Reader discussion: The Hound of the Baskervilles

Public reader discussion about The Hound of the Baskervilles in the WeRead Catalog by Arthur Conan Doyle.

Your top three crime-fiction books of all time

By TinyChapter

My top pick is To Kill a Mockingbird. It was the first crime novel I ever got into, and I’ve basically loved the genre ever since. Also, I can’t ignore how interesting Lee’s writing style is. I know everyone talks about how great the book is, but I personally just found her storytelling kind of oddly comforting. After that I’d say Michael Connelly—like, I really love most of his stuff, especially the Jack McEvoy series. My next top read is The Poet. I think that’s the one that really pulled me in to Connelly, and I liked getting the crime-thriller angle through a journalist lens. Third for me is Take it Back by Kia Abdullah. I mainly put it here because the plot felt really different. That said, I don’t fully buy the “twist” at the end—it felt a bit off compared to what happens earlier. Still, because it is so unique, I’m okay giving it the third spot. What are your favorite crime novels, and what made you like them?

The Hound of the Baskervilles (1939) American gothic mystery film

By strangeteacuphoney

Honestly, even with the obvious problems, this felt like the best and creepiest adaptation of the story to me. And yeah, Watson is kind of a mess in this one, but the whole thing has this atmospheric vibe. I remember being really freaked out as a kid when Holmes lifted the trapdoor and the hound showed up.

New VOD: "Sherlock Holmes - The Hound of the Baskervilles" (Bridget & Mary Jo; 1939)

By amberfrog40

Probably won’t happen, but I’d really love it if Bridget and MJ did their own Sherlock Holmes adaptation.

