Monday, May 21, 2012

The world is full of obvious things which nobody by any chance ever observes

Not too long ago I won a copy of The Hound of the Baskervilles from Alice at Reading Rambo. I tried reading this a few years ago, when I was trying out different ereader programs on my iPod Touch. (This was my iBooks test. A Christmas Carol was my Kindle app selection). I quit reading it not because I wasn't enjoying it, but because I couldn't get myself to read on such a tiny screen. Which is stupid, by the way, because whenever I was actually reading on it it was fine. Other than the fact that I had to turn the page ever sentence or so. But I had trouble getting past the idea of the tiny screen so I never finished. Now I had a new chance and this book counts towards my Classics reading challenge so, I'm in!

I've read some Sherlock Holmes before. Just the short stories, never a full novel(la?) and I enjoy them. Also I can't help but picture Holmes and especially Watson as the mice from The Great Mouse Detective.
Although Disney left out all of the opium. And made Basil/Holmes less of an insufferable asshole.

Anyway, a doctor shows up with a case that only Sherlock Holmes can solve and tells him about this evil hound that has been terrorizing the Baskerville residence. Sir Charles Baskerville was found to have died OF FRIGHT with a big paw print near his body. There's a legend that this evil dog has been haunting the family every since one of the Baskerville descendants kidnapped and planned to rape this neighbor girl. Now the new Baskerville heir Sir Henry is due in England from Canada and the doctor is afraid the guy is going to get killed by the hell hound. Holmes agrees to take the case, but then says he needs to hang around London so Watson should go hang out in Devon for awhile till he can get away from all his other important work. Watson is to get to know the neighbors, keep a close eye on Sir Henry and let Holmes know all that he finds. Will Holmes and Watson be able to solve the case? What is actually terrorizing the Baskerville family? And what is going on with that bog?

And as I've been doing lately because I'm too lazy to make a coherent post, here are some random thoughts

Holmes is an asshole. Not a charismatic one either, just a condescending one. Right on page 3 Holmes asks Watson to deduce all he can about their visitor based on a walking stick left behind earlier. Watson makes some pretty good deductions and even says he's proud of all he's learned from Holmes. Holmes's response: "I am afraid, my dear Watson, that most of your conclusions were erroneous. When I said that you stimulated me I meant, to be frank, that in noting your fallacies I was occasionally guided towards the truth." The worst part might be Watson's reaction. It's along the lines of "My God Holmes, you're quite the genius and us morons are lucky to have you around." And the stories are all what Watson recorded, so you'd think there'd be a little more "Shut up, you ass" even if it was just mumbled under his breath.

*The rest of this will be sort of spoiler-y. I mean, this is a mystery and all*
Holmes is hardly in it. I know I just got finished talking about how he's an asshole, but I'd still prefer having him hang around being a patronizing shithead. Sure it turns out he was there the whole time hiding in the bog, but we didn't get to hang out with him. We were with Watson as he watched the weird neighbors and tried to keep Sir Henry from spending too much alone time with the naturalist's "sister".

After reading the first chapter when we hear about the dog haunting, I thought the whole plot would be more Scooby-Doo-esque. Cos really? Demon dog is scaring people away from a property. Jinkies! What I was not expecting was there to be an actual dog. Just a dog, bigger than normal but not hell hound size, with some phosphorus in his mouth to make it look like glowing (something that wasn't brought up until they mentioned the phosphorus). That's...that's it? The mystery was "There appears to be a giant dog terrorizing this family. No you fools, it's actually a slightly larger than average dog terrorizing the family." Well, thanks for the twist, Doyle. Yes, yes, that naturalist neighbor was setting the dog on the family so HE could get the house but there was something so unsatisfying to find out that was it. Maybe I'm too jaded.

I actually think I was so disappointed with the resolution because the stuff leading up to it was far more interesting. There was a very dangerous convict that had escaped! People were told to be on the look-out. And the butler seemed to have something going on. Creeping around while his wife spent her nights just bawling about something. And that crazy old guy that just kept suing everyone all the time. There was set up to have this be something more but it just fell flat.

There's a whole plot point about how dogs don't eat dead meat, which is why they didn't find any bites on Sir Charles. Cos he had already had a heart attack by the time the dog showed up. But really? I get that it's the idea behind playing dead with bears but does this work with dogs*? Especially dogs that have apparently been starved before being set loose.

