Jargon and Language Exclusivity

Jargon and Language ExclusivityJargon and Language Exclusivity

I just read a book about words that only mean something to people in certain professions and I got to thinking about the idea of jargon.

Jargon is language that only means something in a certain situation and to certain people, such as doctors. It’s rude to use jargon when speaking to people who don’t know what it means because they can’t understand what you’re talking about.

The jargon is still in English, so it’s not exactly another language, but is it fair?

By this question, I ask if it’s fair to transform a common language in a niche manner so that most people cannot understand it, therefore making the language exclusive to only a few people, something I like to call language exclusivity.

Language doesn’t belong to any one person. There’s not a copyright on English, or German, or Japanese, or any other language, that I know of, maybe Vulcan or Elvish have copyrights since they were actually created by very few people, but no one person, or entity, has the right to English. Therefore, it belongs to everybody. It’s a cooperative language.

The idea of a cooperative is that multiple people take ownership of something and work to maintain it and better it. If you had a farm that was a cooperative, a bunch of people would help water the vegetables, harvest the vegetables, and then get them ready for market. The farm would not belong to one person. In addition to maintaining this farm, the people who were in the cooperative would help improve the farm. They would all help install a new irrigation system to make the farm better. Maybe they don’t have to haul water from the spring in buckets, which is great.

Being that English is cooperative, this also means we are able to change the language and improve it since we all kind of own it. That’s why there is American English, English English, and Australian English. I’m sure there’s also at least a couple that I’m missing. I think it’s fair that we’ve evolved English in such a way that large countries, with large populations, that are geographically distinct, have their own versions of English.

But…is it fair to break those distinctions down even more? Is it ok for American doctors, British doctors, and Australian doctors to have an English that only doctors of those countries understand? Is it ok for doctors to have language that other people don’t understand? If we create a heavily-jargoned language for American doctors, as an example, is it fair? If English is something that should be accessible to everyone, is it right for us to take part of it and make it exclusive?

The whole idea of exclusivity means very few people can access it and that usually means only people with money, but not always. There is a whole redneck language that’s exclusive to rednecks, that a city person from New York City is not going to understand at all, and for the most part, people who self-identify as rednecks don’t have a lot of money. Generally though, exclusivity means “you can get in with enough money” or “you can get in, if you meet XYZ stringent requirements.” If you take something that is free and make part of it exclusive, is it fair? Humane? Legal?

You may be thinking that we’re not charging for a person to learn jargon, which is essentially a type of slang. No one says you owe them five dollars if you want to learn how to talk like a doctor. I know we’re picking on doctors a lot, but they do have a whole lot of jargon and it’s a good example.

Look, we do charge to speak like a doctor and understand their language, but it’s not always a monetary charge. Sure, if you go to school to become a doctor, it costs a lot of money. We’re also talking time, effort, and a high understanding of Latin and Greek root words. There is a cost associated with learning the jargon of doctors, even though it’s not written down on a brochure somewhere.

Learn how to talk like a doctor! Only five payments of $999.99!

You could, theoretically, learn how to understand all of the doctors’ jargon without going to medical school or working as a doctor. You could do this by being a nurse or a physician’s assistant, which still come with an education cost. You could also just sit yourself down with several medical terminology books and some books about Latin and Greek and dive into the jargon of doctors. No matter how you learned the jargon of the doctors’, it still came with a cost and that cost makes it exclusive language, because it’s not a cost everyone is willing to pay, or is able to pay.

Shouldn’t English just be English? If you’re a doctor, shouldn’t you be speaking English just like everyone else? If you go into a patient’s room, shouldn’t what you say make sense to the patient?

Shouldn’t, “Take this controlled substance BID,” be more understandable as, “Take this Lortab twice a day, but only twice a day because it’s addictive”?

The idea of language exclusivity may not be fair, but it may be appropriate in some instances. If you’re a doctor, you’re going to have to learn words like myocardial infarction, instead of just saying heart attack. Why? I’m not sure exactly. Why does everything need a Latin name? Why can’t people just be called humans instead of Homo sapiens? It’s kind of like saying, “Oooh, I’m special, I know a fancy way to say you choked on cherry stem and all you can say is that you choked on a cherry stem, because you haven’t been to medical school.”

