Considering Dakin On The Three Gables:A Response To Mr. D. Martin Dakin's Rejection Of "The Adventure of the Three Gables" From The Canon; His "Falsest Note Of All" Answered by Lloyd R. Hedberg
A quiz on "The Three Gables" was looming at the next meeting of my local Sherlock Holmes club. It seemed a review of the story was in order. With customary pleasure, I picked up Mr. D. Martin Dakin's excellent A Sherlock Holmes Commentary to check his viewpoint, and quickly concluded he's not very fond of the Adventure. He provides a list of 'reasons' why we 'must reject' this adventure as 'spurious'...not canonical, not from Doyle's hand (ref. 1: pp. 252 & 265).
Continuing with my review, I noted the luminary Mr. William S. Baring-Gould in his respected work The Annotated Sherlock Holmes includes Mr. Dakin's perspective, reprinting his comments in the column (ref. 2 vol. II pg. 734). Baring-Gould does not append any comment or personal opinion either supporting or disagreeing with Mr. Dakin. He simply reprints him. As is well known, such silence has an unfortunate tendency to lend validation to the thing presented; especially for the common reader or the novitiate.
Further, Mr. W. W. Robson in his Introduction to the Case-Book in The Oxford Sherlock Holmes goes even farther, saying "it is hard to believe that any careful reader... would be prepared to testify that they all came from the pen of Conan Doyle," providing little more than repackaged Dakin (with an added smattering of unfounded and rhetorical speculation) to support his contention (ref. 3 - Intro pg. xviii &c).
The result of this is that we have what may well be the three most commonly found writers' works, either by declaration or by abstention, nodding assent that this is a spurious story. Two of these are likely to be among the first that a young Sherlockian may enter into a blossoming study library. (Dakin himself is becoming a little hard to locate.)
As it is a mistake to draw conclusions in advance of the facts, I set aside my review for the quiz, and started some cursory research on Mr. Dakin's points. I was interested in finding any authors or essayists who had spoken about them specifically, in either confirmation or rebuttal.
Sadly, I have found none. Some, while failing to address Dakin's views at all, seem to loosely support the story's canonicity. Among them are those who feel the story itself is a bit stronger than Dakin (and others) allow. Others agree with Dakin and reject Doyle's authorship, but seem content to do so without offering new support for Dakin's hypothesis, simply repackaging or replaying his writing, if they bother to venture beyond mere acquiescence at all.
This leaves me wondering if we are simply expected to "choose sides" on the issue, accepting arguments (or lack of them) at face value.
Whether for good or ill, I can't do that. (I'd like to think it's for good.)
In my cursory review, I have come to believe Mr. Dakin's conclusion is not built on sound reasoning, and is without strong foundation. I would like to "balance the scales" as it were, offering a few reasons to reconsider, and to be suspicious of a case so simply drawn as he makes. Woe to those who will not work!
Being a relatively new Sherlockian myself, I'm more than open to viable proofs to the contrary that anyone would care to present me.
I had originally intended to address all of Mr. Dakin's points in this article. Each has a valid rejoinder, and should be held in suspicion. However I'm facing a publication deadline. Time prohibits.
For now then...for this Beaten's Annual publication...I offer my response to Dakin's "falsest note of all"...that point which he feels is the most obvious and conclusive requiring the rejection of the Adventure.
This is an attempt to encourage the reader to probe more deeply. On this point itself, and on Dakin's others as well. Perhaps you, too, will say "I thought I had squeezed all the juice out of it, but I see there was still a little left over" (Inspector Baynes, "The Adventure Of Wisteria Lodge").
I intend to continue on and complete this essay, offering it to whatever publications, journals, websites, or other venues I may find that will make a home for it. It will then be followed with a look at those other stories Mr. Dakin also feels we must reject.
We must never assume we have discovered all of a thing.
The fun is in the hunt.
DAKIN's CONTENTIONS:
Thus must this excursion begin... at Mr. Dakin's arguments against the Adventure.
