Canon Discussion: The Dying Detective
Dec. 13th, 2015 09:00 am![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
This week we’re having a look at The Dying Detective. I’ve typed up a few thoughts and questions to get the discussion going—please leave your own ideas in the comments!
The landlady stood in the deepest awe of him and never dared to interfere with him, however outrageous his proceedings might seem. I’m surprised really how passive and submissive Mrs. Hudson seems. I mean, she’s apparently a widowed woman on her own, responsible for running a household and earning her own living, and responsible for making sure her servants are paid too. Is she just deferential where Holmes is concerned? Is Watson exaggerating things for the sake of the story?
“Good God! Why did you not call in a doctor?” How do you feel about Mrs. Hudson taking so long to get a doctor? Admittedly, Holmes isn’t actually ill and is manipulating her. But what if Holmes had been ill? Do you feel sympathy with Mrs. Hudson’s hesitation? Or do you feel angry that she was so passive?
He disliked and distrusted the sex, but he was always a chivalrous opponent. I am not convinced Holmes does dislike women. It seems to be one of those generalisations that continually breaks down when it comes to individual women. Holmes worries about Violet Hunter like a brother, and about Violet de Merville like a father. In TWIS Holmes says to Watson about Mrs. Neville St. Clair: “I was wondering what I should say to this dear little woman to-night when she meets me at the door.” He and Watson are alone then: there’s no reason for him to pretend he has sympathy with her if he doesn’t. Also, I always think that Holmes understands women better than Watson. He sees them as they are, rather than romanticising them.
...when she came to my rooms in the second year of my married life… Where is Mrs. Watson? Watson rushes away to Baker Street without speaking to her or leaving a note.
“You are not angry?” he asked, gasping for breath. I realise this is a hugely contentious point: was Holmes right to use this plan? To make Watson and Mrs. Hudson believe that he was truly dying? They both go through a nightmarish experience. (There is that heartbreaking line: Mrs. Hudson was waiting, trembling and weeping, in the passage.)
I don’t want to diminish their suffering—knowing that someone you care about is close to death is terrifying and unbearable. But I do still believe that Holmes was right to act as he did—that there was a necessary ruthlessness to his actions.
...I walked slowly round the room, examining the pictures of celebrated criminals with which every wall was adorned. Odd choice of decoration for a bedroom. I’m sure these are people Holmes finds interesting but why does he choose to have them out on display at all times?
It was a dreadful cry that he gave—a yell which might have been heard down the street. My skin went cold and my hair bristled at that horrible scream. It doesn’t exactly balance things out but this does demonstrate to me how intensely Holmes cares about Watson. He’s not just anxious—he’s terrified when he thinks Watson is about to open the deadly box.
“There are the wheels, Watson. Quick, man, if you love me!” Time is short but should Holmes have still made an attempt to tell Watson that he wasn’t ill and it was a trick aimed at Culverton Smith? Watson doesn’t know he’s hiding in order to be a witness to a confession—at any moment he might have given the game away.
“Coals of fire, Holmes—coals of fire!” Which I gather is a reference to Romans 12:20: "Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head"; the next verse being: “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” Is Holmes overcoming evil with good, or is he using evil to fight evil?
“Poor Victor was a dead man on the fourth day—a strong, hearty young fellow.” Victor Savage is really just a plot point in the story—we don’t know much about him. Any thoughts on him?
“That pretence I have carried out with the thoroughness of the true artist.” This seems an odd statement to make about yourself. Is Holmes trying to convince himself that he made the right choice in what to do? Or does the statement actually come from the author, Watson, because he was trying to convince himself Holmes had made the right choice?
Next Sunday, 20th December, we’ll be looking at the first half of The Valley of Fear: chaps 1-7. Hope you can join us for that.
And the following Sunday, 27th December, should have been a discussion for the second half—however, I believe someone from the Marylebone Monthly Illustrated will be standing in for me then and doing something a little more fun and festive…
The landlady stood in the deepest awe of him and never dared to interfere with him, however outrageous his proceedings might seem. I’m surprised really how passive and submissive Mrs. Hudson seems. I mean, she’s apparently a widowed woman on her own, responsible for running a household and earning her own living, and responsible for making sure her servants are paid too. Is she just deferential where Holmes is concerned? Is Watson exaggerating things for the sake of the story?
“Good God! Why did you not call in a doctor?” How do you feel about Mrs. Hudson taking so long to get a doctor? Admittedly, Holmes isn’t actually ill and is manipulating her. But what if Holmes had been ill? Do you feel sympathy with Mrs. Hudson’s hesitation? Or do you feel angry that she was so passive?
He disliked and distrusted the sex, but he was always a chivalrous opponent. I am not convinced Holmes does dislike women. It seems to be one of those generalisations that continually breaks down when it comes to individual women. Holmes worries about Violet Hunter like a brother, and about Violet de Merville like a father. In TWIS Holmes says to Watson about Mrs. Neville St. Clair: “I was wondering what I should say to this dear little woman to-night when she meets me at the door.” He and Watson are alone then: there’s no reason for him to pretend he has sympathy with her if he doesn’t. Also, I always think that Holmes understands women better than Watson. He sees them as they are, rather than romanticising them.
