Victorians! discussion

Hi, everyone!

This week's reading is about: Part 1, Chapters 5-7.

What are the things that have intrigued you so far?

I must confess I am curious to read Scènes de la vie de bohème, the book that Watson was reading... I always feel like we can know more of the characters when we read what they read.

Please, feel free to share your thoughts about these three chapters.

Ooo! I'm definitely going to add that to my tbr. I've found an English translation at Librivox called Bohemians of the Latin Quarter.

Although I'm intrigued with Holmes, I'm surprised that I'm not more so. I'm more curious about Watson and his story, his attitude. Maybe it's simply because Watson is telling the story. Still, I thought that I would be dying to crack the nut that is Sherlock Holmes, but I don't feel that. Maybe I would feel that as I read more of the Holmes books.

Didn't even notice the book he was reading, but yes, good catch :O)

Alicatte - you're not the only one. I also feel Watson is more interesting in a way. Maybe perhaps because Sherlock is more a caricature and Watson feels more 'real', and thus more relatable?

From this section, Sherlock is not the only arrogant one. The policemen are also full of themselves. And I do like the concept of the 'Baker Street boys' - children are often 'invisible' to society :O)

Well, Watson is meant to be the relatable one, but because of his lack of description of personality. He's an everyman. Holmes seems like a caricature only because he's now become an archetype. At the time, he was something new.

Megan wrote: "Well, Watson is meant to be the relatable one, but because of his lack of description of personality. He's an everyman. Holmes seems like a caricature only because he's now become an archetype. At ..."

Good point. I wonder how contemporaries exactly perceived Sherlock, and indeed Watson. Would be interesting to read reviews from then.

Alicatte wrote: "Although I'm intrigued with Holmes, I'm surprised that I'm not more so. I'm more curious about Watson and his story, his attitude. Maybe it's simply because Watson is telling the story. Still, I th..."

I found your comment very interesting. Sherlock has always been the centre of my reading. In retrospect, perhaps I should pay more attention to Watson. Since we experience the stories through Watson's eyes and his interpretation of events it does tend to raise the question as to the accuracy and objectivity of Watson.

My take has been that Watson always had a very mild hesitation to embrace the character and antics of Holmes, but very infrequently did he ever doubt Holmes's unique abilities or desire to stop being his companion. It's best not to wander out of the focus of our story, but for me Watson's recording of the cases was Doyle's prime reason to put Watson in the stories.

"Peter wrote: "...for me Watson's recording of the cases was Doyle's prime reason to put Watson in the stories."

Yes, good point. I wonder if Doyle tried writing without a Watson character and just by third-person and figured, "Nope. I need a Watson to tell this."

This is my first Sherlock Holmes, and my first reaction was, how much I don't like him. He is so utterly conceited.

My other impression is, we are getting a skeleton structure for the detective novel. There is not a lot of fleshing out the story. It is as if Coyle anticipated Sgt. Friday, "Just the facts, Ma'am."

Maybe this is a reflection of utilitarianism getting more of a foothold in the late 19th century. If we go back roughly 50-100 years, what strikes me how many novels were actually quite long. Sir Walter Scott, Maria Edgeworth, Frances Burney, etc., etc.

Now this may be a discussion for a separate thread, but prompted by this little book, I wonder whether before the influence of utilitarianism took hold if people relished lingering over a story to a greater extent.

Kerstin wrote: "This is my first Sherlock Holmes, and my first reaction was, how much I don't like him. He is so utterly conceited.

My other impression is, we are getting a skeleton structure for the detective n..."

Well, Conan Doyle was a short story master. At the time, many novels were published in magazines first, chapter by chapter. This caused a lot of wordiness, because authors wanted to stretch it out and get paid more. However, if a reader missed one chapter, they usually didn't buy the rest of the magazine issues and instead waited for it to be published as a book. ACD saw this trend and decided to write a series of short stories utilizing the same cast of characters. That way, people could miss an issue or two without falling behind.

Also, Holmes tones down. He's a 20-something cocky baby in STUD. It seems to me as if he's so sophomoric partially due to immaturity but also partially as an attempt to drum up more support. Self-advertisement is always the hardest part of freelance to balance.

Regarding the length, there was also a movement towards the end of the century going against the typical 3-decker novel. Until then, this form was preferred for its symbolism and also for the libraries who could lend to a wider public with 3 volumes (they were the main buyer). Slowly, throughout the century and culminating at the end, authors went against this rule of form (they were debating all the time on what the novel should be both in content and form) and the libraries also changed their terms due to the rise of cheaper book forms. I'll try to find a link and post it :0)

Very interesting comments on publishing, Ladies. The first two Holmes/Watson stories are short novels (and there are only two more of these), while the bulk of their "story" is told in short stories with some linking threads woven in. You're right that this seems quite different from the massive 3 Volume undertakings. The other writers I know from this period did short stories but not connected to each other in this way. I hadn't given any thought to this aspect before.

I have to agree with Megan about the characters. I've read the lot and both do change throughout the series. They really are ridiculously young in this and, yes, Holmes comes off as arrogant and intolerant; while Watson makes comments about not wanting to intrude. I think it's interesting to note how pleased SH is by JW's reactions. An intelligent man of action with medical knowledge and battle experience, who isn't freaked out by and genuinely seems able to follow and appreciate the reasoning once explained. What a find for SH!

