November Meeting: The Abbey Grange

2021 ended with another delightful meeting as Sherlockians from the St. Louis area, across America, and three other countries met on Zoom to discuss "The Abbey Grange."

As usual, we started off with some news:

Elaine had a fun post on our blog looking at what happens to people who fall in love in the Canon.

Anna Behrens has made some canonical connections to a local play, Trifles, on the blog as well.

The Crew of the Barque Lone Star has their latest collection, Holmes and Me, available on their website.

Our dates for 2022 are listed below.  The January meeting will be via Zoom, and the meetings past that will be TBD.

January 8: The Second Stain

March 19: The Valley of Fear

May 14: Wisteria Lodge

July 9: The Red Circle

September 10: The Bruce-Partington Plans

November 12: The Dying Detective

Brad announced the return of The Dangling Prussian on Zoom for anyone who is looking for something to do on the night of the BSI dinner.  And Madeline announced that her podcast, Dynamics of a Podcast, will be recording a live episode the following day.

And last but definitely not least.... The Parallel Case is planning to put out a book next year!  We are planning on including articles from our old newsletter, The Parallelogram, and blog posts.  Look for more news next year.

This month's story starts off with that great line from Holmes, "The game is afoot!"

Holmes wakes Watson with these words and they are off on a case.  Ten minutes later, our duo is in a cab on their way to Charing Cross station through "the opalescent London reek."  Once they are on the train, Holmes explains to Watson their task via a telegram from Stanley Hopkins:

"My dear Mr. Holmes:

"I should be very glad of your immediate assistance in what promises to be a most remarkable case.  It is something quite in your line.  Except for releasing the lady I will see that everything is kept exactly as I have found it, but I beg you not to lose an instant, as it is difficult to leave Sir Eustance there."

This is Hopkins's last appearance in the Canon, all of them have been part of The Return stories.  Andrew pointed out that all of his stories were published in 1904.

Along the way, Holmes gets in a jab a Watson's writing style, saying he laments that Watson has written his cases up as stories instead of instructions.  Arianna said this line always makes her cringe when she comes across it.  Watson tells Holmes to write them himself, to which Holmes says he will someday.

Rob noted that when he was reading this story, he realized that the title of Holmes's promised writing was not "The Whole Art of Detection," but that phrase was used as a description instead of a title.  He blamed Lyndsay Faye's great pastiche from a few years back for confusing him.

When Holmes and Watson arrive at the crime scene, the Abbey Grange, Hopkins meets them at the door and tells them that the lady of the house has come to and told him everything.  She says that it was the Randall gang that committed last night's crime.  Hopkins still wants Holmes to hear her story.  

This led to a discussion on Hopkins with our group.  Even though the case is solved in Hopkins's eyes, Elaine thought that he felt bad for having Holmes come all the way out so he went through the motions of having him hear the story.  Sandy thought maybe he wanted Holmes to double check his work.  Brad wanted to know why Hopkins was so excited when he wrote the note; was it because he was such a fanboy of Holmes?  And Heather said she thinks that Hopkins is smarter than anyone gives him credit for and he seems to be the one at the Yard that Holmes has the most esteem for.

And Watson REALLY likes the look of Lady Brackenstall...  Stacey said it was worth counting how many times Holmes uses the word "beautiful" to describe her.   Heather said there should be a drinking game where you take a shot every time he comments on a woman's beauty, but Rob warned that it could lead to alcohol poisoning.  And Alisha wondered how many women in the Canon Watson doesn't refer to as being pretty, the number must be a small one!

The lady opens her story with telling them that her late husband was a drunken jerk.  And then rails against the British laws that prevented her from getting a divorce from him.  But now, let's actually talk about the dead man.

Lady Brackenstall was turning in for the night after 11 and was checking the windows.  The dining room was open and a large, elderly man climbed in.  Two younger men followed him.  When she tried to scream, the old man hit her and she was knocked out.  She awoke tied to a chair with a bell rope.

Sir Eustance heard the commotion and came downstairs with a cudgel.  He rushed them and the old man hit him in the head with a fireplace poker, causing her to pass out again.  When she came to, the three men had collected all of the silver and where drinking wine.  They left and once she could get the gag loose, she screamed for the servants.

