into war, that is a pretty extreme scenario and she does seem to have been blindsided by the strength of her husband's anguish on his discovery of the loss. But as to most spying being about stalemates...on the one hand, if the argument is that she knows nothing about politics, then she would have had no reason to think the stolen document was just going to contribute to some continuing stalemate. On the other hand, if she does know enough to have some conception of what international spying and the balance of powers in Europe are about, then she can't really take the, 'I'm a woman, I couldn't possibly have known what I was doing!' line. That's a line of defense that annoys me, personally. I agree that intelligent women were not encouraged to follow politics and I would agree that if, for example, she couldn't name the major parties in Parliament or couldn't find Afghanistan on a map or things like that I would accept that as a reasonable outgrowth of society pressures and uneven female education. But when your husband carries sensitive government documents around in a locked box with him, and a blackmailer describes one for you to steal, I really don't think you are justified in assuming that it probably won't do any real harm to your husband or your country for you to take it. Being a woman does not justify that assumption. Also, it's clear that she didn't even read the document herself before handing it over (she asks Holmes what the letter was about), so clearly she didn't *want* to know what exactly she was doing. To me, that's not naivete, that's willful ignorance and a refusal to take responsibility for what she was doing. For all she knew, she could have been handing over material with which to blackmail the Prime Minister, or the formula for a new chemical weapon, or really anything at all. She preferred not to know.
Part 2 of my comment (^^")
Date: 2015-11-02 01:44 pm (UTC)Though she’s an intelligent woman, it’s not pushing the boundaries of probability that she had no understanding of or interest in politics. As a woman at that time, she wouldn’t have been encouraged to take an interest. And in my own life, I’m constantly surprised by what “intelligent” people do and don’t know.
...cool under pressure…
She certainly seems to manage the retrieval of the document very coolly. But earlier when she comes to Baker Street, both Holmes and Watson agree that she demonstrated strong emotion. She was apparently in distress over what she had done. I suppose she could have been pretending--but there seems no good reason for it. It would have been better for her if hadn’t gone to Baker Street--it only drew attention to her.
...as more manipulative and selfish…
There’s definitely mixed motives going on. Lady Hilda doesn’t want to lose her comfortable life--but I do believe that she loves her husband. She doesn’t want to be without him--it’s not just his house and money. I think it’s mostly her love for him that causes her to panic and not think about what the consequences of her actions are likely to be.
I suppose in the end though, I have sympathy for her because both Holmes and Watson have sympathy for her. Holmes goes out of his way at the end to protect her, instead of simply telling her husband. And Watson does say: Her courage was admirable. I trust their judgment of her. And I admire her for going and getting the document back. She did that for her husband I think--not for herself.
I also don't believe for one moment that Hope's career survived this unscathed.
I suppose I do think his career is going to survive--the Prime Minister seems to show faith in him despite what has happened.
Causing a serious war scare because you thought a vital document was stolen when it turned out you just hadn't looked for it thoroughly enough? That kind of incompetence would get anyone booted out of international diplomatic responsibilities.
Though he says it indirectly, the Prime Minister clearly believes that the letter was stolen. The Premier looked at Holmes with twinkling eyes. “Come, sir,” said he. “There is more in this than meets the eye. How came the letter back in the box?” But, yes, I suppose he might still decide to get rid of Hope. The implication must be that someone in the household took the letter--the Prime Minister might have not wanted to take any chances.
In short, I take the view that Mr. Hope deserves to know what his wife did, and I find it very creepy to think he's going to spend the rest of his life obliviously married to a woman who probably destroyed his career, who certainly lied and stole from him, and who will never admit to anything she's done wrong and never even give him a chance to choose whether to forgive her.
I would agree that Hope does deserve to know the truth, and I hope in the future his wife was able to tell him. However, I can’t judge her. I don’t condone her actions but I sympathise with the awful situation she was plunged into. She seems human rather than bad to me.
Re: Part 2 of my comment (^^")
Date: 2015-11-02 05:49 pm (UTC)I agree, I don't think she was faking her strong emotion at Baker Street. Within the last day, she had been blackmailed, witnessed a brutal murder (and not reported it), and thrown her husband into a frenzy of panic. Of course she was strongly affected, and for her to have kept her composure as well as she did in the circumstances argues to me a very firm self-control. And, given that she had eliminated the threat to her own reputation by burning her scandalous letter, of course it made sense for her to try to repair as much of the damage she had done in the process as possible. She doesn't want to hurt her husband, obviously. But she also doesn't tell him what she did and alert him to the location of the letter once she understands how terribly serious the situation is, which could have nipped this panic in the bud. Instead, she sneaks out herself to get it back in secret, so that she can try to both help her husband and make sure he never finds out anything bad about her, which continues to be her first priority.