I don’t know why a person has to learn to speak a different version of English depending on their profession and also possibly depending on their level of education. Academics certainly speak in a different manner than Joe down at the landfill that mans the big scale where you take your trash. Why can’t we all just call a soda a soda and be done with it?

Advertisements

The Infertility Apocalypse

The Fertility ApocalypseThe Infertility Apocalypse

Let me count the ways in which society could end and the world fall apart. There are aliens. There’s zombies. There’s nuclear war. There’s plague. There are super volcanoes. There’s hurtling into the sun at a million miles an hour. Then of course, there’s the rapture.

Zombies are getting to be old-hat. We’ve talked nuclear war to death and lived several decades in fear that it might actually happen. There are just so many ways the world could fall apart, but very few think about the world falling apart due to infertility. There are three female authors who have thought of this though. The three authors I want to speak about are Megan McCafferty, author of the Bumped series, P.D. James, author of The Children of Men, and Margaret Atwood, author of The Handmaid’s Tale. Each of these women has written a dystopian story about a world in which infertility is the driving factor in how people behave. Society as we know it has fallen apart due to a lack of fertility.

Of course it would be a woman who wrote about an apocalypse by infertility. Men are more apt to think about hordes of zombies destroying their lives over the inability to get pregnant or get someone pregnant destroying their lives. Although, if you happen to know of a book or a short story written by a man which is along the lines of the mentioned books, I would be happy to know about it.

I would like to start off by giving a short summary of each book so we have something to reference back to.

The Infertility Apocalypse Bumped by Megan McCafferty

Bumped, and its sequel Thumped, are set in a future world, approximately 2025 or thereabouts. The problem with the world is that there is a virus that limits the reproductive abilities of everyone. For the most part the fertility window of a person is from puberty to eighteen to twenty years old and that’s it. It affects both men and women; there is no cure.

Society has degraded into an all-encompassing need for teenagers to procreate. Babies are sold like candy bars. Sex isn’t for pleasure or because you like someone; it’s purely to make a baby. Everything revolves around pregnant teenage girls like they’re some sort of weird celebrities.

The Infertility Apocalypse The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood

Nuclear war and religious zealism has changed society. Because of the effects of nuclear fallout many women are not able to become pregnant anymore. The few who are, are trained in a special manner. Their destiny is to be handmaids unto a married couple, just as Hagar was a handmaiden to Sarah and Abraham in the Bible.

The handmaid’s job is to produce an heir for a couple. The handmaids themselves are not eligible for marriage because of classified past transgressions. Sex has become ritualized in a strange manner involving not only the handmaid and the man, but also his wife. Paternities are often faked due to infertility of husbands.

The Infertility Apocalypse The Children of Men by P.D. James

For some unknown reason, no one is fertile anymore. No one noticed it at first, but soon appointment registers at clinics and hospitals were bereft of pregnant women coming in for checkups and deliveries. It’s been about twenty-five years since the last babies were born. There is mandatory fertility testing for everyone. So far there has not been any luck.

People are often at war and at religious upheaval because the hope of society is doomed. There is no one to continue on afterwards, so what’s the point? One baby would give the world hope. One baby would put the world on a path in the right direction, but it would also create chaos in the uproar that it would cause when everyone found out.

Why an Infertility Apocalypse is Clever

Why is this such a neat idea? Why am I writing about it? What makes this type of apocalypse so much more special than say, zombies?

I already touched on why this was a great idea in my review of the book Bumped, but I’ll recap here. An infertility apocalypse is a great thing to write about because it’s plausible. There are scientific leanings that could possibly point to something like this actually happening. It’s also something we wouldn’t expect. Even though zombies aren’t real, we would probably expect society to have its downfall from them before we would expect society to have its downfall from the inability to have babies. Why? Well, because we’ve always been able to have babies. It’s something we take for granted. We’ve always been able to do it, so why shouldn’t we be able to keep doing it? We so often think our society will change through great measures, war, zombies, aliens, and natural disasters, that we forget that little things could destroy us.

