Canon Discussion: The Sussex Vampire
Jan. 31st, 2016 08:01 am![[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 Sussex Vampire. I’ve typed up a few thoughts and questions to get the discussion going—please leave your own ideas in the comments!
“Matilda Briggs was not the name of a young woman, Watson,” said Holmes in a reminiscent voice. “It was a ship which is associated with the giant rat of Sumatra…” Passing over the giant rat because I don’t want to encourage![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
thesmallhobbit but actually, probably there was a young woman named Matilda Briggs—the ship would have been named after her. Any thoughts on who she was?
Holmes looked at me thoughtfully and shook his head. “I never get your limits, Watson,” said he. “There are unexplored possibilities about you…” Is Holmes referring to Watson having been a rugby player? Or is he being sarcastic about the fact Watson hasn’t realised Ferguson is talking about himself?
“The dog. What’s the matter with it?” “That’s what puzzled the vet. A sort of paralysis…” “If the child were pricked with one of those arrows dipped in curare or some other devilish drug, it would mean death if the venom were not sucked out.” What exactly is Jack trying to achieve when he attacks the baby? I don’t doubt the baby’s life was in danger but was Jack trying to kill him or was he trying to paralyse him—make him a “cripple” like himself? Or did Jack perhaps not have a clear idea of what his aim was—he simply wanted to harm the baby?
Finally he shook one of the dimpled fists which waved in front of him. Holmes is very at ease with the baby. And yet I wouldn’t have thought he’d have much contact with babies—no nephews and nieces, no friends with families. A perhaps unlikely theory: Baring-Gould puts forward the possibility of a brother older than Mycroft, and we’ve discussed the possibility of children between Mycroft and Sherlock that didn’t survive. But what about children that came after Sherlock? Could there have been a younger sibling or siblings who died in infancy? Holmes remembers playing with them as babies but they died before he could know if they had “art in the blood” so he didn’t mention them during his discussion with Watson in GREE.
“I think a year at sea would be my prescription for Master Jacky,” said Holmes… What an odd suggestion. At first glance Holmes seems to be saying that a year at sea would act as a punishment and perhaps ‘make a man’ of Jack. But the boy is physically disabled—there is no way he could cope with such a demanding life. And surely Holmes must know that.
In the previous discussion post for SUSS,godsdaisiechain came up with the theory that “a year at sea” might have been suggested as a neat way to get rid of Jack permanently without the police having to be involved—that is, hopefully he would die while at sea and not come back. Well, as thesmallhobbit points out, baddies rarely survive once they set off on a sea voyage.
laurose8 came up with the theory that Holmes might have meant it for Jack’s good—so he could get away from his father. I must admit at the time I didn’t want to think about her comment too closely but I think laurose8 was indirectly suggesting that Ferguson might have been sexually abusing Jack. Certainly their relationship makes me a little uncomfortable but I don’t read it in that way myself. However, I think Ferguson might have unintentionally damaged his son by being overprotective of him.
What would be the alternatives to sending Jack to sea? I don’t think there’s any advantage to the police getting involved. Jack is obviously responsible for his actions—he planned the attack on the baby and attacked him more than once. But he is only 15—I don’t think he can be held to account in the same way as an adult.
I suppose he would have to leave the household though—the baby’s welfare is most important. I would have thought that a good boarding school would be the best solution for him, but I don’t suppose they would take a physically disabled boy. A foster family perhaps? Or an apprenticeship? Though would an apprenticeship be considered appropriate for the son of a gentleman? But I would say he does need some independence from his father. And some friends his own age.
What about when Jack grows up: will he look back on his actions with horror? Or will he justify them to himself: “I was just a child”? Or won’t he care at all?
And will the baby and Jack ever become brothers in any real sense? I guess not—I would imagine simply because they won’t have much contact once Jack is an adult.
“I think we may leave them to settle the rest among themselves.” Does the Fergusons’ marriage survive? Jack attacking the baby is a huge thing to get over—will Mrs. Ferguson end up blaming Ferguson for her child almost dying? Will she be able to forgive him for thinking she would harm her own son? And from what Ferguson says in his letter to Holmes, the couple had other, more basic, problems as well.
Next Sunday, 7th February, we’ll be having a look at The Three Garridebs. Hope you can join us then.
“Matilda Briggs was not the name of a young woman, Watson,” said Holmes in a reminiscent voice. “It was a ship which is associated with the giant rat of Sumatra…” Passing over the giant rat because I don’t want to encourage
thesmallhobbit but actually, probably there was a young woman named Matilda Briggs—the ship would have been named after her. Any thoughts on who she was?Holmes looked at me thoughtfully and shook his head. “I never get your limits, Watson,” said he. “There are unexplored possibilities about you…” Is Holmes referring to Watson having been a rugby player? Or is he being sarcastic about the fact Watson hasn’t realised Ferguson is talking about himself?
“The dog. What’s the matter with it?” “That’s what puzzled the vet. A sort of paralysis…” “If the child were pricked with one of those arrows dipped in curare or some other devilish drug, it would mean death if the venom were not sucked out.” What exactly is Jack trying to achieve when he attacks the baby? I don’t doubt the baby’s life was in danger but was Jack trying to kill him or was he trying to paralyse him—make him a “cripple” like himself? Or did Jack perhaps not have a clear idea of what his aim was—he simply wanted to harm the baby?
Finally he shook one of the dimpled fists which waved in front of him. Holmes is very at ease with the baby. And yet I wouldn’t have thought he’d have much contact with babies—no nephews and nieces, no friends with families. A perhaps unlikely theory: Baring-Gould puts forward the possibility of a brother older than Mycroft, and we’ve discussed the possibility of children between Mycroft and Sherlock that didn’t survive. But what about children that came after Sherlock? Could there have been a younger sibling or siblings who died in infancy? Holmes remembers playing with them as babies but they died before he could know if they had “art in the blood” so he didn’t mention them during his discussion with Watson in GREE.
