Canon Discussion: The Blanched Soldier
Feb. 28th, 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 Blanched Soldier. I’ve typed up a few thoughts and questions to get the discussion going—please leave your own ideas in the comments!
I find from my notebook that it was in January, 1903… The good Watson had at that time deserted me for a wife… This couldn’t be stated more clearly. But Watson himself never makes any reference to a Mrs. Watson at this stage of his life. Is Watson protecting the privacy of his second wife? Or in BLAN, is Holmes perhaps trying to direct attention away from his and Watson’s relationship? Or could it be that Holmes is being discreet about Watson’s domestic circumstances because he’s living away from Baker Street with (yes—stop waving at me, Small Hobbit) another man, perhaps Lestrade?
Could the “wife” be Mary Morstan? Watson never explicitly tells us that she’s died. I’ve seen the theories that the “sad bereavement” was a baby, or the Watsons’ divorce. Are they trying to rekindle their marriage, or does Mary just need Watson’s assistance temporarily with something? I have to say though that Holmes’ phrasing, “a wife”, does suggest to me that he’s not referring to Mary.
The good Watson had at that time… “At that time” does rather suggest to me that Holmes is saying Watson’s marriage wasn’t an ongoing situation—he lived with Holmes, he lived with his wife, he lived with Holmes again. Is that reading too much into the phrase? Perhaps Holmes simply means “at that point” or “by that time”.
I am compelled to admit that, having taken my pen in my hand… When does Holmes write this story? It was published in 1926 but that doesn’t necessarily mean he wrote it soon before. But if he did write it in 1926, that opening paragraph becomes rather intriguing. Holmes talks about Watson and their adventures in the present tense: For a long time he has worried me to write an experience of my own… I would take this opportunity to remark that if I burden myself with a companion in my various little inquiries it is not done out of sentiment or caprice… Does this mean Holmes and Watson are back together in 1926, solving cases?
I suppose it’s more likely though that the story was written just before Holmes retired. He’s obviously looking backwards (I find from my notebook that it was in January, 1903… The good Watson had at that time…)—he can’t have written the story immediately after the case happened. But perhaps it’s just a couple of years afterwards, before Holmes goes to Sussex.
Or is it just that Holmes is so caught up in thinking about the past that he automatically uses the present tense to talk about it? Later on we have: And here it is that I miss my Watson. By cunning questions and ejaculations of wonder he could elevate my simple art, which is but systematized common sense, into a prodigy. Which once again puts Watson’s assistance in cases back into the past. I can’t have it both ways.
Another possibility: this website suggests Watson is the author of the story.
The good Watson had at that time deserted me for a wife...I was alone. Why should Watson being married have made a difference in this case? It’s never stopped Holmes from requesting Watson’s help before.
A confederate who foresees your conclusions and course of action is always dangerous, but one to whom each development comes as a perpetual surprise, and to whom the future is always a closed book, is indeed an ideal helpmate. What exactly does Holmes mean by this rather backhanded compliment? That he doesn’t want someone who thinks on exactly the same lines as himself—he needs someone who will ask questions and so challenge him to examine his own thoughts for mistakes?
It happened that at the moment I was clearing up the case which my friend Watson has described as that of the Abbey School, in which the Duke of Greyminster was so deeply involved. This does immediately make you think of PRIO. But why does Holmes use different names? Maybe Holmes and Watson both put in pseudonyms and Holmes has simply forgotten the ones Watson used—or never knew them. But then for PRIO, Watson was at Baker Street—perhaps it is a completely different case.
"It is often my lot to bring ill-tidings and seldom good," said he. "This occasion is the more welcome. It is not leprosy." I gather, rather than being wish-fulfilment and a magic wand making everything all right, this is actually the more likely outcome. According to the World Health Organisation: [Leprosy] is transmitted via droplets from the nose and mouth of untreated patients with severe disease, but is not highly infectious. And according to this website: approximately 95% of people have natural immunity to the disease. Despite what the doctor in South Africa says, Godfrey Emsworth was probably never seriously at risk of contracting leprosy.
