Appendix A: G. K. Chesterton's “The Blue Cross” (1910)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
APPENDIX A: G. K. CHESTERTON’S “THE BLUE CROSS” (1910) In assessing whether this story has a Gestalt shift structure, it is imperative to keep in mind that with it Gilbert Keith Chesterton (1874–1936) sought to launch a new detective. During the first decade of the twentieth cen- tury, various authors, influenced by the extraordinary success of Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes stories, explored writing detective fiction. As a fan of detective stories and a prolific author, Chesterton was among those aware of this opportunity. In fact, in 1904 he had already made an attempt to enter this market, the chief result of which was a book he published that year titled The Club of Queer Trades.1 In 1910, Chesterton decided to try this market again. His goal was to create a detective who could compete with Holmes’s remarkable array of talents and long list of successes, despite being a very different type of person using quite different techniques. This presented no small challenge. But more than this, Chesterton’s great con- cern throughout his life was to champion various religious, philosophical, and political causes. Doyle also favored various causes, but refrained from burdening Holmes with these issues; for example, Holmes never champi- oned spiritualism, whereas Doyle spent much of the last decade of his life writing and lecturing on spiritualist claims. Chesterton probably realized 1 John Peterson, “Introduction,” Collected Works of G. K. Chesterton, XII (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2005), 15–18. © The Author(s) 2018 197 M. J. Crowe, The Gestalt Shift in Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes Stories, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98291-5 198 APPENDIX A: G. K. CHESTERTON’S “THE BLUE CROSS” (1910) he needed not only a Holmes substitute but also a Watson, a Moriarty, and a Lestrade for his stories. And, not least important, he desired a detective able to succeed using at least some techniques comparable in power but quite different from those employed by Holmes. Chesterton opened his “The Blue Cross” by introducing Valentin, the “most famous investigator of the world.”2 It would be natural for readers of this first story to assume that Valentin would be the hero of the story. Chesterton devoted his second and third paragraphs to introducing that “colossus of crime,” Hercule Flambeau, on whom Chesterton remarks that on “his best days (I mean, of course, his worst) Flambeau was a figure as statuesque and international as the Kaiser.”3 As is well known, Flambeau ends up doing double duty: after serving as Father Brown’s Moriarty, he emerges in later stories as Brown’s Watson. This sets the stage for Chesterton to introduce (seemingly as an aside) a “little priest” named Father Brown; as Chesterton states, “he had a face as round and dull as a Norfolk dumpling; he had eyes as empty as the North Sea.”4 Brown’s mission is to bring a precious crucifix to a Eucharistic Congress, a fact that Valentin specifically advises Brown not to mention, whereas Brown with “moon-calf simplicity” does exactly the opposite. The reader naturally expects that this rather hopeless bungler will be the victim. Father Brown then links up with another priest (who turns out not to be a priest, but rather to be the infamous Flambeau, who is disguised as a priest) attending the conference. He accompanies Brown as they travel through the London area, chatting about various matters and stopping periodically for snacks. In the course of their rambles, they encounter such strange events as salt in a sugar dish at one restaurant, apples knocked out of their basket at a grocery, signs shifted in a store window, a splash on the wall of another eatery, a broken window, and so on. The bungler priest seems to be the source of these problems. None of this makes any sense to anyone except to the astute Valentin, who is desperately looking for clues yet finds nothing but these anomalies. The two priests then reach Hampstead Heath, where they engage in a discussion of the question of intelligent life in outer space. Suddenly the taller priest interrupts this discussion by telling the little priest to hand over the cross. The tall priest, 2 G. K. Chesterton, “The Blue Cross” in Chesterton’s The Innocence of Father Brown (New York: Penguin Books, 1975), 7. 3 Chesterton, Innocence, 8. 