This story is my personal favorite in the canon, but like others have said, I disagree with Holmes & Watson letting Sterndale get away with torturing Tregennis to death. Not good, guys.
Stepping outside the Game, ACD obviously has Watson try the drug because he’s the narrator—it means we can experience the effects of the drug too. But playing the Game—why on earth does Watson agree to this? It would make more sense for only Holmes to try it, and Watson to watch from a safe distance so he can immediately help. Or if they really both have to take the drug, they could have done it one at a time. Moreover, it seems more likely to me that Watson would have put his foot down and said that neither of them should inhale the drug—it wasn’t worth the risk.
Well said! Outside the Game, I think ACD did a fantastic job with this sequence and I do love Watson's POV on the experience and its aftermath. But as you say, from the characters' perspective within the story it is hard to justify.
The best I can do is this: I think that, if Holmes and Watson had decided to try to convict Sterndale of the murder he committed, it would have been very difficult to construct an effective case that had any chance of convincing a jury. The drug was unknown to European science, and even if Holmes had handed his small sample over to a lab, it's hard to see how any safe chemical analysis could prove the drug's effects in a way that a jury would understand as conclusive. Analysis might provide technical info on the drug's composition and possible effects, but that's not enough to eliminate reasonable doubt. The only expert on the drug was the murderer himself, so obviously they could not expect him to testify truthfully as to its effects. Even if Holmes took the drug himself, it would come down to his word against Sterndale's, and some juries might not find that sufficient to convict. But if Holmes and Watson BOTH exposed themselves so as to be able to swear to the drug's effects in clear, understandable terms, then their combined testimony would, I think, stand a strong chance of swaying a jury to convict.
I think that is why Holmes felt they had to do this, and furthermore they had to do it before confronting Sterndale. That way, if the interview convinced him that Sterndale needed to face justice, he would have the means to act with a reasonable chance of success.
However, there are still huge problems here that can't really be explained away. You are certainly right that it would have been much safer for them to expose themselves one at a time. You do not want the only person available to offer lifesaving aid to be incapacitated at the same time that you are.
Also, Holmes says, and I think I have to believe him, that he simply failed to imagine that the drug's effects could be 'so sudden and so severe,' but he absolutely should have predicted that. The Tregennis family died at their card table. If the drug's effects had come on gradually, they would clearly have been disturbed enough in its earliest stages to seek help and run or stumble from the room, and thereby save themselves by getting away from the poisonous fumes. The evidence of the crime scene basically told him incontrovertibly that these people had been near-instantly paralyzed and unable to take the very simple step of getting the hell out of that room. They were unable even to get out of their chairs. The fact that Watson managed to do so was an astonishing and unpredictable triumph.
Furthermore, Holmes himself earlier deduced, correctly, that the fatal event must have happened within a few minutes after Mortimer left, because the family was ready to retire to bed and would not have lingered beyond that last hand of cards. In short, the fact that the drug was very fast acting was already established by the crime scene and his own earlier deductions, and his failure to take that into account here is pretty impossible to justify. I guess I'm just going to have to write it off to a resurgence of his illness that temporarily messed with his mind? *shrugs*
But, at the end of the day, I don't care, because nothing can dim my love for this story :)
![[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: 2015-11-23 04:32 am (UTC)This story is my personal favorite in the canon, but like others have said, I disagree with Holmes & Watson letting Sterndale get away with torturing Tregennis to death. Not good, guys.
Stepping outside the Game, ACD obviously has Watson try the drug because he’s the narrator—it means we can experience the effects of the drug too. But playing the Game—why on earth does Watson agree to this? It would make more sense for only Holmes to try it, and Watson to watch from a safe distance so he can immediately help. Or if they really both have to take the drug, they could have done it one at a time. Moreover, it seems more likely to me that Watson would have put his foot down and said that neither of them should inhale the drug—it wasn’t worth the risk.
Well said! Outside the Game, I think ACD did a fantastic job with this sequence and I do love Watson's POV on the experience and its aftermath. But as you say, from the characters' perspective within the story it is hard to justify.
The best I can do is this: I think that, if Holmes and Watson had decided to try to convict Sterndale of the murder he committed, it would have been very difficult to construct an effective case that had any chance of convincing a jury. The drug was unknown to European science, and even if Holmes had handed his small sample over to a lab, it's hard to see how any safe chemical analysis could prove the drug's effects in a way that a jury would understand as conclusive. Analysis might provide technical info on the drug's composition and possible effects, but that's not enough to eliminate reasonable doubt. The only expert on the drug was the murderer himself, so obviously they could not expect him to testify truthfully as to its effects. Even if Holmes took the drug himself, it would come down to his word against Sterndale's, and some juries might not find that sufficient to convict. But if Holmes and Watson BOTH exposed themselves so as to be able to swear to the drug's effects in clear, understandable terms, then their combined testimony would, I think, stand a strong chance of swaying a jury to convict.
I think that is why Holmes felt they had to do this, and furthermore they had to do it before confronting Sterndale. That way, if the interview convinced him that Sterndale needed to face justice, he would have the means to act with a reasonable chance of success.
However, there are still huge problems here that can't really be explained away. You are certainly right that it would have been much safer for them to expose themselves one at a time. You do not want the only person available to offer lifesaving aid to be incapacitated at the same time that you are.
Also, Holmes says, and I think I have to believe him, that he simply failed to imagine that the drug's effects could be 'so sudden and so severe,' but he absolutely should have predicted that. The Tregennis family died at their card table. If the drug's effects had come on gradually, they would clearly have been disturbed enough in its earliest stages to seek help and run or stumble from the room, and thereby save themselves by getting away from the poisonous fumes. The evidence of the crime scene basically told him incontrovertibly that these people had been near-instantly paralyzed and unable to take the very simple step of getting the hell out of that room. They were unable even to get out of their chairs. The fact that Watson managed to do so was an astonishing and unpredictable triumph.
Furthermore, Holmes himself earlier deduced, correctly, that the fatal event must have happened within a few minutes after Mortimer left, because the family was ready to retire to bed and would not have lingered beyond that last hand of cards. In short, the fact that the drug was very fast acting was already established by the crime scene and his own earlier deductions, and his failure to take that into account here is pretty impossible to justify. I guess I'm just going to have to write it off to a resurgence of his illness that temporarily messed with his mind? *shrugs*
But, at the end of the day, I don't care, because nothing can dim my love for this story :)