Thoughts on the Three Gables

This past Friday was the monthly meeting of The Harpooners of the Sea Unicorn, and I had the presentation to do. Our story was 3GAB, and my thoughts follow. I hope you enjoy and it makes you think a little more about this less favored case.

Some thoughts on Three Gables

When I first returned to this story to prepare for this presentation I sure did regret that I had picked this month for a paper.

On first read or first reread the story is very weak and uninteresting. It is often argued that this case was not written by Watson at all.

As is the case with most presentations prepared for the Canon, and was true with this one, my first choice for argument or discussion, ‘Is Douglas Maberly Bi-polar?’ soon proved to be unsatisfactory. What was first thought may be relevant soon turned out to be not quite so.

So I read it again. And again. And yet again, often still disappointed that I chose doing a paper on this story.

As soon as I found my writing taking me in one direction, the argument ever proved weak or non-existent.

But luckily those weaknesses lead me to the conclusions I am still exploring with this paper.

If we are playing the game, and we are indeed for this story, this time, then we must chose one of two ways to explore this story.

We could chose to explore this story purely for the strength of its literary quality, which we usually find lacking.

Or we could examine it as Watson has given it to us, still believing he wrote it and use what ever powers of deduction we may have learned after reading so many stories and come up with some other conclusions.

When we read this story most of us start coming up with a list of dislikes and contradictions that irritate us. The most prevalent one, usually, is that Holmes appears so out of character. The two most common arguments for this are, either he fell off of the drug wagon, or that the case was not recorded by Watson.

It’s not that the tale does not start well or get our attention. With an opening line like;

‘I don't think that any of my adventures with Mr. Sherlock Holmes opened quite so abruptly, or so dramatically, as that which I associate with The Three Gables.’. Is defiantly a grabber, you just want to read what comes next; ‘I had not seen Holmes for some days and had no idea of the new channel into which his activities had been directed. He was in a chatty mood that morning, however, and had just settled me into the well-worn low armchair on one side of the fire, while he had curled down with his pipe in his mouth upon the opposite chair, when our visitor arrived. If I had said that a mad bull had arrived it would give a clearer impression of what occurred’, we just know we are in for a treat of a case, right?

So here we sit wine glass at hand, slippers on, comforter pulled up around us, fire in the hearth, ready for a good read.

Were we disappointed?

Usually the consensus is yes.

The story lacks substance and most of the things we like about the Canon, right?

On all the favorite lists I explored the highest this case ever ranked was 33. Usually it came in around about third or fourth from the bottom, only beating out the likes of VEIL, BLAN, and MAZA. It is favored slightly more by the rest of the world than it is by American Sherlockians.

But one thing we can say about this case is that it sure gives us lots to talk about, with most of it putting Holmes in a rather bad light.

And when reading this case, I, like probably many others, wonder why it was put in the Canon of Sherlock Holmes. There is nothing outstanding about the case. We see no great display of deduction, leaving most Sherlockians wishing another case had been in the place in the Canon instead. (After all, aren’t there plenty more to chose from?)

One of the features most loved about reading the Canon is the wonderful descriptions Watson places in the stories of locations and settings.

In SCAN, the introduction without dialog goes on for four very long (and enjoyable!) paragraphs. Just about any one of which is longer in description than all of the descriptive narrative in 3GAB.

If we were to remove the non-dialog lines from 3GAB it would hardly affect the page count at all. There are, on quick count, only about six non-dialog paragraphs in this whole case.

With the exception of the first enticing paragraph the others fall well short of what we have come to expect from Watson’s writings.

 We get none of the wonderful musings in the cab or on a train. No insights about the inhabitants along the way. And his description of the building called Three Gables makes us wonder why it was called that in the first place.

And if we do remove the lack-luster effort that is the few paragraphs of stage settings, we end up with stilted, sometimes abusive, often seemly poorly written dialog?

The repartee between the individuals and the verbal combatants is far below what we have come to expect.

If I am not mistaken this is the only tale were four letter words are used.

Watson does not usually have trouble conveying class status by manner of speech or dialect. (Other than, I would argue, when he writes American.)

Yet over and over again in this story the conversations appear much struggled.

Holmes turns uncharacteristic phrases. Dixie is almost totally unreadable. And Susan, well, Susan is another thing all together.

And what is perhaps even more noticeable is Watson’s verbal absence from the narrative.

I believe, again on quick count, that Watson has only four or five lines of dialog in the whole case, and even those are delivered in a Nigel Bruce Watson sort of way.

We never get the back and forth dialog of deduction detection between the two roommates. I mention here again SCAN, where, right after those first four wonderful stage setting paragraphs we are treated to a couple of pages of Holmes and Watson exchanging observations (yes Watson is good at observation also, just of different things) and inputs and congenial chit-chat. One of the things we feast on as Sherlockians.

