How we cite our quotes: Citations follow this format: (Story.Paragraph)
Quote #1
"If I am Neville St. Clair, then it is obvious that no crime has been committed, and that, therefore, I am illegally detained."
"No crime, but a very great error has been committed," said Holmes. "You would have done better to have trusted your wife."
"It was not my wife, it was the children," groaned the prisoner. "God help me, I would not have them ashamed of their father. My God! What an exposure! What can I do?" (Twisted Lip.197-9).
Neville St. Clair would rather go to jail for murder than expose his kids to the humiliation of knowing their dad has been begging for a living. But if it's that bad, why did St. Clair beg in the first place? What do you think of the character development of Holmes's clients and culprits in these stories? Do you find their motivations believable? Why or why not?
Quote #2
Ryder threw himself down suddenly upon the rug and clutched at my companion's knees. "For God's sake, have mercy!" he shrieked. "Think of my father! Of my mother! It would break their hearts. I never went wrong before! I never will again. I swear it. I'll swear it on a Bible. Oh, don't bring it into court! For Christ's sake, don't!" (Carbuncle.175).
James Ryder's argument for freedom is kind of similar to Neville St. Clair's – he wants to protect his family. He doesn't want to lose his parents' respect or his reputation. But his manner – the way he begs, pleads, whines, and cries – makes him come off much worse than St. Clair ever did. So why does Holmes let him go, then? How do the representations of St. Clair and Ryder overlap? How do they differ?
Quote #3
Last week [Roylott] hurled the local blacksmith over a parapet into a stream, and it was only by paying over all the money which I could gather together that I was able to avert another public exposure. He has no friends at all save the wandering gipsies [...] He has a passion also for Indian animals, which are sent over to him by a correspondent, and he has at this moment a cheetah and a baboon, which wander freely over his grounds and are feared by the villagers almost as much as their master (Band.26).
Why does Helen Stoner work so hard to protect the reputation of her abusive, murdering jerk of a stepfather? What possible motivation could she have for "paying over all the money which [she] could gather" to save face? What do her actions say about the relative vulnerability of women in relation to their families in her society?
Quote #4
Lord St. Simon sank into a chair and passed his hand over his forehead.
"What will the duke say," he murmured, "when he hears that one of the family has been subjected to such humiliation?"
"It is the purest accident. I cannot allow that there is any humiliation."
"Ah, you look on these things from another standpoint [...] It was a slight, sir, a public sight," said Lord St. Simon, tapping his fingers upon the table [...] I will make no allowance. I am very angry indeed, and I have been shamefully used" (Bachelor.171-8).
When Mary Sutherland loses Hosmer Angel, Holmes decides not to tell her the truth about Angel's identity because she's so fanatically devoted to Angel that she won't believe Holmes anyway. Her desire to find Angel is based solely on her love for him. Lord St. Simon, on the other hand, is told the news about his supposed wife's whereabouts. But his response has nothing to do with love – it's all "humiliation!" "a public slight!" "I have been shamefully used!" It seems to us that the difference between these two responses arises from Conan Doyle's assumptions about (a) gender (women are emotional, men less so), and (b) class (it's not like Sutherland's got a position in society that she's afraid to lose). Or is it just a contrast in temperament and character? How are these two cases similar and how different?
Quote #5
Public disgrace I might have faced, although I am a man whose character has never yet borne a stain. Private affliction also is the lot of every man; but the two coming together, and in so frightful a form, have been enough to shake my very soul. Besides, it is not I alone. The very noblest in the land may suffer unless some way be found out of this horrible affair (Coronet.13).
Alexander Holder faces public humiliation over the loss of the Beryl Coronet, but he's really worried that "the very noblest in the land may suffer." Why does he care about them when his own reputation's on the line? What does this tiny piece of information suggest about Holder's value system?