- MISS: The Most Insignificant Problem
Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 20:29:50 -0500
From: Don Dillistone
Subject: MISS: The Most Insignificant Problem
Our Courageous Orderly was a little disappointed with MISS: He wrote:
"=3D=3D Not Very Exciting =3D=3D This is another of the Canon's crimeless cases,
and
one of the least interesting ones. Decidedly, the Great Detective is not
at his
best, and one wonders why, with so many others seemingly more important
that
have remained unwritten, Watson would have bothered to chronicle this one."
I think one should recognize just what was on Doyle's mind when he wrote
MISS. It isn't quite unique (SPEC leaps to mind), but it appears pretty
clear that Doyle, perhaps out of boredom (remember, he had earlier tried
to end his Sherlock Holmes series), went out of his way to write a story
in which every move made by Holmes was immediately recorded - Holmes had
no surprises for us in *this* story. We can follow each and every step
as Holmes gradually solves the mystery as to whatever could have
happened to Godfrey Staunton. About the only thing that we do not read
about simultaneously as it happens was Holmes's sortie to follow Dr.
Armstrong. And that was only a brief interlude, and the only one in
which Doyle's readers did not witness in real time what was going on -
importantly what was going on with Holmes personally and more
importantly, what was going on his mind. So as it turned out, Holmes was
surprised at the outcome at exactly the same time as Watson was, and
thus his readers were. And that was what Doyle was aiming for. There was
no sudden revelation such as, for example, the completely unexpected
exchange between Holmes and Josiah Amberley in RETI:
"Mr. Amberley sat down heavily. He sensed impending danger. I read it in
his straining eyes and his twitching features.
"'What is the question, Mr. Holmes?'
"'Only this: What did you do with the bodies?'"
Instead, in MISS, here is how we got the denouement:
"Holmes pushed open a half-closed door. A woman, young and beautiful,
was lying on the bed
"'Are you Mr. Godfrey Staunton?'
"'Yes, yes, I am =96 but you are too late. She is dead.'"
That was the solution. And we knew it as soon as Holmes and Dr. Watson
knew it.. And that was obviously exactly what Doyle intended. From the
telegram evidence on, the only time we were not completely privy to the
unravelling of the case was when Holmes tried to follow Dr. Armstrong
and was unsuccessful =96 something he hastened back to town to tell
Watson. And it would have been a pretty dull story had Holmes invited
Watson to ride with him and the pair had simply followed Dr. Armstrong
into the cottage. Instead of having the pair cleverly tracking Dr.
Armstrong, Doyle replayed the sniffing dog trick from SIGN. And so we
got a story without anything being hidden from us. But that is why
Watson "chronicled" the story. Doyle wanted him to. In other words, the
entire plot was a deliberate literary device on Doyle's part. In fact, I
would suggest that it was more of an adventure story than a mystery story
Of course, Holmes could have successfully followed Dr. Armstrong, and
then come back to tell Watson: "You'll never guess where I found Godfrey
Staunton and why he so suddenly vanished" and then told Watson all the
details so Watson could tell us. Doyle could have done this, but he was
too talented a writer to do it that way. Better Watson could be with
Holmes and the pair discover together the distraught husband.
I think the story, and the experiment, were both worthwhile, but it is
easier to appreciate if one understands Doyle's motive in writing it.
And Doyle warned us: "Even the most insignificant problem would be
welcome in these stagnant days."
The Hon. Ronald Adair - I locked the door lest the ladies should
surprise me.
AKA Don Dillistone M.Bt.
Winnipeg
Return to Topics of the day
Return to Hounds of the Internet
Return to The Sherlockian Connection