Course Blog

For this second blog post, I focused on Lady Audley’s secret and this quote, “‘Do you know my dear Miss Graham’ said Ms. Dawson, ‘I think you ought to consider yourself a remarkably lucky girl.’ The governess lifted her head from its stooping attitude and stared wonderingly at her employer, shaking back a shower of curls. They were the most wonderful curls in the world-soft and feathery, always floating away from her face and making a pale halo round her head…” (Chapter 1, pg 13)

When we first began reading this novel, I thought nothing was amiss with this quote; after all, Ms. Dawson is just complimenting her on how lucky she is that Sir Michael Audley is interested in her, when he could pick any other woman. Then I thought that Lucy’s confusion, highlighted by the “…Stared wonderingly at her employer” was due to her surprise that he seemingly wants to be with her. Now, with hindsight and having finished the story, while it could be true that Lucy (previously known as Helen Talboys) is surprised and doesn’t know what to do with Michael Audley’s desire, she is also wondering briefly why anyone would think she was lucky. After all, from Lucy’s perspective she isn’t very fortunate: her husband George left her to travel to find fortune overseas, leaving her with a young boy and in poverty. Her situation became so dire that she had to fake her death and assume a new identity after his abandonment. The second part of the quote draws attention to her looks: at first glance, the line, “They were the most wonderful curls in the world-soft and feathery, always floating away from her face and making a pale halo round her head” seems like a description to illustrate why Michael is attracted to her. The knowledge that Lucy has been lying about her identity and falsely using her childlike appearance to disguise the fact that she is this ambitious, cunning woman changes the interpretation of this reference. Throughout the text, she constantly seems to act angelic, even going as so far as to use words like “floating” and “halo” which further emphasizes her protected image of innocence . This is extremely ironic, as she is the exact opposite in reality because of her multiple deceptions throughout the story. These lines accurately foreshadow what occurs in the rest of the book. When we did the first discussion in class, even without the future knowledge of Lucy’s past, it was evident that she was hiding something, that the narrator was drawing our attention to her looks for a reason, and that it was not just a random description to add images to the lines.  

“You will excuse me for a few minutes while I satisfy myself as to this floor,” He threw himself down upon his dace with his lens in his hand, and crawled swiftly backwards and forwards, examining minutely the cracks between the woodwork with which the chamber was panelled.” (Doyle 144)

Throughout the narrative, and specifically this quote, the quest to uncover the truth behind Julia Stoner’s mysterious death is amplified. In Chapter 8, Holmes is faced with the daunting task of exposing the real villain, Dr. Grimesby Roylott. The language in the quote, “You will excuse me for a few minutes while I satisfy myself as to this floor,” is laden with purpose and determination, painting a vivid image in the readers head of exactly how Holmes is conducting this search. Doyle starts by giving the reader an idea that Holmes is willing to excuse himself from dialogue in order to begin conducting a very thorough search. Through this, the reader can imagine Holmes quickly shifting from a train of thought to looking for more clues. As in all great detective stories, it is imperative that the main character pays close attention to their work, however, in looking deeper into the language, I believe this is meant to serve a larger purpose than simply showing how detailed Holmes is in his work. In this moment, I think a broader metaphor for justice is unveiled.

The use of phrases like “satisfy myself”, “threw himself”, and “examining minutely the cracks” goes beyond imagery and underscores Holmes’s commitment to thorough investigation, highlighting his dedication to uncovering the truth. Just as Holmes painstakingly examines the floor, he delves into the darkest corners of human behavior to expose wrongdoers. It reminded me that the idea that true justice demands a thorough investigation and an unwavering commitment to the truth. We discussed in class the idea of Sherlock Holmes being an early superhero, something like that of a Marvel Character. I think as I looked deeper into this passage I could envision Sherlock as a true modern day superhero, with his immaculate ability to use inductive reasoning as his “super power”.

Excerpt taken from: The Speckled Band

“A large face, seared with a thousand wrinkles, burned yellow with the sun, and marked with every evil passion, was turned from one to the other of us, while his deep-set, bile-shot eyes, and the high thin fleshless nose, gave him somewhat the resemblance to a fierce old bird of prey”(Sir Arthur Conan Doyle 140).

