“He put his hand over
part of the map. ‘What do you read?’
“ARAT,’ I read.
‘And now?’ He raised
his hand.
‘BALLARAT.’
“Quite so. That was
the word the man uttered, and of which his son only caught the last two
syllables. He was trying to utter the name of his murderer. So and so, of
Ballarat.’
‘It is wonderful!’ I
exclaimed.
‘It is obvious.’“
--Arthur Conan Doyle, “The Boscombe Valley Mystery”
Leigh:
When I first read this story way
back three whole summers ago, I wasn't a huge fan of it. It seemed like a
really simple case. It seemed like a case that I would see on Law and Order and
it wouldn't even be an episode that would stick in my memory. In fact, this was
the first one in the canon that I've re-read in its entirety since we started
this project. I knew there was a murder and the main suspect didn't do it. I
couldn't remember much else. After re-reading it today though, it grew on me. It's
still not exciting but there are changes that ACD made to the plot that made it
a bit different.
First and foremost, we don't start the adventure in the sitting room
at all. In fact, we never even go to the sitting room. There is no moment when
Holmes tells someone their entire history because of what shoes they decided to
wear that day. Instead we get a little moment with Watson and his wife and then
Holmes and Watson on the train together. It's like his editors said, "Hey
guy, change it up a bit, will ya?" We still get the instance of Holmes
being the most perceptive man ever to have lived but it isn't just to show off
his talent and introduce the reader to Holmes' ability but it also is a moment
of familiarity with Watson and Holmes. We get to experience the Victorian
equivalent of "Bro, you missed a spot," and that tells the viewer
where their relationship is. They aren't just acquaintances but they're so
friendly that they'll tell each other when they're doing a crap job shaving in
the morning.
We've been talking a lot lately about a balance between mystery and
character relationships and I feel that ACD wanted the exact opposite of what
the writers of Elementary want. Yes, the story starts with Watson eating
breakfast with his wife, but she is only referred to as "his wife,"
not by Mary or Mary Watson. Their dialog is kept to a minimum and while it is
probably more realistic Victorian dialog, it's still a bit rigid for a husband
and wife conversation, especially when the husband is getting ready to leave
town for a few days in about ten minutes. Sure it wasn't the thing to do at the
time, talk about a relationship between husband and wife, but we got more of
their relationship when we met Mary in A Sign of Four than we do here. ACD knew
when to make it about relationships and when to make it about the mystery and
this one is all about the mystery.
"I would like you all to meet my wife, 'My Wife'" |
We get a set of facts that points to one outcome when in fact the
solution is something entirely different. Sure, it was a little easy to guess
what was going to happen, but there were some facts that threw me for a loop at
least. A secret marriage? Stagecoach hold up? Australia? It's another instance
where the mystery itself isn't that exciting but all of the clues put together
make it more than average.
And side note, I think that "RAT" that Moffat alluded to
about the next series of the other Sherlock Holmes modernization is referenced
in this story. Just throwing that out there.
So what do you
think, Austin? Is it just another cut and paste story that we see on other
crime dramas or is it better because the clues are odder? What makes this
mystery better than an episode of Law and Order? And who will win our bet that
we have?
Austin: Right
now I'm sure people are obsessively looking back through the blog to figure out
what bet we agreed to. Nope, this is one of those crazy "off-blog"
conversations that we sometimes have. To avoid spoilers for something we
haven't covered, Leigh and I disagree about the fate of a major character from Sherlock
Season Two. When the show returns next year, the one who was incorrect will be
recording a speech written by the victor. So look forward to that....in a year
or so. (Also, no I don't think "The rat" refers to this story. Giant
Rat of Sumatra!!!)
The only problem I had with the introduction was that Watson's wife
was basically a non-character. She was the opposite of every wife on TV. I was
all ready for "But won't it be dangerous?!" or "But we have
brunch with the Featherbottoms that weekend!" but she was fine. She fully
understands Watson's mancrush on Sherlock and she is encouraging to see things
blossom.
This was more compelling than the one last week. We've had two cases
in a row that were a bit low key. Weird silly cases, but nothing like a good
old fashioned murder. I wasn't bothered by its typical nature because I thought
they did a good job setting up the red herring. Obviously the guy Lestrade
suspected didn't do it, but it was thorough enough that it made sense that
Sherlock was brought in.
