![[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 Problem of Thor Bridge. I’ve typed up a few thoughts and questions to get the discussion going—please leave your own ideas in the comments!
...last remaining leaves were being whirled from the solitary plane tree which graces the yard behind our house. This is rather interesting. I think it’s the only reference to 221 Baker Street having any kind of garden. Though to my British ears, ‘yard’ means something pretty utilitarian: would it perhaps be a place for an outdoor lavatory? And a place to hang clothes and do any necessary outdoor work?
“…a very attractive governess superintended the education of two young children.” “[My wife] adored me in those English woods as she had adored me twenty years ago on the banks of the Amazon.” Being educated at home and being referred to as ‘young’ suggests to me the children were under 10 and had been born in the latter part of the marriage after the ‘romance had passed’. I did wonder the last time we discussed THOR that maybe the children had been an attempt by the Gibsons to save their marriage. But![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
laurose8 made the excellent suggestion that there might be older children too. I suppose they could be away at boarding school—the very oldest could be at university.
What of the children’s future? How will they cope with the circumstances of their mother’s death, and their father’s new marriage? We’re told nothing at all about the children in the story—they’re purely a plot point.
“...you have tried to ruin a defenceless girl who was under your roof. Some of you rich men have to be taught that all the world cannot be bribed into condoning your offences." That’s a passionate response from Holmes—a man who according to Watson dislikes and distrusts women. Is there a personal reason behind it? Is he thinking of a particular woman?
“I knew that if I could kill her love, or if it turned to hate, it would be easier for both of us.”
“Never did I realize till that moment how this poor creature hated me. She was like a mad woman — indeed, I think she was a mad woman, subtly mad with the deep power of deception which insane people may have. How else could she have met me with unconcern every day and yet had so raging a hatred of me in her heart?
I wonder—did Mrs. Gibson hate Miss Dunbar? Had Gibson perhaps succeeded in his intentions and got his wife to hate him? Perhaps Miss Dunbar was nothing to Mrs. Gibson—she wanted to frame her for murder and get her hanged because it would hurt her husband. Miss Dunbar says that Mrs. Gibson had ‘met [her] with unconcern every day’—perhaps she really was unconcerned about her. At the bridge Mrs. Gibson ‘poured her whole wild fury out in burning and horrible words’. But maybe this was simply play-acting in order to get Miss Dunbar to leave again quickly after she had involuntarily incriminated herself, so Mrs. Gibson could commit suicide and finish her plan.
"It must be admitted that the workings of this unhappy woman's mind were deep and subtle, so that it was no very simple matter to unravel her plot.” Stepping out of the Game and indulging in a bit of literary criticism: I think the solution to the puzzle is so clever and so satisfying, but the psychology of the story doesn’t quite add up. It doesn’t feel like a true tragedy in the way CARD is. Mrs. Gibson is such a well-drawn character but it doesn’t quite make sense that on the one hand she’s a passionate woman, controlled by her emotions, and on the other she’s someone who’s cold-bloodedly planned a murder.
Whether Miss Dunbar was her rival in a physical or in a merely mental sense seems to have been equally unforgivable in her eyes. I side with Mrs. Gibson in this. I can’t approve of her actions but I think she had every right to be angry about the relationship between her husband and Miss Dunbar. Yes, it did make a difference that they weren’t having sex but I would still call it an affair. From my point of view, Mrs. Gibson was being made a fool of in her own home.
“Should they in the future join their forces, as seems not unlikely…” Will a marriage between Gibson and Miss Dunbar be a successful one? Will they have enough in common for Gibson to still be interested in Miss Dunbar once her looks have faded? The ‘financial world may find that Mr. Neil Gibson has learned something in that schoolroom of sorrow where our earthly lessons are taught’ but has Gibson learnt how to treat a wife? His estate manager describes him as ‘an infernal villain’ and says “He is a man of violence, sir, and there are times when all of us are afraid of him.” (My italics.) Being a thug seems to be in his nature. Is Miss Dunbar going to regret her marriage?
Next Sunday, 24th January, we’ll be having a look at The Creeping Man. Hope you can join us then.
...last remaining leaves were being whirled from the solitary plane tree which graces the yard behind our house. This is rather interesting. I think it’s the only reference to 221 Baker Street having any kind of garden. Though to my British ears, ‘yard’ means something pretty utilitarian: would it perhaps be a place for an outdoor lavatory? And a place to hang clothes and do any necessary outdoor work?
“…a very attractive governess superintended the education of two young children.” “[My wife] adored me in those English woods as she had adored me twenty years ago on the banks of the Amazon.” Being educated at home and being referred to as ‘young’ suggests to me the children were under 10 and had been born in the latter part of the marriage after the ‘romance had passed’. I did wonder the last time we discussed THOR that maybe the children had been an attempt by the Gibsons to save their marriage. But
laurose8 made the excellent suggestion that there might be older children too. I suppose they could be away at boarding school—the very oldest could be at university. What of the children’s future? How will they cope with the circumstances of their mother’s death, and their father’s new marriage? We’re told nothing at all about the children in the story—they’re purely a plot point.
“...you have tried to ruin a defenceless girl who was under your roof. Some of you rich men have to be taught that all the world cannot be bribed into condoning your offences." That’s a passionate response from Holmes—a man who according to Watson dislikes and distrusts women. Is there a personal reason behind it? Is he thinking of a particular woman?