Looking closely at Mr. Baring-Gould's columnar restatement of Dakin was instructive. He penned it in 1967, when he had as his references The Problem Of The Case-Book and Second Thoughts On The Case-Book published by Dakin in The Sherlock Holmes Journal, June 1953 and Summer 1956 respectively, sources which I do not have. My source is Mr. Dakin's fine A Sherlock Holmes Commentary of 1972, after his further years of study, a resource Mr. Baring-Gould did not have. The question was whether significant differences between the two would leave me uneasy that I might be missing large facets of Dakin's arguments since I lacked Baring-Gould's sources.
Result? No discernable difference. While there may be more background available, his points remain the same.
What then are Dakin's reasons that in his mind require us to reject this story? They are these, in essentially the same order he offered...organized as seems best for clarity:
DISCLOSURE OF PASSAGES CITED SUPPORTING POINT 6:
The main problem for Dakin, and all others who form a dislike for the Story regardless of their conclusion about it's canonicity, are those passages they deem to represent a racial orientation uncharacteristic of Holmes. Dakin classifies them "racist, " "cheap jeers," while others add terms like "vulgar" and "taunting."
The problem presents features of interest. (CROO)
The offending passages cited are:
Nonetheless, using these questions as our spring-board, let's leave our comfortable Diogenes Club for a time if need be, and walk down the paths these passages...these questions...take us.
1. ARE THE STATEMENTS IN FACT RACIST?
FIRST PASSAGE:
To address application of the term "savage" to Steve Dixie, we must first step back to prior passages Watson wrote in the story, and then consult our dictionary.
When Steve Dixie first bursts into the room, we are told "He would have been a comic figure if he had not been terrific..." followed by a description of his clothing and general appearance.
Just what does "terrific" mean? Obviously, it makes no sense in today's common usage as 'wonderful, awesome,' etc.
So let's look at it's meaning in prior days. 1913: "Causing terror, adapted to excite great fear or dread - terrible" (ref. 11). We find in fact, in the 1954 Websters Combined Encyclopedic Dictionary, "terrific" is not even found as it's own separate word, but is listed under "terrify" as one of that word's forms. Our current dictionaries still list forms and meanings of "terrify" as the first definitions for terrific as well, only citing our current meanings afterward.
I conclude from this that Watson's meaning in saying Mr. Dixie was "terrific" was that he was purposely projecting an appearance intended to instill fear, terror and dread.
Now we must look at "savage." We find "wild, untamed, uncultivated, uncivilized, untaught, unpolished" as we expect. And then we find: "Characterized by cruelty, barbarous, fierce" (ref. 11).
If we combine the meaning of "terrific" with "savage," a perfect harmony in the text suddenly occurs. To call a person "savage" (characterized by cruelty, and fierce) who is purposely "terrific" in appearance (causing terror, adapted to excite great fear or dread), is simple linguistic logic. I decide therefore, that there is nothing in Doyle's use of the term savage that is racist in origin, or in application.
Can we assume that Mr. Doyle was aware of these meanings? Of course. They were common usage at the time. And even if that is not sufficient, we must keep in mind the tremendous efforts Mr. Doyle consistently applied in research and study to bring reality to all that he did. He read constantly all his life. He was a master of the language. An example of his devotion (and involvement with historical uses of language) is seen in his own words: "For three years I lived among Napoleonic literature, with some hope that by soaking and resoaking myself in it I might at last write some worthy book..." (ref. 12 pg. 91).
SECOND PASSAGE:
Now let's sniff out the term "smell of you," by starting once again at our faithful Dictionary. Let's see..."smell" (ref. 11).
It's true the first definition given, even in 1913, relates to the olfactory functions. Let's look, however, at the 2nd, and especially the 3rd uses of the term.
"To detect or perceive, as if by sense of smell; to scent out" and;
"To give heed to; to smell a rat, to have a sense of something wrong, not clearly evident; to have reason for suspicion." Hhmmmm. Now this is a curious incident.
I need not reiterate Conan Doyle's mastery of the language or constant research into things for accuracy and reality's sake. He was well aware of these definitions. There are plenty of further references to his disciplines to be found, should you wish to follow the scent. (My full essay in the future will contain more.)
The questions then become, "how is this reference applied in the situation of this text," and "is it necessarily a racist application, or are there other interpretations?"
A little background is again necessary to put it in proper context.
