A Question of Trust - Q&A
Think about it
1. Did you begin to suspect, before the end of the story, that the lady was not the person Horace Danby took her to be? If so, at what point did you realise this, and how?
Yes, one might begin to suspect that the lady was not the lady of the house before the end of the story. A few things seemed unusual:
First, she was surprisingly calm for someone finding a burglar in her home. Instead of panicking or calling the police immediately, she engaged him in conversation.
Second, the fact that she did not know the combination to her own safe was suspicious. While it is possible to forget, asking a burglar to break it open so she could wear the jewels to a party that same night seemed like a very convenient excuse.
Her behavior was too cool and calculated, which hinted that she might be a rival thief rather than the owner.
2. What are the subtle ways in which the lady manages to deceive Horace Danby into thinking she is the lady of the house? Why doesn't Horace suspect that something is wrong?
The lady manages to deceive Horace through her confidence and familiarity with the surroundings. She walks in calmly, touches up her make-up, and picks up a cigarette box from the table as if she owns the place. She speaks with an air of authority and even scolds the dog, Sherry, by name, which makes it seem like the dog knows her.
Horace doesn't suspect anything because he is frightened. His primary concern is avoiding prison, and her offer to let him go if he opens the safe blinds him to the suspicious nature of her request. Her charm and the fact that she doesn't raise an alarm immediately disarm him.
3. "Horace Danby was good and respectable but not completely honest". Why do you think this description is apt for Horace? Why can't he be categorised as a typical thief?
The description is apt because Horace Danby lived a quiet life as a successful locksmith. He was well-liked in his community, had two helpers, and paid his bills. He wasn't a violent criminal or a troublemaker.
However, he was "not completely honest" because he robbed a safe every year to fund his expensive hobby of collecting rare books. He cannot be categorised as a typical thief because he didn't steal for greed or survival, but for the love of art (books). He stole only once a year, planned meticulously, and never hurt anyone.
4. Horace Danby was a meticulous planner but still he faltered. Where did he go wrong and why?
Horace went wrong because he let his guard down and trusted the lady too easily. His fear of being handed over to the police made him desperate to please her.
His specific mistake was taking off his gloves to light her cigarette. In his haste and relief that she might let him go, he forgot to put them back on before opening the safe. This left his fingerprints all over the room, which eventually led to his arrest. He faltered because he was outsmarted by a more clever and manipulative thief.
Talk about it
1. Do you think Horace Danby was unfairly punished, or that he deserved what he got?
Legally, Horace Danby deserved to be punished because he broke into a house with the intention of stealing. He effectively committed a crime by cracking the safe.
However, from a moral standpoint, it feels like he was unfairly punished because he didn't actually take the jewels; the lady did. He became the victim of a trick. He ended up in prison for a theft he didn't fully benefit from, while the real culprit (the lady) got away free. So, while he deserved punishment for breaking in, the extent of his punishment for the missing jewels feels unjust.
2. Do intentions justify actions? Would you, like Horace Danby, do something wrong if you thought your ends justified the means? Do you think that there are situations in which it is excusable to act less than honestly?
No, intentions do not always justify actions. Stealing, even for a "refined" purpose like buying books, is still a crime and a violation of someone else's rights. Horace's love for books does not make his robbery right.
Personally, I would not do something wrong just because the end result is desirable. "The ends justify the means" is a dangerous way of thinking that can lead to unethical behavior.
However, there might be extreme situations where acting less than honestly is excusable, such as stealing food to save a starving person's life or lying to protect someone from harm. But for luxury items like rare books, there is no excuse.