The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion
This topic is about
A Study in Scarlet
Arthur Conan Doyle Collection
>
A Study in Scarlet 2012 - Part Two
Two quotes that I thought might be interesting to discuss:- Sherlock: “What you do in the world is a matter of no consequence…The question is, what can you make people believe that you have done?”
- Sherlock: “In solving a problem of this sort, the grand thing is to be able to reason backward. That is a very useful accomplishment, and a very easy one, but people do not practice it much. In the everyday affairs of life it is more useful to reason forward, and so the other comes to be neglected. There are fifty who can reason synthetically for one who can reason analytically.”
I found the following article on CNN about the continued bias against having a Mormon president - sadly, the numbers haven't changed since the 1960s.http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06...
We can criticize Doyle for his depiction of Mormons, but unfortunately, some of today's Americans - who should know better - aren't doing much better. :-(
Our discussion becomes complicated by Doyle’s treatment of Mormonism in the text. Saying that it is politically incorrect is obviously an understatement. There are some quotes about CD's changed views on the Mormons here, as opposed to those expressed in his novels:-
http://www.adherents.com/lit/article_...
Doyle, hosever, insisted that the kernel of the stoary was based on an actual event:-
'But, he insisted, "all I said about the Danite Band and the murders is historical so I cannot withdraw that tho it is likely that in a work of fiction it is stated more luridly than in a work of history.' What really happened is still a matter of controversy:-
http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Danites
There is a little about Victorian attitudes towards the Mormons in this book review:-
https://byustudies.byu.edu/showTitle....
And there is something about their history in the UK on this BBC website:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religio...
Apparently Mitt Romney's Mormon roots come from Preston in Northern England:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18...
Mod
Re Hope's death. I think Doyle did that because he really position him as a hero, and it doesn't seem quite fair to kill the hero off at the end of the story. That way Hope is punished for the deeds which the Victorians would have thought necessary, yet it's fate or God doing the punishing.
Re the Mormons. I have to say I kept waiting for some really nasty stuff about them after the talk about how inappropriate it all seemed. Yet, to me, it didn't seem inappropriate at all. I didn't feel he was truly criticizing the religion; just showing some of the differences between Christianity and Mormonism. He never says that their belief system is wrong (I'm not saying that it is). He does stand against multiple wives, which most of the U.S. did and still does - hence it was made illegal (not sure when). Maybe he was an earlier feminist (ha ha).
One side note of Mormonism. They have one of the best libraries of the history of their religion among other things. They have collected many original pieces of letters, etc. They were duped, however, by a forger who was so good that experts have had a hard time validating what is authentic. A book about this is The Poet and the Murderer. It was really interesting.
Re Romney. If you remember back, the U.S. was concerned about JFK too because he was Catholic, and society felt as if he would put the Pope and his beliefs first. That was quite a change of attitude, wouldn't you say?
Mod
Mod
Thanks for that info about the Mormons Deborah. I think perhaps there is a big difference between the worldwide and ancient religion of catholicism, dating back to JC and the modern cult of Mormonism under Brigham Young. JFK was acceptable because he represented a mainstream Christian tradition but we have yet to see whether Romney, from a minority religion, can pull the same thing off. (And we mustn't be drawn into discussing that here:).)
Fear and hatred of Mormons was common in 19th century America. Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, and his small band of followers were driven from New York to Ohio and then to Illinois. Smith was murdered by an angry mob in Carthage Missouri in 1844. This prompted the Mormons to move to Utah, which was then outside US territory. Brigham Young, who took over for Joseph Smith, felt that moving to the harsh condititons in Utah was the only way the Mormons could practice their religion in peace.
I think Doyle was just reflecting widespread feelings at the time. It is similar to the anti-semitism directed at Fagin throughout Oliver Twist.It is reprehensible by modern standards, but was commonplace then. Both Doyle and Dickens later moderated their views.
Benjamin Disraeli, a Jew, was one of the Victorian era's most powerful Prime Ministers (although he did convert to Christianity). In my opinion, he faced much greater prejudice than Romney and he still managed to rise to the top of Victorian politics.