The Hounding of the Baskervilles: Hunting Down the Best Version

By happy-laurel61

I’m trying to figure out which screen version of The Hound of the Baskervilles works best, and after watching seven of them I took a bunch of notes. Might as well go through them in order, starting with... - Der Hund von Baskerville (1929, Erda-Film) https://preview.redd.it/mfvjdyog9bve1.jpg?width=713&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=422c34c577c49fb1d81573f67d563ab0b5d4b2b1 Even though this is an early Hound adaptation, it could be the best directed one, though honestly nobody really amazing has taken on this story. It also happens to be the last silent Sherlock Holmes movie. Silent film really wasn’t the best fit for Holmes stories since they depend so much on talk and explanation. To cut down on intertitles, these versions had to simplify things and lean more on action than deduction, so the walking stick bit is missing here, of course. What makes Der Hund stand out is how fully it commits to a German gothic/expressionist look. Baskerville Hall is basically an old dark house straight out of The Bat or The Cat and the Canary, with tons of shadows, peeking eyes in statues, trap doors, hidden rooms, all that stuff. Being a late silent helps too, because you get really fluid camera movement and some sharp angles. American Carlyle Blackwell is Holmes here, introduced as “the genial detective.” Luckily he’s not just genial, though he does lean into that smugly amused Holmes side. Russian George Seroff plays Watson as a plump, puppyish, clean-shaven sort. Watson often gets pushed to the side in silent Holmes films, but not here, even if the role is played for comedy a lot (Holmes even gives him a light smack). Fritz Rasp is Stapleton, which is kind of perfect because he already looks like a creepy goblin type. Honestly, once he starts moving around the screen, you know who the villain is. This film was once lost, and it’s still missing some exposition in reels two and three, mostly Watson’s stuff at Baskerville Hall. They replace that with illustrated titles, but it still makes the mystery feel trimmed and a bit uneven. It’s pretty faithful overall, though when it changes things it often does the same sort of thing later versions do. Like the 1968 BBC one, it begins with the suspects already at Baskerville Hall. Like the Hammer version, Holmes gets stuck in an underground passage. And Laura Lyons ends up like she does in the 1982 Ian Richardson TV version. A lot of Hound films get sunk by cheapness, but this one doesn’t. Baskerville Hall looks richly furnished, and the moor, even though it was built in a disused hangar, still feels like a bleak wasteland. The locations are modern too — there’s a car at Baker Street, and Holmes is in a leather trench coat with his deerstalker. The hound is a mottled Great Dane, shown mostly in extreme close-up, probably to make it seem scarier, though it never really gets as monstrous as in the book. - The Hound of the Baskervilles (1939, 20th Century Fox). https://preview.redd.it/4ylbuhmwabve1.jpg?width=736&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7c07e873079154db53272b008b9d65d21a588301 This one gets two things absolutely right for a good Hound adaptation: real atmosphere and a strong Holmes. Basil Rathbone’s Holmes is just excellent — outwardly friendly, but cold as anything underneath. Doyle’s line about Holmes casually giving a friend a pinch of a drug for “scientific” reasons fits him perfectly. Rathbone’s version seems to keep Nigel Bruce’s Watson around because he enjoys feeling superior to someone. He treats ordinary people the way most of us treat pets. Bruce is less ridiculous here than later on, though still not really Doyle’s Watson. But since Holmes is absent for so much of the story, you need Watson to carry the middle section, and Bruce, even with his dimness, does have presence. Ernest Pascal’s script does a good job fitting the novel into 80 minutes, though if it had 20 or 30 more it might have been truly definitive. It moves fast — Watson and Sir Henry are on the moor just 20 minutes in — and the extra bits, like the coroner’s inquiry and the séance, help create mood and bring the suspects together, even if they come from later mystery conventions. Sidney Lanfield’s direction is pretty plain, but the production design and photography do the heavy lifting. The moors are artificial, sure, but they may even look better than real ones and they definitely feel dangerous. The set was huge, apparently big enough for people to get lost in, and it really works as a strange, foggy wasteland of tors and cairns. Without that eerie setting, the whole thing would be weaker. The hound itself isn’t ghostly or satanic, but it does look like a nasty, threatening beast, which is enough. The ending could be stronger — there’s a gather-the-suspects scene added, and the production code probably kept Stapleton’s death offscreen — but Holmes’s final line is still amazing. - The Hound of the Baskervilles (1959, Hammer Film Productions). https://preview.redd.it/9gdbqjm1dbve1.jpg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4c120063a63553ad96f2b3c92ae30810575b3940 Peter Cushing proves he’s one of the great screen Holmeses here. I loved this movie as a kid, but watching it now I’m kind of let down by it. Cushing is fantastic and Watson is a huge improvement, but the film doesn’t really have the right mood, even with all the horror stuff. The bright Technicolor, with those weird green-lit patches in the ruined abbey, feels off. The moor also doesn’t get enough room to breathe — there are some Dartmoor shots, but the main outdoor scenes are on tight sets that aren’t nearly as eerie as the 1939 version. The climax happens in a ruin instead of out on the moor, and the hound itself is pretty unimpressive, almost like an afterthought. The screenplay