Holmes turns to the lady's maid and asks her what she has to say.  Theresa says that she saw three men loitering earlier in the night, but thought nothing of it.  Later in the night, she heard the scream and came down to find Lady Brackenstall tied to a chair and Sir Eustance dead.  She then told the investigators that they had asked enough of her lady, and took her away.

Hopkins tells Holmes that the maid has been with Lady Brackenstall since she was a baby and that they came over from Australia 18 months ago.

Sherlock Holmes has no interest in this case right now.  Alisha pointed out that Holmes has his own morality and a terrible man being killed isn't something that bothers him too much.  Arianna said we see the same thing with Charles Augustus Milverton.  

They go into the study and Eustance Brackenstall lay dead from a head wound.  A bent poker is next to him.  Holmes notes that the elder Randall must have been very strong to bend a poker over a man's head.  Sonia wondered how a man's skull could bend a metal poker.  Paul offered that since England left the UK, their standards of production have really gone downhill.  Michael wanted everyone to know that Paul delivered that information with a poker face.  Joe thought that Holmes knew quickly something was wrong because a gang would have definitely taken more than just the silverware.  Alisha agreed that none of Lady Brackenstall's story made sense.

Holmes wonders how the gang knew that no one in the house would hear when they pulled on the bell rope to tie the lady.  There were also only a few things taken from the sideboard.  Hopkins says that the robbers were too shaken by the man's death to do more.  But Holmes wonders why they stayed to drink the wine.  And Hopkins says it was to steady their nerves.

There were three glasses of wine left.  Only one of them had dregs of beeswing.  And now Holmes is suddenly interested in this case.

Holmes ends up taking Lady Brackenstall at her word, but is still troubled by the wine glasses, saying, "Perhaps when a man has special knowledge and special powers like my own, it rather encourages him to seek a complex explanation when a simple one is at hand."

Holmes and Watson leave, but Holmes is still puzzled on the way home, going so far as to jump off the train and go back to Abbey Grange.  "Every instinct that I possess cries out against it.  It's wrong - I'll swear that it's wrong."

Holmes sits Watson down, hoping he will be a conductor of light as he goes over the case.  The thieves had just made a good haul a few days ago, so they should be lying low.  They broke in earlier in the night than would be expected and thieves don't usually hit women as it makes them scream.  And why would they murder Sir Eustance when they had a three to one advantage over them?  And why didn't they finish drinking the wine?  

And speaking of wine: beeswing was in only one glass.  Watson says it's because it was the last glass poured.  Holmes says that all three glasses should have the beeswing.  But since that's not what they saw, the dregs of two glasses were actually poured into the third glass, proving Lady Brackenstall and her maid lied.

This led to conversation on Petri wine and plenty of people had thoughts on its taste and how scary it would be to drink.  Steve had a bottle at home and threatened to make everyone drink it.  Bill told about The Occupants of the Empty House tried a bottle one time and everyone spit it back out!  Susan remembered the Occupants publishing a series of articles on Petri wine as well.

Holmes and Watson return to Abbey Grange.  Hopkins is gone so Holmes investigates the dining room for two hours, paying close attention to the broken rope.  And there is also blood splattered on the chair where Lady Brackenstall had apparently been tied up when her husband was murdered.

Stacey really appreciated Watson's description of the Brackenstall dining room and getting to watch Holmes work step-by-step through the investigative process, saying it made this story one of her favorites.  Adam said there are a lot of readers who love to see the process.

They talk to Theresa and Lady Brackenstall, asking specifically for the truth.  The women stick to their stories.  On the way out, Holmes notices that the pond has a hole broken in the ice.  He sends a note to Hopkins and they visit the Adelaide-South Hampton shipping line.

There the two learn about Jack Croker (or Crocker in the American text) and they take a cab to Scotland Yard.  Holmes rethinks things, sends another telegram, and they go home.  Holmes tells Watson that he couldn't tell the police.  "I had rather play tricks with the law of England than with my own conscience."