The problem was that there are large chunks of this story of
explaining stuff. Some of it was compelling like the typical Sherlock deduction
breakdowns, but others felt like a bit of filler. I don't know if Doyle had the
Dickens deal where he was paid by the word but this needed to be trimmed down a
little bit. Once again we had the bad guy tell us his life story in an attempt
to gain sympathy from the audience. Didn't work for me, but it oddly really
worked for Sherlock.
The ending led to the most interesting part of the story. Sherlock
decides not to send the murderer to prison but held onto his signed confession
only to be used if the innocent can't go free. Then the story ends! Once again
we have Sherlock being the one to decide justice as he sees fit. He's working outside
of the law in a very compelling way. The big plothole for this is, of course,
that Watson published this big secret. Silly Watson.
Was Sherlock
right to withhold this man from prison? Why wasn't this story is called The
Boscombe Valley Tragedy? That's a better title and they even used that phrase!
Leigh: I’ll just say that of everyone I’ve
talked to, more people agree with me than with you. Just sayin’…
I have
to agree about the ending. It seemed weird to me that Sherlock not only felt
sympathy for a criminal who wasn’t that great of a guy but then kept him out of
jail. Sherlock is really good at doing what he thinks is the right thing to do
and in this situation it seems that letting an old man die in his home is the
better choice than setting a younger, innocent man free. Sure the younger man
was set free anyway based on the evidence but still, he doesn’t do what is
“right” and does what he believes to be right. This situation adds more depth
to our (anti)hero and creates a much more complex character than Elementary has
done, so far at least.
Watson
waited until the old man had died before publishing the story so that might be
why he published it. The dead old guy can’t go to jail since he’s, you know,
dead. There are other stories where Watson mentions that he changes the names
of the people involved so that could’ve been what happened here, just not
talked about. What I’m saying is that you probably totally missed it. Way to
go.
A day
after reading this one and I’m having problems remembering the details again.
It is pretty bland if I’m honest. Yeah there are a few odd clues to throw the
reader off the scent but in general it wasn’t outrageous, it wasn’t exciting,
it was a very typical murder. I’m sure at the time it was written and published
it was a bit more scandalous. Australia hadn’t been an actual country for
too long and even at the time this was written, it was mainly known as a land
full of scoundrels and all around bad guys. That would give the audience
plausibility that not one, but two pretty terrible people came from Australia.
I almost
wonder if this story just hasn’t aged well. What say you? Do you think that
some of these adventures are showing their age? That they aren’t aging
gracefully? That they’re pulling a Madonna and not a Meryl Streep?
Meryl Streep in an Oscar-winning performance as Margaret Thatcher |
Austin: And 100%
of the people who I've talked to about this agree with me, except for one
little girl who takes five letters to spell one syllable...
Oh sure Watson changed the names and whatnot. Lestrade knows what's
up. I'm sure he read the Strand and was rather ticked. Friends of the family as
well could probably figure the changed details. It would be cool to see if
there were ramifications from this, but I doubt we're seeing that sort of
serialization at play. Maybe his last story will be a Seinfeld-esque clip show
with cameos of all the pissed people that Sherlock has bothered returning.
Aside from Doyle's wonderful consistency with properly representing
other countries, I think this holds up rather well. I don't think every mystery
needs to be completely flashy with bizarre elements. That could distract from
the key mystery at the center. I think this is a better example of what Doyle
can accomplish than something like "The Red Headed League" because it
shows what Sherlock set to accomplish in "A Study in Scarlet". The
power of deduction solving a case without being tempted away by other beliefs.
Still the best documentary we've ever seen about Australia |
In fact with Sherlock's odd moral ending, this has best of both
aspects of the character. The observing quality of The Terminator with the human
element mixed into the how he decides to handle the information. This is a
story that may have worked better in his novella length to avoid his long
passages of describing what happened off screen.
So I'll
stick with this maybe not being the most memorable, but it's a good story done
rather well. But what does Leigh say? Here she is with the last word.
Leigh: RAT!