Group read: Hound of the Baskervilles SPOILER Thread

Hound of the Baskervilles

There you go, now you've finished it. What did you think?

Is Watson really a duffer? Or Sherlock just rude?

The Mire is based on a very real place. Been there, got the muddy feet to prove it. It's like walking on jelly, each footstep sends shivers running across the surface, water oozes out of the moss/grass/mud all the time. I've not gone all the way across, although there is footpath marked on the map, and I haven't ever seen anything sink in it.

Is it a "fair" tale, can you guess the culprit? Did you?

I find a lot of Sherlock Holmes stories 'unfair' in that you aren't ever given the details the Holmes uses. Also, there are many of possible interpretations of the details, but Holmes' choice is always correct. However Baskerville is one of the better ones where you do get some chance of working it out.

"I find a lot of Sherlock Holmes stories 'unfair' in that you aren't ever given the details the Holmes uses."

Funny you should say that, reading_fox. I've often had the same take on some of the SH stories. It's like they follow a certain pattern:

1. Mystery presents itself
2. Investigation by Holmes/Watson with partial details revealed
3. MAGIC!
4. Solution explained by Holmes

I've always enjoyed the stories regardless, though.

It's important to realize that Conan Doyle was not trying to write who-dunnit stories - he was writing adventure stories. The point was not to let the reader be part of a game of deduction, but it was to create a sense of atmosphere and excitement - and in particular, to put the reader in the place of Watson, who was the chronicler of the series. Watson did not observe nearly as closely as Holmes - and so he wouldn't notice things, and we are to be as surprised as he at the outcome.

There is one particular story that is written from the perspective of Sherlock - "The Lion's Mane" - and it is frightfully dull compared to most of the others - just because everything is laid out for you.

Again, the goal was: fun story, good read, adventure, atmosphere, not 'solve it with me'

#1 - I love your questions, having read this several times before, it is nice to have points to look for as I read.

I've never thought of Watson as dull or a duffer, in fact I become very annoyed when he is portrayed so. He is not as observant as Holmes, nor as intuitive, but he is an army surgeon and practicing physician and a good one at that. Holmes enjoys his company, not, I believe so that he can have someone to insult and put down (I believe he's not fully aware he does that), but because having a different personality around brings him inspiration and keeps him a bit down to earth. Their partnership seems like a perfect example of an extreme introvert and an extrovert both bringing out the best in each other.

I am not done with the tale yet, but in the opening scene with the walkingstick, we are given Watson's observations and his conclusions, we are then told how Holmes observes the stick, but not what he sees, then his observations and conclusion about the dog. At that point, we can guess what he saw on the stick which made him know about the dog. Then he explains it. I see it as a neat little triangle of a puzzle which one can either work one's brain about, or continue reading and find joy either way.

Also appreciating JPB's observation about adventure tale versus mystery. We tend to think of mystery as in the who-done-it variety, but the genre is larger than the narrow box given it in the "golden age" of mysteries. I've always read Holmes more for the joy of him on the hunt than for the puzzle aspect, just as I read Precious Ramotswe novels more for her clever views on people and life than for the very innocuous mysteries.

Now to get back to the tale. :)

Where's the Mire located?

I went riding on Dartmoor in the fog, once - felt very Baskerville-ish spooky. (Yes, I realize the tale probably gave the locale, but it's been long since I read it, and work pressure has me temporarily handcuffed, against making stash trips to the library).

Certainly, what occurs to me in the first two chapters is that if anyone is a "duffer" in this story, it's Dr. Mortimer. The physical description of him includes a dingy frock-coat and frayed trouser cuffs. He gives the impression of peering in benign fashion through his spectacles and he is in thrall to phrenology (hardly an enthusiasm that would be warmly embraced by Holmes' scientific mind.). He is amiable and not of a particularly competitive nature as Holmes also notes and he insists on reading aloud from the Baskerville manuscript rather than permitting Holmes to study it for himself.

Janny, this might help orient you in Dartmoor: http://www.legendarydartmoor.co.uk/bogs_moor.htm

Thank you for that site, jillmwo! What fun reading it was. :)

#6 jillmwo - THANK YOU!

#5 - I think the specific example that ACD used was FoxTor mire. It is certainly the most extensive that I know of - although as mentioned in #6 they do change shape and size depending on the weather. Dartmoor fogs certainly are special. You can spend all day not being able see more than a few 10s of metres. It makes navigating particularly 'interesting'.

#3 good point.