has problems too. Holmes gets fewer deductions, which hurts the science-vs-superstition angle. Then there are the dumb attempts to juice it up with tarantulas, busty femme fatales, human sacrifices, cave-ins, and rotten aristocrats. Making the later Baskervilles look bad is also a mistake — why should Holmes go to all this trouble for these creepy rich people? The pace is rushed, so Holmes being away doesn’t really matter, and his return doesn’t hit hard. Terence Fisher seems most alive in the opening flashback, like he’d rather have kept doing a nasty costume melodrama than switched to a detective story. Christopher Lee is wasted as Sir Henry too. Still, it’s enjoyable, mostly because of the very Doyle-ish performances of the two leads. Andre Morrell’s Watson is casual, amused, and very military, and he’s the first one who really gets played straight and given some depth. He’s sensible, steady, and can actually hold the middle of the story, which makes it even more annoying when the film cuts that section down. And Peter Cushing, all sharp and birdlike, looks more like Doyle’s Holmes than anyone else. His eyes really do seem to flicker as his mind works. He’s more professorial than Rathbone, more locked inside his own head. Also, he has one thing no other screen Holmes can claim, because he played this story more than once... - The Hound of the Baskervilles (1968, BBC TV) https://preview.redd.it/0w3fsze9fbve1.jpg?width=745&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cf0f52316c2fef0c2031131d442409b3acf4e9b8 The BBC brought Sherlock Holmes back in 1965 with Douglas Wilmer, who was really good. It was the first screen attempt in a long while to adapt Doyle’s stories closely and regularly, but it was rushed and cheap, and Wilmer quit after the first season. Peter Cushing took over, and he’s here too. He’s a little softer in this Hound, but still fun to watch. Watson is Nigel Stock, who I like a lot; his Watson sits somewhere between Bruce and Morrell, kind of a fool but smarter than he looks or sounds. The supporting cast is strong too, including Ballard Berkley as Charles Baskerville. The budget really hurts this one, though. Since it was made for 60s BBC TV, the outdoor scenes are on 16mm and the interiors are on video, and some things got moved indoors just to save money. The indoor scenes have cheap sets and that old live-TV style blocking, with way too many tight close-ups. The indoor footage and outdoor footage don’t blend, and that kills the mood, which this story really needs. A few scenes were shot on the real moor, but not the key ones. The climax is on a tiny fogged-up set meant to hide how small it is. The hound is only on screen briefly and looks like a chunky Rottweiler. The script stays very close to Doyle, but it’s talky, which doesn’t help when the visuals aren’t strong. The ending is ridiculously abrupt, like they ran out of time and had to chop everything after Stapleton dies. I still liked it because of Cushing and Stock, but the limits of 60s British TV keep this from being a real winner. - Priklyucheniya Sherloka Kholmsa i doktora Vatsona: Sobaka Baskerviley (1981, Lenfilm) https://preview.redd.it/q3j9oofkgbve1.jpg?width=1498&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a03bc7b357d2e1f604c5c9acc9ca507c557a9d2d It still feels odd hearing Holmes and Watson speak Russian, and even though they clearly worked hard on the period look, the buildings, furniture, locations, and clothes still come off a little eastern European. People always talk about Russian adaptations being reverent and lavish, and this does seem like the longest Hound version, at two and a half hours, and maybe the most faithful too. It also has the biggest budget, which is kind of embarrassing for the British and Americans who made so many cheap ones. I have no idea what terrible part of Russia stood in for the moor, but it’s as bleak and eerie as the book needs. It’s also great to see so much outdoor shooting, even at night, because that matters a lot for the atmosphere. The hound comes out of real darkness and looks genuinely eerie, helped by the paint job that makes it seem like a floating skull. Vasily Livanov’s Holmes looks more like an accountant than a detective and has that croaky voice, but he does catch Holmes’s slow, still intelligence and has a dry, slightly amused edge. Vitaly Solomin’s Watson is one of the best ever, maybe because he has enough charisma that he could almost be the detective himself. This Watson has real authority and presence. The rest of the cast is well chosen too. Nikita Mikhalkov’s Sir Henry is played like a loud cowboy with a very emotional, Cossack sort of energy, which actually saves the role from being boring. This is one of the best adaptations of Doyle’s novel, even if it doesn’t have the speed or energy of the 1939 film. Igor Maslennikov gets some really evocative images out of it, like the man on the Tor, and maybe the spookiest hound on screen, but he’s not a particularly dynamic director. Still, it’s a handsome, heavy film, and it kind of feels like it’s challenging the West to do better. - The Hound of the Baskervilles (1983, Mapleton Films) https://preview.redd.it/j8upt56tibve1.jpg?