And, unfortunately it is in the dialog, especially as it pertains to Holmes, where lays the most problems for me.

Why the lack of effort or interest in this case?

Is there a tension between Holmes and Watson that makes for this lackluster effort?

Is Watson tired of being left out of the loop and only makes a half hearted effort with this case. Our does Watson have a deadline to meet and this was the best he could come up with.

With that earlier stated opening paragraph, the one stating Holmes is in a chatty mood, we are lead to believe all is well in the world of 1895, well, 1903.

Watson is no longer living at Baker St. and stops by to visit Holmes. After that brief introduction we are hoping for that amiable exchange between the two men that is sometimes frustrating to Watson, almost always instructive and always hoped for by readers.

But with Dixie’s entrance that all falls by the way side.

Although that could have been a very dramatic start to an exciting case, we are soon disappointed by a very out of character exchange.

We are not use to seeing Holmes respond to individuals, no matter their class background, that we see him display towards Dixie. He is very verbally abusive and condescending towards Dixie. And if it wasn’t for our previous experience with Holmes in YELL, his treatment of Dixie could almost be passed off as racist. And although slavery had ended in England before Holmes was born, racist issues were very present in Victorian times. But we don’t expect them from Holmes.

We always expect Holmes to verbally hold his own when confront by an adversaries, but we do not expect it in such, shall we say, a flippant abusive way.

If we agree with Bill Cochran’s book and his suggestion that Holmes returned from the hiatus as a kinder, more tolerant, easier going man, then his behavior seems even more out of character.

When dealing with the likes of Milveton and others like him, verbal confrontation is usually reserved and almost gentleman like. Verbal one-upmanship seems almost more important than a physical confrontation. But with Dixie contempt is the earmark of the exchange.

Was Dixie such a loathsome individual that Holmes felt no compunction towards him?

And what about his treatment of Susan, the definitely loath-some maid who seemingly has almost as much trouble with English as Dixie and also has a potty mouth.

From first dramatic entrance Susan makes by being manhandled by Holmes, his treatment of her is almost identical to Dixie’s.

As we have experienced in most of the other stories, Holmes’ handling of the service class and working class is usually respectful and not condescending. His manners are usually the same no matter who he is dealing with.

Once again, even with the likes of Moriarty and Milveton, the dialog is more like a verbal sword fight, than an impingement of ones character.

He even goes so far as to suggest to Susan that she may not have long to live.

Another interesting side note on Holmes’ behavior that has been documented by many others is Holmes’ lack of energy or interest in pursuing the other cases that he mentions. Suggesting, slightly, that they may connected to this one, but never explaining why.

One observer, perhaps from Peoria, has noted; ‘That if Holmes was so busy with other cases, why didn’t he pass information on to Lestrade or someone else about the Perkins murder?’ and maybe the activities of the Spencer John gang.

We also see this lack of energy when he is leaving 3GABs and leaves the examination of Douglas’ trunks to the widow. Also at the mansion Holmes totally relies on the information provided by the police about the burglary and makes no effort to examine the house or grounds. SO out of character!

Uncharacteristically, we also find Holmes fawning over Douglas Maberly with a reverence we all hoped he held only for the Queen.

We are use to Watson, the ever descriptive expert, dressing up the individual traits of the characters within the case, but not Holmes.

The only thing, on first read, consistent about Holmes’ behavior is that it is inconsistent.

Much has been made about the dress and manner of speech of Steve Dixie, from his use over and over again of the word ‘Masser’ and his quick change from bully to his subservient behavior towards Holmes’.

Most of this would suggest an American ex-slave. Even the name Dixie, in all its etymologies, references the southern states of the U.S.

In one instance we see him as a large bruiser ready to do the dirty work for his boss, the next we see him as a cowering giant making sure he leaves 221b ‘with no hard feelings.’

I could see someone like Moriarty having that type of effect on this individual, but not Holmes, unless there is some reason we have not yet discovered.

There are no real good reasons for Dixie to continually use the word Masser when talking to Holmes, especially, as others have also noted, since he had no trouble saying the word ‘mister’ when quoting his boss.

It has been suggested in Peoria that the word was a replacement for another couple of words starting with M and F.

Dixie’s dialog throughout is, on first read, very roughly written, almost portraying an ignorant ex-slave or brain damaged boxer. A bruiser of no significant merit except to do someone’s dirty work.

I think it can be agreed upon that the servant Suzy is kind of a loathsome individual, at least as she is described by Watson. Her speech is not much better than Dixie’s, and there is very little lady like about her behavior. Unlike, seemingly,  Dixie, she doesn’t seem particularly intimidated by the situation she finds herself in. Nothing Holmes says seems to make her want to plead for reprieve, like Ryder did in BLUE.