We hear so much about SH as an amazing character, but Watson is equally amazing. He's so perfectly suited to be the companion. (And to help the everyday reader to connect to the stories.) It's the creation of the pair that's a real literary accomplishment.

I'm playing catch up. Funny but I miss the Mrs, Hudson character which we've not seen in this book. For me both Sherlock and Watson are main characters. I'm not finding this Sherlock any different from later Sherlock. I also find him confident rather than conceited. I think it's important to remember that this is the beginning of their friendship. The comfort level is not yet there between them.

Deborah wrote: " I think it's important to remember that this is the beginning of their friendship. The comfort level is not yet there between them. ."

Nor has Doyle found his comfort level with his characters. I think he's still working on their relationship.

Martha wrote: "I didn't realize that Watson was the narrator of these books. I find it to be interesting. I have read Hound of the Baskervilles, but that was 30 years ago when I was a kid. I don't like the fact t..."

One thing to keep in mind. Many of the drugs that are now illegal, were legal and readily available.

Also, many drugs were prescribed and present in over-the-counter medications. Sleeping medicine for children with opium and laudanum, anyone? Much is made of Holmes' drug use, which does not even show up in STUD, and is only seen in Sign of Four. The rest is just Watson fussing over it. The amount Holmes uses is far below what was prescribed. I'm not defending it, but it, at the time, would be considered as dangerous as smoking or an energy drink addiction is today. Holmes' self-medication is very interesting and I think one thing that hasn't been treated well in the modern updates of Elementary and Sherlock. He uses far more caffeine and tobacco than anything illegal. The question is whether, were the diagnoses and medications present today available in the Victorian era, Holmes would accept it. The diagnoses he would likely receive (ADHD, Aspergers, manic-depression) would make him look weak, and people would start shoving down a lot of therapy and advice down his throat. (Actually, before Sherlock's "high-functioning sociopath" snap, the only way someone would know the word high-functioning was to have done research on autism, and there's a theory that he simply uses "sociopath" to look tough.) I think that while Holmes' familiarity with the criminal set would put him in a position to buy illegal drugs, he would not today self-medicate that way and would instead experiment with things like caffeine, St John's wort, energy drinks, vitamins, etc. The thing is to find the border between science and alternative medicine. Cocaine was something that at the time was not studied enough to know its true extent, but was considered helpful and recreational with some negative side effects.
I say self-medication because note he never uses drugs other than caffeine while on a case. He knows what he's doing. In The Sign of Four Watson asks if Holmes is using morphine in a way that suggests he has before, but nothing in the rest of the canon suggests he uses anything other than cocaine.
From SIGN:
"Give me problems, give me work, give me the most abstruse cryptogram, or the most intricate analysis, and I am in my own proper atmosphere. I can dispense then with artificial stimulants. But I abhor the dull routine of existence. I crave for mental exaltation."
This shows quite a few things about Holmes:
1. He's wordy and theatrical.
2. He uses drugs out of boredom.
3. He's addicted not to drugs but to stimulation.
When I got my ADHD diagnosis, my parents had taken me in to seek treatment for "Internet addiction." However, as both the doctor and I said, I am addicted to doing things. Reading, crafts, watching movies, solving problems, taking classes. But my brain works so quickly and I'm too smart for most hobbies to occupy me (actual genius-level IQ). Maybe a modern-day Holmes would like video games? They don't have a real life-changing goal, though. Criminal investigation is engrossing because it's applying intelligence towards something time-sensitive that actually matters.
Holmes and I would probably run into the same problems trying to keep a regular job:
1. Social awkwardness.
2. Boredom leading to sloppiness, laziness, or even...
3. Depression.
So instead he freelances, and when there's nothing to do, the needle.

Thanks Megan. Very interesting and it does make sense.
I also thought that Sherlock was 'self-medicating' against boredom when there is nothing to engage his brain. That might be another reason why he boxed/fought - that's another way to get 'high' and there is the tactical element of the confrontation too.

Megan wrote: "...I think that while Holmes' familiarity with the criminal set would put him in a position to buy illegal drugs..."

I'm not sure any of the drugs he uses were in fact illegal. As you noted, opium and laudaunum (a solution of opium in alcohol) were legal drugs, and in fact were an important and valuable import of the East India Company.

Here's one 19th century recipe for a cough mixture:
Two tablespoonfuls of vinegar,
Two tablespoonfuls of treacle
60 drops of laudanum.
One teaspoonful to be taken night and morning.

According to the same website,
Many notable Victorians are known to have used laudanum as a painkiller. Authors, poets and writers such as Charles Dickens, Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Elizabeth Gaskell and George Eliot were users of laudanum. Anne Bronte is thought to have modelled the character of Lord Lowborough in ‘The Tenant of Wildfell Hall’ on her brother Branwell, a laudanum addict. The poet Percy Bysshe Shelley suffered terrible laudanum-induced hallucinations. Robert Clive, ‘Clive of India’, used laudanum to ease gallstone pain and depression.

http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/...

I'm not aware that Holmes used any illegal drugs which would have required resorting to the criminal classes to provide; indeed, even arsenic was available over the counter at a chemist's shop!