Given her behavior throughout, I think the odds of her voluntarily confessing anything to her husband after the fact are extremely low. I would love to be wrong, but I don't see it as much of a possibility. Which means that, with Holmes's help, she will be keeping her husband in the dark for the rest of their lives, which is deeply unfair to him.
How much it affected Hope's career I suppose depends on whether other people besides the Prime Minister knew about the theft and had to be told that it was in fact all a mistake on Hope's part. If a lot of higher-ups were in on the war scare (if they had followed Holmes's advice to 'prepare for war,' in other words), then I think it would have been hard to paper over Hope's situation. If it's just the Prime Minister in the know, then Hope has a decent chance. Although, given that he himself believes that he caused the war panic through his apparent negligence, I wouldn't be surprised if he feels compelled to resign.
I agree that Lady Hilda doesn't seem like a "bad" person in the sense of not caring about anything but herself, but you don't have to be that "bad" in order to hurt other people very seriously. I don't like that she gets away with treating her husband the way she did, and that on top of that the narrative seems to expect me to be happy about it.
I suppose in the end though, I have sympathy for her because both Holmes and Watson have sympathy for her...I trust their judgment of her.
Hee! I don't, myself. Holmes and Watson (and Doyle, I think) have a tendency to be sympathetic to anyone who has been wronged and they let such characters get away with pretty much anything. They are sympathetic to Leon Sterndale when he tortures his victim to death out of vengeful grief for his murdered love; they are sympathetic to the woman who murders Milverton and don't turn her in despite uncovering her identity; they are sympathetic to Kitty Winter despite her throwing oil of vitriol in the face of her former abuser; they are sympathetic to old McCarthy who crushed his blackmailer's head in with a rock and left his son to take the rap for it; they are sympathetic to the Duke of Holdernesse, and Captain Crocker, and in short quite a lot of people that we as readers might justifiably feel needed to be held to account for their actions. This is not to say that all these characters are "bad," only that Holmes and Watson may have been too cavalier in waving away their crimes or misjudgments. Personally, I rank Lady Hilda among those who I feel needed to be held to account.
Re: Part 2 of my comment (^^")
Date: 2015-11-03 06:35 pm (UTC)I think the problem for me is simply that I like Lady Hilda and I sympathise with her. I find it difficult to stand back and accept that she should have to accept the consequences of her actions. I don’t want her to be punished.
I hadn’t thought about the fact she doesn’t look at the document before handing it over. I agree it’s rather childish--not looking and just hoping against hope the document is nothing important. But even that makes me sympathise with her.
...witnessed a brutal murder (and not reported it)... A minor word in Lady Hilda’s defence: she does say she left before the murder, and only read about it the next day. And when she left, Lucas’ wife had the knife but Lucas was defending himself with a chair. She ran from a terrible fight but Lucas wasn’t immediately about to lose his life. But, yes, again it’s something she should have reported and come forward about.
I suppose in the end though, I have sympathy for her because both Holmes and Watson have sympathy for her...I trust their judgment of her.
Hee! I don't, myself. Holmes and Watson (and Doyle, I think) have a tendency to be sympathetic to anyone who has been wronged and they let such characters get away with pretty much anything.
This is an extremely good point. I sometimes agree with Holmes and Watson’s judgment and sometimes I don’t--I can’t have it both ways.
I can’t seriously argue with any of your points--but I can’t override that emotional connection that makes me side with Lady Hilda.
Re: Part 2 of my comment (^^")
Date: 2015-11-03 08:42 pm (UTC)Nor should you! :) It's lovely that she resonates with you, that's a beautiful thing and one of the best bits of fiction is when a character takes your hand and doesn't let go. Heaven knows I let Holmes and Watson get away with a ton of stuff that would probably repel me in characters I loved less.
Second Stain is just an all-around good story, in my opinion, and it's actually one of my two personal favorite Granada episodes, too! (my other Granada fav is Norwood Builder). I will always have a warm spot for it in my heart, regardless of how sternly I side-eye Lady Hilda :)
no subject
Date: 2015-11-01 09:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-11-02 12:24 pm (UTC)Is the book suggesting Watson had got his dates wrong? Also, I've just been looking up Gladstone and I hadn't realised he'd been Prime Minister 4 times. Why does the article opt for Gladstone visiting in 1894 rather than the earlier part of Holmes' career from 1881-1886? Is it to do with when the sensitive document was likely to have been written?
no subject
Date: 2015-11-04 09:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-11-01 10:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-11-02 01:48 pm (UTC)