Why is she not afraid of repercussions for her involvement in this tale?

Poor Douglas Maberly!

 My first argument in this case was going to be unfavorable for Douglas, and although I still think him a lovelorn sap, I no longer think he was Bipolar.

More likely is it that he is a minor diplomat who got in way over his head in not only matters of the heart but, perhaps, matters of state intrigue.

At one point we have Holmes practically fawning over Douglas and stating that he was such a striking individual, full of life and that all London knew of him. ‘He lived intensely - -  every fiber of him.’

We have to assume, by Holmes knowledge and description of him, that Douglas was not this ‘poor penniless commoner’ that Isodora refused to marry.

We know he was an attaché to Rome for the British government. We are told that the widow Maberly ‘bore every mark of refinement and culture.’ Surely this was passed on the Douglas, and refinement and culture does not come cheap.

We know he was well known, and seemly travelled in high circles for ‘all of London knew him’ He was a ‘magnificent creature’, ‘splendid and debonair’.

And since he travelled in such high circles it is hardly likely that he knew nothing about Isodora’s reputation.

If we take this case on first reading face value, we can hardly condemn Isodora’s behavior to the extent we are told Holmes’ does. Even if we do not condone Isodora’s life style, we can hardly blame her for trying to protect herself. We are told, by Holmes, that Douglas was writing a book about their relationship with all intent on destroying her reputation.

Where Holmes found it ok to protect the king’s reputation in SCAN, why does this not hold true in this case.

Arguments can and have been made about whether or not this book Douglas was writing could ruin the reputation of some one who’s behavior and life style is so well known.

And although Holmes judges Isodora as the one at fault, for the original sin, he finds no fault in Douglas’ behavior.

After all, it was not Isodora, as the story reads, who was trying to destroy Douglas.

Is Isodora so different from Irene Adler?

When ‘Playing the Game’, we are expected to examine every little detail within the Canon and find truth or exception.

We try to document individuals as historic people or locations as landmarks. We look for contemporary facts that we draw on for things mentioned by Watson.

But maybe, because we perceive the writing of 3GAB as inferior to most of the other cases, we dismiss the clues Watson has given us.

Maybe we should look at this as a treat from Watson, a gift where we get to practice our deductive reasoning’s.

From the very beginning of this case Watson is explaining to us that there are things he can not tell us, probably to protect some one high up, or the British government itself, or that he does not know all the details of.

We are told Holmes is in a chatty mood but Watson does not, or can not tell us why.

When Watson describes the entrance of this giant black man and we first hear him speak, our preconceived ideas and images of how a black man should look and behave take over the narrative. We see an uneducated black boxer, probably an ex-slave (is the clue in the name Dixie?) who can only speak in mono-slavic phrases. We see him as a dirty sewer rat, sent on high handed duties. Which probably is his real purpose?

But what if we slow the opening scene down a bit and set the tempo a little more dramatically.

Take away any preconceived images we may have of Dixie.

Slow down the dialog, remove any images you may form of Dixie being subservient and easily intimidated and drip a little contempt on the word ‘Masser’ every time it is said. Interpreted this way the exchange takes on a little different atmosphere.

Re-read the dialog by Dixie like someone who is not intimidated by Holmes and is speaking as forcefully as Holmes does and faining an illiterate manner of speech.

Place the inflections more carefully and give him a Michael Clarke Duncan type of voice.

It would explain even more why Watson would need to pick up the poker.

It is in this opening exchange that we first, reading between the lines, become aware that there is more going on than Watson is going to let us believe. Holmes or Watson is holding something back from us.

Although Holmes shows very little interest in the death of Perkins at this point, or for that matter, seems to show no interest in his death at all, we have to believe that lack of interest is because he realizes that his death is part of a much bigger picture that he is already working on.

We should realize at this point that Holmes knows more about the goings on at Three Gables and with other individuals involved than Watson (or Holmes) is letting on.

Our next stop is Three Gables where we meet the Mrs. Maberly, widow of an old client of Holmes. It is during this introduction, after a brief reminisce about the late Mortimer Maberly that we become aware that Holmes is familiar with her now deceased son.

And it is here that we see the unaccustomed fawning by Holmes over the late Douglas.

If we are aware of Holmes gift for the theatrics and acting, then it is not hard to imagine Holmes putting on a ‘show’ for the benefit of a grieving mother, who we should believe knows nothing truly about the goings on of her son.

We should also realize here that the visit to the Three Gable was not to investigate the goings on with the widow, but to gain more information about the goings on of the Spencer John gang.

If we believe the death of Perkins is part of this case, which is not mentioned again after the opening scene, we can surmise that Holmes’ visit to Three Gables is made necessary by Perkin’s death.

