Canon Discussion: The Mazarin Stone

[scfrankles.livejournal.com]

This week we’re having a look at The Mazarin Stone. I’ve typed up a few thoughts and questions to get the discussion going—please leave your own ideas in the comments!

Playing the Game, just who wrote MAZA? The View Halloa takes us through a few possibilities. And is it actually one of Holmes’s cases, or has the author made it up—as nekomuse.com suggests?

landzastanza does point out that Watson appears to claim ownership of LAST and MAZA at the beginning of THOR (and to claim that they are real cases):

In THOR, the next published story after the two narrated anonymously, Watson claimed authorship of them: "In some I was myself concerned and can speak as an eye-witness, while in others I was either not present or played so small a part that they could only be told as by a third person."

When is this case actually supposed to have taken place? Baring-Gould says 1903. It does certainly appear to be a post-Hiatus story at the very least: in reference to the wax figure, Watson says, “"We used something of the sort once before." (In EMPT.) And Billy replies, “Before my time." Also, Watson is no longer living at Baker Street and has gone back to working as a doctor, which suggests it’s set a good while after the Hiatus. (Unless it’s set immediately after Holmes has come back, and Watson has not yet sold his practice and moved back to Baker Street? Seems a bit of a stretch though…)

But we do also have a reference to Lord Cantlemere’s “drooping mid-Victorian whiskers”. Though that doesn’t necessarily mean this story is taking place in the mid-Victorian era. It’s probably meant to show that Cantlemere is old-fashioned and set in his ways: "He is an excellent and loyal person, but rather of the old regime.” And there is the gramophone of course. But it’s possible Holmes could have had some kind of recorded sound machine from the late 1880s onwards.

And how many Billys have worked at Baker Street? There’s a Billy in VALL, which can’t be the same boy—he says himself in MAZA that EMPT was before his time, and VALL apparently takes place in the late 1880s.

”Where is this gentleman, Billy?" "In the waiting-room, sir." It seems odd that Baker Street suddenly appears to have a waiting room. (The Count hasn’t been left in the broom cupboard, has he?)

“...give this to Youghal of the C. I. D. “ Any thoughts on Youghal?

“Old Baron Dowson said the night before he was hanged…” Any thoughts on the Baron and his crime?

MAZA is, as you might know, an alternative version of the playlet The Crown Diamond by ACD. (The link will take you to the text of the play. It’s pretty short, if you want to take a look.) In The Uncollected Sherlock Holmes Richard Lancelyn Green mentions that it’s not absolutely certain which came first, the play or the story—the evidence isn’t conclusive. It has to be said though that the story certainly does read like a converted play.

Next Sunday, 17th January, we’ll be having a look at The Problem of Thor Bridge. Hope you can join us then.

Comments

[thesmallhobbit.livejournal.com]

As with a lot of things Holmesian, it was easier to stick to one name for the page - Mrs Hudson renamed them all on arrival.

I wish you hadn't suggested putting Count Silvius in the broom cupboard ...

[scfrankles.livejournal.com]

I wish you hadn't suggested putting Count Silvius in the broom cupboard ... Why? Have I traumatised you with the possibilities? Or have I set a plot bunny running? ^_^

[okapi1895.livejournal.com]

My question is why Doyle allowed it to be published in the first place, especially if he had already written the play. Maybe he handed the script over to someone else and had them translate it into prose? But why? Did he need money? Was he getting pressure from publishers? Or if the story came first was this kind of a draft for his play? If so, why publish it (the draft)? It seems sort of strange.

[laurose8.livejournal.com]

I think nekomuse's suggestion convincing, but if it wasn't made up, I do see Watson, rather than Billy, as the writer. Billy calling himself 'fresh faced' somehow doesn't seem right. Also, the Holmes of this story is so like Watson's Holmes, and Watson himself is not described. Which I find disappointing, but Watsoian. Except about his 'honest face twitching', of course. Though if is Watson, it's definitely much more edited than usual.

[thesmallhobbit.livejournal.com]

Plot bunny got loose ...

[scfrankles.livejournal.com]

It is odd - MAZA is noticeably not as good as the rest of the canon.

I've just been looking in my copy of The Uncollected Sherlock Holmes, and though there's no definite evidence which was written first, the play was put on first in May 1921 and the story was published in the Strand October 1921.

My thoughts are simply that the play was doing well, and either the Strand or ACD himself thought that there could be a demand for a written version of it, from people who hadn't seen it in the theatre. Just making a bit of extra cash out of the play I suppose. I assume ACD knew it wasn't terribly good but wasn't particularly bothered, as it was just Sherlock Holmes ^^

[scfrankles.livejournal.com]

Though if is Watson, it's definitely much more edited than usual. That's the thing, isn't it? The writing feels nothing like Watson's usual style. I wonder is it possible that the answer could lie in a particularly unsympathetic editor cutting Watson's story to ribbons? ^_^

[godsdaisiechain.livejournal.com]

ooh ooh... *waves hand* I think I may know this one--

By the late 19th century, melodrama was the most common and traditional stage form and it had a long (long) history of crossover with serial fictions (think Dickens). It was kind of like the whole novel-adapted-to-movie and vice versa we have today, but print and theater.

This crossover could explain all sorts of things about the Mazarin Stone: the weird narrator less perspective, the monologuing (Who would really ever do that? Or carry the evidence about?), and the weird reliance on props for plot resolution.

Hmmm... I wonder if there's scholarly work on this...

[scfrankles.livejournal.com]

By the late 19th century, melodrama was the most common and traditional stage form... Would this still have been the case by 1921? But in any case, ACD would have been aware of the history of crossover between stage and print. Would he simply have considered it the conventional thing to do - writing the play in story form as well?

This crossover could explain all sorts of things about the Mazarin Stone: the weird narrator less perspective, the monologuing (Who would really ever do that? Or carry the evidence about?), and the weird reliance on props for plot resolution. I think most people believe that the story is an adaptation of the play - I certainly think that. But it's an interesting thought that ACD might have always conceived of the story and play as a pair, and might have written the story first anticipating how it would work on stage.

[godsdaisiechain.livejournal.com]

Basically, melodrama started out as a stage form (in France in the late 18th century) and certinanly by the 1920's had become the dominant form in all of popular culture (at least according to Peter Brooks). I can't really comment on ACD specifically, but doing a stage play and a story for publication (or some combination of function/novel/story/serial) and stage production was already a very, very common thing for popular authors to do by the mid-19th century.

ooh! I really like your interpretation of using the story as a trial for the play. That makes a lot of sense and it would be a good way to do it.