The Planet

In this week's story, we see Sherlock Holmes being an extremely kind, compassionate person. I am not fundamentally against the portrayal of him as an ass, but I do wish it hadn't more or less become the stardard? It would be a lot more interesting to show him as the complex character he is.

Anyway, it feels like ACD was trying out different storytelling styles and techniques from one story to the next?

“Holmes,” said I as I stood one morning in our bow-window looking down the street, “here is a madman coming along. It seems rather sad that his relatives should allow him to come out alone.”

I just had to point at the opening line here because it's very strong and also sometimes I forget that Watson can be a snarky bastard sometimes too, lmao.

This story has always been one of my favorites, and rereading this one, it's clear why. The mystery itself is interesting and laid out not only clearly but with personality. The facts are given without obvious obfuscation, the personality of the characters are highlighted in the best Doylian way by dropping a few descriptive actions, and Holmes neatly pinpoints all the logical inconsistencies after the reader has a chance to notice them.

Then the investigation! EXCITED PUPPY HOLMES!!! THE FOOTPRINTS SCENE!!!! I LOVE THE ENTIRE PART OF HOLMES EXPLAINING WHAT HAPPENED SO MUCH

*ahem* But right, before that, when they first go to the house, I really like how he splits up Watson and Holmes so that we get a brief introduction to Miss Holder before Holmes questions her, and also it's always great to see examples of him using the sharing of his deductive observations as an investigative tool rather than a way to mess with people's preconceptions.

Imo this story is one of the best portrayals of Holmes' actual character and investigative expertise in the whole canon.

I do feel bad for Miss Mary Holder. I hadn't read P&P when I first read this, so I didn't notice the parallels between her and Lydia, but alas for them both.

Bee wrote: ↑

Sat 26 Nov, 2022, 7:54 pm

In this week's story, we see Sherlock Holmes being an extremely kind, compassionate person. I am not fundamentally against the portrayal of him as an ass, but I do wish it hadn't more or less become the stardard? It would be a lot more interesting to show him as the complex character he is.

YES!!!! It's so much more interesting when you have a Holmes who is both judgemental and compassionate than just the one or the other. Not that anyone really does the "just compassionate" angle. And a good number of the stories involve Holmes' compassion and innate sense of justice, which is why it does bother me when people just ignore those parts of his personality.

Bee wrote: ↑

Sat 26 Nov, 2022, 7:54 pm

Anyway, it feels like ACD was trying out different storytelling styles and techniques from one story to the next?

I hadn't noticed that! It seems likely, though; I'm probably just too familiar with the stories to notice. I do know that he did a number of "experimental" Holmes stories over the years, some of which are more obvious than others, and the same re: successfulness.

InspectorCaracal wrote: ↑

Sat 26 Nov, 2022, 11:11 pm

Bee wrote: ↑

Sat 26 Nov, 2022, 7:54 pm

In this week's story, we see Sherlock Holmes being an extremely kind, compassionate person. I am not fundamentally against the portrayal of him as an ass, but I do wish it hadn't more or less become the stardard? It would be a lot more interesting to show him as the complex character he is.

YES!!!! It's so much more interesting when you have a Holmes who is both judgemental and compassionate than just the one or the other. Not that anyone really does the "just compassionate" angle. And a good number of the stories involve Holmes' compassion and innate sense of justice, which is why it does bother me when people just ignore those parts of his personality.

I love this case so much too. And, yes, it's a great illustration of Holmes being compassionate.

I also love this type of case. I don't know how to explain it exactly, but I find a lot of these cases are much less technical or criminal than other mysteries.

That's another point in favour of the idea that Holmes is compassionate, he has to be, because a lot of the time, for lack of a better word, Sherlock Holmes cases are of a social nature.

Do you know what I mean? Like the mystery isn't 'how did the murderer escape this locked room,' but 'why did this person behave so oddly' and so the solution always in large parts hinges on an analysis of human behavior and then coupling that to the technical aspects of the clues.

I think we had one like this before where the case is was family issue and, like, the end result is family reunion and better understanding between father and son and, unfortunately the niece being used, but even for her there's understanding.

He's not at all the uncaring cliché here, I guess arguably he is somewhat emotionally removed in that he doesn't fall for the prejudiced opinion that the son must have done it because the details don't make sense to him.