Mr. Doyle, we must remember, held that the old bare-knuckle fighting of the prize ring was "an excellent thing from a national point of view." He loved what he called "the chivalry of the sport," and noted that the standards of British boxing had been corrupted during the nineteenth century by "the villainous mobs" who were concerned only with the making of money by betting (ref. 7 pg. 92). He even developed a play based on this theme in 1910, which was so realistic in its depiction as to offend audiences (ref. 10 pg. 57-8).
In like fashion, then, we know Doyle developed Sherlock Holmes as trained in the art, an expert (see in FIVE, STUD).
In our passage in The Adventure of the Three Gables, Steve Dixie is referred to initially as "the bruiser." I'm sure the reader is aware a bruiser is a boxer. (The dictionary will assist.) At the second encounter with him, Watson writes "there was the negro prize-fighter standing in the shadow." Steve Dixie, then, was of that very profession Doyle held with high regard.
Noteworthy is that Steve Dixie had turned his talents from the honorable profession of the prize fight, and was devoting them to bullying, extortion, and "dirty work." In fact, Holmes is quite certain that he was involved in a recent murder.
Now to the issue. Is the "smell" Holmes refers to a remark directed at Dixie's race? Or is it pointed at his perversion of his profession.
"What?" you ask? What do smell and profession have in common?
I submit to the reader that a common theme in history has been that of "fouling your profession" or "bringing an odor to your profession." In time the terminology becoming "I smell a rat" as noted in the dictionary, and as Doyle himself uses on the lips of Lestrade, in STUD. And of course, let's not forget "this job stinks," a recently common turn of the phrase.
Three hundred years before Doyle, Shakespeare blessed us frequently with the theme of smell connected with people or situations.
Examples:
Hamlet, Act I scene IV: Horatio says "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark"
in his interchange with Marcellus.
2 King Henry IV Act I scene II: Falstaff says "to wake a wolf is as bad as to smell a
fox" in his interchange with the Lord Chief Justice.
As You Like It, Act I Scene II: Touchstone says "Nay, if I keep not my rank..." to which Rosalind responds: "Thou loosest thy old smell."
Let this be sufficient proof of association of smell and profession for this paper. Any reader needing more is invited to the hunt. There will be plenty to find.
And there is, of course, a much simpler but perfectly appropriate meaning to the application of the term in The Three Gables. Based solely on the way Mr. Dixie had burst in the room, given that it was evident he was there for no good, Holmes could easily "smell" that he was there to cause trouble...again, meaning 3 of the definition of "smell" cited above.
I contend, then, that there is NO basis for determining that Sherlock's comment is racist in nature. In fact, if we look at the phrase, what Holmes is clearly showing is that he knows that Dixie has burst in with no good intentions, he knows Mr. Dixie well, knows what he does, and (by calling him a bruiser rather than a prize fighter) is indicating that he also knows Dixie has swayed from the honor of the sport. The "smell" is clearly a reference to Steve Dixie's manner, and tainting of his profession, not to his race.
THIRD PASSAGE:
"Masser" will be addressed using somewhat less space.
This term was, in the time Doyle was writing, the standard dialect used for the Negro on the music-hall stage, and in stories about slavery in the American South (ref. 3 pg. 263-4).
The questions then are simply whether Mr. Doyle was familiar with the stage, and with American writing, questions that some may (rightly) deem hardly worth asking!
Conan Doyle's interest in the theatre began early in his life in Edinburgh, but he was dramatically impacted by it in London in 1874 at the age of 15, at Henry Irving's Hamlet in the Lyceum. He continued his interest in theatre, even writing many of his own plays, throughout his life. His production of realistic pugilism in 1910, The House of Temperley, brought his typical realism to the stage so strongly that it was not well received by audiences. It's tone, by the way, depicted the theme of "blood and guts for a ticket price, where gentlemanly retorts previously had trodden" (ref. 10 pg. 53-4, 58-9).
Worthwhile at this point, too, is the reminder that Doyle had just recently completed his American tours (1922 and 1923,) before the writing of this story in 1925 (see any of the biographical refs.).
And lastly, Conan Doyle read voraciously, from his early days throughout his life, as can be concluded from even a cursory review of the materials available about his life and works (ref. 6 pg. 11-13 for one).