Disraeli was born a Jew but was baptised a Christian when he was 12 and remained a practising Anglican. Neither Catholics nor Jews (nor Muslims) can be Prime Minister to the Queen, who is head of the Church of England. He certainly did encounter prejudice during his political career but as Prime Minister he became a favourite of Queen Victoria, which dissipated some of it.There is something about the prejudice he suffered in this NYT book review:-
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/boo...
I suspect the full force of prejudice will not hit Romney until the actual Presidential campaign begins and it is likely to increase if he wins because he will become a sitting target. If and when things start to go wrong both he and other Mormons are likely suffer. 'Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown':(.
MadgeUK wrote: "Disraeli was born a Jew but was baptised a Christian when he was 12, long before he became a Prime Minister. Neither Catholics nor Jews (nor Muslims) can be Prime Minister to the Queen, who is head..."Wow, how interesting. I knew only Anglicans could be PM during Victoria's time, but I didn't know that rule was still in effect. I think that Tony Blair converted to Catholicism after leaving office. That must have been why.
I love Disraeli's quote about royalty: “Everyone likes flattery, and when you come to Royalty you should lay it on with a trowel.”
Yes and Tony Blair would probably not have been elected Leader of the Labour Party or PM if it had been known how religious he was and how close to catholicism. As his Aide Alistair Campbell told him, 'Brits don't do religion' in politics.The rule is part of the Act of Settlement and will take a lot of legislation to undo.
http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/How...
Our history is such, especially over Northern Ireland, that undoing that part of the Act to allow catholics to be monarchs or PMs is likely to prove very unpopular. We are more likely to 'let sleeping dogs lie'!
Deborah wrote: "Re the Mormons. I have to say I kept waiting for some really nasty stuff about them after the talk about how inappropriate it all seemed. Yet, to me, it didn't seem inappropriate at all. I didn't feel he was truly criticizing the religion; just showing some of the differences between Christianity and Mormonism. He never says that their belief system is wrong (I'm not saying that it is). He does stand against multiple wives, which most of the U.S. did and still does - hence it was made illegal (not sure when). Maybe he was an earlier feminist (ha ha)."On this, I have to disagree. The narrative definitely makes Mormons the "bad guys" because they are different from mainstream Christianity. And Mormons are Christians; they are just a different sect.
But at the same time, I admit that the narrative was so interesting that I didn't really focus on that aspect for long. I was aware of it, but didn't let it get in the way of the story's progression.
If that makes sense.
I guess I've been reading classics for so long with these types of issues and I know they are there, but learn to read around them.
Amanda wrote: "I think Doyle was just reflecting widespread feelings at the time. It is similar to the anti-semitism directed at Fagin throughout Oliver Twist.It is reprehensible by modern standards, but was commonplace then. Both Doyle and Dickens later moderated their views."Yes, true.
And again, we have to realize that we are reading a text with 21st century eyes. And remember, in 100+ years from now, people will be criticizing the novels that we are reading, and saying, how could they be so intolerant?
Deborah wrote: "One question re: Rache. Why German? Were any of these people from German descent? I don't believe we're told that, so why was German the language chosen?"Jefferson Hope wants to throw the police off his scent:
"I remember a German being found in New York with RACHE written up above him, and it was argued at the time in the newspapers that the secret scoieties mus thave done it. I guessed that what puzzled the New Yorkers would puzzle the Londoners, so I dipped my finger in my own blood and printed it on a convenient place on the wall."
As to why Doyle chose German, I don't know. I've read that The Last Bow which was a SH story published during WWI has German spies and was considered to be a "patriotic" text. But this was the first SH story published so far too early for that.
I think much of the antipathy towards the Mormons then and now was about polygamy, which is still unacceptable to the majority of people East and West. Also, their polygamous lifestyle then was like Islamic practice and this also put them beyond the pale, just as it does today. I quite fancy polyandry myself:D.
