Canon Discussion: The Veiled Lodger
Mar. 20th, 2016 07:57 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 Veiled Lodger. I’ve typed up a few thoughts and questions to get the discussion going—please leave your own ideas in the comments!
When one considers that Mr. Sherlock Holmes was in active practice for twenty-three years, and that during seventeen of these I was allowed to cooperate with him… So if we say Holmes was indeed 60 in 1914 and was therefore born in 1854, and he probably became a detective at 21 after leaving university? And you can’t really count the three years he was ‘dead’... So from 1875 to 1891 is 16 years. We have another 7 years to account for. Going from 1894, that takes us to only 1901. And he seems to have had some cases after that, going by the stated dates in the stories: 3GAR (June 1902), ILLU (September 1902), BLAN (1903), CREE (September 1903). So... he didn’t become a detective immediately after university? Was he doing more studying after the age of 21?
With regard to Watson’s ‘17 years’: they probably met in 1881—going from that year to 1891 is 10 years. Seven years on from 1894 is again 1901. Watson is at least being consistent here but it doesn’t explain the cases that apparently happened after 1901 and before Holmes’ retirement. But then, as we’ll see a little further down, Watson’s dates are not always to be trusted...
Anyway, neko.com goes more fully into the calculations behind Watson’s statement.
The source of these outrages is known, and if they are repeated I have Mr. Holmes's authority for saying that the whole story concerning the politician, the lighthouse, and the trained cormorant will be given to the public. There is at least one reader who will understand. This bit always makes me smile. So who is the ‘one reader’? I don’t think it’s the ‘politician’ himself—I get the impression that, though he was involved in the story, he isn’t the guilty party trying to destroy the papers.
One forenoon -- it was late in 1896… This date surely can’t be right, as Watson does appear in VEIL not to be living at Baker Street any more. We have: I received a hurried note from Holmes asking for my attendance and at the end: Two days later, when I called upon my friend… And there is what I think is the clincher: Have you no recollection of the Abbas Parva tragedy?" "None, Holmes." "And yet you were with me then.” I think that must imply Watson was living with Holmes then but isn’t now. I suppose it is possible Holmes means “you were there in the room with me while I was discussing the case with Edmunds” but I think that’s stretching things a bit.
Watson does state: I have made a slight change of name and place, but otherwise the facts are as stated. Has he perhaps chosen to change the date too, although he doesn’t say so? And if the date is wrong, is this a pre-hiatus story (Watson is married to Mary) or a post-hiatus story? I personally incline to post-hiatus: we seem to get an older and wiser Holmes.
“He was the rival of Wombwell, and of Sanger…”
"It is usually wiser to tell the truth.” Would it have been wiser? Surely Mrs. Ronder would have been sent to prison, or hanged. But I think Holmes himself never lies. He sometimes deliberately misleads while telling the truth (in SPEC he tells the driver of a trap: “There is some building going on [at Stoke Moran]...that is where we are going”. A perfectly truthful statement but it implies he and Watson are going to the house as architects). And he sometimes doesn’t offer the truth if the police don’t ask him for it. But I don’t think he ever truly lies.
“My husband suspected it, but I think that he was a coward as well as a bully, and that Leonardo was the one man that he was afraid of. He took revenge in his own way by torturing me more than ever. One night my cries brought Leonardo to the door of our van. We were near tragedy that night, and soon my lover and I understood that it could not be avoided. My husband was not fit to live. We planned that he should die.” Why didn’t Leonardo and Mrs. Ronder simply leave? Ronder was apparently afraid of Leonardo—surely he wouldn’t have followed them. But![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
laurose8 did suggest last time we discussed VEIL that Leonardo and Mrs. Ronder wanted to inherit the circus.
'I send you my temptation. I will follow your advice.' "Her health, Mr. Holmes. She seems to be wasting away.” “I have not long to live, but I wish to die undisturbed.” Does Mrs. Ronder have a physical illness? Is she going to die in the near future, even though she decides not to commit suicide? And if she isn’t dying, what is her future going to be like? I wonder if Holmes might not try to help her in a more positive way—help her to get in contact with old friends again.
Next Sunday, 27th March, we’ll be having a look at the last story for Round 4, Shoscombe Old Place. Hope you can join us then.
The 27th is of course Easter Sunday, so don’t feel you have to post and comment on the day itself if you don’t want to—you can post throughout the week, and beyond.
When one considers that Mr. Sherlock Holmes was in active practice for twenty-three years, and that during seventeen of these I was allowed to cooperate with him… So if we say Holmes was indeed 60 in 1914 and was therefore born in 1854, and he probably became a detective at 21 after leaving university? And you can’t really count the three years he was ‘dead’... So from 1875 to 1891 is 16 years. We have another 7 years to account for. Going from 1894, that takes us to only 1901. And he seems to have had some cases after that, going by the stated dates in the stories: 3GAR (June 1902), ILLU (September 1902), BLAN (1903), CREE (September 1903). So... he didn’t become a detective immediately after university? Was he doing more studying after the age of 21?