Page 140 of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s literary work titled The Speckled Band gives an elaborate description of Dr. Grimesby Roylott as he enters the door to meet both Holmes and Watson. Roylott is described in such a way that brings a negative connotation to anything that relates to him. Doyle describes Roylott’s face as being “seared with a thousand wrinkles”(Sir Arthur Conan Doyle 140) and furthermore, “burned yellow with the sun”(Sir Arthur Conan Doyle 140). Doyle’s usage of the words “seared”(Sir Arthur Conan Doyle 140) and “burned”(Sir Arthur Conan Doyle 140) allow for Roylott to be compared to the flames of a fire. From any common knowledge, it is apparent that fire always carries a negative connotation whether this originated from the story of Prometheus or simply comes from the known destructive nature of it. Doyle’s diction further into the selected excerpt draws a parallel with the fiery description of Roylott as he describes the man as being “marked with every evil passion”(Sir Arthur Conan Doyle 140). Fire and evil being used to describe Roylott indicates that Roylott is seemingly a being of hell. While some may say that this take is extreme, this idea fits well into the time period. Roylott is a white male who owned land and abused his power. Roylott scared anyone who walked in his way and was constantly avoided by anyone who dared be in a close enough radius of his arm; he was hell on earth. Not only does Roylott’s character speak for the time period but he carries the message of abused power. Doyle’s writing portrays Roylott as being the stereotypical controlling male of the time period. While not all men at this time were like Roylott, there were enough that Roylott’s character is used as a lesson to society that abused power is negative, and when one’s power becomes abused they may go as far to even become the embodiment of hell on Earth. 

Sources Cited:

A Conan Doyle. The Speckled Band. Copenhagen, Easy Readers, 2014.

“‘Really, Watson, you excel yourself,’ said Holmes, pushing back his chair and lighting a cigarette. ‘I am bound to say that in all accounts which you have been so good as to give of my own small achievements you have habitually underrated your own abilities. It may be that you are not yourself luminous, but a conductor of light. Some people without possessing genius have a remarkable power of stimulating. I confess, my dear fellow, that I am very much in your debt.’ He had never said as much before, and I must admit that his words gave me keen pleasure, for I have often been piqued by his indifference to my admiration and to the attempts which I had made to give publicity to his methods.” (Doyle 6)

Though one of the first interactions the reader is privy to between Sherlock Holmes and his companion John Watson, the above passage provides a great deal of insight into the relationship between the two. In this moment Watson is examining a walking stick they have come upon and voicing his observations to Holmes. In response, Holmes showers Watson with compliments, drifting from his usual no-nonsense manner of speech to one notably more flowery and emotional. The inclusion of the light metaphor drifts from his typical literal language and suggests a bit more consideration than he gives to other characters he talks to. He pauses more than usual (noted by the inclusion of commas throughout the piece), signifying a bit more thought behind his words than one expects. Holmes is known for his quick thinking, so the minute shift in how he processes an event and comments on it is notable. It is possible that he must take more time in emotional affairs as he is so unused to them. Watson preens under this praise and informs the audience that Holmes typically acts indifferent to his obvious infatuation, so this praise is a rare treat. If it was not already evident, Watson follows Holmes around like a lost puppy, attempting to soak up all he can and marveling at his expertise. His admiration is palpable, and Holmes seems very much aware of Watson’s attention.

It is all the more revealing, then, that Holmes’ complements were teasing and that Watson’s observations were almost entirely incorrect. Why would Holmes, someone so down to earth and to the point, waste time letting Watson down instead of sharing his own correct observations? His bluntness is one of his defining traits, and through the earlier analysis of his facade, it is clear that he is putting thought into what he is saying, ever detail-oriented. I would argue that Holmes is showing his own affection in the best way he knows to: teasing Watson through the lens of his own worldview (the attention to detail, the slight shifts from normalcy that only a detective would notice) with the understanding that Watson will then continue to follow him and attempt to reach his expertise. Though it is very easy to read this interaction as one between Holmes and Watson as a reader insert, I find the implications for Watson as a character outside of this interesting. There is a sort of cat-and-mouse chase occurring between the two men, but one of mutual respect—Holmes keeps Watson around for a reason, and Watson will always follow in his footsteps. Even if they cannot necessarily comprehend the other entirely, it is this mutual understanding that makes their relationship so captivating.

