The Hound of the Baskervilles (Sherlock Holmes, #5) in A Book Walks Into a Bar

Feb 15, 2018 Travis rated it it was ok · review of another edition

The Hound of the Baskervilles has the feeling of a story written for the express purpose of trying to sell the story. It simply does not feel genuine. It reads like a tabloid story: a demon dog kills an eldery man and remains on the prowl! Doyle throws in a lurid legend of kidnapping, an escaped convict, a woman abused by her husband, strange goings-on in the night in a huge country estate among the servants, and frequent references to characters having their guns and being ready to use them. Ha The Hound of the Baskervilles has the feeling of a story written for the express purpose of trying to sell the story. It simply does not feel genuine. It reads like a tabloid story: a demon dog kills an eldery man and remains on the prowl! Doyle throws in a lurid legend of kidnapping, an escaped convict, a woman abused by her husband, strange goings-on in the night in a huge country estate among the servants, and frequent references to characters having their guns and being ready to use them. Having never previously read any of Doyle's novels, I was was surprised by this level of prurience.

The novel is sloppy. The prose is unpolished and unrefined, and there is an obvious error in the narrative timeline: in Chapter 9, Watson writes a letter, dated October 15, to Holmes describing the previous night's adventures (in which he and Sir Henry had chased Selden, the escaped convict, on the moor), and he refers to this event as occurring "last night" which would have been the night of October 14. Then, in Chapter 10, we are given a diary entry from Watson dated October 16; before the diary entry, Watson notes that this entry describes the morning after he and Sir Henry had chased Selden; since the diary date is October 16, that would mean the chase occurred the night of October 15, not October 14, as the letter to Holmes indicates.

The general mystery itself is not all that mysterious. Early on, the story references the three Baskerville brothers and notes that one had gone to South America, and I immediately thought it likely that this third brother might somehow be involved in the death of Sir Charles, and (view spoiler).

I was further disappointed that this story does not portray Holmes as making any particularly brilliant or ingenious deductions. One of the main clues that Holmes uses to crack the mystery is seeing a portrait in Baskerville Hall of one of the Baskerville ancestors and seeing a family resemblance to the murderer. This was just not a very intriguing mystery.

One final major problem with this story is that we are never told the murderer's ultimate fate. The penultimate chapter ends with Holmes, Watson, and the police detective going to the hideout where the murderer had kept the hound, but the murderer is not there, and they do not immediately give chase and find him. As this chapter ends, the murderer is at large. Then, in the final chapter, we have Holmes explaining to Watson in detail how he solved the case, but he never mentions anything about the murderer either escaping or being apprehended. Maybe it's just me, but this is a pretty important plot detail.

I do not mean to imply that The Hound of the Baskervilles is completely bad, though. It was still an entertaining read, and I was interested in the mystery behind the hound: exactly how big was it; why was it so bloodthirsty; why was it thought to be some sort of hell hound? However, the revelation was less than satisfying: it was the size of a small lioness, which is not really all that big; it was half-staved by the murderer, so it was obviously in a state to kill a human for food; and the murderer had coated its muzzle and hackles with phosphorous to give it an eerie glow.

One other positive aspect of this novel is that it is very short and is an easy read with a lot of dialogue and action. But is it a classic novel? I don't think so. ...more

Like · see review