 |
| Copper Beech |
There really are a lot of red flags about Violet Hunter's job offer, and I have come up with another explanation that might have occurred to Sherlock Holmes. The real explanation -- that Miss Hunter was hired to impersonate her employer's daughter who is being held captive -- seems unlikely to occur to anyone who has not read way too many Gothic novels, a category unlikely to include Sherlock Holmes! At the same time, there were plenty of red flags to suggest something disturbing.
Too many Gothic novels
Red flag 1: Her prospective employer, Jephro Rucastle, jumped in his chair as soon as he saw her and said, "That will do. . . . I could not ask for anything better. Capital! capital!" This is without knowing anything about her at all. Clearly Mr. Rucastle is choosing her solely for her looks, and by far the most plausible explanation is a lecherous one.
Red flag 2: When Miss Hunter tries to discuss what she can actually teach, Mr. Rucastle dismissed it as unimportant compared to her "bearing" and "deportment." Just how much can he meaningfully take in about her "bearing" and "deportment" at a single look? All this talk of "bearing" and "deportment" is just a euphemism for saying he is hiring her for her looks. Again, a lecherous explanation seems the most likely.
Red flag 3: He then offers to pay 100 pounds a year, an extraordinary salary for a governess and offers an advance. Sounds like a very serious lecherous design here. Run!
Red flag 4: Something feels wrong about the whole thing, so Miss Hunter asks Mr. Rucastle where he lives. He has an isolated country house, five miles from the nearest town. Taken by itself, that would not necessarily be alarming. Governesses were apparently more widely employed in rural than urban areas because there were fewer schools in rural areas, so the country house by itself is nothing out the the ordinary. But (as Holmes later comments), a vaguely sinister situation is a lot more alarming in a rural than an urban area because it is much more difficult to escape or summon help.
Red flag 5: All this is for one child, but he sounds like quite a handful. "One child--one dear little romper just six years old. Oh, if you could see him killing cockroaches with a slipper! Smack! smack! smack! Three gone before you could wink!" This raises, for the first time, the possibility of a non-lecherous explanation. Maybe Mr. Rucastle is offering so high a salary just to put up with so incorrigible a child, and what she can teach less important than the ability to impose any sort of discipline at all. That would not explain why Mr. Rucastle chose Violet Hunter at a glance. Maybe she resembles the only person who has any sway with the child -- his older half-sister, perhaps, or an earlier governess -- and his father thinks this may have a calming effect. The problem with this explanation is that Mr. Rucastle seems to approve of his son's cruelty and violence, so it seems unlikely that he is looking for a restraining influence. This approval would also suggest that Mr. Rucastle's genial manner is act and that he has cruel and violent tendencies of his own.* So the balance of the clues still point Violet going to an isolated country house to work for a lecherous employer who approves of his son's cruel and violent nature and may be cruel and violent himself. Not a good situation!
Red flag 6: Mr. Rucastle's wife is quirky and demanding and expects Miss Hunter to wear a certain dress, sit in a certain chair, and cut her hair short. This leads to Miss Hunter's explanation -- that Mrs. Rucastle is insane and her husband humors her to keep her from being institutionalized. This would explain the inordinate salary and the lack of interest in what Violet can teach, if her real job is to manage a crazy woman. It might somewhat account for the child's behavior -- he is acting out because his mother's erratic behavior upsets him. It does not explain why Mr. Rucastle chose Miss Hunter at a glance. As with the incorrigible child hypothesis, maybe Violet resembles a former caretaker who had a calming influence. Alternately, if the lecherous employer explanation is true, these quirky little demands may be a power play -- Mrs. Rucastle taking out her anger at her wayward husband by being a petty tyrant toward the governess. Or, if Miss Hunter is being hired to manage an incorrigible child, these little quirks may be things that have a calming influence on him. And maybe Mr. Rucastle wants Violet to cut her hair so his incorrigible child (or his crazy wife) can't grab it.
So, now we have three possible explanations -- lecherous employer, incorrigible child, or crazy wife. The hair, in any event, was a bridge too far and convinced Miss Hunter to refuse the job.
Red flag 7: After Miss Hunter's refusal, Mr. Rucastle tracked her down to her address and offered an even higher salary to cut her hair and come to work for him. Such a fixation on one governess once again suggests that his interests are lecherous. But the letter also asks Miss Hunter to wear a specific electric blue dress that belonged to his daughter Alice, now in Philadelphia. This raises a fourth possibility -- that Miss Hunter is being hired for her resemblance to Alice. But why? I suggested several reasons, from her father simply missing her, to wanting to role-play, to incest.
Well, that raises seven red flags, but still not quite seven explanations. If only each red flag offered a new possible explanation! But in my view, not being Sherlock Holmes, they do not.
*Indeed, this child turns out to be a budding little sociopath with a fondness for torturing small animals. Holmes sees this as a clear reflection on his father. That could be unfair. Sometimes good parents have bad children, for reasons not clearly understood. But if Mr. Rucastle approves of his little sociopath's sadism, that is a different matter altogether.
No comments:
Post a Comment