Let it be said then, that Doyle was well aware of the common use of the term "Masser," and that it does not indicate a racial bias, but common usage at the time in the common circles in which he lived.
FOURTH PASSAGE:
I am simply confounded by those who see a racial bias in "It certainly is the last thing you need".
The background is that Steve Dixie has burst in, been his menacing self, Holmes has just finished identifying him by his "aren't you Steve Dixie, the bruiser?" to which Mr. Dixie has responded "That's my name, Masser Holmes, and you'll get put through it for sure if you give me any lip."
"It certainly is the last thing you need," said Holmes...
Now let's see, what does Watson write immediately following? Oh, yes... he writes "...staring at our visitors black skin." Well, no he doesn't say that really. Oh, there it is... he says "...staring at our visitor's dark complexion." Umnhh, no...not that either. Oh, here it is. He says "...taking note of our visitor's obvious African heritage." Well, nope. Guess that's not it either!
So what does he really say? Oh... I see. He says "...staring at our visitors hideous mouth."
We note that he's staring at the fellow's mouth. Not surprising, since Dixie has just mentioned "giving him lip." We further note it's a hideous mouth.
Now... it's common knowledge that all people of African heritage have hideous mouths, so obviously this is racially oriented. Well... no, I guess that's not exactly true either. They tend to have rather beautiful mouths, actually.
So to what does "hideous mouth" refer? Well, let's see. Mr. Dixie is a boxer. Could there be a hint in that somewhere? Do Boxers ever get beaten in the mouth? Hum. Perhaps there's some worthy consideration in this.
I frankly find much more reason to suspect, given that Holmes was staring at his "hideous mouth", that Steve Dixie had met with an opponent or fifty, who had found that location a very viable target for their skills. And they'd done a fairly good job of messing it up. Remember...in these days we are talking bare-knuckle boxing, not today's padded and more protective sport. And even now, look close...many of today's boxers have certain facial characteristics that look pretty hideous too, if you ask me!
There was no reason for Holmes to be staring at the mouth, if his intent was a racial slur. He could have as well been staring at a hansom cab out the window!
I apologize if I seem to be a bit flippant on this point. But in truth my response to those finding a racial slur in this, is "oh please, people...come on!!"
Moving along then...
FIFTH PASSAGE:
There is no need to spend any time on "No, for my scent-bottle Steve," as it's simply an extension of the 'smell of you' issue in the "Second Passage" above. Holmes is just reminding Dixie yet again that he's not pleased with what Dixie does for a living with his skills...his profession.
SIXTH PASSAGE:
Here, I must agree with Dakin and others. "...with the big nigger in it" unquestionably uses both a derogatory and racist term, and seems to present a problem on the surface. There has never been a time in history when this has been an "accepted, common term." Common at one time, yes...accepted (or acceptable) no.
I offer the following:
First, take note that it is not Holmes who says this, but the "bustling, rubicund inspector" who was at the Maberley house, who employed the term.
Second, we know Doyle never presents Holmes or Watson as having racist tendencies. (See Adventure YELL for perspective.)
Third, we know Doyle himself was an advocate of setting aside racial differences for the greater good, and in fact opposed those who did not. See his letters directed at English government of 18 and 22 July 1912 (ref:14, pg. 171-2).
We also know that racial prejudice was very much a part of his times, and a cause of concern for many. If it were not so, there would have been no basis at all for Doyle to write The Adventure of the Yellow Face (YELL). Remember too, many of his stories were written either to highlight, or based upon, some issue or problem of the times.
And it is not hard to conjure up validation that a classic place to find such racial prejudice as is being evidenced by this term, in word and in deed, would be in the local police force. We still have problems with such stereotyping today.
Lastly there is no doubt that Doyle continually tried to bring realism into every aspect of his work (ref. 13 pg. 269). In the words of one biographer, "Conan Doyle had a fine sensibility about what was popular coupled with the historian's un-commercial tendency toward scholarly accuracy" (ref. 10 pg. 60).