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ebae39482fb439ce355cb758bbfb37b7b3839d65 Ian Richardson seemed like he should have been a perfect Holmes. If you watched the original House of Cards, you know how icy and spidery he could be. His Francis Urquhart could freeze water, and Holmes can be like that too. So it’s disappointing that when Richardson finally played Sherlock, he came off too friendly and smiley, almost like he was scared of Holmes’s darker side. Still, there are a few moments where that grin drops and you can see the much better Holmes he might have been with better direction. Donald Churchill’s Watson is just terrible: all bluster, very Nigel Bruce-ish, but without any of Bruce’s charm. This Watson is just a cranky idiot, and you can’t really believe he and Holmes are actually friends. Richardson and Churchill have no chemistry at all. The supporting cast sounds great on paper — Nicholas Clay, Brian Blessed, Eleanor Bron, Connie Booth, Denholm Elliott — but it all feels flat. Douglas Hickox starts out pretty flashy, and Ronnie Taylor’s cinematography makes this more film-like than most other Hounds. A lot of it was shot in Devonshire, and the moor footage is gorgeous. But like most versions, the final hound scenes are on a soundstage with the fog machine going hard. Still, the set is decent, probably second only to the 1939 version. The hound itself is big, black, and imposing, and near the end it gets these weird glowing white eyes that work better than the earlier glowing-body effect. The script feels like it didn’t trust Doyle. There’s an obvious new red herring, scenes are shuffled around, and it keeps trying too hard to hide the murderer for too long. Watson’s solo-investigator section is cut back again, maybe for the best since he’s so bad, and Holmes’s return doesn’t land. Some choices don’t even make sense — Lestrade shows up early, Watson is oddly rude to him, and then he doesn’t appear at the end even though that was basically his only book scene. There’s enough money here for nice period detail, but it has that shiny, overdone look Americans often give Victorian England. As an adaptation it sits somewhere between the Rathbone film and the Hammer version. So you get an old-school Holmes and Watson mixed with much harsher sex and violence, like Sir Hugo spending forever raping and killing his victim. The ingredients are there, but the result is kind of crass and derivative. - The Hound of the Baskervilles (1988, ITV Granada) https://preview.redd.it/flmbrcigmbve1.jpg?width=1314&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b6864df87859f02bbd576213f6792c83ff1a7c6f Granada’s Sherlock Holmes had maybe the best screen Holmes and Watson ever, so this Hound should have been the one. Instead it’s a letdown. Earlier episodes in The Return of Sherlock Holmes had already gone over budget, so they cut costs by making this a two-hour film instead of two episodes. That meant no 17th-century Sir Hugo flashback, no London chase, no Dartmouth, and no night shooting outdoors. So it was kind of doomed from the start. Jeremy Brett was brilliant as Holmes — his line readings show a deep, careful understanding of Doyle, and he makes Holmes feel like a full person. But he wasn’t well when this was filmed, and he didn’t have much energy. The early scenes are sharp, but later on he loses some spark. Edward Hardwicke’s Watson is excellent, maybe the only screen Watson who really seems to have an inner life. Kristoffer Tabori makes a decent Sir Henry, though he looks more like a young Robbie Robertson than the usual strong western type. Like the rest of Granada’s Holmes, the period detail is convincing, even with the budget. They shot the location stuff in Yorkshire instead of Dartmoor, and it works okay, but the final moor scenes are indoors again. The set is smaller and shabbier than the others, except maybe the 1968 version, and it barely feels like nighttime. The direction and editing in the climax are clumsy and almost hard to follow. Worst of all, they show the hound a lot before the big reveal, and it’s just a Great Dane with a fake head and bad glowing effects. Even away from the fake moor, the pacing is slow and awkward. It takes forever for people to get on and off trains or walk through Baskerville Hall or step into and out of a carriage. That sluggishness drains the big moments — Sir Charles’s death, the man on the tor, Holmes’s return, the hound reveal. T.R. Bowen’s script does a decent job of compressing the novel and keeping most of it intact, which shows that Doyle’s structure really does work on film, at least in theory. Granada’s Hound isn’t awful, just frustratingly mediocre compared with what that series had already done. Near the end of his life, Jeremy Brett said this was the one he wished he could redo. *** So that’s my run through seven versions of The Hound of the Baskervilles. I would’ve liked to include the 1921 Eille Norwood version, especially since Conan Doyle himself praised him, but it’s still being restored at the BFI and from what I hear it takes some liberties anyway. Either way, I’ve seen enough to make a call: the 1939 film is the best one, and the Russian version gets second place and the prize for most faithful. Both are very good, but the real definitive film still hasn’t been made, because it needs five things: * Not just a strong Holmes, but a strong Watson too. Holmes is missing for a big chunk of the story, so Watson has to be someone the audience actually wants to watch. * A script that stays fairly close to Doyle’s plot, because the structure already works and the mix of horror, detection, and drama is basically perfect. If you move too much around or cut too much, it gets lopsided. * Enough money. This story really doesn’t work when it feels cheap and has no convincing mood, period detail, or settings. * Night scenes shot on location, or on a soundstage big enough to feel like actual open wilderness. The second the setting looks fake, the hound loses its power. The horror is that this unreal thing shows up in the real world. * A hound that looks big enough without makeup and scary enough with it. It has to be really frightening. You can’t just put a random Great Dane in front of the camera. But if the dog is imposing enough, a little paint and cleverness can still go a long way, like in the Russian version. CGI might help with glowing eyes or effects, but a fully CGI hound would probably feel too slick. So there you go, future filmmakers. The perfect Hound is still waiting to be made.

