Victorians! discussion

Please discuss here this section

By this section, I was confused and wondering whether life wasn't just too short to sift through versions of versions of the same events. I suppose the author is trying to inject verisimilitude by telling the story in this way, and perhaps this was more entertaining when read as a weekly instalment, but....

Did anyone else want to serve Mrs Brown a large dose of tartar emetic? Here's an example of her statement:

"I am pretty sure it was in February or March. I think about the beginning of March. There was no other lodger then. Not till my son went away from home again. He was away from home then. He came home some time in March or April. I suppose it was in March. He came from Melbourne to Liverpool. He was at home for some weeks. I can't tell how many. He went away again in April, or it might have been May. I am almost sure it was not later than May. Not so late I think. Mrs. Troubridge could tell you. Richard married her daughter. Richard is my son. He married Ellen Troubridge. That was while he was at home last year. They had been engaged ever so long. He came home on purpose to marry her.

Antimony poisoning is perhaps too good for her. Couldn't Henderson have edited out the witter?!

Shame, poor Mrs Brown is just one very confused old lady. Though her statement was quite difficult to get through, I think it portrayed the senility of an old woman well. Henderson could very well have left it out because it doesn't give solid facts, but it also shows how difficult it was for Henderson to trace down some of the facts. There are hints there and it certainly helped in the process of elimination later on.

I enjoyed the statement of the Police-Sergeant, Edward Reading, and it is the first instance of active detecting in the novel, besides the more passive gathering of evidence through statements and letters. Crawling around on the floor, conducting experiments and logical reasoning... brings to mind good ol' Sherlock Holmes!