“‘It must be a wild place.’

‘Yes, the setting is a worthy one. If the devil did desire to have a hand in the affairs of men.’

‘Then you are yourself inclining to the supernatural explanation.’

‘The devil’s agents may be of flesh and blood, may they not?’”(Doyle, 29). 

 

This quote is an interaction between Holmes and Watson who are discussing the layout of Baskerville Hall after talking to Dr. Mortimer. Watson is the speaker in the first and third lines, and Holmes is the speaker in the second and fourth lines. Watson calling Baskerville Hall “wild” refers to the fact that the house is surrounded by woods(page 28). There is no repetition in this specific quote, but these few pages use the words “supernatural explanation” many times, and the word “supernatural” even more. I think Doyle is trying to throw off the reader by doing this. The idea of an unnaturally massive dog makes the characters and reader jump to a supernatural conclusion, and I think the real answer will be “of flesh and blood” like Holmes says. One reason this quote matters is because I believe this to be foreshadowing for the novella’s final reveal. At least that’s what I think 29 pages in. This section also highlights Sherlock’s uniqueness through his linguistic choices. Both of his two quotes from this passage feel as if they’ve been ripped from the pages of Shakespeare. When reading dialogue from the other characters, it is clear this is from a different time, but they speak conversationally. In my experience with reading, the most flowery lines will come from description/narration instead of dialogue, but so far in The Hound of Baskervilles the flowery prose is entirely quotes from Sherlock. This also illustrates the stark differences between our two main characters. Watson is the narrator, so it makes sense that his quotes and narration maintain the same tone. If I hadn’t specified in the beginning which lines were said by which character, anyone who’s been exposed to these two characters could have guessed which speaker was which. I mentioned in class that nearly every version of Sherlock Holmes is categorized as being neurodivergent in some form. I think Doyle writing Holmes to speak much differently from his peers is one of his ways to emphasize that. I believe the second reason this quote is important is because it sets up Sherlock Holmes as a character, and what the reader should expect from him going forward. 

 

What I’m trying to say is that this quote from page 29 foreshadows that right now I believe the supernatural theories are a red herring, as well as that Doyles uses Sherlock’s dramatic way of speaking to show his difference from Watson, and his other peers. 

Doyle, Arthur Conan. The Hound of Baskervilles. 1902.

“Instead of making friends and exchanging visits with our neighbors, who had at first been overjoyed to see a Roylott of Stoke Moran back in the old family seat, he shut himself up in the house, and seldom came out save to indulge in ferocious quarrels with who might cross his path. Violence of temper approaching mania has been hereditary in the men of the family, and in my stepfather’s case it had, I believe, been intensified by his long residence in the tropics” (The Speckled Band, p134).

The character of Dr. Grimesby Roylott on the surface looks like a mess of contradictions with the social norms of Victorian Britain. He’s the last heir to an old and once wealthy family which has withered down to just him. He’s a gentlemen, a landowner (a gentleman), and a doctor. In any other story, these would be qualities of a protagonist that will bring their fallen family back to prosperity with a steady hand. Furthermore, all of these titles are either high on the social status hierarchy or because of serious education (which requires money), and in Victorian Britain, a moral aspect is applied to where you are on the class hierarchy. The higher class you are, the ‘better’ you are as a person, a thought process which still lives today, though transplanted to amount of money instead of family name. By these standards, Dr. Roylott should be a polite, upstanding, good man, and this set up of what he should be is precisely why the reality of him– violent, wandering, antisocial– is so jarring.