Tell me what is your favorite part of The Hound of the Baskervilles!

By folioslow

I think pretty much everyone agrees The Hound of the Baskervilles is a favorite, and it’s one of mine too. So I’m kind of wondering, what parts do you like best in it? I’ll start with a few of mine: - A case that seems supernatural but ends up having a totally non-supernatural answer? Honestly, that’s such a win with the whole deduction/induction thing. - Holmes showing off with his reasoning is always fun. Right at the start, with Holmes and Watson looking over Dr. Mortimer’s stick, it just feels like perfect detective-story atmosphere. And Holmes saying something like “noting your fallacies I was occasionally guided towards the truth” to Watson really makes him come off as the lovable jerk he is lol. - When Holmes actually seems regretful and upset because he thinks he can’t save Sir Henry, that got to me. He can be a lot, but he does take that responsibility seriously, and blaming himself like that hurts. Then he’s laughing and dancing once he realizes it’s not Sir Henry - gah. I really like seeing that human side of him. I feel like that’s part of why Sherlock Holmes is Sherlock Holmes :) - And I like Lestrade way too much. Watson calling him “a small, with bulldog of a man,” “the little detective,” and “the little professional” had me like, okay, how short is Lestrade actually, ACD? I need to know. (My own headcanon is 168 cm / 5'6" from The House of Silk.) Anyway, I still think ACD gave us one of his best ones here, even after killing off Holmes… I really love The Hound of the Baskervilles.

Just finished Hound of the Baskervilles

By NightPlanet

Yeah, mine said BASKETvilles too. I was annoyed because the copies at my local bookstore had the correct spelling, so I guess I just got the wrong one or something. My bad! Anyway, SPOILERS: If you’re super into dog stuff, this probably isn’t for you. (Kidding.) I also didn’t love how most of the detective work was Watson, while Sherlock was just back in London doing his “other stuff,” and then it turns out he’s been on the moors the whole time… and he doesn’t really show up until the last chapters. Could be a nitpick, but I kept wanting more Sherlock time. The diary bits from Watson were still pretty interesting though. STAPLETON was the scariest part to me. Like actually terrifying. And that whole “Sister” thing was soooo gross once it’s revealed who she really is… eww. So I totally get why people call this the best of the four. There were a ton of twists and turns I honestly didn’t see coming, and Doyle does a really good job with the gothic horror vibe. Still, for me, A Study in Scarlet is my favorite overall. Curious what everyone else thought?

Great films adapted from great novels?

By listensAnchor3742

I was just talking with a friend about this—what “great novel” actually got turned into an “amazing movie.” I can rattle off plenty of cases where the book wasn’t that great but the film was (like 2001 and Psycho), and also the reverse (The Great Gatsby and Pride and Prejudice). The only one we could really agree on was Death in Venice by Thomas Mann, directed as a film by Luchino Visconti. What else am I missing?

Is hound of baskervilles a good starting point?

By strange_scarf849

I grabbed that book at a fair. It wasn’t the one with “a study in scarlet,” though. I could always just read it online if I want—I’ve already gotten about halfway through once and then stopped. Do I really need to finish it for this to make sense, or can I just jump into Baskervilles? I’m thinking I’ll read Scarlet first if it’ll make the whole thing better. Then I’ll still do Baskervilles right after. I mostly just want something that’ll get me excited for the series, and I’m hoping I don’t have to read every in-between novel first. Also, if anyone has recs for what to read next after Baskervilles and Scarlet, I’d love to hear them.

Monthly discussion thread: Hercule Poirot's Christmas

By SamLovesBooks

Hey everyone! Hope you’re all having a nice holiday season. This is the monthly thread for our book discussion—this month it’s Hercule Poirot’s Christmas. Jump in with whatever you want to talk about, like when you first read it, what you thought, or how it stacks up against your other favorite Christies (or where it ranks for you). Really hoping we’ll get a good, active discussion this month!

The moor described in hound of Baskerville, does place like this actually exist?