In truth, we’re actually having a bit of an infertility crisis these days. I know it doesn’t appear that way since we have over seven billion people on the Earth, but hear me out. In developed countries, there is getting to be a bit of a problem with fertility and we’re not talking about fifty-year old women wanting babies, we’re talking about women of normal child-bearing ages, twenty to forty, having lots of problems having babies. Infertility is becoming an issue. It’s not simply a manner of more people talking about it, but more people are actually talking about it; it’s a matter of the whole thing becoming more common.

We can attribute this partly to an autoimmune disease called Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome, or PCOS. Nobody knows what causes this disease or really why it came about. PCOS accounts for seventy percent of infertility cases in The United States, again, don’t quote me on that exactly, those were statistics from a while back. It’s estimated that about ten percent of women of child-bearing ages have PCOS in The United States, but it’s also becoming a big problem in other developed countries, the UK and Australia just to name a couple. PCOS does not mean a woman will be infertile, but women with PCOS have at least some problems conceiving and carrying to term. When we speak of PCOS, we’re talking about a disease that has sky-rocketing rates. Women are being diagnosed right and left; it doesn’t seem to be slowing down at all.

We don’t know what causes PCOS. We have theories. It’s BPA, it’s hormone mimickers like soy, it’s the fact that your mother smoked while she was pregnant, it’s the fact that your father was exposed to Agent Orange, it’s the fact that you live by a Teflon plant, it’s the fact that you took hormonal birth control pills, it’s the fact that it could be genetic, or maybe it’s even GMOs. We don’t know what it is. There are so many things it cold be, that we haven’t been able to pin anything down. The longer it takes us to figure it out the more women will develop PCOS. We don’t have any idea how some of these things in our lives affect us long-term or even if USDA and FDA rulings are even true or accurate. It’s a mystery.

Now, PCOS while being the biggest spoke in the wheel of infertility among women, is definitely not the only problem. We also have unexplained infertility to look to, which as you guessed cannot be explained. Doctors throw their hands up in the air and say, “Beats me.” They can’t tell you why you can’t get pregnant. Let’s not forget about the men though. Men are having some fertility issues as well. Some people are even theorizing that men have become a lot more feminine in recent years because of all the fake hormones, specifically estrogen-like substances, that we find in our food, our clothes, and our chemicals.

We may be shooting ourselves in the foot. We’re paying attention to immediate side-effects of some of these things, but we’re not paying attention to long-terms and effects on fertility. If no one can have babies, we’re screwed. We don’t think about it, probably because it’s not a pleasant thought and it just seems so far-fetched that it would never be, but I’ve just given you evidence that it could be. We have a basis for an infertility apocalypse.

Theoretically, you could sit down and “what if” yourself to death over the possibility of an infertility apocalypse. There are just so many things we could attribute it to. We may know a lot about the human body these days, but we can’t explain everything. We don’t know what certain things will do to a person. Who knows, maybe WiFi decreases our fertility? That’s an awful thought, is it not?

We think it’s always going to be there. We think we’re always going to be able to reproduce. Women are probably more attuned to the idea that an infertility apocalypse could be a thing because women actually stop being fertile after a certain point in life, menopause. Women deal with the fact that they will reach a certain point and no longer be able to have babies. Men never reach that point; that’s probably why a man hasn’t written a dystopian novel about an infertility apocalypse.

Margaret, Megan, and P.D. were very clever when they wrote their dystopian novels dealing with this very thing. It was just so smart because you expect the big things to get you, not the little things.

Common Threads in Infertility Apocalypse Stories

We’ve discussed why the idea of an infertility apocalypse is so clever, but let’s discuss the stories themselves. All three books mentioned deal with fertility problems, but they have other commonalities besides that. There are two ideas that jump out a me when thinking of these three books: A short time frame for things to fall apart and extreme religion.