I've read this and seen this so many times that I start to conflate approaches and confuse myself.

Watson's not a duffer, he's just not a Holmes. I think Holmes relies on him for Watson's insights into human nature.

Chapter Three seems (to me at least) to further delineate the differences between Watson, Mortimer and Holmes. The opening line of Chapter 3 has Watson shuddering at the idea of a gigantic hound's footprints as dramatically introduced in the last sentence of the previous chapter, but Doyle shifts gear away from the romanticism of the legend. Holmes immediately enters into an interrogation of Mortimer to get to more specific circumstances of Sir Charles' death. Holmes treats the superstition of Mortimer with a certain flippancy. Mortimer with some dignity responds that he isn't asking Holmes to solve the murder of Sir Charles, but rather to help him protect the heir to the estate.

Holmes reserves judgement for 24 hours as to whether he will take the case and Watson recognizing that his flatmate requires solitude for intense mental concentration, leaves to go to his club. When he returns, Holmes has smoked so much in the flat that Watson finds it necessary to open a window to make it habitable. The exchange here suggests that he values Watson as an anchor in recognizing ordinary human reactions to events. Holmes takes the case precisely because he feels there must be a non-supernatural (that is, a truly logical) explanation to the mystery of Sir Charles' death.

That link to the moor made the first glimpse of it in the story come alive. Thank you again, now words like tufts, bright green spots, Tor, moor and so on are not just words, but pictures.

As the story goes on, I find it interesting that Watson claims not to believe it could be a supernatural event, but still gets the heeby jeebies out in the dark on the moor.

I find it amusing that he describes Holmes so well after that first sighting, but doesn't catch on. I also find it believable, because our minds tend to categorize things and his had put Holmes in London.

Besides, Holmes said he'd be in London. The man on the tor is not in London, therefore, it's not Holmes. And Watson is very right to be peeved at being lied to.

at this point you'd think Watson would come to expect this in Holmes and at least have had the passing thought that it 'might' be Holmes.

Though I didn't remember the exact outcome, I did try Stapleton in the role of villain in my head. I do that with everyone when they're introduced in this kind of story. His benign bug chasing was the clincher though and I wasn't surprised. If I didn't read a lot of this and watch Law and Order all the time, I'm sure I'd have been lulled longer.

What phosphorus compound would Stapleton have used? And surely it would have poisoned the dog if used more than a few times? Not, I suspect, that that would have bothered Stapledon at all, and the others hardly any more. Holmes himself seems to have been setting himself up to die of cancers (plural intended), emphysema and/or drug addiction.

And a minor point ... in the last paragraph Holmes and Watson were about to go and hear the legendary De Reszke brothers in Les Huguenots at the end of 1901. Is that possible? According to P.G. Hurst, who heard them perform, they were Wagnerian singers at the end of their careers in 1900. Edouard had already retired by 1900 but made three records, all as rare as hens' teeth, in 1903; although Jean is said to have made a few records in 1906--1908 none, so far as I know, have ever been seen or heard. And none are said to be of anything by Meyerbeer. Information from The Golden Age Recorded, which is a fascinating read if you like opera of 100 years ago and early gramophone memorabilia.

I wanted to feel bad for the hound, and wondered if it was necessary to shoot it, but then remembered it had been trained to viciousness. I don't know anything about the mastiff breed, but I do know that a pit bull can hardly be removed from something it has it's jaws on, so although I can't blame the dog, it was probably their only choice at the moment.

I wondered about the women who feared Stapleton, but also seemed to be devoted to him so long as they thought they had his heart. Is that a good picture of a battered woman? Is that the mentality they have? Was ACD ahead of his time in seeing that, or has it always been common knowledge?

Did the part about Sir Henry having to go abroad to find his nerve again ring true, or is that a very Victorian idea? He was an outdoor man, a farmer, not unused to animals and portrayed as a rugged individual. I'm glad that ACD put in the hint that it was possibly the deception of Mrs. Stapleton which he had to recover from more than the ordeal of the hound. That I could believe, not only the hurt of lost love, but the loss of pride that he had been led on so.

Shooting the hound was probably the only way of getting rid of it, and certainly necessary in that context.

Sending Sir Henry off to recover was a very standard Victorian practice, and I would certainly read it that it was Mrs Stapleton that he was recovering from. Mind you, a glowing, man-size, apparently mad and very vicious hound is maybe not something he would have seen too often in Canada, and it could give him a shock he'd need to recover from, too.

