Was Arthur Conan Doyle correct about the countryside? - The anti anti-industrial argument

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.

wtfNeedSignUp

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Dec 17, 2019
From the Sherlock Holmes story "The Adventure of the Copper Beeches"
By eleven o’clock the next day we were well upon our way to the old English capital. Holmes had been buried in the morning papers all the way down, but after we had passed the Hampshire border he threw them down and began to admire the scenery. It was an ideal spring day, a light blue sky, flecked with little fleecy white clouds drifting across from west to east. The sun was shining very brightly, and yet there was an exhilarating nip in the air, which set an edge to a man’s energy. All over the countryside, away to the rolling hills around Aldershot, the little red and grey roofs of the farm-steadings peeped out from amid the light green of the new foliage.

“Are they not fresh and beautiful?” I cried with all the enthusiasm of a man fresh from the fogs of Baker Street.

But Holmes shook his head gravely.

“Do you know, Watson,” said he, “that it is one of the curses of a mind with a turn like mine that I must look at everything with reference to my own special subject. You look at these scattered houses, and you are impressed by their beauty. I look at them, and the only thought which comes to me is a feeling of their isolation and of the impunity with which crime may be committed there.”

“Good heavens!” I cried. “Who would associate crime with these dear old homesteads?”

“They always fill me with a certain horror. It is my belief, Watson, founded upon my experience, that the lowest and vilest alleys in London do not present a more dreadful record of sin than does the smiling and beautiful countryside.”

“You horrify me!”

“But the reason is very obvious. The pressure of public opinion can do in the town what the law cannot accomplish. There is no lane so vile that the scream of a tortured child, or the thud of a drunkard’s blow, does not beget sympathy and indignation among the neighbours, and then the whole machinery of justice is ever so close that a word of complaint can set it going, and there is but a step between the crime and the dock. But look at these lonely houses, each in its own fields, filled for the most part with poor ignorant folk who know little of the law. Think of the deeds of hellish cruelty, the hidden wickedness which may go on, year in, year out, in such places, and none the wiser.

This conversation really stuck with me when I read it since talking about the beauty of the countryside is pretty much the rule in media my entire life. The ideal of living in a small community sounds like a heaven, but can quickly turn into a nightmare if you aren't in the good graces of your neighbours, or live with an abusive person. You have no shortage of horror stories from communes, the "village with a secret" is also a popular setting for mystery and horror stories.
 
In sparsely populated rural areas, police and emergency services may not be available or unlikely to ever show up, so the rural people have to defend themselves.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Dagoth AMOGUS
Perhaps in small towns Doyle's argument (via Holmes) that proximity to crime creates public pressure against criminality has merit, but it's a laughably naïve argument applied to cities. Especially London. Such concentrated population allows a certain alienation to exist between residents and a blind eye to regularly be turned to crime.

Doyle should know this. He lived contemporaneously with Jack the Ripper.
 
When English period authors refer to the countryside, they typically refer to mid-west to south-west of London - Shropshire, Gloucestershire, Oxford, for example. They're the whitest sections and typically embody that quaint 'village' life. Every neighbour knows each other, and there's a community and sense of connection that would be impossible in the cities. This is Shropshire today.

Screenshot 2025-06-18 072309.webp

At the time, it was in comparison to the classic view of London as the centre of civilization and modernity, which was heavily polluted with factory smog, and the traffic meant the streets were lined with horse dung, which the automobile was chiefly designed to fix.
 
This conversation really stuck with me when I read it since talking about the beauty of the countryside is pretty much the rule in media my entire life. The ideal of living in a small community sounds like a heaven, but can quickly turn into a nightmare if you aren't in the good graces of your neighbours, or live with an abusive person. You have no shortage of horror stories from communes, the "village with a secret" is also a popular setting for mystery and horror stories
I think it depends. People can be a lot more nosey in rural areas. When I lived in the city I was basically totally anonymous. Living in a small town, people I don't even know recognize me and know who I am.
 
Consider this mentality also enables the nanny state surveillance network of CCTV cameras at every corner.
 
This is the equivalent of that meme trannies post of a 50's era family BBQing and assume that the wife is oppressed, the father is molesting the daughter, the son is closeted gay, etc. It says far more about the speaker then they realize.
 
What is this utter schlock. This statement is even more bizarre because of how horrifying living conditions were inside of cities in the early ages of industrialization. To me it seemed the main reason more people don't live out in the rural outlands in small communities is because there isn't any jobs out there, in other words an economic anchor to the cities due to the high labour demand of industrial society.

Something to be noted when industrialization started in England the rural land ownership situation where land was in common was completely upended with the inclosure act which resulted in a massive increase in urbanization, in other words people had to be practically forced to move to the cities in the early industrial age.
 
Its amazing how many people are misunderstanding a basic statement.

First of all, its not stating Doyle's personal beliefs, it's stating how Holmes views things. Holmes and Doyle didn't exactly agree on a lot of things.

Secondly a lot of people are trying to read shit into the statement that just isn't there. Holmes is basically being pessimistic because he thinks it would be far easier to cover up a crime in relative isolation while in a city there's more of a chance of a secret coming out or, at worst, being an "open secret" (this may be him trying to be optimistic).

Essentially Holmes is admitting that being a detective has warped his brain to the point where he can't help but think about the potential for crime, whereas the comparatively more untarnished Watson can look and see beautiful countryside.

As for whether Holmes has a point.... well, kind of. I mean there's a reason whenever you hear about cults, they're always out in the middle of nowhere.

Please don't go full Redditor and overthink stuff like this.

Like so:

Consider this mentality also enables the nanny state surveillance network of CCTV cameras at every corner.
"Nanny state happened because a fictional character got depressed."
 
Today's reality is that any such small town 45 mins from the nearest largest city is either full of dying people who bought their home for pennies, broke tradeworkers, or WFH IT bros. Whenever I see a picture of a mansion out in the forest, I think "you either need to not be working or work entirely remote to live there". Unless of course you commute 2 hours each way.

It's not feasible to live away from big cities anymore. There are no "the country's shipyard" in buttfuck nowhere.
 
This conversation really stuck with me when I read it since talking about the beauty of the countryside is pretty much the rule in media my entire life. The ideal of living in a small community sounds like a heaven, but can quickly turn into a nightmare if you aren't in the good graces of your neighbours, or live with an abusive person. You have no shortage of horror stories from communes, the "village with a secret" is also a popular setting for mystery and horror stories.
Holmes' sentiment sounds like the urbanists' argument that density means security through many eyes on the street (and the only reason why cities aren't as safe as they should be is because people drive cars).
Whenever I see a picture of a mansion out in the forest, I think "you either need to not be working or work entirely remote to live there". Unless of course you commute 2 hours each way.
Sadly true. At least it is much more possible now to work remotely , at least in white collar jobs.
A guy in a company I collaborate with in my work does live somewhere in the ass-end of nowhere and has to commute quite a bit to get to his company. Funny enough, another guy in that company also lives quite far away and commutes like a total of four hours per day by train.
I'd love to live outside, probably could do it, too, since I work mostly remotely. But my better half insists on a more urban life. Or, if it's going to be non-urban, somewhere not here. Not that this city or the surrounding countryside are bad or anything, she just has a specific location for non-urban life in mind.
 
Back