In each book Bumped, A Handmaid’s Tale and The Children of Men, the world has fallen apart pretty fast after the news that everyone’s fertility was impaired. A Handmaid’s Tale has the shortest time frame, being only a few years, while Bumped and The Children of Men are about twenty-five years into the whole process. In the latter two books, it didn’t take twenty-five years to get that bad, it’s just been twenty-five years since things happened. Things got bad right away. People freaked out immediately when they knew what was going on. The latter two books are just further along into the apocalypse. In Margaret’s book, people are still trying to figure out how to cope with the infertility of society.

Why did it happen so fast? It happened so fast because we’re human and we freak out over the littlest things and let the smallest things in life buffet us around from one decision to the other. Have you ever seen a toddler break into tears over some insignificant thing? We’re all like that, even though we don’t like to admit it. Sure, we would all like the say that if we found out the world couldn’t have any more babies that we would live out the rest of our lives normally, but we can’t say that. Our lives, our normal lives, are built upon the idea that someone is coming after us. Our entire existence revolves around the idea that there will be someone to continue on your name, your project, your business, or even your legislation. Our lives lose a lot of meaning if there is no one to follow. So, yes, our lives would be turned completely upside down if we suddenly found out that we couldn’t reproduce anymore.

The other similarity in all three books is religion. As I have mentioned before, people often turn to a power higher than themselves in times of trouble. They may not call that thing God, but they have something they look to. They have something they want to give their lives meaning. A lot of us would wonder if we were being punished for something we had done if we found out we were all infertile. We would wonder what our sins were that caused this thing to happen.

Some of us would turn to religion simply as a means to cope, but others would turn to religion as a means to seek forgiveness. They feel that they’ve done something wrong to cause this awful thing to happen and now they must atone for it. The religions in all three books are extreme. In Bumped, religion turns into girls getting married at thirteen and having babies and wearing clothing that covers up their entire bodies, which sounds an awful lot like something you’d read about the FLDS church under Warren Jeffs. In A Handmaid’s Tale, religion has become incorporated with the government. People have gone back to fundamentals, way back, as in the Old Testament. In The Children of Men, there are strange religious cults that do things on the beaches and out in the woods. Organized religion as we know it, still kind of exists in that world, but things have lost a lot of meaning.

In truth, we would wonder. When science couldn’t give us the answer to why we all went infertile, we would likely turn to religion for an answer or even a semblance of an answer. Some of us would believe it was punishment. Some of us would use religion to give our lives purpose because now there’s nothing that’s going to come behind us.

In The End

Megan, P.D., and Margaret were all so very clever for writing a story about an infertility apocalypse. It’s a brilliant idea. It has a plausibility that zombies will never have.


 

 
apocalypse by infertility, bumped, Bumped by Megan McCafferty, bumped series, infertility as an apocalypse, infertility rates, infertilty, margaret atwood, megan mccafferty, p.d. james, PCOS, plausible apocalypses, religion and fertility, the children of men, the children of men by p.d. james, the handmaids tale, the handmaids tale by margaret atwood, The Infertility Apocalypse, turn to religion in apocalypse
Essays, Thoughts and Ponders
One-elevenbooks

Deduction: Mistress Mary Mistress Mary…

Deduction: Mistress Mary Mistress Mary...Deduction: Mistress Mary Mistress Mary…

I was born in a time when every single girl was named Ashley, or so it seemed. There was this Ashley and that Ashley. There were just Ashleys coming out of everyone’s ears. Today, there are a lot of baby Emmas and baby Elenas. If you meet a woman named Jennifer or Ashley, you have a pretty good determining factor in guessing their age. Of course there are women that fall outside of the birth range of 1975-1995, but for the most part, if you meet a woman named Ashley she was born in that time period.

In Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s time there were lots of Marys and it reflected in his works. The Sherlock Holmes stories alone are filled with multiple Marys. Our main Mary is Mary Watson, but there are so many Marys mentioned. There are also quite a few Johns.

According to the US census records of 1890, Mary was the most common female name and John was the most common male name. This is in the United States of course, but the trend seems to be reflected in England as well.