But that's not really 'reason over emotion/humans' as it sometimes gets translated as the details are both technical and behavioral, it's really a fusion of technical and human analysis here and all in order to prove someone's innocence. It's reason used *for* understanding someone.

The main argument for Holmes being an ass in this I guess is he's refusal to clue people in sooner, I mean, Holmes, the son is accused of a crime, the family is falling apart, they're being exploited by one of the most dangerous men in England, do you have to string it out for them just to build up to a big reveal, I mean great for the storytelling aspect, but you're gonna give someone a heart attack some day.

Watson wrote: He was a man of about fifty, tall, portly, and imposing, with a massive, strongly marked face and a commanding figure. He was dressed in a sombre yet rich style, in black frock-coat, shining hat, neat brown gaiters, and well cut pearl grey trousers. Yet his actions were in absurd contrast to the dignity of his dress and features, for he was running hard, with occasional little springs, such as a weary man gives who is little accustomed to set any tax upon his legs. As he ran he jerked his hands up and down, waggled his head, and writhed his face into the most extraordinary contortions.

"What on earth can be the matter with him?" I asked. "He is looking up at the numbers of the houses."

"I believe that he is coming here," said Holmes, rubbing his hands.

I always find it funny when Watson gives such a detailed description of a person and their behavior and then he somehow can't figure out the man is looking for their address.

I think this kind of stuff is the main source of the biggest characterization of people when it comes to Watson: the idea that he isn't observant or not very smart.

I think a consequence of having Watson as the narrator is that we have him as the observer as well, which has interesting effects on how facts are given to us in the story.

It's generally agreed that in a good mystery the writer gives the reader all the clues without cheating and pulling the solution out of his hat with facts we never got. Usually this is done through a 3rd person narrator who doens't have to do any deduction of give opinions of their own, at some level they're a clue-delivery mechanism.

With Watson things are different, he's a proper character with his own personality and opinions, but he's also the observer, the way we see the case.

Obviously he is smart, he's a doctor, he makes all the necessary observations to solve the case, because everything he observes we observe and everything he doesn't we can't observe, he does take over some of Holmes' deduction methods, but at the same time he can't be too observant or too good at deduction.

If Watson too accurately notices certain clues we notice the right clues, if Watson deduces the solution then we deduce the solution.

Watson can never solve the mystery because then the reader has solved the mystery which means the story is over, there's no mystery story without a mystery.

Hence the incorrect assumption Watson can't be very smart, the man's a defacto detective for centuries and yet he never solves a case, but he's just cursed by narrative necessity.

Watson wrote: "Precisely. It was I. I found that I had my man, so I came home and changed my clothes. It was a delicate part which I had to play then, for I saw that a prosecution must be avoided to avert scandal, and I knew that so astute a villain would see that our hands were tied in the matter. I went and saw him. At first, of course, he denied everything, But when I gave him every particular that had occurred, he tried to bluster, and took down a life-preserver from the wall. I knew my man, however, and I clapped a pistol to his head before he could strike. Then he became a little more reasonable.

I told him that we would give him a price for the stones he held—a thousand pounds apiece. That brought out the first signs of grief that he had shown. 'Why, dash it all!' said he, 'I've let them go at six hundred for the three!' I soon managed to get the address of the receiver who had them, on promising him that there would be no prosecution. Off I set to him, and after much chaffering I got our stones at a thousand apiece, Then I looked in upon your son, told him that all was right, and eventually got to my bed about two o'clock, after what I may call a really hard day's work."

This, the part where Holmes CLAPS A PISTOL TO SOMEONE'S HEAD, is more evidence of his compassion, he's as much concerned with the consequences of solving this case and making sure the family is not hurt by this and is even willing to let the criminal off and pay him for the stones, I mean I guess he'd charge the father, but still.

Also, I'm reading shades of noir detective in this again. Holmes is a Detective who has to go into the criminal underworld himself, he isn't afraid to use violence ("I clapped a pistol to his head"), but it's all for a good purpose only he is met by the fact that proper justice can't be done here, to avoid scandal, and has to go outside the law and do something morally ambiguous, ie pay the criminal.

Although the outcome is much rosier in this case in the end.

