Alyssa Wallingford
September 19, 2022
““You will ruin no more lives as you ruined mine. You will wring no more hearts as you wrung mine. I will free the world of a poisonous thing. Take that, you hound, and that!—and that!—and that!” She had drawn a little, gleaming revolver, and emptied barrel after barrel into Milverton’s body, the muzzle within two feet of his shirt front.” (Conan Doyle 7).
I find it ironic that in the beginning of the story, Milverton “shows off”/ threatens Watson and Holmes with his revolver, and in the end, he is actually shot several times also by a revolver. Do you think that the author intended to have these parallels within the story? Or is that simply the easiest way to kill someone in this time period? Another connection is Milverton being killed by someone whose life he ruined with no mercy. When she shoots him and declares it as an act of goodwill, there are also other motives behind her decision. Not only is she stopping him from ruining anymore lives, she seems to be carrying out this murder with at least a piece of selfishness with the need for revenge on the one who effectively ruined her life. Although we don’t actually know how her husband died, it can be inferred through earlier dialogue that it was Milverton’s actions which led to his death. Since this is near the end of the story, I also wonder why they chose to end the story shortly after this instead of finishing the case with the police to see if they will get falsely accused for this murder (there could also be resolution in the following pages which were not in this document). Does this irony and tension balance out with the overall plot put forth by the author? This story also has elements of narratology, in which the tale differs from the telling, and the things that are left out of this telling which include how the woman got the gun in the first place, and how this murder case is resolved. These details and others which were not included in the telling of the story add to the overall ambiguity and tension of the story, leaving the reader with a few questions unanswered.
How would this story have affected the reader differently if the story had ended here instead of leading to a certain answer of who killed Milverton? Would a new critic consider this alternate ending to be out of line with the balance of ambiguity and tension (would it affect the “organic whole”?).