- Our discussion becomes complicated by Doyle’s treatment of Mormonism in the text. Saying that it is politically incorrect is obviously an understatement. So, what do we do when faced with these types of issues in the canon and other classics?I was expecting to be horrified by the slander against the Mormons of Part 2... instead, I was given a fictional treatment of what looked to be an historical moment in Mormon time (besides the Danites, there was reputedly a vigilante group called the "Avenging Angels"). The Mormons have to live with their history just as Catholics have to live with their history of the crusades and the Inquisition (and more). I'm a Catholic, and I would love for the bloody history of Catholicism to just disappear... I'm sure Mormons feel the same about any unsavory moments in their past. Thankfully, however, that was then and this is now. What I dislike most about Political Correctness is that it can tend to become revisionist history.
Wiki's page on the Danites:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danite
When (re)reading Margaret Mitchell's Gone with the Wind for a GR group some time ago, I noticed that the lessons of the story and the strength of the novel was lost to those who could not get past the fact that it contained the word "nigger" in its content, and in context, which is exactly what an historical representation of the American South during the time of the Civil War would do if it was truly representative.
MadgeUK wrote: "I think much of the antipathy towards the Mormons then and now was about polygamy, which is still unacceptable to the majority of people East and West. Also, their polygamous lifestyle then was lik..."I think one husband is more than enough...
Lynnm wrote: "Amanda wrote: "I think Doyle was just reflecting widespread feelings at the time. It is similar to the anti-semitism directed at Fagin throughout Oliver Twist.It is reprehensible by modern standard..."Or readers a hundred years from now might say we were too tolerant, too vulgar, too obscene, ungodly, etc.
As to why Doyle chose German, I don't know...Doyle fought in the 1880 Boer war. During that war there was great support for the Boer struggle within Germany and the Kaiser sent a telex to the Boers voicing his support for their war efforts, which generated a lot of anti-German feeling in Britain. A German Freikorps of Volunteers was also formed to fight on the Boer side. Certain sections of Boer society were involved in right wing organizations that were loosely copied from the Freikorps and the Nazi storm troops that followed. (At the outbreak of the Second World War there was again a South African movement that was eager to support the Germans in exchange for independence from Britain.)
MadgeUK wrote: "As to why Doyle chose German, I don't know...Doyle fought in the 1880 Boer war. During that war there was great support for the Boer struggle within Germany and the Kaiser sent a telex to the Boe..."
I remember now Madge that you posted about Doyle and his feeling about the Germans due to the Boer war, but I didn't completely understand the connection because I didn't think that the Boer war had anything to do with the Germans. But this makes it clear - did not know that the Germans were involved as well.
Kate wrote: "I've only just started the second half of Study in Scarlet, but I found the first chapter interesting, just in reading Doyle's description of the American West. Much like reading Dickens' descripti..."I liked that as well, Kate. And we do take them for granted, and don't care enough for the land in our hunt for natural resources for business and development.
Sadly, while I've been west of the Mississippi, it is always to California. I am a big supporter of the environment, and love to read John Muir's essays (the founder of the Sierra Club and the one who helped save Yosemite as a national park) along with Edward Abbey, a more recent advocate through his novels and non-fiction of saving what is left of the unsettled part of the west. Both have beautiful descriptions of the western lands. Someday I'd like to do an extensive tour of the western states.
Beautiful in one way; frightening in another. And I'm glad that Doyle depicts the harshness of the land as well. We tend to glamorize the west, but it was mostly harsh survival for the settlers.
Janice George wrote: "What I dislike most about Political Correctness is that it can tend to become revisionist history."True.
I get so upset with people who want to change texts. I think it was about a year ago (maybe a bit longer) that a political correct version of Huckleberry Finn came out. I was horrified.
It is what it is, and use the novels as a talking point to discuss what people feel are problematic in the texts.
I agree with you about the term political correctness Bunwat, which is often misused. It is a a term which many right wing people use to discredit liberal policies designed to help people. It could be described as kindness or sensitivity towards to others. Revisionist history is sometimes misguided but it can also be used to help people, particularly ethnic minorities. History written from a white man's perspective, for instance, often needs to be revised to restore the pride and confidence of oppressed people. Stories about Florence Nightingale's work during the Crimean War, for instance, need to be balanced by highlighting the equally good work of the negress Mary Seacole, who did not appear in our history books until 'political correctness' told her story.http://www.maryseacole.com/maryseacol...
