Whee! I'm very late to this party, but why not leave a few thoughts on this contentious little bundle of angst? :)
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, 1
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.