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)