So while I may agree that this term is a racial slur in nature, I am not yet ready to conclude that the result must be a denial of The Three Gables as coming from Doyle's hand. In fact, it seems entirely consistent with his normal course of life and style of writing, presenting things as realistic...as they actually were during the times in view.
I therefore must look ahead...to the following questions...to see if any other reasons suggest themselves and cause me to reject the story.
2. IF SO, (i.e. if the statements are in fact racist) IS IT POSSIBLE DOYLE HIMSELF WAS A
RACIST?
It should be evident to the reader that I do not hold it to be so from what has already been shared. And there is much more to be presented, outside the scope and time deadline of this essay. This question, then, really does not need an answer. It is hard to affix a "racist" label to someone who is simply using words according to their correct definitions and in appropriate context.
But though it's not necessary to respond to the question, I do offer the following, and refer the reader back to Ref. 14, pages 171-2 where Mr. Doyle writes to his beloved British government imploring them to set aside their prejudices and set up a British Empire representation at the Olympic games, inclusive of the races also in their colonies, rather than limiting themselves to strictly people "at home" as it were. He even mildly chastises them for not being as prepared to move ahead in this area as the Americans were, who had already included "Red Indians and Negroes" in their representation at the games.
We can also include here his views on the Ku Klux Klan, expressed by Sherlock Holmes in The Adventure of the Five Orange Pips (FIVE) where he calls it a "terrible organization... principally for the terrorizing of the negro voters..." &c.
In addition, his Spiritualist views, or "the psychic matter" which he considered to be the most serious matter of his life (ref. 10 pg. 97), suggested he held things to be equal for all men (ref. 8 pg 398).
3. ARE THE STATEMENTS CHEAP, VULGAR, OR TAUNTING?
No, they are not, with the exception of the last being vulgar. As has been shown, I conclude the statements are used according to their definitions, and in appropriate context. The last, though vulgar, is also still an accurate use of the term in context, a depiction of the reality of the times.
4. IF SO, ARE THERE OTHER EXAMPLES OF CHEAP, VULGAR OR TAUNTING
EXCHANGES THAT ARE AGREED TO BE FROM DOYLE'S HAND, OR DOES THIS
AUTOMATICALLY EXCLUDE THE STORY FROM BEING AUTHENTIC?
Again since but for the one, "it is not so" that these are cheap, vulgar, or taunting, and even the one is critically and contextually accurate, this question too needs no response. We will, however, probe it just for a moment.
The phrases used in Three Gables may not be so, but there are in fact some in the canon that are.
I cite for your consideration the interchange between Sherlock Holmes and Lord Robert St. Simon in "The Noble Batchelor," an example of a rather sharp barbing by the Master...and this to nobility:
Lord Robert: "I understand that you have already managed several delicate cases of this sort, sir, though I presume they were hardly from the same class of society."
Holmes: "No, I am descending."
Lord Robert: "I beg pardon?"
Holmes: "My last client of the sort was a king."
Ouch!! Yet no one questions the authenticity of NOBL as being from Doyle's hand.
But then we are conditioned from our youth, to snicker at the rudeness perpetrated on our own type or race, yet to be sure we rise up in self-gratifying indignation at perceived or even manufactured offences toward others.
Though this is the only example I provide at this time, feel free to research further. There are plenty more to be found. The fun is in the hunt.
And although there are no other examples of the use of the term "nigger" in the Canon, this does not exclude the story from being by Doyle. In fact for me it confirms it, as Doyle never drew back from depicting things and people as they really were. In fact he strove for it.
More importantly, the question before us now really becomes "Do we have other examples of Doyle using words correctly, in their appropriate context, accurately depicting the people, the times and events?"
May I respectfully submit the entire Sherlock Holmes canon, as well as all Doyle's other works, in support of a "yes" response to this question?
5. AND AGAIN IF SO, ARE THERE ANY FACTORS WHICH WOULD HAVE EITHER
ALLOWED OR CAUSED HIM TO PORTRAY SHERLOCK HOLMES SO UNCHARACTERISTICALLY?
This question also does not apply, since "it is not so." Holmes is simply not out of character, with these remarks. (Besides...Holmes doesn't make them all.)
However, I will offer a few comments on a slightly different question:
"Are there factors which would have allowed him to present Sherlock Holmes, or this Adventure, slightly less skillfully than he had in the past?"