The problem with history is that it has generally written by the victors. It is only in comparatively recent times that we have had the good sense and opportunity to disseminate alternative views.
Doyle wasn't the only 19th century author to take on the Mormons. Mark Twain wrote a chapter about Mormonism in his book "Roughing It." It is not flattering to say the least, although to be fair Twain was hostile to pretty much all organized religion.
The link below is an excerpt of the chapter about the Book of Mormon. It is very funny, but I also winced several times. Twain's humor cuts quite close to the bone (which is a good thing in my opinion). http://www.salamandersociety.com/mark...
I also found an article from an Utah newspaper that is about the image problems for Mormons created by Doyle and Twain.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/86...
Mod
True.
I get so upset with people who want to change texts...."
Besides that, who are we to change somebody else's work. It would be like going into a museum and changing the color of a famous painting.
Mod
Mark Twain wrote a chapter about Mormonism in his book "Roughing It." It is not flattering to say the least, although to be fair ..."
On a more modern note, Martha Beck also took on the Mormons in one of her books. She was Mormon and decided to leave the faith. According to her book, she received death threats because of that decision.
Deborah wrote: "Amanda wrote: "Doyle wasn't the only 19th century author to take on the Mormons. Mark Twain wrote a chapter about Mormonism in his book "Roughing It." It is not flattering to say the least, altho..."
The well-known historian Fawn Brodie was excommunicated from the Mormon Church in 1946 for her biography of Joseph Smith, "No Man Knows My History."
It revealed some unflattering details about Smith's personal life and about the origins of the book of Mormon.
"No Man" is hard to find today, but it is an excellent and perceptive biography of Joseph Smith.
When I searched Brodie's name on Google, I found several sites that are still trying to refute her scholarship.
I think that would be the same for many of us Bunwat. Thanks to greater communication we now know more about such sects than Doyle would have done and their position on women and homosexuality alone would certainly make me distrust anyone who embraced these tenets as an adult.
There are issues with almost every religion, particularly regarding homosexuality and women. And there have been many books that explore those issues, both fiction and non-fiction. And just because someone criticizes a religion doesn't mean that they are discriminating against or spewing hatred against that religion.
Think of all the classics that criticized Catholicism: Chaucer, Voltaire, etc. Of course, they aren't criticizing the Christian religion per se, but the way the people within the religion who use that religion for their own gain or that persecuted others that didn't agree with them.
As for pologamy, yes, I agree that was the most problematic area regarding Mormons.
Not changing the topic but in skimming the chapters in Parts I and II again, the parts that amused me most were the newspaper accounts.They all got the case wrong.
Is Doyle commenting on the journalism of his time? Or it just another device to show how smart Sherlock is compared to everyone else?
And is he being unfair? I think of journalism today, and some of the criticism is fair - the extreme bias, the lack of going out and finding the stories instead of just repeating or pontificating. But then, there are other journalists who put themselves on the line or really investigate their stories.
Sensationalist journalism started in CD's time so maybe it is a criticism.http://www.victorianweb.org/books/sui...
Emily wrote: "I think one husband is more than enough..."Ha! My thoughts exactly :)
BunWat wrote: "I agree that revisionist history is a truly terrible idea. I have kind of an issue with the term political correctness though, because I feel like it has its origin in attempts to discredit genuin..."Yes, I agree with you. I capitalized the term Political Correctness to indicate the unofficial but nearly religious sect that has emerged from the true soil of compassion and cause. I am a child of the sixties, and I have seen this kind of distortion, and its consequent dismissiveness, on many levels and in many ways. It's just one more piece of evidence that the tendency to label can suck the truth out of anything.
"How does young Jefferson Hope connect to the myth of the 19th century male battling the harsh elements in the American west?"and
"Jefferson Hope has an aneurism before he can be brought to trial? Why do you think that Doyle structured the story in this way?"
are companion questions. The entire story is a Romance of the West(ern) U.S.
I'm not sure how the "19th century male battling the harsh elements" is a myth, however. There is a new series (since we're combining media here) on AMC called "Hell on Wheels" which seems to have a good grasp on the hardships of post Civil War (U.S.) expansion.