Next Sunday, 6th March, we’ll be having a look at The Lion’s Mane. Hope you can join us then.
I find from my notebook that it was in January, 1903… The good Watson had at that time deserted me for a wife… This couldn’t be stated more clearly. But Watson himself never makes any reference to a Mrs. Watson at this stage of his life. Is Watson protecting the privacy of his second wife? Or in BLAN, is Holmes perhaps trying to direct attention away from his and Watson’s relationship? Or could it be that Holmes is being discreet about Watson’s domestic circumstances because he’s living away from Baker Street with (yes—stop waving at me, Small Hobbit) another man, perhaps Lestrade?
Could the “wife” be Mary Morstan? Watson never explicitly tells us that she’s died. I’ve seen the theories that the “sad bereavement” was a baby, or the Watsons’ divorce. Are they trying to rekindle their marriage, or does Mary just need Watson’s assistance temporarily with something? I have to say though that Holmes’ phrasing, “a wife”, does suggest to me that he’s not referring to Mary.
The good Watson had at that time… “At that time” does rather suggest to me that Holmes is saying Watson’s marriage wasn’t an ongoing situation—he lived with Holmes, he lived with his wife, he lived with Holmes again. Is that reading too much into the phrase? Perhaps Holmes simply means “at that point” or “by that time”.
I am compelled to admit that, having taken my pen in my hand… When does Holmes write this story? It was published in 1926 but that doesn’t necessarily mean he wrote it soon before. But if he did write it in 1926, that opening paragraph becomes rather intriguing. Holmes talks about Watson and their adventures in the present tense: For a long time he has worried me to write an experience of my own… I would take this opportunity to remark that if I burden myself with a companion in my various little inquiries it is not done out of sentiment or caprice… Does this mean Holmes and Watson are back together in 1926, solving cases?
I suppose it’s more likely though that the story was written just before Holmes retired. He’s obviously looking backwards (I find from my notebook that it was in January, 1903… The good Watson had at that time…)—he can’t have written the story immediately after the case happened. But perhaps it’s just a couple of years afterwards, before Holmes goes to Sussex.
Or is it just that Holmes is so caught up in thinking about the past that he automatically uses the present tense to talk about it? Later on we have: And here it is that I miss my Watson. By cunning questions and ejaculations of wonder he could elevate my simple art, which is but systematized common sense, into a prodigy. Which once again puts Watson’s assistance in cases back into the past. I can’t have it both ways.
Another possibility: this website suggests Watson is the author of the story.
The good Watson had at that time deserted me for a wife...I was alone. Why should Watson being married have made a difference in this case? It’s never stopped Holmes from requesting Watson’s help before.
A confederate who foresees your conclusions and course of action is always dangerous, but one to whom each development comes as a perpetual surprise, and to whom the future is always a closed book, is indeed an ideal helpmate. What exactly does Holmes mean by this rather backhanded compliment? That he doesn’t want someone who thinks on exactly the same lines as himself—he needs someone who will ask questions and so challenge him to examine his own thoughts for mistakes?
It happened that at the moment I was clearing up the case which my friend Watson has described as that of the Abbey School, in which the Duke of Greyminster was so deeply involved. This does immediately make you think of PRIO. But why does Holmes use different names? Maybe Holmes and Watson both put in pseudonyms and Holmes has simply forgotten the ones Watson used—or never knew them. But then for PRIO, Watson was at Baker Street—perhaps it is a completely different case.
"It is often my lot to bring ill-tidings and seldom good," said he. "This occasion is the more welcome. It is not leprosy." I gather, rather than being wish-fulfilment and a magic wand making everything all right, this is actually the more likely outcome. According to the World Health Organisation: [Leprosy] is transmitted via droplets from the nose and mouth of untreated patients with severe disease, but is not highly infectious. And according to this website: approximately 95% of people have natural immunity to the disease. Despite what the doctor in South Africa says, Godfrey Emsworth was probably never seriously at risk of contracting leprosy.