“I think a year at sea would be my prescription for Master Jacky,” said Holmes… What an odd suggestion. At first glance Holmes seems to be saying that a year at sea would act as a punishment and perhaps ‘make a man’ of Jack. But the boy is physically disabled—there is no way he could cope with such a demanding life. And surely Holmes must know that.
In the previous discussion post for SUSS,
godsdaisiechain came up with the theory that “a year at sea” might have been suggested as a neat way to get rid of Jack permanently without the police having to be involved—that is, hopefully he would die while at sea and not come back. Well, as thesmallhobbit points out, baddies rarely survive once they set off on a sea voyage.laurose8 came up with the theory that Holmes might have meant it for Jack’s good—so he could get away from his father. I must admit at the time I didn’t want to think about her comment too closely but I think laurose8 was indirectly suggesting that Ferguson might have been sexually abusing Jack. Certainly their relationship makes me a little uncomfortable but I don’t read it in that way myself. However, I think Ferguson might have unintentionally damaged his son by being overprotective of him.What would be the alternatives to sending Jack to sea? I don’t think there’s any advantage to the police getting involved. Jack is obviously responsible for his actions—he planned the attack on the baby and attacked him more than once. But he is only 15—I don’t think he can be held to account in the same way as an adult.
I suppose he would have to leave the household though—the baby’s welfare is most important. I would have thought that a good boarding school would be the best solution for him, but I don’t suppose they would take a physically disabled boy. A foster family perhaps? Or an apprenticeship? Though would an apprenticeship be considered appropriate for the son of a gentleman? But I would say he does need some independence from his father. And some friends his own age.
What about when Jack grows up: will he look back on his actions with horror? Or will he justify them to himself: “I was just a child”? Or won’t he care at all?
And will the baby and Jack ever become brothers in any real sense? I guess not—I would imagine simply because they won’t have much contact once Jack is an adult.
“I think we may leave them to settle the rest among themselves.” Does the Fergusons’ marriage survive? Jack attacking the baby is a huge thing to get over—will Mrs. Ferguson end up blaming Ferguson for her child almost dying? Will she be able to forgive him for thinking she would harm her own son? And from what Ferguson says in his letter to Holmes, the couple had other, more basic, problems as well.
Next Sunday, 7th February, we’ll be having a look at The Three Garridebs. Hope you can join us then.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2016-01-31 12:16 pm (UTC)Of course here we have another woman (like Thor) of 'tropical nature' though he doesn't hammer it home quite as much and the love fading over time between white man and Latin bride. You gotta think ol' Artie had somebody in mind. Or maybe it was a trope of the time.
And the poison's curare. And I tried to look up if that would really work, sucking it out. In the old Western films people are always sucking snake venom out of bites and that doesn't work. Maybe ACD knew of a case but I am suspicious. Those type of poisons work very very fast. And if there was actually blood, then you gotta straight shot to the bloodstream. I don't think you can manually hoover it out.
no subject
Date: 2016-01-31 01:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-01-31 02:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-01-31 06:48 pm (UTC)THOR makes me wonder if ACD was thinking of his own personal situation - he fell in love with his second wife while his first wife was still alive. But though he saw his future second wife regularly, their relationship remained platonic until they eventually married. His first wife was white and English though. I don't know if he was thinking of someone specifically as the inspiration for Mrs. Gibson and Mrs. Ferguson. I wonder if it was indeed a trope of the time - that does sound a strong possibility.
Do you know, I hadn't even thought about the poison being sucked out. I simply accepted it. Just been having a quick look online myself too, and it does seem that trying to suck out poison is a bad idea for victim and first-aider ^^" I suppose it's one of those occasions where you just have to go with the internal logic of the story. But it might be interesting to have a go at rewriting SUSS using this knowledge that Jack can't have actually poisoned the baby.
no subject
Date: 2016-02-01 12:06 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-01-31 01:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-01-31 02:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-01-31 02:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-01-31 02:16 pm (UTC)There were other options for informally addressing these issues, of course. Nicholas Nickelby, which is a bit earlier, depicts a boarding school of the type that unwanted children could be sent. Those places could be quite horrible and they never had holidays.
no subject
Date: 2016-01-31 06:18 pm (UTC)I assume Ferguson is a fairly wealthy man - perhaps he'll just pay someone to look after Jack in their own home.
no subject
Date: 2016-01-31 06:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-01 12:15 am (UTC)Heck, they have a "suck the poison out" scene in SNAKES ON A PLANE, so I'm willing to let that one slide for Victorian audiences. Old Scout first-aid kids included suction cups for snakebite.
I melted at the scene with Holmes playing with the baby - that was completely out of left field, and does suggest a past that involved an infant (such as a deceased sister, as has been suggested).
Yet again an ACD story that takes a potentially supernatural opponent and pulls the rubber mask off to reveal
the old janitora jealous heir. I still maintain that HOUN was the very first episode of Scooby-Doo, and this faux-vampire tale is a close second.no subject
Date: 2016-02-01 01:08 pm (UTC)I must admit until okapi mentioned it, I'd vaguely assumed sucking out poison was a perfectly valid thing to do in an emergency ^^" The things you learn in this comm ^^
Some people are just naturally good with children and I suppose Holmes could be one of them - he does seem very good with the Irregulars. But it did strike me on this reading that Holmes won't come into contact with babies much, and yet he behaves so naturally with the Ferguson baby. Which left the contact with infants being in his past.
And you know I like your Scooby-Doo theory ^_^ That's wonderful ^^