With regard to Watson’s ‘17 years’: they probably met in 1881—going from that year to 1891 is 10 years. Seven years on from 1894 is again 1901. Watson is at least being consistent here but it doesn’t explain the cases that apparently happened after 1901 and before Holmes’ retirement. But then, as we’ll see a little further down, Watson’s dates are not always to be trusted...
Anyway, neko.com goes more fully into the calculations behind Watson’s statement.
The source of these outrages is known, and if they are repeated I have Mr. Holmes's authority for saying that the whole story concerning the politician, the lighthouse, and the trained cormorant will be given to the public. There is at least one reader who will understand. This bit always makes me smile. So who is the ‘one reader’? I don’t think it’s the ‘politician’ himself—I get the impression that, though he was involved in the story, he isn’t the guilty party trying to destroy the papers.
One forenoon -- it was late in 1896… This date surely can’t be right, as Watson does appear in VEIL not to be living at Baker Street any more. We have: I received a hurried note from Holmes asking for my attendance and at the end: Two days later, when I called upon my friend… And there is what I think is the clincher: Have you no recollection of the Abbas Parva tragedy?" "None, Holmes." "And yet you were with me then.” I think that must imply Watson was living with Holmes then but isn’t now. I suppose it is possible Holmes means “you were there in the room with me while I was discussing the case with Edmunds” but I think that’s stretching things a bit.
Watson does state: I have made a slight change of name and place, but otherwise the facts are as stated. Has he perhaps chosen to change the date too, although he doesn’t say so? And if the date is wrong, is this a pre-hiatus story (Watson is married to Mary) or a post-hiatus story? I personally incline to post-hiatus: we seem to get an older and wiser Holmes.
“He was the rival of Wombwell, and of Sanger…”
"It is usually wiser to tell the truth.” Would it have been wiser? Surely Mrs. Ronder would have been sent to prison, or hanged. But I think Holmes himself never lies. He sometimes deliberately misleads while telling the truth (in SPEC he tells the driver of a trap: “There is some building going on [at Stoke Moran]...that is where we are going”. A perfectly truthful statement but it implies he and Watson are going to the house as architects). And he sometimes doesn’t offer the truth if the police don’t ask him for it. But I don’t think he ever truly lies.
“My husband suspected it, but I think that he was a coward as well as a bully, and that Leonardo was the one man that he was afraid of. He took revenge in his own way by torturing me more than ever. One night my cries brought Leonardo to the door of our van. We were near tragedy that night, and soon my lover and I understood that it could not be avoided. My husband was not fit to live. We planned that he should die.” Why didn’t Leonardo and Mrs. Ronder simply leave? Ronder was apparently afraid of Leonardo—surely he wouldn’t have followed them. But
laurose8 did suggest last time we discussed VEIL that Leonardo and Mrs. Ronder wanted to inherit the circus.'I send you my temptation. I will follow your advice.' "Her health, Mr. Holmes. She seems to be wasting away.” “I have not long to live, but I wish to die undisturbed.” Does Mrs. Ronder have a physical illness? Is she going to die in the near future, even though she decides not to commit suicide? And if she isn’t dying, what is her future going to be like? I wonder if Holmes might not try to help her in a more positive way—help her to get in contact with old friends again.
Next Sunday, 27th March, we’ll be having a look at the last story for Round 4, Shoscombe Old Place. Hope you can join us then.
The 27th is of course Easter Sunday, so don’t feel you have to post and comment on the day itself if you don’t want to—you can post throughout the week, and beyond.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2016-03-20 01:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-03-20 01:06 pm (UTC)I was thinking that Mrs. Ronder had a bit of battered wife syndrome and didn't think she could leave.
I assumed that Mrs. Ronder was starving herself and that she'd decided (in addition to not taking the Prussian acid) to stop that campaign.
no subject
Date: 2016-03-20 06:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-03-20 06:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-03-20 06:17 pm (UTC)I suppose you're quite right - he didn't care about her enough to give up everything and start again. She was just going to be a nice addition to his life - she wasn't the centre of his life.
no subject
Date: 2016-03-20 06:28 pm (UTC)Echoing what laurose8 says: the battered wife syndrome does make sense. Mrs. Ronder may not have truly believed she could leave and make a new life - and Leonardo probably wanted the circus more than his lover, so didn't encourage her to think of the possibility of leaving anyway.
And Mrs. Ronder starving herself makes a lot of sense too - I'd never thought of that.
no subject
Date: 2016-03-20 06:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-03-20 07:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-03-20 08:54 pm (UTC)