By blueHorse

This just sounds like a really weird, kind of wrong place—where ponies and people get pulled in.

[Q] Level of "The Hound of Baskervilles"

By waitsTrail

I’m learning English mostly through reading, and I’ve started going for more difficult books. Right now I’m reading *The Hound of the Baskervilles*, but I’m not sure what level of English you’d need to really get it (like A2/B1 or C)? Also, if there’s a better place to ask this, let me know—I might be in the wrong spot. Thanks!

Just drove past the real Baskerville Hall!

By silver_market

I honestly had no clue this was an actual place. We drove by and I saw the sign, and I had to look it up—ended up Googling it right away. And then reading what they say about Arthur Conan Doyle being a family friend who stayed there and picked up the local Hounds of the Baskervilles legend… I just can’t believe it. Apparently he turned it into the Sherlock Holmes story, but asked to set it in Devon so it would help “ward off tourists,” which is kind of funny and a little weird. Either way, I’m really excited now—pretty sure I’m going to stay there soon.

THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES (1939) - MOVIE REVIEW. Stars Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce.

By shelf_soft

Hope you liked the review and subscribe for more stuff

Has anyone read the novel the Fox and the Hound by Daniel P. Mannix?

By Crimson_Saddle3913

It’s the book Disney’s movie is based on, but the story is totally different and way more “adult.” It takes place at the start of the 1900s and you watch the world changing as the Industrial Revolution gets going, but it’s all from the fox and hound’s point of view. So as the hound keeps hunting, everything around them slowly turns into something they don’t recognize anymore. By the end you can’t really recognize the animals or even the hunter by what’s left of them—just feels bleak as hell. I don’t usually think about the Industrial Revolution as anything other than “good progress,” but when I read this at 14 it made the ugly parts really obvious, like even early on. Also the author apparently studied fox behavior for years so the animals felt real, and he can get their thoughts across in a way that actually makes sense. Anyway, I’m going to get into the ending, so stop now if you don’t want it spoiled. So the hound finally catches the fox, and yeah, it’s sad. But then the author basically hits you with this wrench-twist. There are men who want the hunter’s land so they can put up a factory, and the hunter has been refusing them for a long time. But once he’s old, they push him off it and make him go somewhere else. The weird part is we don’t get much from the humans because the hound is the narrator and he only understands commands he’s used to, not what they’re actually saying. So you’re just piecing it together: the hound watches the hunter yell at them, then the hunter starts crying. Next thing, the hunter grabs his gun. And the hound is honestly excited, like “oh cool, we’re going hunting again,” even though… obviously not. The hound even notices how gross the air smells now because of the pollution. Then they stop in a field, the hunter covers the hound’s eyes, and it finally clicks that the hunter is about to shoot the hound because he can’t take him with him to wherever he’s being forced to go. The last thing we get is the hound describing how the dog licks the hunter’s hand, like he totally trusts him. I was already crying by that point, and then the very last line just basically erased me: “In this fouled-up new world, there is no place for fox, hound, or human” And then the book ends. I shut it and cried/sobbed for like 20 minutes after I finished. I’ve never talked to anyone else who’s read it, but it’s still my favorite book—like the most gut-wrenching thing I’ve ever read, and I’ve been wanting to talk about it forever.

The Hound of the Baskervilles by Arthur Conan Doyle [Mystery](1902)

By looksbridge

This one of Doyle’s best-known mysteries really does feel like it comes alive—the whole ancient curse vibe and that nasty ghostly hound are actually pretty scary. The gray towers at Baskerville Hall and all that wild Dartmoor country stuck with me, and I kept picturing Holmes and Watson trying to sort out all the secrets hiding in those misty bogs.

Got my first correct guess for the crime while reading The Hound of the Baskervilles. Finally I feel like a true Holmes fan. Any other Sherlock enthusiastic ever felt like that?

By starBrook1973

I’m a big Sherlock Holmes fan too. I’ve gone through a lot of the stories and 3 of the 4 novels. One of the best things about Conan Doyle is how he makes it seem like you should’ve been able to figure it out from the start just by picking up on the tiny clues Holmes notices. The cases are really tangled, but the solution is usually something simple and “elementary.” Once you get used to that world, you start trying to think like Holmes right away and guess where it’s going, but most of the time I just end up feeling totally lost. But this time I actually got it! I had the right idea about halfway through, and when it got confirmed I honestly felt like a real detective. Does any other Sherlock fan ever get that feeling?