InspectorCaracal wrote: ↑

Sat 26 Nov, 2022, 11:11 pm

!!! Quote
HOLMES," said I, as I stood one morning in our bow window looking down the street, "here is a madman coming along. It seems rather sad that his relatives should allow him to come out alone."

I just had to point at the opening line here because it's very strong and also sometimes I forget that [[Watson can be a snarky bastard]] sometimes too, lmao.

Both of them sometimes. More like 221b Snarker Street.

Some random thoughts:

Alexander Holder wrote: "Now, Mr. Holmes, you know the people who live under my roof, and I shall continue with my miserable story.

Alexander Holder's A Series of Unfortunate Events.

Alexander Holder wrote: "She is of a quiet nature. Besides, she is not so very young. She is four and twenty."

Oi!

Holmes wrote: It is an old maxim of mine that when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Is this the first appearance of this line? Monumental.

Alexander Holder wrote: "It is, of course, well known to you that in a successful banking business as much depends upon our being able to find remunerative investments for our funds, as upon our increasing our connection and the number of our depositors. One of our most lucrative means of laying out money is in the shape of loans, where the security is unimpeachable. We have done a good deal in this direction during the last few years, and there are many noble families to whom we have advanced large sums upon the security of their pictures, libraries, or plate.

Suddenly we get a banking 101 introduction course.

thiskurt wrote: ↑

Tue 29 Nov, 2022, 4:22 pm

InspectorCaracal wrote: ↑

Sat 26 Nov, 2022, 11:11 pm

!!! Quote
HOLMES," said I, as I stood one morning in our bow window looking down the street, "here is a madman coming along. It seems rather sad that his relatives should allow him to come out alone."

I just had to point at the opening line here because it's very strong and also sometimes I forget that [[Watson can be a snarky bastard]] sometimes too, lmao.

Both of them sometimes. More like 221b Snarker Street.

Yeah but I don't FORGET it about Holmes, he is just always like that lmao

thiskurt wrote: ↑

Tue 29 Nov, 2022, 4:22 pm

Alexander Holder wrote: "It is, of course, well known to you that in a successful banking business as much depends upon our being able to find remunerative investments for our funds, as upon our increasing our connection and the number of our depositors. One of our most lucrative means of laying out money is in the shape of loans, where the security is unimpeachable. We have done a good deal in this direction during the last few years, and there are many noble families to whom we have advanced large sums upon the security of their pictures, libraries, or plate.

Suddenly we get a banking 101 introduction course.

Confession: I totally skipped Mr. Holder's ramblings on about banking and how great his bank was.

thiskurt wrote: ↑

Tue 29 Nov, 2022, 4:09 pm

That's another point in favour of the idea that Holmes is compassionate, he has to be, because a lot of the time, for lack of a better word, Sherlock Holmes cases are of a social nature.

You know what! I've only skirted the edges of it before, but I've never pinned it down quite that neatly and you're absolutely right.

Holmes does a lot of forensics, yes, but ultimately all of his cases are solved by his understanding of people and how people think - the forensics bits are just to help narrow down possibilities with facts.

thiskurt wrote: ↑

Tue 29 Nov, 2022, 4:09 pm

But that's not really 'reason over emotion/humans' as it sometimes gets translated as the details are both technical and behavioral, it's really a fusion of technical and human analysis here and all in order to prove someone's innocence. It's reason used *for* understanding someone.

Ah, and this is the other tricky bit with Holmes and the Holmes stories, which is that Watson and Holmes are, together, a somewhat unreliable narrator. Holmes tells Watson that he values reason over emotion and cool logic over the distracting human passions. Watson relays this to us as an absolutism. Generations of readers take it as fact.

thiskurt wrote: ↑

Tue 29 Nov, 2022, 4:15 pm

Watson wrote: He was a man of about fifty, tall, portly, and imposing, with a massive, strongly marked face and a commanding figure. He was dressed in a sombre yet rich style, in black frock-coat, shining hat, neat brown gaiters, and well cut pearl grey trousers. Yet his actions were in absurd contrast to the dignity of his dress and features, for he was running hard, with occasional little springs, such as a weary man gives who is little accustomed to set any tax upon his legs. As he ran he jerked his hands up and down, waggled his head, and writhed his face into the most extraordinary contortions.