Sandy thought that Holmes wanted to be the judge of the culprit before he was turned over to the law.  And Joe noted that the wife would automatically be included if he had turned Croker in.

Hopkins arrives at Baker Street and says he followed Holmes's suggestion and found the stolen silver in the pond, making his case harder.  And on top if it all, the Randall gang has been arrested in America this morning!  Holmes wishes Hopkins the best, and we do not see him again in any more stories.

After dinner, Captain Croker arrives and tells Holmes to do what he will with him.  But Holmes says, "I should not sit here smoking with you if I thought that you were a common criminal, you may be sure of that.  Be frank with me, and we may do some good.  Play tricks with me, and I'll crush you."

Sherlock Holmes is determined to hear the truth from someone involved in this matter.

Croker tells his story that he fell in love with Lady Brackenstall before she was married, when she sailed on his ship from Australia.  He recently ran in to Theresa, and she updated him on how miserable the Lady's life was now.  He started visiting her when Eustance was away, and made one last visit last night when Eustance came down and caught them.  He called his wife "the vilest name that a man could use to a woman," and hit her in the face before he and Croker fought.

Sonia said Croker's story of falling in love sounded obsessive.  Stacey pointed out that Watson told the readers how good-looking Croker was.  And Brad pointed out that even the corpse was good-looking as well.

Rob admitted that he was getting this story mixed up with "The Crooked Man" and expected Sir Eustance to hit his head on the mantle instead of being killed by Croker.

Croker and Theresa set up the whole charade and convinced Lady Brackenstall to go along with it.  He tells Holmes to do what he will with this information.  Holmes smokes for a minute and then shakes Croker's hand, telling him that this will all come out but Holmes will not stop him from leaving on his ship.  Croker gets mad that Lady Brackenstall will be tied to all of this as an accomplice and asks Holmes to arrange it where he takes all of the blame and leaves her out of it completely.

Holmes shakes the man's hand a second time, telling him that he has passed the test.  Holmes won't tell anyone about it and asks Watson to play the role of a British jury, saying, "I never met a man who was more eminently fitted to represent one."  Quite a nice change from his comments on Watson's writing at the beginning of the story!

Watson announces Croker not guilty, and Holmes says that as long as the murder isn't pinned on an innocent man, Croker can come back to Lady Brackenstall in a year and they can live happily ever after.

D. Martin Dakin noted that this story was published seven years after it took place, and the culprits could still be charged, which made him think that the lovers had died by the story's publication date.  Stacey offered that they could have moved to Australia and disappeared into the Outback.  This led us to a detour talking about all of the times Australia popped up in the Canon.

Stacey wanted to talk about how predatory Sir Eustance was and how quickly he married Mary after meeting her.  Sonia wondered if Mary was a gold-digger and she was the one who sped the marriage.  Rob said Brackenstall could've had a title and Mary had the money, creating a situation similar to The Noble Bachelor.  Kevin thought Eustance laid on the charm and then revealed his true colors after they were married.  Rich pointed out that he didn't set any dogs on fire until after the marriage.

And that's a wrap for The Parallel Case of St. Louis meetings in 2021!  Make sure to follow us on Facebook and Twitter to stay up-to-date on our happenings and other Sherlockian news.  See you in 2022!

There is Nothing So Important as Trifles by Anna Behrens

There is Nothing So Important as Trifles by Anna Behrens, MA, CCC-SLP

Recently I had the opportunity to watch an engaging film version of the one-act play Trifles, by Susan Glaspell. The performance was by a local play group called the Edge Ensemble, and happens to star my talented mother-in-law. So, what, if anything, could this play about a woman apparently having murdered her abusive husband have to do with Sherlock Holmes? 

In a serendipitous juxtaposition, I watched in the same evening as Trifles, the Granada Television adaptation of The Abbey Grange (ABBE) because I was creating a presentation on the story for my scion group, The Monadnock Sherlockians. After viewing both films, I had a fitful night of sleep, but I awoke with a feeling of clarity, where I realized that Trifles was in large part a re-telling of the ABBE story! 