The photo for this post is Mary Josephine Foley Doyle, otherwise known as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s mother. That’s great and all. She’s named Mary, big deal you say, but let’s keep going. Arthur was married twice. His first wife was named Mary Louise Hawkins, he called her Louisa. Sure, lots of men marry women named the same thing as their mothers, right? Well, not usually. Usually men don’t marry women named the same things as their mothers. The generational names are usually so different that there is pretty much no chance in Hell that a man is going to marry a woman named Phyllis or what have you.

Going further, Arthur had a few kids. One of which was named Mary Louise. She was born to Mary Louise Hawkins. So both mother and daughter were named Mary. The grandmother was also named Mary.

It is common for sons to be named after their fathers, the Jrs in your life; it’s not quite as common for a daughter to be named after her mother. It is more common for a granddaughter to be named after her grandmother though, but to be perfectly clear, Mary Louise Doyle is named after her mother seeing as she has the same first name and middle name. What all of this comes down to is that Arthur’s life was just full of Marys.

Historically, this makes sense because like I said Mary was the most common female name in the 1890s. There were just Marys coming out of people’s ears. Familiarly, it’s a little odd that so many people were named Mary so close to Arthur. You mom, your wife, and your daughter are all named the same thing…kind of weird. Does Arthur have mommy issues? I wonder if Freud would have anything to say about this. I’m just glad his other children were not named Mary as well.

Mary has always been a popular name, well, it’s been a popular name for a long time, mainly since the Catholic church has been a thing, or Christianity in general. Mary is the mother of Jesus, supposedly her sisters were also named Mary. Mary’s mother is St. Anne. Mary was the ultimate woman as far as any Christian was concerned. Nobody liked Eve because she ate the fruit. Nobody dared named their daughter Jezebel. There were Rebecca’s floating around, but it’s never been quite as popular as Mary. Mary was the mother of Jesus and people thought that was great. They thought that Mary was someone to look up to and an example of all a woman should be. As a result, a lot of daughters were named Mary.

Honestly, though, it still kind of weirds me out that Arthur was surrounded with so many Marys. It sounds like some kind of cult. All the women are named Mary here.



common girl names, Deduction: Mistress Mary Mistress Mary…, mary, mary doyle, mary foley, mary hawkins, named mary, sherlock holmes, sherlock holmes and the name mary, sir arthur conan doyle, the name mary in the sherlock holmes series
Essays, Sherlock Holmes
One-elevenbooks

Deduction: Secret Societies and Gobbledygook

Deduction: Secret Societies and Gobbledygook Deduction: Secret Societies and Gobbledygook

Honestly, I’m actually using the word gobbledygook incorrectly. The true definition of gobbledygook is, “language that is meaningless or is made unintelligible by excessive use of abstruse technical terms; nonsense.” As I see it though, I’m not using this word entirely wrong. Gobbledygook could be characterized by language that sounds like you know what you’re talking about, but it’s all empty words. You don’t actually know what you’re talking about. It reminds me of some of the English translations I would see on objects in Japan. Some of them made no sense whatsoever. There were just a bunch of English words strung together.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle has a thing for secretive societies. He mentions Mormons, Freemasons, the Red Circle, the KKK, the Mafia, and also Mycroft’s strange Diogenes Club. Only two of those are fake, The Red Circle and the Diogenes club. The Red Circle happens to be based on a real thing known as the Carbonari, which are like Italian Freemasons.

That’s great and all. We can use secretive societies to further our plot lines as authors. Why not? Why not have it be a conspiracy? Dan Brown makes a lot of money off of secretive societies, so why not Sir Arthur Conan Doyle? Here’s the thing…Dan Brown does his research, Arthur did not. If I were to read a Dan Brown book, I could then Google the societies he mentioned and their traditions. Dan Brown would be fairly accurate in his representations of those groups. Arthur was not accurate.

Honestly, if all these societies mentioned by Arthur were fake this wouldn’t have been a big deal. It’s a thing he made up; he can have its members do whatever in the heck he wants them to do. These societies aren’t fake though.

Let’s look at something like the Mormon church, or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. This church plays a huge role in the book A Study in Scarlet. There is very little of what Arthur says about the church that is true. He makes up stuff, none of it has any place in Mormon Theology. I know lots of Mormons, I’m not just saying this stuff. Arthur said this about his book to a descendent of Brigham Young, “… a scurrilous book about the Mormons.” He did later admit he was wrong.