"What on earth can be the matter with him?" I asked. "He is looking up at the numbers of the houses."

"I believe that he is coming here," said Holmes, rubbing his hands.

I always find it funny when Watson gives such a detailed description of a person and their behavior and then he somehow can't figure out the man is looking for their address.

I think this kind of stuff is the main source of the biggest characterization of people when it comes to Watson: the idea that he isn't observant or not very smart.

I think a consequence of having Watson as the narrator is that we have him as the observer as well, which has interesting effects on how facts are given to us in the story.

It's generally agreed that in a good mystery the writer gives the reader all the clues without cheating and pulling the solution out of his hat with facts we never got. Usually this is done through a 3rd person narrator who doens't have to do any deduction of give opinions of their own, at some level they're a clue-delivery mechanism.

With Watson things are different, he's a proper character with his own personality and opinions, but he's also the observer, the way we see the case.

Obviously he is smart, he's a doctor, he makes all the necessary observations to solve the case, because everything he observes we observe and everything he doesn't we can't observe, he does take over some of Holmes' deduction methods, but at the same time he can't be too observant or too good at deduction.

If Watson too accurately notices certain clues we notice the right clues, if Watson deduces the solution then we deduce the solution.

Watson can never solve the mystery because then the reader has solved the mystery which means the story is over, there's no mystery story without a mystery.

Hence the incorrect assumption Watson can't be very smart, the man's a defacto detective for centuries and yet he never solves a case, but he's just cursed by narrative necessity.

I think this is a good take, but I disagree almost entirely. It's true that Watson doesn't ever figure out the case, but it's also always very obvious that it's largely because Holmes just has more information. And he doesn't give it to Watson until "the reveal". In a recent story we read - I can't remember which, alas - it's pointed out fairly explicitly, where Watson asks how this exact phenomenon happens. "I saw everything you saw and heard everything you heard - how did YOU figure it out and I didn't??" and Holmes' answer is, in essence, "I had more information."

Plus, even more recently, the Noble Bachelor lays this prior information dynamic out very explicitly in the introductory bit, where Holmes does not, in fact, have the information he needs, and turns to Watson to provide it. (As for how Watson didn't figure that one out: he doesn't know what "jumping a claim" means and is generally easily swayed by compelling evidence-based arguments, so when Holmes doesn't bother to explain why the general theory is wrong without giving any additional evidence, Watson resorts to observing Holmes to try to figure out what he knows and thinks about it.)

Watson doesn't solve the cases before Holmes because Holmes doesn't spend the time on giving him the outside information he would need in order to solve the case himself, and Watson is not obsessive enough to store up the required information himself. It's actually very consistent and doesn't rely on pulling narrative tricks at all.

As for the exchange where he didn't deduce that "the madman" was coming to visit them, it always just seemed conversational to me. Watson sees a funny man out the window, idly wonders what he's up to, Holmes happens to have an answer.

InspectorCaracal wrote: ↑

Tue 29 Nov, 2022, 5:52 pm

thiskurt wrote: ↑

Tue 29 Nov, 2022, 4:22 pm

Suddenly we get a banking 101 introduction course.

Confession: I totally skipped Mr. Holder's ramblings on about banking and how great his bank was.

I skipped it and then, because I didn't remember if the minutiae of banking procedures were somehow relevant to the story, I skimmed it to be sure and I feel betrayed. Betrayed!

InspectorCaracal wrote: ↑

Tue 29 Nov, 2022, 6:06 pm

This is the other tricky bit with Holmes and the Holmes stories, which is that Watson and Holmes are, together, a somewhat unreliable narrator. Holmes tells Watson that he values reason over emotion and cool logic over the distracting human passions. Watson relays this to us as an absolutism. Generations of readers take it as fact.

Holmes' and Watson's reading of Holmes and Watson is totally wrong.

InspectorCaracal wrote: ↑

Tue 29 Nov, 2022, 6:17 pm

I think this is a good take, but I disagree almost entirely. It's true that Watson doesn't ever figure out the case, but it's also always very obvious that it's largely because Holmes just has more information. And he doesn't give it to Watson until "the reveal".

That's true, here too he was off galavanting doing a bunch of investigation work on his own. I think I was taken in by how Holmes will often give Watson a ribbing for not figuring something out, but more often than not he just knows more.