*For that matter, does this even work with bears? Cos most of my wilderness survival tips come from Looney Toons.
*spoilers contained*

Summary: OK and entertaining but the short stories are better. Also I should probably see the new Sherlock Holmes, if for no other reason than Holmes is played by Benedict Cumberbatch, which might be the best name ever. He's really a wizard right?


Title quote from page 32

Doyle, Sir Arthur Conan. The Hound of the Baskervilles. Penguin, 2009. Originally published 1902

Comments (11)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
You neglected to mention that the cover is AMAZING.

Also, yeah, I wasn't the biggest fan of this one, but it was entertaining enough. Definitely better than the first one, which is...The Scarlet...something. Or wait. Sign of the Four? Maybe. I went on a Sherlock binge like two years ago, so they get all mixed together. The one with the Mormons was a weirdass book.

What I find odd is that Conan Doyle's like "hah! Supernatural hounds. It is only phosphorescence!" But he was also like "FAIRIES!" So I don't get you, Doyle. I don't get you.
1 reply · active 658 weeks ago
You're right, that is the best cover. I love the disembodied dog head. That should have happened in the book...

Well supernatural dogs would be ridiculous but FAIRIES ARE TOTALLY REAL!! I wish there was a Sherlock Holmes about that.
I had to skip most of this, cause spoilers! Sad times. I know I used to have a copy of this but I never read it, I fear because it was a boy book.... Ugh, I hate child me. I've never read anything Sherlock Holmes-y, and it sounds like this maybe isn't the best one to start on.

Also, I LOVE YOU FOR HAVING SEEN BASIL THE GREAT MOUSE DETECTIVE! I swear no one has seen it except like me and my sister... I loves it so much! Have you seen Dr Who, like at all? Because I have a theory that David Tennant's doctor is based, at least partially, on Basil, and I can discuss this with NO ONE because they haven't seen the disney film!
4 replies · active 658 weeks ago
This is why I love the readalongs: no one needs to worry about spoilers. Or at least no one participating. Everything should be a readalong, except that would prob get annoying.

Start with the short stories. Those are more fun.

I LOVE The Great Mouse Detective. I know people were all like "boo Disney in the 80s" but this one is so amazing!! Unfortunately I have not seen Dr. Who so you still cannot discuss the Dr. Who/Great Mouse Detective connection. Sorry!
DAMMIT ALLEY! Watch Dr Who already, then we'll talk.
The Great Mouse Detective is Awesome! So there are more of us out here than you know, Laura. I also happen to love Holmes....even if he is all "I'm a genius and you're not." The short stories are definitely the place to start.
Yay, more Great Mouse Detective fans!

I think Holmes would be less insufferable if either he was charismatic (which he comes off in at least the Downey/Law movie) or if Watson was more "You suck, Holmes". But even without that I still like him
Things that are awesome: The Great Mouse Detective and Benedict Cumberbatch as Sherlock. Obviously, they are awesome in very different ways.
I'm off now to watch The Great Mouse Detective and maybe actually read some Arthur Conan Doyle....
1 reply · active 658 weeks ago
Now I really want to watch The Great Mouse Detective. Sadly my copy is 1) at my mom's and 2) on VHS.
I'm pretty sure when I reviewed The Sign of Four, it just turned into a giant post about The Great Mouse Detective...somehow. The bat in that movie is terrifying, by the way. Let's not even talk about him.

I read somewhere, I'm pretty sure, that Sherlock fits the characteristics of someone with a social disorder...mild autism perhaps? Anyway, if you read the stories with that in mind, he seems a little less awful. Because he can't help it. And because I'm in love with him.
1 reply · active 658 weeks ago
Ratigan was also terrifying. The '80s were around the time animated movies decided they needed to scar the hell out of children (See: The Land Before Time, Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH, The Brave Little Toaster).

I can see Aspergers playing a role in Sherlock's personality. Alright, that makes him less awful but I still wish Watson would do less hero worshipping. Even if he is just a rotund, adorable little mouse. All of these other versions of Sherlock Holmes that show him as anything else are just wrong.

Post a new comment

Comments by