Arthur embellished the truth. The thing about the Mormon church was that they were being prosecuted during the time in which Arthur was writing. They had been prosecuted for years. They had to leave the United States, what was the United States at the time, and start their own country in Utah because they were going to be murdered. It was going to be a Holocaust on American soil. People felt that strongly about the Mormon Church. They made up downright slanderous and terrible things about the members of its church. This is what Arthur relied on to back his description of the Mormon church. He didn’t actually take the time to talk to an actual member of the church or even a missionary to get the real scoop on how members of the church acted and what they believed in. Arthur’s book has actually been banned from libraries for being so derogatory towards Mormons.

When it came time for the show Sherlock to depict this story on television, you will notice there is no mention of Mormons whatsoever. The original text was that derogatory. The entire piece of the story set in the United States was scrapped.

Now, you would think Arthur learned his lesson about not researching secretive societies. He didn’t.

Arthur seems to have lightly researched other societies. He keeps mentioning them over and over again. The Freemasons have the most mentions in the Sherlock Holmes tales, but there are also mentions of the KKK and the Carbonari. I don’t know a ton about Freemasonry, I honestly should probably know more. The good thing about Arthur’s mentions of the Freemasons is that none of it seems to be bad. He doesn’t accuse the Freemasons of murder or kidnapping, as he did with the Mormons.

The Freemasons aren’t angels when it comes to the whole murder thing. They’ve been known to murder people for spreading “secrets.” Maybe Arthur knew some actual Freemasons or maybe he was one and decided spreading any of their “secrets” was a bad idea. His talk of Freemasons is mostly benign.

The KKK is not a good group, well, at least I think so, but they have their constitutional rights. Arthur makes up a whole bunch of stuff about them sending orange pips and oak branches to each other as warning signs for breaking with the group. Let me tell you something–I grew up in the South. I took a political science class with the granddaughter of the Grand Dragon of the KKK, the group is still alive and well and I’ve never heard of this orange pip business.

Granted the KKK was probably so secretive at the time of Arthur’s writing that he couldn’t get a lot of information on them, I still think he should have tried a little harder. Look, the group is more likely, well, let’s think of the 1940s/1950s version of the KKK, the group is more likely to beat the crap out of you and burn a cross in your yard than they are to send you a letter with orange pips in it. I already explained that oranges just weren’t floating around everywhere at the time either. Oranges were only beginning to be a normal thing in the time period.

Arthur was speaking of a very tough group when he spoke of the KKK. These days people are embarrassed to admit that family members belong to this group even though it’s merely supposed to be a non-violent opinion type of group; it hasn’t always been that way; history will tell you that. Is it a good idea to get information wrong about a group like this? Maybe it was a strategic move on Arthur’s part. Maybe he didn’t want a member of the KKK showing up at his house and beating the crap out of him for saying someone from the KKK burned a cross in one of his character’s yards. I don’t think that’s the case though. I think Arthur just didn’t bother to do his research and just went with popular opinion and rumor of the day, just as he did with the Mormons.

The Mafia and Carbonari are also mentioned in Arthur’s tales. Concerning the Mafia, they’re alive and well. I don’t think they care if you say bad things about them, because everybody knows it, but I could be wrong. The Carbonari on the other hand, were originally a masonic type of group concerned with uniting Italy. They weren’t necessarily murderers and members of a crime ring, as Arthur depicts the Red Circle to be. It was a place where guys hung out and had their little rituals. It wasn’t a group where people forced you into a life of crime. The Red Circle isn’t a real thing, so maybe that’s how Arthur got away so lightly on that one.

I mean if I was a member of a Masonic type group and some guy said I went around murdering people, I might be a little upset.

Arthur makes up a lot of crap about these groups. Why not actually do a little research and find out that Mormons don’t kidnap people and force girls into marriage, that the KKK doesn’t send orange pips to people, and that the Carbonari wasn’t a crime ring?