The location of the "West" kept pushing closer to the Pacific, and the "myth" as it is known today is focused in the actual "Midwest." Maybe it is mythologized because the "West" started in the 17th century in the East?
CD wouldn't have noticed that aspect, though, so I should be satisfied with Roman de la High Noon. ;^)
"Manifest Destiny was not only connected to economic and national interests, but was also considered to be a divine Christian mission. What does that mean for the “Other”? How does that connect to the text?"Discussing early American history or literature is not possible without discussing Christianity. All of the literature and some of the motivations of American leaders (or at least the lip service of the early American leaders) were based on Christianity. But you also have to study the shape of Christianity *at that particular time*--as a living religion (just like a living language), it changes.
Many of the ideas about religion in the early U.S. among the *educated* population on the East Coast originated in Britain (since our government was written by English colonials). Not so among the uneducated or in settlements that consisted primarily of populations from other countries.
Manifest Destiny was originated by educated leaders from the North Eastern U.S. Anyone who was not from that ilk was an "Other." As I think MadgeUK wrote earlier, the victors write the history, and the early American history that many of us older folks studied in school was written by educated people from the North Eastern U.S.
Now, so much is being written from the point of view of the "Other." I'm sure this is true in England as well.
BunWat wrote: "It's certainly not a myth that 19th century males battled harsh eleme..."Gotcha! That makes sense.
Jessie wrote: ""How does young Jefferson Hope connect to the myth of the 19th century male battling the harsh elements in the American west?"and
"Jefferson Hope has an aneurism before he can be brought to tria..."
I think Doyle is largely uncredited for his contributions to western fiction.
Sensational Western stories, mostly American Indian attacks, were sold as "penny dreadfuls" throughout the 19th century, but he first full-fledged Western novel, "The Virginian" by Owen Wister, wasn't published until 1902.
Western fiction became hugely popular in the 20th century with authors like Zane Grey and Louis L'Amour. Of course when the movies came along the rugged, stoic cowboy became an icon.
Wister always gets the credit for creating the Western hero, but Doyle was there first. Scarlet was written in 1886 and Jefferson Hope provides a prototype for all those Western heroes. Anyone who has seen a John Wayne or Clint Eastwood movie knows that the lone man on a quest for vengeance is a familiar theme. The only real difference is Hope uses a poison pill, while the cowboys use their guns.
The only real difference is Hope uses a poison pill, while the cowboys use their guns.Significantly, he uses the pill in England, which does not have a Wild West or a gun culture:)
Something which struck me when reading the first chapter of Part 2 is the unflattering descriptions CD gives to the American West scenery, which we are accustomed to seeing more romantically when portrayed by Hollywood. This struck me as something written by an islander first confronting the big open spaces of America. There is no sense of the freedom and sense of adventure which comes through in American literature of the time. Nor does CD present a spiritual Walden, which was written by Thoreau in 1854. The pleasure of getting 'away from it all' does not seem to be a concept which CD embraces.
Thankyou Bunwat - very interesting. I think it is our brains, not our eyes, which see things in a different way. Our brains interpret what we see by triggering off emotions. It is the 'beauty is in the eye [brain] of the beholder' syndrome.
BunWat wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: "Something which struck me when reading the first chapter of Part 2 is the unflattering descriptions CD gives to the American West scenery, which we are accustomed to seeing more rom..."Excellent post. We talk about things like thiswhen we speak of bias. Bias is always inherent in everything we do because we think and feel based on our experiences and the culture that we are most familiar with. It colors all of our perceptions, whether we are aware of it or not. And it doesn't even have to be a big distance, such as east vs. west. I am who I am and think the way I think because of the family I come from, the town, state or country where I am from, what religion I am born into, etc. Which is why it is so difficult for people to overcome conflicts due to cultural differences. It is very hard to see things via a different lens.
Mod
Mod
One of the things which depresses me about dry regions is the lack of green most of the year. The most beautiful thing about the UK is its green lushness, especially in the Spring when there are so many variations of green.