4 Chesterton, Innocence, 28. APPENDIX A: G. K. CHESTERTON’S “THE BLUE CROSS” (1910) 199 we recognize, is Flambeau in disguise; the short priest responds simply “No,” and explains that he has already sent the cross to its destination. Moreover, this “celibate simpleton,” as Flambeau describes him, turns out to have substantial knowledge of crime and criminals, which he attributes partly to his many hours in the confessional. We then gradually learn in the final paragraphs that this apparent bungler has known all along that his fellow priest is not a priest and that Valentin accompanied by then by two police has been following them, attracted by the bizarre trail that Brown has been leaving (e.g., misplaced sugar and a broken window). They even- tually emerge and capture the master criminal. The final lines of the story are these: And even as [Flambeau] turned away to collect his property, the three policemen came out from under the twilight trees. Flambeau was an artist and a sportsman. He stepped back and swept Valentin a great bow. “Do not bow to me, mon ami,” said Valentin with silver clearness. “Let us both bow to our master.” And they both stood an instant uncovered while the little Essex priest blinked about for his umbrella.5 In these few minutes, a Gestalt shift has occurred. The “most famous investigator of the world” and the “colossus of crime” have recognized this bungling clergyman, Fr. Brown, as a master detective working, it seems, on new principles forged in such sources as a confessional. Valentin is deposed as the ne plus ultra detective. Flambeau for the first time has met more than his match; in fact, after years he has now been identified and is under arrest. The Cross is saved. The reader finally recognizes that Chesterton has cre- ated a new detective who has emerged suddenly and only at the very end of this story. Probably even Chesterton was unaware that this unique detec- tive would over the next twenty-five years succeed in attaining solutions in fifty-one more stories and an international reputation. What I am suggesting is that although Chesterton’s Fr. Brown was dras- tically different from Doyle’s Holmes in appearance and methods from the great detective that Doyle had so successfully created, Chesterton seems to have carried over from Doyle a dramatic technique present in the Holmes stories: structuring his stories in accordance with a form of change that would decades later be described as a Gestalt shift. Moreover, Chesterton 5 Chesterton, Innocence, 29. 200 Appendix A: G. K. Chesterton’s “The Blue Cross” (1910) in 1925 in his “How to Write a Detective Story,” suggested: “The first and fundamental principle is that the aim of a mystery story, as of every other story and every other mystery, is not darkness but light. The story is writ- ten for the moment when the reader does understand, not merely for the many preliminary moments when he does not understand. The misunder- standing is only meant as a dark outline of cloud to bring out the bright- ness of that instant of intelligibility.”6 6 G. K. Chesterton, “How to Write a Detective Story,” available on the internet at http:// www3.dbu.edu/mitchell/chesterton_on_detective_fiction.htm. APPENDIX B: SOmE QUESTIONS aND SOmE ANSwERS OF THE REcENT CHaRacTERS MODELED ON SHERLOck HOLmES CHaRacTER, WHIcH IS MOST AUTHENTIc? In the last two decades, characters modeled on Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes have appeared in numerous films and television shows, leading critics to discuss which production is most faithful to the original stories. Among such dramatizations are Elementary with Johnny Lee Miller, British televi- sion’s Sherlock with Benedict Cumberbatch, and the films featuring Robert Downey as Holmes. A few years ago a friend suggested another candidate for the distinction of having come closest to the spirit of the original sto- ries. This seemed at first a most unlikely candidate because the central figure is not named Holmes and rather than being a detective is a physi- cian. Nonetheless, I followed up on her lead and have come to accept its plausibility. To offer a definitive answer to this question would take a per- son with far more knowledge of the candidates than I can claim, but my investigation has led to a suggestion. The candidate is named House, M.D., a television show featuring Hugh Laurie as physician Gregory House. The show’s 177 episodes ran from 2004 to 2012; in fact, it was the most watched series in the world in 2008. The evidence that David Shore, who created House, used Doyle’s stories as models is compelling. For example, Shore explicitly stated that he drew upon Doyle’s stories in creating House (whose name is a variant of © The Author(s) 2018 201 M. J. Crowe, The Gestalt Shift in Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes Stories, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98291-5 202 APPENDIX B: SOME QUESTIONS AND SOME ANSWERS Holmes) and whose first name, Gregory, comes from Inspector Gregson. House, like Holmes, has an addiction (vicodin), a closest friend, Dr. James Wilson (think Dr. John Watson), and a brusque manner. More signifi- cantly, although a rather irascible figure, House has a genius for diagnos- ing diseases, typically rare diseases.