On "The Adventure of the Beryl Coronet" [BERY] from The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
::: PUBLICATION HISTORY :::
The Strand (US) June 1892
The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes (Coll.) October 1892
::: NOTES & GRADING :::
The ensuing melodrama prior to the case being related to Holmes is Victorian Era melodrama delicious. "For a while he could not get his words out, but swayed his body and plucked at his hair like one who has been driven to the extreme limits of his reason. Then, suddenly springing to his feet, he beat his head against the wall with such force that we both rushed upon him and tore him away to the centre of the room." He is then plopped kindly into what acts as a de facto fainting couch from which he tells our duo word of his woe.
Prior to that display, Watson was pontificating as to the sad scene of a 'madman' whose "relatives should allow him to come out alone." Post said scene, from the fainting couch, we learn the man is Alexander Holder, "the senior partner in the second largest private banking concern in the City of London." Furthermore, that it all went downhill for the upper-crust fellow when an unnamed Nobleman secured from him a four-day 50K pound loan with “One of the most precious public possessions of the empire" as collateral. What could POSSIBLY go wrong?
Well, what went wrong for me is that I wanted to bite harder into this hinted-at red herring of sorts. I wanted to further believe my initial idea that somehow this indebted Nobleman was behind the 'theft.' having orchestrated the whole shebang. Alas, it was all too fleeting. Then the 'very pretty' Lucy Parr makes a longer if not far-less tantalizing bit of pickled fishiness; she and her peg-legged beau. Entirely unconvincing, that. However, its parallels to the real burglars are neat.
Equally if not more-so unconvincing is the case against Arthur, the grievously disappointing son of our once-proud now potentially ruined banker. The case against him doesn't seem as damning as we're presented it to be. He's standing there in plain-ish sight, not dressed (outside was a "strong frost"), holding the coronet? Seemingly with no plans whatsoever to actually steal away with it. Mary screamed when she saw the coronet in Arthur's keep. This Holder (a great banker name) is more than a bit blinded by his bias here.
Also, Burnwell is a delightful villainous name. How can you not suspect that guy? Evil McThefty? Nah, he seems OK. Maybe it's not that egregious a name but oh, well. Not all my jokes land.
Holmes has it covered, but while seeming smart, he also poo-poos what we're supposed to believe. "You suppose that your son came down from his bed, went, at great risk, to your dressing-room, opened your bureau, took out your coronet, broke off by main force a small portion of it, went off to some other place, concealed three gems out of the thirty-nine, with such skill that nobody can find them, and then returned with the other thirty-six into the room in which he exposed himself to the greatest danger of being discovered. I ask you now, is such a theory tenable?"
You see, this is mainly the tale of a kid being a bit of a spoiled shit, at least in-part due to his dad not saying 'no' nearly enough or even at all. So Dad becomes biased after creating the tilt, for he had been BURNt so WELL in the past. Then biased further by 'his little Mary' just being the perfect little apple of his almost strangely over-affectionate eye. Character-wise, there is also McThefty who frequents their abode on a regular basis. (Which is why Mary is home so much.) I've already mentioned the mentionable rest.
Holmes has some decent dialog with Watson. The good doctor seems near the top of his narrative game but also at the heights of his bewilderment. It's all good but the way it's told is off-kilter in a sort, where again, the obvious is not and the not is a foregone conclusion not to be swayed-from right up until the ::: very ::: last. All these quirks make the plot a bit shaky, like a person of perhaps as much as average intelligence feeling quite brilliant for ingesting certain stimuli. But that's enough about Whovians and Dr. Who.
I feel as though I'm all-over the place here but why is Arthur asking his cousin to marry him? Did I miss something? Oh, apparently that was kosher at the time. The problem of losing the people's jewels seems huge until you remember that the borrower here probably has the ability to print money in either the literal or figurative sense. This is odd and even more-so as the stakes lower in that way.
As the case is getting solved, we do get some neat action-hero Holmes, "At first, of course, he denied everything. But when I gave him every particular that had occurred, he tried to bluster and took down a life-preserver from the wall. I knew my man, however, and I clapped a pistol to his head before he could strike." At the end of it all, we read from Holder's appreciative mouth: "A day which has saved England from a great public scandal," said the banker, rising." But really was it that much?
Again, the only risk was to a Nobleman's name and a banker's professionalism. Call me picky or call my reading of the situation poor, but I don't see jolly old England in death throes even in a worst-case scenario. But it's the best case we get at tale's end. When Holder at long last understands Arthur isn't the villain, he blurts out "I must fly to my dear boy." A Field of Dreams moment is best avoided here. Although I wanted one on first blush, probably because I'm a big softie. I am curious, however, as to why Holmes handles breaking the news to the kid sans his father's presence.
I suppose what I'm saying is that this whole escapade strikes me as well-written humdrum. Even the nice-enough-drawn characters seem not used to their best abilities. Why not paint the baddie as badder? Why not give more insight on the transgressions of the son upon his father? Why not highlight how poor stupid smitten Mary must have been torn? I mean we get the last bit but I also get she's more upset as to being caught than about perpetrating the whole dang mess. The little bit of sympathy one might have for her is gone upon her attempting to throw Lucy to the wolves under the bus.
In closing, here's a bit of further nothing! "You should not have a farthing from me" Holder ejaculates somewhere along the tale to Arthur who is again asking to be bailed out of his gambling debt on Dad's dime. Quickly, Penny-farthing bicycles are those oldies that have a huge front wheel and a smaller one in the back. Named-so because the front wheel was seen as the penny and you get the rest. Don't you feel smarter now?
Two questions remain. Did Holder return the cracked coronet collateral all broken-up or did he take a loss paying a 24/7 jeweler's emergency rates? Obviously that second option. And who was the Nobleman borrower? I'm quite open to any thoughts on this, point me in a direction and I will go. TELL ME! All ears, here. [comments on this blog are still, and always will be, disabled.]
CHARACTERS: 1/2
SETTING: .5/2
PLOT: .5/2
PROBLEM: .5/2
SOLUTION: .5/2
FINAL GRADE: 3/10
SETTING: .5/2
PLOT: .5/2
PROBLEM: .5/2
SOLUTION: .5/2
FINAL GRADE: 3/10
::: RESEARCH SOURCES :::
Lit 2 Go
Wikipedia
###
Also, please bear in mind that this post is part of a series in which I'm working through every case in The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes. For other entries in this series, use the Search Kaplowitz Media. function to the right of your screen and plug in either particular adventures contained within that collection, or The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes to view them in their entirety.
::: very :::