Yes, and I'm sure that being the object of a criminal mind like Stapleton's and seeing the depth of evil a man can sink to would be unnerving too, but I like to think Canadian farmers would be able to shrug it off, maybe with a gulp of Brandy or something. ;)

But do we not think that ultimately true love (between Sir Henry and Beryl) will win through? Beryl had not intended to fall in love with someone else while still married to Stapleton and she did try to warn Sir Henry off.

#19 - Maybe, with true love and a lot of therapy!

I thought it was kind of funny that Henry had a fit of the vapors.

I wanted to add that it is Watson also who really looks after Holmes. Watson is always the one who gets him working again after long hiatuses (sp? What's the correct term for the plural form of hiatus?) between cases and puts him to rights on his rude treatment of others (ESP Mary). He is a best friend, a partner, a confidant and in some ways, a nurse. Watson is constantly the one who comes through for Holmes, in more ways than one.

When it comes down to it, Watson is his practical side: his other half, as well as his compliment. One could even slightly infer that Watson serves as his conscience- his True North, or even his voice of reason. Perhaps that's what keeps the story moving... Sherlock wouldn't be who or what he is without his faithful companion. Perhaps that's what Doyle had in mind when he created the Detective Duo.

Nice insights into Watson, Pandora. Is it O.K. if I shorten your name like that? The full one sounds so formal.

A friend mentioned to me that Sherlock and Watson are both based on a physician Doyle knew, the one person having traits that we see in both characters. I don't know if this is true or not. I can only find references to a physician named Bell that was the basis for Sherlock but not who was the basis for Watson.

#23:
Of course, MrsLee! :)
I actually prefer Pandora and it is how I "sign" the comments I leave, so I'm glad you asked. Lol. The only thing I don't like being called is PR-
It makes me feel like I'm in Public Relations. :)

*edited to add: not that I've got anything against the Public Relations world; just everytime someone calls me PR I look around and wonder who they are talking to! PR doesn't really seem to fit as a name I suppose, is what I meant! :)

I'm surprised by how much Holmes puts me off. I can't say I like him as a character and would smack him upside the head if I met him in person.

>26 Morphidae:
Aye, me too!

I agree, I don't know how Watson puts up with him!

Eh, I don't know. Holmes is brilliant and having the idea that we are not could get old after a while, but there is method to his perceived madness and you can't argue with results. It's not his fault he's a genius any more than we are not.

When I was a pre-teen I loved the Holmes stories so it was interesting to see what I'd make of one now, in my mid-40's.

First, I didn't think it held up well either as adventure or as mystery. Compared to what I think of as "modern" standards the adventure is missing and the mystery is a very simple one.

Secondly, that the cultural norms of the time jars to me adds to the impression, of course.

This is in itself an interesting discussion, of course. A lot of books written during the first half of the 20th century are presently subject of extensive editing, to fit OUR cultural norms. In Sweden a huge debate was ignited when the publisher wanted to edit an YA mystery (written by a Swedish author 60 years or so ago) were the detective's sidekick (an Arab named Omar) disguises himself as a "negro" by applying extensive amounts of black shoe polish. The owner of the publishing rights said no, they wanted the text to go unedited and argued an introduction, explaining the difference in mores, would be enough. The publisher denied publication.
I happen to own a copy of the book, in it's original form, and I read it again and again, at the same time that I devoured the Holmes mysteries. I thought it funny that anyone was fooled by the shoe polish... but you know, grown-ups are SOOO stupid ;-)

During the course of this debate I learned that another kids' classic here in Sweden weren't available any more, arguably because they made fun of Egyptians - they were the fastest runners but when the track turned they continued straight on... because they could only be seen in profile. And only the other day I heard that Blyton's Five-books are rewritten to better fit 21st century expectations.

Personally I am aghast. A book is a book and as such is an artefact of it's time. Changing it is falsification of history, no less.

However, many of those books are unreadable to me today as I spend more time being horrified over such things like facial features being a marker of intelligence being a normal thing than actually reading the story.

This was such a case.

Intelligence isn't an excuse for rudeness. I'm a near-genius myself and still know how to be polite. I'm smarter than 99% of the population but I don't go telling people about it.

(Okay, I just did. But you know what I mean.)

I guess I'm just not sensitive that Holmes grates on me that way as a character. He is what he is and there's an end to it.

Grates is the perfect word. It's not that I hate him or anything but I was surprised by how much he grated on me.