...when she came to my rooms in the second year of my married life… Where is Mrs. Watson? Watson rushes away to Baker Street without speaking to her or leaving a note.
“You are not angry?” he asked, gasping for breath. I realise this is a hugely contentious point: was Holmes right to use this plan? To make Watson and Mrs. Hudson believe that he was truly dying? They both go through a nightmarish experience. (There is that heartbreaking line: Mrs. Hudson was waiting, trembling and weeping, in the passage.)
I don’t want to diminish their suffering—knowing that someone you care about is close to death is terrifying and unbearable. But I do still believe that Holmes was right to act as he did—that there was a necessary ruthlessness to his actions.
...I walked slowly round the room, examining the pictures of celebrated criminals with which every wall was adorned. Odd choice of decoration for a bedroom. I’m sure these are people Holmes finds interesting but why does he choose to have them out on display at all times?
It was a dreadful cry that he gave—a yell which might have been heard down the street. My skin went cold and my hair bristled at that horrible scream. It doesn’t exactly balance things out but this does demonstrate to me how intensely Holmes cares about Watson. He’s not just anxious—he’s terrified when he thinks Watson is about to open the deadly box.
“There are the wheels, Watson. Quick, man, if you love me!” Time is short but should Holmes have still made an attempt to tell Watson that he wasn’t ill and it was a trick aimed at Culverton Smith? Watson doesn’t know he’s hiding in order to be a witness to a confession—at any moment he might have given the game away.
“Coals of fire, Holmes—coals of fire!” Which I gather is a reference to Romans 12:20: "Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head"; the next verse being: “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” Is Holmes overcoming evil with good, or is he using evil to fight evil?
“Poor Victor was a dead man on the fourth day—a strong, hearty young fellow.” Victor Savage is really just a plot point in the story—we don’t know much about him. Any thoughts on him?
“That pretence I have carried out with the thoroughness of the true artist.” This seems an odd statement to make about yourself. Is Holmes trying to convince himself that he made the right choice in what to do? Or does the statement actually come from the author, Watson, because he was trying to convince himself Holmes had made the right choice?
Next Sunday, 20th December, we’ll be looking at the first half of The Valley of Fear: chaps 1-7. Hope you can join us for that.
And the following Sunday, 27th December, should have been a discussion for the second half—however, I believe someone from the Marylebone Monthly Illustrated will be standing in for me then and doing something a little more fun and festive…
no subject
Date: 2015-12-13 11:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-12-13 02:40 pm (UTC)And, yes - I would agree that Mrs. Hudson would be used to seeing all kinds of goings-on at Baker St and would be used to the idea that all might be not as it seems. She would be used to not interfering in case she was not privy to what was happening. And so when Holmes first became "ill" she would be genuinely unsure whether she should override Holmes' wishes.
...he leaves poor unconscious Lady Carfax with creepy McCreeps-a-lot Green. Not exactly sensitive. I would agree that challenges the part of my theory that says Holmes understands women. But I don't think it goes against my main point that Holmes never really appears to dislike women.
no subject
Date: 2015-12-13 01:28 pm (UTC)Or, perhaps, Holmes hides his actual personal life from everyone (including Watson). But that would be too cruel.
no subject
Date: 2015-12-13 02:57 pm (UTC)And Holmes is reserved but we do get some evidence that he has a personal life and that Watson shares in it - the first thing that comes to mind is the two of them going to a concert during REDH. "And now, doctor, we've done our work, so it's time we had some play."
no subject
Date: 2015-12-13 03:14 pm (UTC)I was going with the bedroom as being the most personal room in the house (envisioning the wall with VR shot into it in the living room, the bills fastened to the mantlepiece by a knife) and his ability to so completely and utterly fool Watson (a doctor) into thinking that he was dying. What if he his whole detective thing was also a front for something else? Some life he built after (or even before) the Falls? Maybe with the woman?
He is smart enough to do this, I think.
But these are just the sorts of idle wonderings that get one into trouble, perhaps.
dislike and distrust the sex
Date: 2015-12-13 01:30 pm (UTC)So it's not surprising that he can deal with individual women as exceptions to the general rule. It's like he creates a special category of women who are okay despite their obvious fault in being women.