[Discussion] Bonus Book || The Hound of the Baskervilles by Arthur Conan Doyle || Ch. 10-15

By GlimmerBrocaded

We’re at the end of The Hound of the Baskervilles this week, with chapters 10-15, and that wraps this one up. But there’s a new book right after it, since Valley of Fear starts next week! The Marginalia post is here, and the Schedule is here. Here’s a quick run-through of this section. Please keep spoilers for other books inside > ! Spoiler text here !<, with no spaces in the tag itself. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Chapter Summaries: CHAPTER 10 - EXTRACT FROM THE DIARY OF DR. WATSON: On Oct. 16, Watson thinks the odd man he spotted out on the moor might be the same one from the London cab, but he keeps it to himself for now, even from Henry. Later, he hears Sir Henry and Mr. Barrymore snapping at each other after breakfast. Henry asks Watson what he thinks. They’re arguing about whether they should go after Mrs. Barrymore’s brother Selden, the escaped convict, when he’s supposedly about to leave for South America and won’t be a problem anymore. (South America is apparently just empty, I guess.) Watson says it’s okay to let him go, so they don’t call the police. In return, Barrymore gives up another detail about Sir Charles’ death. He got a note from Coombe Tracey, apparently from a woman, telling him to come at 10 p.m. and destroy the letter, signed L. L. Watson wants Holmes to hear about it, since Holmes is tied up with London work, and hopes it gets him back out on the moor. Oct. 17 - Watson goes out in the rain to check the tor where he saw the strange man. He gets a ride home with Mr. Mortimer, who’s upset because his spaniel is gone. Mortimer tells him the only woman nearby with those initials is Laura Lyons, whose husband left her and whose father cut her off. She’s from Coombe Tracey too, which matches the burned letter. After that, Watson talks to Barrymore and learns that Selden told the butler about the other man on the moor. This second hidden guy is staying there for his own reasons. He’s living in the old stone huts and probably gets food brought by a boy from, yep, Coombe Tracey. CHAPTER 11 - THE MAN ON THE TOR: Watson starts digging in. He wants to talk to the two biggest question marks, L.L. and the guy on the moor. First he gets Laura Lyons alone so she can tell him what happened with Sir Charles without causing a scene. Mrs. Lyons says Mr. Stapleton put her in touch with Sir Charles, and she’d been depending on his help to get by. He had offered money that would let her get a divorce from her useless husband, and that’s why she sent the strange letter. But she never showed up, because someone else helped her out before that meeting happened. Watson can’t really find a crack in what she says. Then he heads to the moor to confront the mysterious figure from the Black Tar, who he figures is also the cab watcher from London. Frankland, the local nuisance who loves lawsuits, interrupts him, but that actually helps when Frankland points out the boy delivering supplies to one of the old stone houses. Frankland thinks it’s for the escaped convict, but he isn’t about to help the police since they messed up one of his cases. Watson checks the hut and sees signs someone’s been living there recently, but not much else about who he is. He does find a note about where Watson himself has been, and realizes this man has been watching him, not Sir Henry. Watson hides with his pistol ready until the man comes back. And then it turns out to be Sherlock Holmes. CHAPTER 12 - DEATH ON THE MOOR: Holmes and Watson are finally back together, which should be great, except Watson first feels sort of played because Holmes has been nearby doing his own thing and never told him. Watson relaxes once Holmes explains he wanted to keep his own angle and only step in at the right time. They compare notes and it becomes pretty clear Stapleton is the one behind everything. His “sister” is actually his wife, and once Mrs. Lyons learns she’s been strung along, she’ll probably help Holmes and Watson build the case against him. But they may be too late, because they hear the hound and then some awful screams. They rush out looking for Sir Henry, but only find a dead body. It’s Selden, wearing Sir Henry’s old clothes as he gets ready to run. Stapleton is coming across the moor, and Holmes tells Watson not to show their hand since they still don’t have proof. Stapleton seems sure they’ve guessed nothing and is glad Holmes is headed back to London. CHAPTER 13 - FIXING THE NETS: Holmes doesn’t tell Sir Henry the whole truth, but he does tell him to follow their instructions exactly if he wants this solved. Sir Henry agrees, even when