“On glancing over my
notes of the seventy odd cases in which I have during the last eight years
studied the methods of my friend Sherlock Holmes, I find many tragic, some
comic, a large number merely strange, but none commonplace…”
--Dr. John Watson, “The Adventure of the Speckled Band”
Leigh:
Case of the Speckled BLAND,
amirite? No, but I love this story. If I had to pick one of the short form ACD
stories to be the definitive Sherlock Holmes adventure, this one would be it, I
think. It has the complex mystery that the longer stories have but in a much
more compact story. We get the background of the situation without having to
sit through too much excess information and we still have a grasp on what's
going on. We don't learn about the doctor's time in India more than he was
there and then left, because we don't need it. We don't need to know why he
killed someone, just that he did. I think this might be the best-written short
form Sherlock Holmes adventure. ACD was really on form for this one.
But of course I have some questions and critiques. I wish there was
a class that I could take called "Inheritance and allowances in Victorian
era England" because everything I've learned about how much money people
are allowed each year is from Sherlock Holmes novels and Downton Abbey. One might say that it is incomplete. I don't
understand where the allowance comes from. I understand that their mother left
it to them but where is it right now? Why can't they get all of it at once? Why
does their money fluctuate with the market? If anyone can answer these
questions for me, you get internet points.
 |
| What's an allowance? |
We have had a similar story to this one before. Not with the deadly
snake or anything, but with the stepfather trying to con his stepdaughter out
of money. The first was an actual con and this one was murder. What has changed
so much in the past ~125 years to make mysteries less about just killing
someone out of passion and killing them because of money? There are a lot of TV
crime dramas that center around someone killing someone over their fortune but
more often than not, it's for some other deranged reason. What has changed? Has
the focus of the public/media changed or have the criminals changed?
I feel like a four year old today, asking every question ever but my
inquiring mind wants to know.
So, Austin,
why?
Austin: What? No
I don't know anything about Victorian allowance systems. Even the allure of
internet points isn't going to make me research that topic. I'll just wait
until you have half a Woodchuck and you investigate it yourself.
Anywho, this story is so awesome. It's essentially a locked room
mystery filled with insanity. What I loved about rereading this one is finding
all of the humor in the story. The story begins with Holmes appearing at the
end of Watson's bed while he was asleep. There's a great little bit with Holmes
saying the only way to solve the case is for him and Watson to be in her room
that night. She is a bit startled that he just proposed a rather indecent
payment for the case. Then of course you have the constant reminder that the
house contains a cheetah and a baboon.
It's wonderfully absurd. The story basically relies on it being
absurd. If the original girl would just scream "Snake!" this whole
thing would be over, but instead she screamed "Band!". All of this
fits in a story where you have a criminal who would think of a plan like this
to sneak a snake through a ventilator. Such a thing would be impossible to
solve because it's insane. That's why this is my favorite Sherlock Holmes
because he doesn't judge the insanity, only looks at the facts.
 |
| Oh shit! A band! |
In fact, he basically solved it before he even got to the house in a
wonderful bit of bragging at the end.
As for your pondering on the motive, I think you still see plenty of
examples of both. Usually if something is this calculated and involving rare
snakes, you have a better reason than hating the person. The amount of planning
will last longer than the initial emotion of anger. Crimes of passion can
happen so easily because we live in a world where anything can kill someone. Mysteries
need a satisfying resolution due to their puzzle structure. Audiences will
probably be unsatisfied with "I hated that guy" as a reason for the
murder. Needs backstory and motive and blah blah blah. What it really needs is
more swamp addlers.
Enough of your
questionings over nitpicks. What makes this one of the best stories ever?
Leigh: I'm only
nitpicky because I love it so much, like an overprotective mother.
For me, the best part of this whole story is when Holmes says that
he was wrong and that he didn't come to the right conclusion in the first
place. It's not often that the infallible man admits he was wrong. This whole
story was another glimpse into the character of Sherlock Holmes that just adds
more to the complex character that he is. Instead of being the usual cold
person that he is, when the living twin is visibly upset, he is soothing and
tries not to put her on edge any more than she already is. He tells her to get
closer to the fire to get warmer, he gives her a good "there there"
pat on the arm, and instead of showing off and patronizing her, he calmly explains
how he figured out how she got there. He usually isn't this comforting towards
women and often thinks that their bouts of emotion are silly but here he is
different and kinder. Why is that, I don't know but I'll allow it.
We see how Holmes reacts to threats, no matter how serious they
might be. Holmes does this by simply ignoring any threatening motions that the
evil doctor presented by talking about the weather and flowers. This guy has
killed people and at that point, was planning on doing it again and yet Holmes
just sits calmly talking about crocuses. And then to show the audience that he
can hold his own in any fight, he unbends an iron poker. I don't know if you've
tried to bend an iron poker, but it's not easy.
And finally, we
see that Holmes has a different set of morals that he adheres to than the rest
of us. If I had unintentionally caused someone's death, I would feel terrible
and probably require years of therapy, even if the person I killed was a grade
A jerk. Yet here, Holmes shows no remorse at all. He basically said,
"Yeah, I killed that guy. What of it? You wanna fight about it?" He
doesn't tell the coroner or the police what he did and doesn't feel the need
to. He's alright with the country thinking that this guy died because he was
playing with a dangerous snake. By the way, I'm all for exotic and interesting
animals as pets but a cheetah, a baboon and a deadly snake all in one house?
Wouldn't the police or something get involved? Or the RSPCA or something? Or
were exotic animal laws different then than now? Someone should just make me a
course on Victorian Era laws and how they differ from our modern ones. More
internet points for anyone who does and even a pretend cookie!
Austin: This is
the real character showcase for Holmes. It's all we love about him wrapped up
in this story. Emotional, aloof, bizarre, bragging, imperfect, and a bit
violent. Watson isn't overshadowed by any of this oddly enough. This is where
he plays the role as the biographer very well. All of his questions and
ponderings are never belittling because the story is so mysterious. This is one
of the best paced Doyle stories where even with long monologues of information.
Perhaps it's because I have to run out the door to head to Chicago,
but I think we've covered it. Of course on the drive I'll think of all the
things more I wanted to say.
 |
| The Spectacled Band |
Instead, I'll plug what we're going to talk about soon. On Friday
we'll finally tackle one of the billion adaptations of “The Hound of the
Baskervilles". First up will be the 1959 version starring Peter Cushing
(best known for his small part in Star Wars and playing "Dr.
Who" in a couple of bad Dalek films.) This is available on Netflix
Instant.
Next week we'll be covering the next Doyle story as usual. Then on
Friday we'll be reviewing something I am very excited about. When Tom Baker was
the star of Doctor Who in the 70s, there was a glorious golden period of the
show when the writing and the style was top notch. In one beloved story, The
Doctor changed his wardrobe and took on a Sherlockian case. So we'll be
reviewing that awesome story called...."The Talons of Weng-Chiang"
Get excited.
And here's
Leigh Montano with the final word.
Leigh: Why'sitalwayshavetobesnakes?
No comments:
Post a Comment