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: 2015-11-02 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.