Holmes says he and Watson are leaving him alone and going back to London. Sir Henry is supposed to take the Stapletons’ dinner invite and send along a message that Holmes and Watson wish they could have stayed but got called away on urgent business. He’s also meant to walk home the same way across the moor. After Sir Henry leaves, Holmes points out to Watson that one of the old Baskerville portraits, the one of Hugo, looks a lot like Stapleton. He’s clearly tied to the family and probably wants the estate by getting rid of Sir Henry, just like he likely did with Charles. Holmes and Watson go to the station in Coombe Tracey, but first they speak with Mrs. Lyons. She’s furious that Stapleton is married, since he promised to marry her if she could get her divorce. So she spills everything she knows, linking him to the letters to Sir Charles and the meeting that led to his death. Then Holmes sends the delivery boy back to London with a telegram for Sir Henry, pretending Holmes is out of the way. Finally, they pick up Lestrade from the afternoon train, since Holmes has asked for backup, and he’s brought an unsigned warrant with him. CHAPTER 14 - THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES: Holmes and Watson watch the dinner so they can keep an eye on Sir Henry and Stapleton. They plan to step in when it gets dangerous, but Holmes is worried the fog might ruin everything if it covers Sir Henry’s route home. They see Stapleton open a shed outside his house right before Sir Henry leaves, and Mrs. Stapleton isn’t around. Holmes and Watson head out onto the moor to wait for the hound while Sir Henry, still clueless about the setup, starts home. Then they hear it and see it coming. The dog is enormous and disgusting, all glowing and vicious. They both fire at it, but it keeps going. It jumps at Sir Henry, and they have to rush over and shoot it at close range. Luckily Sir Henry is fine. Holmes thinks Stapleton probably heard the gunshots and ran, but they search the house anyway. Inside, they find Mrs. Stapleton tied up, gagged, and badly bruised. She isn’t really worried about her husband, who’s been cruel to her for years, but about Sir Henry. She tells them where Stapleton may have gone, so they follow him to a ruined old hut where he’d been keeping the hound between killings. There they figure out he used phosphorus to make the dog glow and seem supernatural so it would scare people to death more easily. They also find the remains of Mortimer’s missing spaniel. Even after searching the moor at real risk to themselves, they never find Stapleton and assume he sank into the bog and died. They do get one of Sir Henry’s missing boots, which Stapleton used to give the hound the right scent. Holmes is satisfied the case is done and the dangerous man is gone. CHAPTER 15 - A RETROSPECTION: Later on, Watson asks Holmes to go back over the Baskerville case. By then Holmes has learned a lot more. Stapleton really was part of the Baskerville line, the nephew of Sir Charles, and he had been in South America before coming to England. He came here planning to get the money by arranging his uncle’s death. After hearing the curse story from the superstitious Sir Charles, Stapleton secretly got the hound, but he still needed a way to lure the old man out at night. His connection with Mrs. Lyons gave him that opening. After Charles was dealt with, he had to go after Henry too, and at first he meant to target him in London. That gets harder, especially once he realizes Holmes is involved. He got the boots for tracking by scent, and he needed two because the first one he took was new and useless for the plan. Holmes knew Stapleton would act differently if he suspected him, so he kept things from everyone, even Watson, and investigated without tipping him off. Stapleton’s wife was onto him too, and even though she was scared of him, she wouldn’t help him commit murder. He realized she might betray him to Sir Henry, so he tied her up the night of the attack. After that she talked with Holmes several times and explained more, including how Stapleton was thinking about getting the inheritance without drawing attention, since a surprise relative moving in next door after two deaths would look pretty suspicious. He might’ve done it through someone else, with a disguise, or by going back to South America and claiming it there. Holmes does regret putting Sir Henry at risk, but he’s been told Henry will recover after the long trip he’s planned with Dr. Mortimer. And that’s the end of The Hound of the Baskervilles! +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Hope you enjoy the discussion questions below. Feel free to add your own thoughts and questions too.