 |
| 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:
72nd book for The Classics Club Project
71st book for 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die
Contrary to you, I love Holmes more because it's so technical, and less emotion or empathy. Brainy is the new sexy, I guess.
ReplyDeleteIf 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).
LOL, to me brainy is less humane. :P
DeleteI 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.
DeleteAll 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.
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...and I thought I was the only one who dislike Doyle's style.
DeleteEven 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.