I believe this question to be pertinent because, in my view, earlier A. Conan Doyle would not have overlooked the potential for some confusion and possible danger in his uses of the language in this way.
I offer these considerations:
1) - He had hoped to be done with Sherlock Holmes twice already, and had been dragged back to him. "I've written a good deal more than I've ever intended to do, but my hand has been rather forced by kind friends who continually wanted to know more" (ref. 10 pg. 95-7). We know that both FINA and LAST were previously intended to be the end of Holmes' career.
2) - He was quite ill during these times, weakened by his exertions in his Spiritualist cause. He'd had two heart attacks in the 1920s, but refused to heed his doctor's advice and slow down (ref. 7 pg. 113). He was suffering dizzy spells, loss of feeling in his right leg, and was sleeping badly (ref. 6 pg. 196)
3) - He was out of ideas for Sherlock Holmes anyway, and got plot ideas from Strand editor Greenhough Smith (THOR), and possibly from others, which he may have adapted (ref. 3 Intro pg. xiii & xviii). And most importantly, he really preferred to have his full attention on the psychic matter, which he had concluded after the war (1914) was of "overpowering importance to the human race (to know) more about..." (Ref. 10 pg. 99).
4) - He wrote himself, in 1924, that his Spiritualist cause had "come to absorb the whole energy of (his) life" (ref. 8 pg. 387), a year before he penned this Adventure.
No doubt he was tossing these last Adventures out without nearly the focus and attention he had given to his earlier efforts with what (unfortunately in his view) turned out to be his most lasting creation and contribution. Mr. Sherlock Holmes.
A great deal more on these and similar issues will be presented as I finalize this essay in the future, in defense of the canonicity of this story.
CONCLUSION:
A rudimentary look at the definitions of the words, the immediate and surrounding text, and the context used by Doyle for each term or phrase declared to be racist, crude, vulgar or cheap, causes me to reject Dakin's contention that this 'falsest note' about The Adventure of the Three Gables is to be seriously considered as a reason for declaring it spurious and ejecting it from the canon.
I must respond to it by suggesting that the 'racism' discovered may be that which comes from within the reader...not from the pen of the author.
We've been trained from the days of our youth to laugh at the jibes, jeers, and rudeness we apply to 'our own color or type,' while we rise up in indignation at offenses supposedly committed against others...even when these "offenses" are simple misunderstandings, or are obviously manufactured.
Witness for example the way even some Sherlockians receive the obvious rude jibe against Lord Robert (for one) with satisfied snickers and nods, in contrast to the way they reel and gasp at correctly applied, unbiased terms and phrases applied toward Mr. Smith, without even questioning whether there might be some misinterpretation or misunderstanding within themselves.
This is stereotyping in its most common form. It is most unfortunate...and it helps to hold in place the very thing we would most like to eliminate...racism itself.
I encourage all Sherlockians to study carefully, and look deeply. And even more, to not be numbered among the "silent majority." Speak out. Be heard. If it is an error to draw conclusions in advance of the facts, what is it to not even seek for the facts? And I say this to Sherlockians not just as it applies to the canon...but to every event, every situation, every occurrence in every day life.
And too, let's fight against our own conditioning, not jumping to conclusions about what we believe we see in a thing, recognizing we must never accept even ourselves at face value or first appearance. We are conditioned, by all aspects of our life. We must actively fight that conditioning, challenge, give space for more to be found...look deep...seek hard. Let's be sure of our footing, ere we fall over the precipice into error.
Meanwhile, there is no need to feel we must defend Mr. Doyle or Sherlock Holmes against racism or vulgarity here...they simply are not found in the text.
Based on this "falsest point" alone, I cannot reject Three Gables. And I cannot concur that it is "the falsest point." It is without foundation, and (for me) has fallen.
The other points remain ahead of me. Research needs to be finished. Upon my initial work, I believe each is equally misplaced. But at the moment I hold this loosely. If there is sufficient strength in them, I may yet agree with Mr. Dakin in the end.
We shall see what we shall see.
The fun is in the hunt.
I will enjoy the journey.
REFERENCES:
|