What I want to specifically dig into is the way that Miss Stoner, the I’m quoting, blames her stepfather’s extraordinary violence on him having lived in India for many years. It is important to note that Miss Stoner and her sister were born in India and had never been to Britain until they moved there with their stepfather and mother years later– and yet Miss Stoner doesn’t see herself as tainted by “the tropics” in the way Dr. Roylott is.

My thought is that Miss Stoner suggests that Dr. Roylott has “mania,” from living in India because it is an easier, more gentle excuse for his behavior. To admit that he is simply a cruel man who wants power over others is a much more difficult thing to accuse a man than madness if he is from such a distinguished family. Madness is easier to forgive, because the mad person is not in control of themselves.

When we first meet him in the story, he threatens Holmes and bends a firepoker with his bare hands as an intimidation tactic, and I cannot see these actions as anything other than planned and rational. Dr. Roylott wants to be able to do whatever he wants and so he has cultivated a reputation of mad and violent man so that no one can get in the way of his decisions. He reaps fear in people, and uses that to control them.

It is important to note that Dr. Roylott’s purposeful building of a erratic reputation wouldn’t work if he was not in the position he is currently in. If he was poor, or lacking in land, or female, this apparent madness would not be tolerated. He would have been removed to a madhouse. But he is in the perfect position of authority to be violent without fear of consequences: he surely knows all the expectations he is subverting and he is purposely taking advantage of them.

 

“His costume was a peculiar mixture of the professional and the agricultural, having a black top-hat, a long frock-coat, and a pair of high gaiters, with a hunting-crop swinging in his hand. So tall was he that his hat actually brushed the cross-bar of the doorway, and his breadth seemed to span it across from side to side. A large face, seared with a thousand wrinkles, burned yellow with the sun, and marked with every evil passion, was turned from one to the other of us, while his deep-set, bile-shot eyes, and the high thin fleshless nose, gave him somewhat the resemblance to a fierce old bird of prey” (140).  

In class, we looked at Doyle’s description of Doctor Roylott. I believe that this passage uses similar strategies to develop the image of Roylott as a savage. To begin his description, Doyle decides to call Roylott’s clothing as a costume rather than an outfit or get up. While this may be reading too far into the language, I have come to learn that authors don’t accidentally use certain words. His “costume” is described as peculiar, which further emphasized that he was not what was considered normal in England at the time. The rest of this passage also begins to point out the animalistic attributes of Doctor Roylott. It starts with his size and continues on to other physical descriptions. He is so tall and wide that the door that works well for the typical British citizen, almost does not work for him. Now he has created the image of a strange, massive being. Continuing with his description, Doyle gives him a “large face, seared with a thousand wrinkles” because of his extended exposure to the sun, a fleshless nose, and bile-shot eyes. The wrinkled face implies that he spends much of his time outdoors, which is atypical for the average British gentleman, while the fleshless nose and bile-shot eyes suggest that he does not care for his appearance at all. These descriptions are intended to identify all of the qualities that make him different.  

In the last sentence, Doyle ensures that this description is not misunderstood by the reader. He explicitly equates his appearance to one of a “fierce old bird of prey.” This method of associating Roylott with animals is deliberate in establishing Roylott as an outcast from society. The passage above is not the first time that Roylott is associated with animals and was not the last. Not only is he associated with animals, but they are all dangerous animals: cheetahs, baboons, snakes, and fierce old birds of prey. This appears to reinforce the common sentiment that was present in the Western world at the time, which was that those who did not conform to society were seen as uncivilized and dangerous. It was noted earlier that Roylott had spent time in India and brought these animals back with him. This displays the perceived negative effect that an “uncivilized” culture can have on a man who was once squared-away and educated.  