I think what redeems Holmes to his associates and colleagues is that at heart, he cares immensely for those around him. He would always be there for Watson, Mrs. Hudson, Mycroft, the misjudged or his country. He may be an arrogant ass, but he also sees through the superficial things which most people are judged by. A person's race, creed, societal position, religion, etc. are not important to him. He looks to the heart and brain of a person and acts accordingly. I've known people like him, and yes, they can be terribly annoying, however, they are the ones you go to when you are in trouble.

Card-carrying geniuses are few and far between. We should appreciate their little quirks.

I don't think any character annoys or grates - they're just... not very interesting.

Personally I don't see Holmes as rude. Instrumental, perhaps. But then people from cultural spheres where saying "thank you" even if someone steps on your foot is seen as basic prudence (much of the world, sadly, as people think they'll be shot dead otherwise) thinks I am rude.

Watson is a conventional Victorian professional but the point of Holmes is to stress the value to be found in the non-conventional for purposes of observation or trapping those who choose to be outside of social convention.

That Holmes would be a difficult flat mate is indisputable I think, but Watson clearly admires his friend's acumen.

Another point - I'm not sure if this is more generally Holmes related, as I can't now remember if his famous catchphrase comes up in Hound or not.

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"

Is exactly backwards.
The improbable we know does not happen. It could, technically, but it doesn't. The impossible merely means we haven't understood the rules fully, or are missing a key piece of information.

I don't find Holmes grating in the least. He is bluntly honest, and different - but the point of Holmes is that he is 'different' - in the same sense that Charles Wallace Murry in A Wrinkle in Time is 'different.' The literary theory behind such characters is that to be so good at something, you have to be different. This is done because the average folks reading the story need to be comforted that those who appear so much better than them at something must be broken in some significant way. If someone in a story is so much better at everything, it's hard to sympathize with them. (This is one of the biggest weaknesses of the David Eddings stories; as one person put it, those stories are 'The Super-Friends Travel, Use Understatement to Joke Around, Drink, and Kick Butt'.)

(Hermione in Harry Potter is an exception, but in her case, JKR was inserting herself in the story with her - so while Hermione had weaknesses, she had very few flaws.)

These 'different folk' behave, well, differently than most people. Usually, they are non-functional unless they have (very patient) people around them to support them. In return, they provide exceptional value to their supporters, in different ways. Thus, the relationships these people with others are symbiotic in very real ways.

For example, Holmes would not survive without Mrs. Hudson caring for him greatly, or Watson being around to pull him out of a fix. On the other hand, Mrs. Hudson receives a quite nice rent from Holmes. Consider: even when he was gone for years, his brother Mycroft continued paying for his rooms. Watson is allowed to publish his stories, growing his income. Lestrade is treated as an idiot by Holmes, but gets promoted because he is given credit for Holmes' work.

In a very real sense, Holmes is being quite thoroughly used by those supposedly closest to him. Ask yourself: What person, in the entire series of novels and short stories, befriends Holmes without getting something of value in return from the friendship?

In short: Everyone close to Holmes is there for a self-beneficial reason. In return, he is blunt with them, and often off-putting. But, they help him, and return, he helps them.

That's assuming someone has read other Holmes stories. I've read just the one. It was just a surprise is all. I thought I would like him more. Perhaps in other stories he has redeeming qualities. In Hound, I didn't see any redeeming qualities - just arrogance and thoughtlessness.

In the short stories I've read, Holmes does reveal compassion for the underdog. He does seem to care about helping them out. He's just not great at tact.

Wouldn't Holmes' use of his Baker Street Irregulars (or Cartwright in this case) show that he has confidence in some people's ability to observe and relay important information to him? Come to think of it, this is the first time I've seen him send Watson out on his own to gather information. I was actually quite surprised Holmes didn't want to go to the Moors to gather information first hand.

I can't think of an instance though where Watson pulled Holmes out of a fix. In all the stories I've read so far, it's always been the other way round. Does this happen more in the later collections of stories?

#41 - there are a few stories where Watson is sent out to gather info. Holmes is always exceedingly patronising about the snippits he'd gathered, and the questions he'd failed to ask.

Watson does render medical assistance once or twice. Holmes becomes very concerned on the one occasion that Watson is shot at.

Overall, remember the reason 'Hound' was written:

Conan Doyle had already KILLED Holmes at the Reichenbach Falls. He grew to hate writing the character, feeling it distracted from his important work.

Now, he finally was attracted (by huge amounts of money, for the day) to get back into writing about him.

As to the quality of the work, one reviewer at the time said (paraphrased from memory) "Holmes may not have been killed by Moriarty at Reichenbach Falls, but he was never the same man afterwards"

Lots of other people, including myself, agree.