“I knew that if I could kill her love, or if it turned to hate, it would be easier for both of us.”
“Never did I realize till that moment how this poor creature hated me. She was like a mad woman — indeed, I think she was a mad woman, subtly mad with the deep power of deception which insane people may have. How else could she have met me with unconcern every day and yet had so raging a hatred of me in her heart?
I wonder—did Mrs. Gibson hate Miss Dunbar? Had Gibson perhaps succeeded in his intentions and got his wife to hate him? Perhaps Miss Dunbar was nothing to Mrs. Gibson—she wanted to frame her for murder and get her hanged because it would hurt her husband. Miss Dunbar says that Mrs. Gibson had ‘met [her] with unconcern every day’—perhaps she really was unconcerned about her. At the bridge Mrs. Gibson ‘poured her whole wild fury out in burning and horrible words’. But maybe this was simply play-acting in order to get Miss Dunbar to leave again quickly after she had involuntarily incriminated herself, so Mrs. Gibson could commit suicide and finish her plan.
"It must be admitted that the workings of this unhappy woman's mind were deep and subtle, so that it was no very simple matter to unravel her plot.” Stepping out of the Game and indulging in a bit of literary criticism: I think the solution to the puzzle is so clever and so satisfying, but the psychology of the story doesn’t quite add up. It doesn’t feel like a true tragedy in the way CARD is. Mrs. Gibson is such a well-drawn character but it doesn’t quite make sense that on the one hand she’s a passionate woman, controlled by her emotions, and on the other she’s someone who’s cold-bloodedly planned a murder.
Whether Miss Dunbar was her rival in a physical or in a merely mental sense seems to have been equally unforgivable in her eyes. I side with Mrs. Gibson in this. I can’t approve of her actions but I think she had every right to be angry about the relationship between her husband and Miss Dunbar. Yes, it did make a difference that they weren’t having sex but I would still call it an affair. From my point of view, Mrs. Gibson was being made a fool of in her own home.
“Should they in the future join their forces, as seems not unlikely…” Will a marriage between Gibson and Miss Dunbar be a successful one? Will they have enough in common for Gibson to still be interested in Miss Dunbar once her looks have faded? The ‘financial world may find that Mr. Neil Gibson has learned something in that schoolroom of sorrow where our earthly lessons are taught’ but has Gibson learnt how to treat a wife? His estate manager describes him as ‘an infernal villain’ and says “He is a man of violence, sir, and there are times when all of us are afraid of him.” (My italics.) Being a thug seems to be in his nature. Is Miss Dunbar going to regret her marriage?
Next Sunday, 24th January, we’ll be having a look at The Creeping Man. Hope you can join us then.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2016-01-17 12:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-01-17 03:58 pm (UTC)I was confused by the term 'our house.' Maybe because of the way that The Abominable Bride uses the maid and the egg reference. I thought that Holmes was staying with Watson in an actual house (as opposed to a flat). Because the entire house isn't technically theirs, right? I thought they just rented rooms.
I have a lot of empathy for Mrs. Gibson. In her mind, the plan seemed both logical and mad. Letting any sign of the true depth of her feelings or of her intentions towards Miss Dunbar show would've been wrong. And yes, she wanted to punish everyone and remove herself from a position that seemed untenable.
I agree with the Small Hobbit about the marriage. And on a final, cynical note, by the time the second Mrs. Gibson's looks fade, her husband will probably be fertilizing daisies.
no subject
Date: 2016-01-17 04:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-01-17 04:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-01-17 05:45 pm (UTC)I see what you mean about "our house". But I suppose Watson simply means "the house that contains the rooms which Holmes and I rent and live in". In the same way as you might say "our hotel", or "our block of flats". And you might also say "our school" and "our church". None of these buildings actually belong to you but you have a personal connection with them. I assume Watson says "our house" because he's thinking of the yard in relation to the entire building, not just 221B.
I have a lot of empathy for Mrs. Gibson too. I can't excuse her trying to frame Miss Dunbar but she was being mentally abused by the man she loved, and her husband and Miss Dunbar were carrying on that odd sort-of affair in her own home. She must have been under an enormous amount of stress.
And on a final, cynical note, by the time the second Mrs. Gibson's looks fade, her husband will probably be fertilizing daisies. Very true ^_^
no subject
Date: 2016-01-18 01:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-01-18 02:00 pm (UTC)Interesting note about last week's discussion
Date: 2016-01-18 02:01 pm (UTC)Could this be a clue regarding the Mazarin Stone (and apologies if this has been brought up already)?
Re: Interesting note about last week's discussion
Date: 2016-01-18 10:55 pm (UTC)Watson does seem to be declaring himself the author of LAST and MAZA. I'm fine with him writing LAST but I simply can't accept that he wrote something as poor as MAZA ^_^
Re: Interesting note about last week's discussion
Date: 2016-01-18 11:37 pm (UTC)And I kind of agree (not only because I like my theory of the melodrama)... although this does have the suspicious look of an apology. I share your distress at the thought of Watson doing hack writing with obvious weird villains.
no subject
Date: 2016-01-18 11:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-01-19 12:10 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-01-19 02:35 am (UTC)