NCERT Solutions Class 11, English, Woven Words (Short Stories), Chapter- 4, The Adventure of the Three Garridebs
UNDERSTANDING THE TEXT
1. What clues did Sherlock Holmes work upon to get at the fact that the story of the three Garridebs was a ruse?
Solution:
The first time Holmes felt wry of the story when the American Garrideb was angry at Nathan to have involved a detective. When Sherlock noticed the Garrideb in English appearance and he pointed it out to him that how come that he was an American and yet was dressed so English. The American said that he was a lawyer in Kansas, Holmes made his bait by pointing out to a unreal late Dr. Lysander Starr, who Holmes said to be a Mayor in 1830. and as he had suspected, Garrideb fell for it, he reciprocated by saying that good old Dr. Starr's name was still honoured. Holmes was then sure that as he had suspected, Garrideb was never a lawyer in Kansas. Holmes grew sure of that the story of Alexander Garrideb was made up by John Garrideb when he brought an advertisement published in a local paper of Birmingham that was from some Howard Garrideb. Holmes and Watson both noticed the written piece to have been in American English and they concluded that the piece was published in the paper by Garrideb himself to set Nathan off to Birmingham to buy time so he can intrude in his room without any disturbance.
2. What was John Garrideb’s objective in inventing the story of Alexander Hamilton Garrideb and his legacy?
Solution:
John Garrideb's was a fool proof plan. However, as Holmes said even the best criminals leave behind some clues. John had the knowledge of a note printing machine, cloistered below the room Nathan Garideb was living in. The previous tenant of the room was a man named Waldron or Rodger Presbury, he was the owner of the machine and he was shot by John Garrideb or James Winter, alias Morecroft, alias Killer Evans. Thus, so that no body suspects his intentions, Garrideb wove the intricate plan and decided to break in Nathan's house when he was off to Birmingham to see the third Garrideb.
3. Why didn’t John Garrideb like the idea of including Holmes in the hunt for the third Garrideb?
Solution:
Holmes was a detective and a renowned one. John Garrideb was afraid that Sherlock Holmes and his partner Watson will suspect his motives and will jeopardise his plan. Involving a detective in a plan that had a fake story, other than the fact that Garrideb, alias Killer Evans, who had a criminal background was not safe.
4. Who was Roger Presbury and how was John Garrideb connected with him?
Solution:
Roger Presbury was a man shot by John Garrideb over cards in a night club on the Waterloo Road in January, 1895. His appearance matched with the appearance of Waldron, the previous tenant in Nathan Garrideb's room, who acquired the note printing press. It was this printing press that John Garrideb was after and carved out the whole plan to acquire it.
5. How did Holmes guess that John Garrideb would go to 136, Little Ryder Street? Did he expect to find what he ultimately did before he went there?
Solution:
John Garrideb was furious over the fact that Nathan got a detective involved in the whole case and as Holmes and Watson knew this they expected John Garrideb to show up immediately after their meeting in Nathan's apartment. They knew that John will come to question and express his discomfort over Nathan's actions. However, Holmes and Watson did put the man at ease by clearing it to him that they were least interested in any matter and won his confidence by showing that they were just to help him in discovering another Garideb. Thus, Garrideb did appear at Little Ryder Street. To their amazement, he had acted promptly by coming up with the advertisement of Howard Garrideb and with a neat plan of sending Nathan away to Birmingham and knocking the detectives out of his way so that he can carry his plan out without any hindrance.
TALKING ABOUT THE TEXT
Discuss the following in pairs or in small groups
1. ‘It was worth a wound—it was worth many wounds—to know the depth of loyalty and love that lay behind that cold mask’— how does this comment throw light on the kind of relationship between Holmes and Watson?
Solution:
The expression is made by Watson on being shot on his thigh by Killer Evans. When he got shot, Holmes led him to a chair and with great concern asked him if was hurt. For the first time, Says Watson, the clear hard eyes of Holmes were dimmed for a moment and firm lips were shaking. Watson says that it was worth a wound, worth many wounds, to know the depth of loyalty and love that lay behind that cold mask. It was no doubt a professional relation that Holmes and Watson shared. However, it had grown into a friendship that ran much deeper than it appeared. It was at this moment that Watson caught a glimpse of a great heart as well as of a great brain.
2. The cleverest of criminals leave behind clues to their crime.
Solution:
It is so true that even the cleverest of criminals leave behind clues to their plan. See how hard John Garrideb tried to work things out and made such a foolproof plan that anybody would have fallen to it. Yet Holmes was able to sort it out with his applied intelligence. He looked for loose ends and caught Garrideb at various points where he got assured of his fake identity and the loopholes in his plans were visible. First, when he pretended to be an American, though he was actually, he was caught due to his British look. Then, when Holmes pointed out Dr. Starr, it was clear that Garrideb had not done his homework that he responded with such conviction as if there was a Dr. Starr in real. Even the advertisement he got published was not edited properly and the language in it was easily recognised to be American English. Thus, though Killer Evans had a well-knit plan, he could not fool Holmes.
3. How did Holmes’ digressions sometimes prove in the end to have a bearing on the matter on hand? Discuss this with reference to all the apparently irrelevant points he was trying to gather information from.
Solution:
It is a queer thing about many detectives that they often deviate from the original question. It may seem surprising to anyone. The same was the case with Sherlock Holmes when on a case visit, he seemed to digress from the objective. For example, he would ask a person to be interrogated about his plans, however, he would ask him about his nationality and talk about his attire. Little the person would come to know what Holmes is progressing at. While he is solving the mystery in his mind. He would never run a background check on a person by directly asking him his whereabouts. He would pretend to know a person from the suspect's vicinity and call out his name to check if the person is honest about his background. However, the suspect would not realise and will fall to the bait by exclaiming how well he knows the person, while in reality, the person does not even exist in reality. This way Holmes does his inspection of the matter and does not bring it to the suspect's notice as well.