Perkins was probably an agent for the British Government tasked to follow Douglas’ belonging from Italy back to England. Holborn Bar is not far the docks of London and could easily be the route the luggage took to Three Gable which is located only about sixteen miles from Holborn. In an attempt to retrieve what ever was in the luggage, the bad guys could have killed Perkins.

Holmes did not need to examine the luggage, he already know what was in it.

Holmes is gathering more pieces of the puzzle to a case that is still being kept from the readers.

At this point we are introduced to wheezy Susan, and we are once again surprised by how out of character Holmes treatment of her is. He is very condescending and tactless. I think can only be another example of Holmes knowing more than he is letting on. He knows that Susan works for the Spencer John gang, but he knows this case leads beyond them and he still does not know to whom. But he can not explain all this to the widow because of the depth her sons was involved.

It is only since Douglas’ stuff has arrived from Italy that the problems at Three Gables began.

But as all the clues indicate, Three Gables is not where the case started for Holmes.

If we take all the times Holmes is dismissive about other cases he mentions, the fact that he was so chatty, the knowledge he as of all the other principles in the story, we have to except that more was going on than just an unpublished manuscript.

Douglas lived in Italy, Isodora has a nice home in London, ‘one of the finest on the block’, Watson says.

Douglas is an attaché to Italy for the British Government, which means he could have responsibilities within his job of a specific nature.

Isodora is an adventuress, a term more apropos in her circumstances then perhaps assigned to Irene Adler. She has no known occupation, it seems, other than marrying for money, so we are told and can freely travel.

And we have a missing novel.

On first glance in would seem this case has a lot of similarities to SCAN. And there are a few.

If we take it on written face value, the story could be one of blackmail and revenge, and trying to protect ones self.

But the hostility Holmes has towards all involved, with the exception of Mrs. Maberly, would suggest something else is going on.

Reading between the lines, I would suggest there are more similarities to BRUC, SECO or even CHAS.

I am sure Douglas was infatuated with Isodora, but that was the plan from the beginning.

She probably seduced him to get to the papers she needed. Maybe even liking him in the end, but realizing it would spoil her plans. Not wishing him dead, but still needing to further her plans, she tried to scare him off.

Douglas had some paper, some plan, some document she or her client wanted. Something concerning the relationship between England and Italy, something Douglas knew about or had access to. Italy at this point in history was trying in many ways to catch up with the rest of Europe to once again become a world power.

Now, there is nothing to indicate that Isodora set out to kill Douglas, but with the need to get whatever it is he had that she needed out of the country, his death served her well by, probably, allowing a diplomats luggage to travel freely between countries.

At this point if we want to see Douglas in a more favorable light, there could be enough evidence to suggest Douglas was killed because he did know what was going on, or finally show some backbone, and was killed for his efforts. Perkins could even be an alias for Douglas.

We also have to except here that Holmes, or Mycroft knew about most of this, and that is why Holmes had so many answers before he ever went to Three Gables.

At no time did any of the information he gathered from Susan or Dixie contribute to the resolution of the case and they probably had no idea what was really going on.

I would also suggest that Isodora and her party were probably very disappointed to find a manuscript in a diplomat’s bag, which was probably placed there by Holmes or the British Government after having retrieved the missing documents somewhere along the line.

Dixie may have been working undercover, or he may have deduced that he was involved with a group that was going to get him in a lot more trouble than he wanted and he was trying to find a way out when Holmes talked to him outside Three Gables.

The reason for Susan’s badly written dialog was that Watson was trying to give us a clue that she was not English. A foreign domestic if you prefer, and since we are never told how long she has worked for the widow, we must except that is probably since about the time Douglas died.

The reason Sherlock was so chatty when Watson arrive that morning because he was explaining all this to the good doctor. But even when this story was published in 1926 the information was still too sensitive to let the real story out.

He even gives us a clue to this by having Isodora state;

‘It was all there, under different names, of course; but who in all London would have failed to recognize it?’

She knows that the whole escapade is about to unravel because Holmes tells us her gang is at that very moment being rounded up by the police.

But somewhere in all this Holmes does not believe either he or the government has enough information to implicate Isodora, or can not afford to have what she knows get out, so he says; ‘I suppose I shall have to compound a felony as usual. . .’.

Suggesting he has probably had to do this under-cover type of work before?

Which we know he has.

From the very beginning Watson leads us down a path allowing us to stumble, almost Watson like, on the clues that tell the real story of 3GAB.

If we like, we can imagine that this case is a gift from Watson that allows us for once to step into the shoes of the master. We can easily imagine more things and plots at work here than the written story implies. And much like the latest, sadly, Sherlock Holmes movie, we can see that there were more groups involved in this case than just an adventuress and Holmes.

We as good Sherlockians can not imagine, or except that Watson could write such a bad story.