Here you are Deborah - it had gone of the board, you are not losing your mind!:http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/9...
BunWat wrote: "When I first moved from the west to the east, I kept cleaning my glasses because I felt like I couldn't see, like my glasses were fogged up. But it wasn't my glasses, it was the air filled with water droplets that make anything more than a few miles off appear hazy."When I travel from the East to the West, I feel like all the moisture is being forcibly drawn from my body!
But I find your comments interesting. I tend to think of American history these days from my own point of view (Southern U.S.) and have recently read accounts of early French settlers in Mobile, who encountered an environment that was more florid and robust than their own.
I'd love to look at some of the paintings you are talking about--do you know where we might find images online? Or names of painters?
Deborah wrote: "I think I'm losing my mind. I tried to look at our Holmes reading schedule and can no longer find it. Help! What are we reading this week?"As we move forward,ifyou want to see all the threads, from the main page, next to the top heading for the SH read, you will see, showing 5 out of X topics. Click on that, and you will see all the threads.
BunWat wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: "Something which struck me when reading the first chapter of Part 2 is the unflattering descriptions CD gives to the American West scenery, which we are accustomed to seeing more rom..."Doyle and the other Europeans didn't share the idea that America -- and especially the American West -- was a type of Biblical promised land. I believe that's the reason they were more realistic about the landscape.
Manifest Destiny taught 19th century Americans that it was God's will that they spread out over the continent. Such was the religious fervor that many of these settlers may have seen what they wanted to see rather than what was really right before my eyes.
Of course, many, like the dedicated Mormons who pushed handcarts all the way to Utah, got a harsh dose of reality along the way.
I think many Americans still view the West through a romantic haze because of the cowboy myth created by Western films. The John Ford film, "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" deals with this subject.
Manifest Destiny taught 19th century Americans that it was God's will that they spread out over the continent....I think many Americans still view the West through a romantic haze because of the cowboy myth... And there are still quite a few that harbour these ideas, especially on the religious right of American politics. Both Abraham Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson promoted the idea that it was America's destiny to promote democracy throughout the world, not just North America.
http://schools-wikipedia.org/wp/m/Man...
Naturally, Europeans were hostile to this idea and we can perhaps discern some hostility by CD towards America and Americans because of it, although the British clearly thought they had a 'manifest destiny' of their own since they had colonised 25% of the globe!
- Our discussion becomes complicated by Doyle’s treatment of Mormonism in the text. Saying that it is politically incorrect is obviously an understatement. So, what do we do when faced with these types of issues in the canon and other classics? Most people in the academic world agree with the argument that we can’t look at older texts with 21st century eyes. And we certainly don’t want to ban or change certain novels and other literary works. Instead, it does give us an opportunity to discuss the following: the idea of the “Other;” the randomness of persecution; power and control of the majority; combating intolerance; etc. (Note that in other Doyle texts, we will come up with these same types of challenging texts that will allow us to talk about imperialism.)
- Manifest Destiny was not only connected to economic and national interests, but was also considered to be a divine Christian mission. What does that mean for the “Other”? How does that connect to the text?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ame...
- The difficulties that American pioneers faced when moving westward, and the opportunities to those who were able to overcome the difficulties of settling the west.
- How does young Jefferson Hope connect to the myth of the 19th century male battling the harsh elements in the American west?
- How would you characterize Lucy Ferrier? Is she also part of the mythic west? Or is she a keeper and/or martyr for the Christian faith?
- Jefferson Hope is depicted as an “avenging angel,” looking for vengeance for both John and Lucy Ferrier’s deaths. Indeed, Jefferson Hope says that he was “determined that [he] should be judge, jury, and executioner all rolled into one.” And of course, he scratches RACHE in the wall at Drebber’s murder, German for revenge. What is the difference between justice and revenge?
- What does the marriage ring symbolize?
- Jefferson Hope has an aneurism before he can be brought to trial? Why do you think that Doyle structured the story in this way?
- In both Part I and Part II, Doyle has a bit of fun at the expense of the various London newspapers, none of which get the facts and stories correct in the accounts of the murders, the murderer, and the police’s involvement in the case. Thoughts? Comments?