Sherlock Holmes Was Wrong: Reopening the Case of the Hound of the Baskervilles
A playfully brilliant re-creation of one of the most-loved detective stories of all time; the companion book no Holmes fan should be without.
Eliminate the impossible, Holmes said, and whatever is left must be the solution. But as Pierre Bayard finds in this dazzling reinvestigation of The Hound of the Baskervilles, sometimes the master missed his mark. Using the last
More lists with this book...
Bayard for the first half of the book begins with a recap of p...more
Wirklich faszinierend: Die Aufzählung so vieler Fehler, die Holmes im Laufe seiner Ermittlungen gemacht hat. Kaum zu glauben, dass so jemand einen solchen Ruf haben kann. Aber Holmes' Macken überspielen seine Inkompetenz grandios, das muss man ihm zugestehen.
Wie bei vielen Büchern Bayards gibt es Missverständnisse - viele Leser meinen, dass es Bayard darum gehe, Holmes (oder Conan Doyle) in Misskredit zu bringen, aus Neid, Arroganz, Besserwisserei oder sonst einem...more
Another large part of my distaste is the sheer arrogance of the author that drips from every page. Holmes was arrogant, too, but his was derived from his success in solving problems where others where having trouble discerning the mere existence of an issue. Holmes also showed a more humble side numerous times. Pierre Bayard exemplifies...more
According to French literature professor, Pierre Bayard, not only did Holmes make numerous mistakes,...more
More importantly, the first 2/3s of the book is useless navelgazing of the worst kind. Do characters in books come to life and cause real harm in the real world? Of course not, you git.
The final 1/3 of the book is another indictment against Holmes' solution of the HotB. Unfortunately, Bayard does not stick on target and spends a lot of time discussing Holmes' relationship to ACD.
According to him, when it comes to the case of the hound of the Baskervilles, Sherlock Holmes got it all wrong so Pierre Bayard leads a counter-investigation while writing an essay on literature. This book is an exercice in style of exegesis and critic brilliantly accomplished by an Academic who fights with the text, so...more
I'll elect to describe this book with a professor's comment from one of my C- art history term papers, "Interesting theoretical paper."
Bayard provides some valid holes in the case, some of which may have already been noticeable to careful readers of the original and others quite unexpected. However, his own "case" is susceptible to the same skepticism he applies to Holmes' construct. The book is worth reading for the beginning, where he talks about understanding life from a...more
This is a work of slightly tongue in cheek, very French literary criticism. As such, it's not for everyone. This isn't a fault in the book, but simply a matter of taste.
Bayard begins with an explanation of what he calls "detective criticism," and a recap of the events of The Hound of the Baskervilles. This is the preliminary to analyzing...more
This is a short book. It would be even shorter without the first 30 pages or so, which consists of a lengthy but well-written summary of ‘The Hound of the Baskervilles.’ While this recap is not really necessary to the audience for this book—for how many people would care to read this book without having first read the original?—it may serve useful for readers wishing to refresh their memories of the novel. I had just read ‘The Hound…’ and I read it, although I did...more
I did have a problem with Bayard saying that Holmes deductions were wrong, when Bayard wasn't actually present at the investigation. All the information Bayard has to go off of is from Watson's supposedly fl...more
Bayard's "detective criticism" is an interesting literary exercise, but I suspect that it lends itself to exactly the fault with which he credits H...more
Especially intriguing was Bayard's criticism of the flaws in Holmes's deductions. On my reading of The Hound of the Baskervilles, I didn't notice any of Bayard's points. But after hearing Bayard's critique, my reaction was: "Hmm. I don't know how I missed that." Or "Yes, I agree. That doesn't make...more
I got a bit annoyed with the author in a few places for his obvious attempts to build suspense by not revealing who he thought was the 'real' killer, even when this required some grammatical acrobatics as he discussed his analysis. The bulk of the book is a justification for this sort of literary criticism, resting on the idea that characters becom...more
Although some points I disagreed with at times, the author's analysis and revealing of the " true culprit" is nothing to scoff about. A definite read for any admire...more
It's not entirely necessary to read the original Hound first, because Bayard presents a fine summary of the story; but I recommend doing so f...more
However, a caveat: This book requires you to like metafiction and be prepared to tolerate a charming arrogance/wankiness about literature though, but if you've read Sherlock Holmes then you should be up to the task. If you don't read it with too serious a face, it's really enjoyable.
|Huntsville-Madiso...: Staff Pick - Sherlock Holmes Was Wrong: Reopening the Case of the Hound of the Baskervilles by Pierre Bayard||1||5||Apr 07, 2013 09:14AM|
Bayard's recent book Comment parler des livres que l'on n'a pas lus?, or "How to talk about books you haven't read", is a bestseller in France and has received much critical attention in English language press.
A few of his books present revisionist readings of famous fictional mysteries. Not only do...more
Share This Book
Every psychoanalyst knows how deeply a subject can be influenced, and even shaped, sometimes to the point of tragedy, by a fictional character and the sense of identification it gives rise to. This remark must first of all be understood as a reminder that we ourselves are usually fictional characters for other people […]”