Next Sunday, 6th March, we’ll be having a look at The Lion’s Mane. Hope you can join us then.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2016-02-28 09:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-28 03:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-28 03:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-28 03:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-28 04:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-28 05:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-28 04:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-28 05:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-03-01 05:31 am (UTC)Holmes was incredibly lucky that Watson's first wife was quite unconventional in her approach to money and not only did she not mind Watson spending his time on cases, she actively encouraged him to do so! I imagine that the second Mrs. Watson not unreasonably wanted her husband to actually do his job on a regular basis, and possibly come home to her every night. Of course Holmes was outraged at such demands :) And, to be fair to him, I think he may have been shocked and hurt at unexpectedly facing a lonely retirement, and perhaps even been angry at himself for taking Watson's company so much for granted that he had never actually confirmed any of his retirement plans with him and was blindsided when Watson took a different path.
So, yes, I think the writing of this story is tinged with some unfortunate resentment on his part -- it seems quite unlike his gentlemanly soul to actually print a criticism of Watson's marriage in a public document like this. I imagine it must have hurt his wife, and heaven knows it must have made the gossip rounds among her friends and acquaintances.
And as for Holmes's "back-handed compliment," I read it as one half sincere emotion toward Watson, followed immediately by a cynical mockery of the same. I think the first half of his reflection, in which he says that Watson has remarkable qualities of his own to which he has called too little attention amid his praise for Holmes is a genuine and heartfelt expression of how Holmes truly feels. But then he instantly undercuts it with a blisteringly caustic joke about how Watson's most remarkable quality is how he never, ever figures anything out.
To me, this is a living, breathing embodiment of one of Watson's keenest observations about Holmes, which he recorded in The Devil's Foot. At that time, they had a sweet and rather intensely emotional moment together, after the horrible experiment, wherein Holmes gave Watson his heartfelt thanks and a sincere apology, and Watson assured him of how privileged he always felt to be allowed to help. And then Watson very accurately observed:
He relapsed at once into the half-humorous, half-cynical vein which was his habitual attitude to those about him. "It would be superfluous to drive us mad, my dear Watson," said he. "A candid observer would certainly declare that we were so already before we embarked upon so wild an experiment..."
When Holmes expresses emotion too directly or vulnerably, he instinctively and quickly appends a caustic joke to undercut the previous sentiment. This is how he works. It's how he's always worked, and Watson sees it for what it is from a mile off. I think it might be harder for his wife to let it roll over her without taking offense. But I have faith that any woman Watson loved and married must have been exceptional, so I hope she and Holmes eventually reached a rapprochement. But I do get the sense that Watson to some degree had to 'take sides' more in his second marriage and wound up seeing less of Holmes in retirement than either would have liked, just because he had a lot of commitments and not much chance to spend a lot of time away from home.
no subject
Date: 2016-03-02 05:36 pm (UTC)You know, before joining the comm, I used to think of the reference to “a wife” as being Mary Morstan--ACD being spectacularly careless of the timelines simply because he needed a good reason for Watson not to be there in the story. Watson himself doesn’t mention a second wife, so I assumed there wasn’t one.
But now I am coming round to the idea of Watson having married again. Because it makes so much sense for the latter part of the timeline: Watson suddenly not living at Baker Street any more and becoming a practising doctor again. And the fact that being married suddenly seems to make Watson less available for a case--as you say, Mary never stood in his way there.
When Holmes expresses emotion too directly or vulnerably, he instinctively and quickly appends a caustic joke to undercut the previous sentiment. This is how he works. It's how he's always worked, and Watson sees it for what it is from a mile off.
This is such an excellent point. It hadn’t occurred to me--I would never have made the connection with DEVI if you hadn’t pointed it out.
And I find your analysis as a whole very persuasive: how Holmes, Watson and the second Mrs. Watson all feel about the situation. It’s rather poignant.
Btw, Small Hobbit and I are just in the process of hammering out the final version of the order for round 5. So it shouldn’t be much longer before I PM it to you ^^ Thank you again for offering to get involved--I think it’s going to make all the difference having you and garonne with us.
no subject
Date: 2016-03-04 03:41 am (UTC)