A Study in Scarlet question

Study in Scarlet is terrible. Wild west mormons halfway through? Really? No thank you. Worst Holmes story by far, and it's not even because it cuts away from Holmes. Valley of Fear is my favorite precisely because the cutaway flashback story is so good. The mormon story just isn't anywhere close to something that can be called good and it ruins the book entirely.

Baskervilles, on the other hand, is a damn good book.

The Hound of the Baskervilles is much better. Holmes solves the mystery halfway through A Study in Scarlet, then the second half is the killer telling a long story about how the Mormons are a murderous cult.

"Hound of Baskervilles." The mystery is just so engaging and interesting. "A Study in Scarlet" is interesting, and it was really nice to see the introduction of Sherlock Holmes, but the mystery itself isn't as interesting, and the Mormon plot was a bit of a digression in storytelling style.

i like "The Hound of the Baskervilles" more its just spooky "Mr. Holmes They were the footprints of a gigantic hound!" Classic

The Hound of the Baskervilles is one of my all-time favorite books. It's a classic gothic novel, minus the shrinking violet heroine (unless that's Henry's role, lol). And there are moments in that book that just come back to me out of nowhere. "As you value your life or your reason, keep away from the moor." *Delicious shudder* Oh, and the tragedy of Seton, the escaped criminal, and poor Mrs. Barrymore: "No matter what he's done, he'll always be the curly-headed little boy I played with, as an elder sister would." Imho, Doyle was really at the top of his game when he wrote this book!

I did enjoy A Study in Scarlet, but it doesn't have the emotional resonance for me that Baskerville does.

Interesting topic! Thanks for starting it. :-)

Hound of The Baskervilles. Way more spooky.

A Study in Scarlet 100%. It is an awesome story, sticks to the genre and I, as a reader, never felt the need to put it down for a sec. The exact opposite happened in The Hound of the Baskervilles, he didn't stuck with the genre, it is too long and I was too bored after reading the first 50 pages. The story is not even interesting, in my opinion, but I see most of you disagree!

Hounds, and it's no contest.

Study has an amazing beginning but it is a pretty flawed novel. The middle-story is a huge distraction and doesn't contain the main character. The Valley of Fear has a similar format, but imo it's much better.

And I think I remember liking The Sign of the Four much better than Study, since it sticks to the genre but doesn't swing off the tracks.

A Study in Scarlet. Though both were great books, I felt that The Hound of the Baskervilles dragged on too long. It should have and definitely could have been shorter. Don't get me wrong I still enjoyed the book very much, but I prefer A Study in Scarlet.

Me too I very much enjoyed the introduction of Holmes and Watson in "A Study in Scarlet" but I prefer "The Hound of the Baskervilles"

The Hound, hands down, is the best Holmes story, EVER!

If forced to think of it with a gun to my head I'd have to say The Hound of the Baskervilles. Sir Hugo Baskerville, the debauched drunken deflowerer of innocent maidens; one of my boyhood heroes! ;-?

I like both but I'm partial to Hound for no other reason than it was the first "adult" book I read as a child.

a study in scarlet, but it is close, i loved all the books

I enjoyed A Study in Scarlet a little more due to the way the novel is divided up, giving back story to the Mormon group and the incidents that took place there.

Both for different reasons. I like Study in Scarlet for Watson's backstory and how they met and solved the problem but not Hope et al Mormon backstory. I enjoyed Hound of the Baskervilles for the plot, how Watson investigates the case and despite the 'don't go on the moor at night' he marches off up to the Tor.

the hound of the baskervilles easily

Hmm, that's actually a very hard question. If I like a book, that's usually good enough for me. Both books were good reads, and worth revisiting.

Ultimately, however, I like the Hound of the Baskervilles better. While I very much enjoyed the introduction of Mr. Holmes and Dr. Watson in A Study in Scarlet, both characters had more of a role in the Baskervilles, instead of half of the story taken up by the criminal (whose story took a while to get to the point).

I have a wonderfully old version of the Baskervilles (I love the smell of old books!), which I leave at the top of my desk with my other old treasured volumes. I also liked the Jeremy Brett movie very much.

Baskervilles is better. I dislike it when the criminal goes on a long monologue about their travels in other countries and what drove them to commit the crime, which is a common element of a lot of the Holmes stories, and certainly the other three novels. I find them tedious, especially in comparison to the parts with Holmes and Watson solving the crime.

Hound of the Baskervilles doesn't really have that problem.

Both are very good and difficult to compare since methodology for deduction is completely different. However personally i prefer Study in Scarlet, I feel deduction at it's best at the crime scene itself.

I found The Hound more tensing than The study. I love the unnatural / supernatural so this was an easy decision. A Study in Scarlet is of course one of the best but in my ranking it is only #2. After The Hound of Baskerville

I'll go with A Study in Scarlet. Baskervilles is a better story, but without all of the elements of Holmes's backstory, I don't think I would have been able to enjoy the rest of these stories as much as I did, if at all. To me, the slow unveiling of Holmes's skills and talents as told through the first-person point of view of Dr. Watson is the best part of the canon.

The Hound of Baskervilles

I also prefer The Hound of the Baskervilles. The story flows nicely from beginning to end, and allows Sherlock to show off his talents in the limited time he is actually in the picture. It also gives Watson a chance to do some investigation on his own. A Study in Scarlet is a good introduction to Sherlock, but I agree that the whole side story about the "evil Mormons" is interesting, but actually distracts you from the crime and its investigation (which is already wrapped up by that point).

I prefer "The Hound of the Baskervilles" becouse of the mood of the book. It is almost as if you can't be sure what's real and what's not even in the thihgs that are supose to be facts.

The Hound of Baskervilles - any day!!
Foggy countryside, strange people, unearthly mystery. THB is probably one of the best Sherlock Holmes story ever (not that I am comparing)

The Hound of the Barkervilles!

I enjoy 'The Sign of Four' over either; but between the two choices above I would have to say I dig the lurid atmosphere of 'Baskervilles' --even though Holmes is absent for most of the tale. It's just a fun, inventive tale with a well-drawn, unique setting. Whereas 'Scarlet' serves more to introduce Holmes to us --and in surroundings we become very familiar with later on.

Difficult choice! But I have to say, I think I prefer "The hound of the Baskervilles". I still remember the first time I read it (still a child) and feeling the biting-my-nails edge-of-the-seat suspense whenever a character was alone on the moor at night.

Although, "A study in scarlet" was the perfect puzzle, great to introduce Holmes to the reader, showing off his abilities.

I liked both. Why do you turn reading into a sporting event? It's not an either-or. In fact, you can read and like lots of books equally well. And they can all be very different.

I agree with the majority (so far) I found Hound the better story. I was taken by surprise by the sidetrack Mormon adventure in Scarlet