On Page 109 there’s a passage that I really found compelling. It describes the coming Autumn and the changing seasons’ impact on the grounds of the home and its influence over the characters. We as the reader see potential in the home as a place to harbor secrets and recognize that formally beautiful places have potential for corruption just like people. Darker descriptors like sharp, withered, ghostly, black and broken are used to set a chilling scene. The picture it paints of a crumbling well and suffocating vines are all recurring themes made throughout the novel. It more importantly juxtaposes the descriptions used for Lady Audley whose beauty is as fresh as sunlight and innocent as spring. Her beauty is what causes her to be underestimated by other characters in the text. She uses her charm and her appearance to manipulate others in order to climb the social ladder. Robert and Lady Audley have similar motives in that way, his pursuit of her is driven from an eagerness to prove himself and the crumbling of the house signifies a changing historical period where roles in society are beginning to shift. Which also may tie into a feeling of dissatisfaction within domestic and gender roles. After this passage, Lady Audley remarks on how much October displeases her which I interpret as a recognition of the darkness within herself and how it’s something she isn’t proud of or doesn’t like to acknowledge. There’s a reason she’s come to start anew at Audley Court and her actions to not come without motive.

“It isn’t kind of George Talboys to treat me like this.”

But even at the moment that he uttered the reproach a strange thrill of remorse shot through his heart.

“It isn’t like him,” he said, “it isn’t like George Talboys.” (Braddon, Chapter 12)

In this excerpt from chapter twelve, Robert Audley is confused and in great disbelief by the sudden disappearance of George Talboys. Robert has searched up the stream and even where George Talboys stayed in London without any trace of him until he finds out from his father-in-law that George has “left to sail for Sydney.” This was particularly interesting to me as Robert simply cannot believe by the thought that George left quite strangely. However, upon reflecting on George’s character, this seems to be not uncommon as he has already portrayed this pattern of behavior before when he sailed for Sydney without even telling his beloved wife and child for three years. He did the same to Robert too. Mary Braddon’s phrasing of the description of George Talboys is quite perplexing as it was quite obvious to the reader and even for Robert as a character that it was something he had done before.

Robert also seems ravaged by the fact that George, who he considers a dear friend, left without even a proper goodbye. Although their friendship is of old, and the situation is slightly different now, it isn’t clear why he is so deeply impacted by George’s disappearance now. This made me question why Robert has gone lengths to find out about his whereabouts now and not when he found out he disappeared three years ago. The lines “even at the moment that he uttered the reproach a strange thrill of remorse shot through his heart” could also further have a double meaning of Robert playing some part in George’s disappearance for which he feels guilty.

What I am really trying to say here is that, I think these lines hint on underlying traits and motivations of Robert and George that will unfold in the later chapters. The use of contradicting thought processes despite obvious evidence of a certain behavioral pattern of characters also intrigued me.

 

 

 

“After dispatching this letter, Robert had abandoned all thought of assistance from the man who, in the natural course of things, should have been most interested in George’s fate; but now that he found himself advancing every day some step nearer to the end that lay so darkly before him, his mind reverted to this heartlessly indifferent Mr. Harcourt Talboys” (Braddon Chapter 20 online). 

 

This passage depicts the internal conflict of Robert Audley. As he continues his search for the missing George Talboys, Robert remains completely alone in his endeavors. Not even George’s father, the one who should theoretically care most about uncovering George’s disappearance, displays an ounce of worry. In the lines directly preceding these ones, the narrator speaks of Harcourt’s letter to Robert, in which he states his disapproval of George’s marriage to Helen and that he had cut ties with George upon his wedding day. Harcourt proceeds to say that his disappearance is likely a scheme to get Harcourt’s money, as George was broke when he settled down with Helen. As readers, we know this not to be the case, that George’s toils to find gold land him with ample wealth. Nonetheless, this says monuments about George’s support system. Referencing the words of the highlighted passage, the characters surrounding Robert in his hunt for George are “heartlessly indifferent.” 

More wording I found particularly interesting was the use of “darkly” as an adverb. This seems like blatant foreshadowing, that George’s fate has been sealed. The line could be easily rewritten to “the end that lay before him…” and make sense, though Braddon chooses to include this important descriptive word. It certainly ties into the rest of the novel, as all of the actions of Lucy Audley happen in the shadows. Perhaps “darkly” carries multiple meanings, referencing not only the book’s emphasis on secrets, but foreshadowing George’s death and Robert’s descent to madness. We already begin to see this narrative of Robert’s madness come to fruition through the threats of Lady Audley and it will be interesting to see how the darkness creeps into the novel exponentially.