Friday, June 6, 2014

The Hound of the Baskervilles

I didn't read the whole book, only
The Hound of the Baskervilles
The Hound of the Baskervilles might be the last Holmes novella I’ll ever read, and it’s actually the one I have been most curious about. My first interest in Holmes was A Study in Scarlet, as it combines historical facts with detective story. This one is more exciting because it combines gothic-thriller with detective investigation. I was actually interested in it because of the dark theme, more than the detective aspects. And it turned to be quite enjoyable to the end.

There is a trace of malignity in the Baskervilles family; especially Hugo Baskerville. There was a legend of a hellhound which was started around 17 century, when Hugo sold his soul to the devil in order to capture a farmer’s daughter he wanted to marry. He was later found dead in the moor surrounding the Baskervilles Hall, with a huge black hound tore out his throat. The legend became the hound of the Baskervilles, and it was believed to be a curse to all Baskerville descendents.

Sir Charles Baskervilles was found dead of heart attack outside the Baskerville Hall; a huge animal’s footprints were found near the body. Fearing for the family curse, Dr. Mortimer, a family’s friend, consulted Sherlock Holmes about the arrival of the new Baronet: Sir Henry Baskerville, who would move in to the Baskerville Hall. Holmes took the case very excitingly, because he didn’t believe much in superstition and legends. So along the fifteen chapters of this novella, Doyle brought us to the thrill terror and exciting actions surrounding the gloom moor, to reveal the murderer, and to prevent the next one. I was mostly curious about the hellhound; did it really exist, or was it just a disguised attempt of the villain to murder the Baskervilles?

When I said (in paragraph one) that this would be my last Holmes to read, it is because normally I don’t like Doyle’s Holmes. I think it’s too theoretically, and mostly involves brain and intelligence, rather than empathy. But The Hound of Baskervilles has caught my interest because of its grim theme, and so I decided to read it after all. In the end I quite enjoyed it; the grim mystery and the thrilling action were entertaining. But when it came to the investigation, I wasn’t impressed. And I disliked the writing style, making it as Watson’s journal, and thus reducing the sense of being present inside the scene. Watson’s explanation of the mystery also becomes anticlimax; it feels more like reading a newspaper, rather than a mystery/detective story.

For all that…. Three stars for The Hound of the Baskervilles.

~~~~~~~~~

I read from The Complete Sherlock Holmes hardback edition

This book is counted as:



5 comments:

  1. Contrary to you, I love Holmes more because it's so technical, and less emotion or empathy. Brainy is the new sexy, I guess.

    If there's anything I don't like with this particular book, it is the absence of Holmes for half of it, and yeah, I don't really read a man's diary. My favourite of Holmes' novels would be The Valley of Fear. In that novel Holmes' lack of understanding of human emotion proved to be his weakness (sort of).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL, to me brainy is less humane. :P

      Delete
    2. I haven't read Valley of Fear. I'll have to get on that. I don't think that one has to be unemotional to be brainy or logical. It seems to be a Victorian fallacy that has unfortunately carried over. When you look at earlier literature--especially Greek and Middle Eastern-- the heroes are very emotional, but also intelligent. The Greek heroes, the heroes of Bible stories, all cry, dance, and show affection. Shakespeare in MacBeth has MacDuff say that he must "feel it as a man" when he learns of the deaths of his family. He admonishes Malcolm for telling him to remain cold and calculated.

      All that said, part of Sherlock's character is that he believes he can't have emotions to be truly intelligent, and he is really neurotic because of it. And less humane. It works as a character and that is why I like him.

      Delete
  2. I didn't like A Study in Scarlet for the same reasons you didn't like the investigation in The Hound of the Baskervilles. The magic of mystery is feeling you are in the midst of the action. There is an adrenaline rush that I believe should come with every good mystery. Doyle's mysteries lack that because of the way they are told. Watson's journal entries make me feel distant from the action.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ...and I thought I was the only one who dislike Doyle's style.
      Even Christie's Murder of Roger Ackroyd (which is in diary style) reveals the murderer at the very last page. I think Doyle focuses on the logical thinking, not the mystery.

      Delete

What do you think?