For those unfamiliar with Trifles, I recommend the Edge Ensemble’s version on YouTube. It is a fine adaptation that sticks very closely to the original script. The play is out of copyright, and is available to read online as well. It is often studied in feminist studies college courses, and was published 12 years after ABBE. Because Arthur Conan Doyle was the most famous author of his day, and Susan Glaspell a budding journalist and writer, it is a fair assumption that Glaspell was more than somewhat familiar with his Sherlock Holmes stories. 

An obvious clue to the comparison is in the name of the play itself, Trifles, as in Holmes’ mantra “there is nothing so important as trifles.” In fact, Holmes’ success in solving crimes is largely based on his observation of trifles. And trifles ignored by the police are the very thing that lead the protagonist, Mrs. Hale, more in the guise of Miss Marple than Sherlock, to her secret conclusions about the murder of Mr. John Wright.

Mrs. Peters, the Sheriff’s wife who came to the Wright farmhouse to gather clothing for jailed Mrs. Wright, then, is Glaspell’s Watson. Mrs. Peters doesn't see the deeper meaning behind the trifles that Mrs. Hale does until Mrs. Hale enlightens her. Mrs. Peters, like Watson, tends to take things at face value, standing in for the reader or audience member.   

The County Attorney, Sheriff Peters, and Mr. Hale represent Inspector Lestrade of Scotland Yard or the police force that Holmes typically eclipses. While they go about pursuing the case using traditional methods, they clearly don't have Mrs. Hale's unique skills, so they miss the important clues. They diminish the women's skills as Scotland Yard often downplays Holmes' methods, until they are forced to admit his supremacy. In Trifles, Mrs. Hale does not reveal her superior methods to them, leaving them in the dark, as Holmes has also been known to do. Mr. Hale says dismissively in Trifles, “Well, women are used to worrying over trifles”.

The following similarities are too close to be dismissed as coincidence, and are what led me to the connection between the story and the play. There is an abused wife in both ABBE and Trifles. The husband’s killing of his wife’s beloved bird in Trifles parallels the husband’s killing of his wife’s beloved dog in ABBE.  Margaret Wright is the abused wife in Trifles who does not admit to her crime, and Theresa Wright is the lady’s maid in ABBE who tells of abuse her lady suffered at the hands of her husband and lies to help protect her. 

Mrs. Hale and Holmes use clues (trifles) missed by police as evidence to solve the crime such as the broken bird cage, the dead bird, and the poor stitching in Trifles and the cut bell rope, the bloodstain, and sediment in only one of three wine glasses in ABBE.

Mrs. Hale's sleuthing shows Wright to be the actual perpetrator of crimes against his wife that are unlikely to have been punished, let alone acknowledged, in the patriarchal society they lived in. This is also the case in ABBE, where the abused wife could not seek divorce from her abusive husband, nor have the law against him for his abuse. 

The wives share the initials MF, Minnie Foster in Trifles and Mary Brackenstall (nee Fraser) in ABBE.  And although the characters are not parallel, JW first name and initials are shared by John Watson and the murdered John Wright. 

In both stories, there is justifiable homicide due to abuse suffered by victims, according to Sherlock Holmes and Mrs. Hale, and supported by Watson and Mrs. Peters. In ABBE, Holmes takes the law into his own hands and appoints Watson the jury, while he himself is the judge, and they let Jack Crocker go free. Holmes justifies it by using the Latin phrase Vox Populi, Vox Dei (the voice of the people is the voice of God).

By staying silent and hiding the evidence of the dead bird, Mrs. Hale takes the law into her own hands as she deduces that Mrs. Wright is guilty of murdering her husband, but that she is justified because of the psychological abuse she suffered at his hands. As Susan Glaspell’s title of her short story version of her play indicates, Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters, much like Holmes and Watson, appoint themselves “a jury of her peers.”

Susan Glaspell masterfully used key elements in ABBE to fictionalize the true crime of a murdered husband that she reported on as a journalist. By embodying Holmes and Watson in two housewives, Glaspell penned a feminist masterpiece that is still relevant and taught in feminist studies courses today, more than 100 years after it was first published. Irene Adler would, no doubt, approve.