There’s something called libel, Arthur. You’re not supposed to make up derogatory things about real groups, even if that group is the KKK. That real group can sue you for libeling them. It hurts their reputations. The Mormon church was already having its fair share of trouble when Arthur wrote A Study in Scarlet and it didn’t need Arthur muddying up the waters anymore than they already were. With libel laws, the church could have sued for defamation of character, fortunately for Arthur, the Mormon church isn’t in the business of suing people for saying bad things about it.

Arthur presented his stories as if he knew what these societies were about. He wrote in an educated manner and presented story bits that seemed to be realistic. It sounded real, but it was just goggledygook.



carbonari, Deduction: Secret Societies and Gobbledygook, freemasons, kkk, mafia, mormon church, Mormons, secret societies, secretive societies, sherlock holmes, sherlock holmes mormons, sir arthur conan doyle
Essays, Sherlock Holmes
One-elevenbooks

Deduction: Mistress Mary Quite Solitary

Deduction: Mistress Mary Quite SolitaryDeduction: Mistress Mary Quite Solitary

Ah, Mary, Mary, Mary, Mary…Mary. Mary, the love of John Watson. Oh, Mary!

Mary is a central character in The Sign of the Four, but after that we don’t hear of her much, in fact, she actually dies, and no one really says anything about it. She dies in between the time Sherlock supposedly dies and when he shows back up.

For a while though, John and Mary are happy, or something like it. The problem is that John always seems to be hanging out with Sherlock and not his wife. In fact, his wife is only too happy to let him go off for days at a time with Sherlock without even batting an eye. Perhaps it was that women were freer with their husbands back in the day. Perhaps she didn’t care where he went or who he was with. Who knows. She’s dead, so we’ll never know.

I find this odd. John has a life outside of Sherlock. For a while he goes back to practice as a doctor. He gets married. He has a house with Mary, but every so often Sherlock shows back up and off John goes, seemingly without much fanfare from Mary.

Look, I don’t know about you guys, but usually when a husband goes off with buddies there are some questions involved. Where are you going? When will you be back? Who are you going with? Are you going to a strip club? Is there going to be crystal meth involved? You know, that sort of thing. You could look at it one of two ways. You could look at it as a woman wanting to control where her husband goes, which some women do, but you could also look at it as a wife being concerned for her husband. You’re married to this guy, so you’re supposed to care about him. It would be a good idea to know his general location, just in case he turns up missing that way you can tell police, “Well, he went to the store to buy milk and he never came back.”

It just seems to me that Mary isn’t a very inquisitive person. She just seems to be happy to be ignorant in where her husband goes. Where does he go?

You know what, scratch all of this–Mary was a plot device. She’s not a very rounded character. She only exists to further John’s character, but then he seemingly forgets about her. Married life doesn’t much change the way John acts. He still goes off with Sherlock. Most likely, Arthur decided that living the married life hampered John from going places with Sherlock, so he killed Mary off, well, not really, he didn’t even take the text to write a story about how Mary tragically passed away. It’s not even mentioned. I had read she died before my whole dive into Sherlock Holmes, but I never read specifically where she died.

Look at it this way, wouldn’t it be odd if both John and Sherlock had lived the remainder of their days as bachelors? John’s story progressed personally, while Sherlock’s did not. John’s life moved forward as Sherlock remained the same. John gets married and suffers the tragedy of his wife dying, which honestly doesn’t seem to affect him very much. John’s marriage isn’t a big deal to the overall story line, so Mary is quite marginalized.

In the end, she’s not important, so her opinions don’t matter and her death doesn’t matter. It’s a sad state of affairs. You would think that Arthur could have given John Watson’s wife a better send off when he decided to kill her off, but I guess not. It’s like those two Torkelson kids who just disappeared when the family moved to a different state. Yes, I remember that show.

Poor Mary, poor, poor, Mary. She made the mistake of falling in love with a man who was in love with the idea of solving mysteries and following Sherlock Holmes around and then when she died, nobody cared.



Deduction: Mistress Mary Quite Solitary, john watson, john watson gets married, john watson’s wife dies, mary, mary watson, sherlock, sherlock holmes
Essays, Sherlock Holmes
One-elevenbooks