Re: dislike and distrust the sex
Date: 2015-12-13 03:01 pm (UTC)Re: dislike and distrust the sex
Date: 2015-12-13 03:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-12-13 01:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-12-13 02:02 pm (UTC)But that would explain why Watson doesn't refer to a wife. He says: ...she came to my rooms in the second year of
my married life... No actual mention of a wife at all. And "rooms" wouldn't quite make sense if this was a reference to his first marriage to Mary - they lived at Watson's practice.
no subject
Date: 2015-12-13 02:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-12-13 02:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-12-13 03:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-12-13 03:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-12-13 03:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-12-13 04:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-12-13 09:02 pm (UTC)I do still think myself that Watson was actually fooled but he is a doctor, an intelligent man and knows Holmes well - it would make sense if he had quickly picked up that Holmes was faking.
no subject
Date: 2015-12-14 01:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-12-14 05:43 pm (UTC)At the end of SCAN Watson states: He used to make merry over the cleverness of women, but I have not heard him do it of late. That is, Holmes didn't use to think much of women's intelligence but Irene Adler changed his mind (at least in her case).
In VALL Holmes says: "I am not a whole−souled admirer of womankind, as you are aware, Watson..."
So in abstract Holmes certainly does seem to dislike and distrust women. I would guess this attitude was pretty typical for the Victorian male and in Holmes' case comes from growing up without sisters, being educated solely with other males and, because he has no interest in romantic relationships with women, not having much social contact with women as an adult.
But I can't think of a single occasion in the stories when Holmes positively seems to dislike a woman simply because she's a woman - a stronger case might be made for him distrusting women I suppose. It's as though Holmes has this attitude but it breaks down for every woman he meets - every woman is an exception to the rule.
no subject
Date: 2015-12-15 01:29 am (UTC)Thanks :)
a few thoughts on this angst bundle, 1
Date: 2015-12-17 04:44 am (UTC)But I do still believe that Holmes was right to act as he did—that there was a necessary ruthlessness to his actions.
With the word "necessary" I think you put your finger on exactly the crux of the writing/reading disjunction that sometimes occurs for me when I read Doyle. So, here's the thing. It's clear that Doyle's goal in writing and my goal in reading are different. Doyle's goal in writing was to present each mystery scenario in as dramatic a fashion as possible, and to maintain basic plausibility for his scenarios so that the audience would be able to suspend disbelief and get swept up in the thrills of the case. He also avowedly made it a goal to keep Watson from acquiring too much depth and to always subordinate his character to the needs of the plot. Doyle wrote to Ronald Knox in 1912:
"Another point –- one of the few in which I feel satisfaction but which I have never seen mentioned –- is that Watson never for one instant as chorus and chronicler transcends his own limitations. Never once does a flash of wit or wisdom come from him. All is [remorselessly] eliminated so that he may be Watson."
Of course, I don't think that Doyle actually succeeded in creating such a limited character at all, and I don't think he understood the appeal of his own creation in Watson any more than he understood the appeal in Holmes. My only point is that I really don't think he paid much attention to the emotional dynamics of Watson as a realistic human being, which means that I am looking for something when I read which he was not necessarily attempting to provide when he wrote.
So, when we get into situations like this where the most dramatic story depends on Holmes putting his dearest friend (and in this case his harmless landlady as well) through emotional hell, and then laughing it off once it's revealed that it was all for the greater good, I tend to hit a personal roadblock. I find that a reprehensible way to work, and of course the only possible justification for it is the idea that there was no other way he could have achieved the greater good. He had to do this hurtful thing, there was no other way. In short, in order to maintain Holmes as a non-awful person, we are asked to accept that in this case, and in Reichenbach, the emotional torment he manipulated his friends into suffering was absolutely necessary.
a few thoughts on this angst bundle, 2
Date: 2015-12-17 04:44 am (UTC)Anyway, more than any of these specifics I just tend to feel that Holmes didn't try very hard to come up with ways of working which extended respect and consideration to his colleagues, friends, and dependents. Whenever he does this kind of thing I get angry with him, and I lose some of my ability to just take his and Doyle's word for it that there really wasn't any other way to handle things. You're a genius, Holmes. If you think you have to make your loved ones terrified and miserable, please think again. Come up with something better.
That's what I'm always thinking when I approach the stories with my eyes fixed on the human relationships first. But that's really not the way they are meant to be read. So I compromise whenever I can by putting my hands over my ears and pretending Holmes didn't really do this kind of thing :)
Re: a few thoughts on this angst bundle, 2
Date: 2015-12-20 12:41 am (UTC)I suppose when I read the stories, I do read them exactly as ACD intended them to be read. I am completely swayed by his intentions and don’t consider that things could be done differently. In real life, if someone close to me pretended to be dying, I would never speak to them again. And yet when I read DYIN, not only does Holmes’ plan seems absolutely necessary, it also reinforces my sense of how noble Holmes is--that he would do anything he could to trap Victor Savage’s killer.
And to go off at a bit of a tangent, this led me on to thinking about fanfiction. In regard to original fiction, I have no reservations about describing myself as an excellent writer. I have the usual insecurities but I know in abstract that I am very good at what I do. However, I am also aware that I’m only an OK fanfiction writer and probably always will be. And that is because, no matter how much I love the characters, I am always more interested in the plot (and the jokes) I’m writing than the characters themselves. And fanfiction is all about putting the characters first. ACD used Holmes and Watson as actors in his mysteries but excellent fanfiction writers allow them to be human beings.