If you really want to get a flavor for Holmes, and why so many love him, read the short story The Adventure of the Blue Carbuncle. The very last paragraph is a reason I am fond of his character.

This was the first Sherlock Holmes story I've ever read and I enjoyed it...enough to make a scrapbook page about it! I had an old copy of the book and when I began to read it noticed it was missing the end of the story. So I reused it:

P.S. That's my "hound" Captain Skippyjon Jones.

#43 - I had no idea that Holmes had been killed before Hounds. I knew that he did die in some kind of battle with Moriarty and that Doyle, under pressure by Homes fans, wrote him back to life. But not when in the series this happens. Then again, I haven't read The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes yet so I'm guessing it happens in one of those stories. Come to think of it, I haven't even come across Moriarty yet in any of the stories I've read.

Before reading the Sherlock Holmes stories, I'd already heard so much about Mycroft Holmes and Moriarty that I'm surprised I haven't come across them in the stories yet. And Irene Adler was made out to be such a big part of Holmes' life in the Robert Downey Jr movie, yet I've only come across her in one story (so far? I keep expecting her to show up again.)

#44 - I like your scrapbook page. And my 6yo loves the Skippyjon Jones books. Your Skippy is adorable.

What was the story in which he was "killed"?

#45, #47

The story where he was killed was "The Final Problem"

The trouble with Moriarty is that he is only really in ONE story out of *60* - that one. In one other, he is subtly hinted at, but only obliquely, and in the one after the Final Problem (The Empty House) - one of his last still-alive senior leaders is brought to justice.

That's it.

The trouble is, after Conan Doyle, so many series on Sherlock Holmes (but the Granada ones with Brett, and also the old pictures with Rathbone) spend all their time "leading up" to Moriarty, and once he is dispatched with - they don't know what to DO. The new BBC "Sherlock" story is suffering this same problem. When they do this, they make the same mistake as comedy TV series that has their leads marry: Now that the tension is over - it's boring.

To avoid this problem, they should simply have him solve a case, play the violin, fade to black, and when we return, it's breakfast time again, with a new client breathlessly running up the 17 steps to his flat at 221B.

#44 - What a great idea for a beloved book which has expired! Wish I had thought of it before I threw out my dead copy of Five Red Herrings. After all, reading is such a huge part of my life, but very little evidence of it in my albums.

I don't think Irene Adler was in more than one story either, unless she was referred to obliquely. But of course you can't have a movie without a love interest, just as you can't have one without an uber-villain, so they make a big deal over a very small part. I agree w/JPB.

#38:
"Another point - I'm not sure if this is more generally Holmes related, as I can't now remember if his famous catchphrase comes up in Hound or not.

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth".

That quote is from A Study In Scarlet , reading_fox. :o)

I finished it! Thank goodness. I was having such a hard time finding time to read this and another book I was reading for my book group.

I love the story mostly for its wonderful atmospherics and the Dartmoor bogs, fogs, and strange noises in the night! And can you imagine crawling into, and taking shelter, in those wee stone "houses". Brrrrr.

Our weather here is not so far different from that described in the book although we seldom have those thick, thick fogs through which nothing much can be seen. But when we do I love nothing more than to walk through a dark, deep forest with dripping wet falling from the mosses and lichens.

When I read a story written this long ago I simply don't apply more modern criticisms to it. I don't find the need to like any of the characters; I just enjoy the writing. Sherlock Holmes is clearly not a person I would enjoy waltzing with; he is a bit of a superior acting, full of himself, type but you know if you really wanted a crime solved, and the criminal "put away" for a very long time, you would probably appreciate having Holmes and Watson on the case.

The pieces of period thinking with the fainting women, and the trips to restore the nerves, and the criminals hiding in the wilderness and frightening all the farmers just make me enjoy the book. Unfortunately, where I live I am so far from any such wildness that I have little chance to experience the hibbi-gibbies in real life. It is very much safe from those mysteries; more likely to be scared of being mugged in a big city. No fog needed.

Thanks all for a great discussion.

I just remembered. One of my favorite characters in the book is Mr. Frankland. It is so easy if you are from a small town or village to place this character. There is one in every town, I swear. I don't mean I like him as a man, I like the way his character is drawn.

Oh, when I was trying to find Mr. Frankland's name, I read the entry in Wikipedia about this book and some of the background info on the writing of the tale is interesting. Seems the legend was borrowed from a known legend.