This novel is perhaps the most familiar to the general public of Doyle's writings on the great fictional detective's life. I would venture to say that the novel's popularity is not a proper measure of its quality; The Hound of the Baskervilles is not the choicest of the chronicles concerning Mr. Sherlock Holmes. The novel is inferior to much of Doyle's other work and in particular to Doyle's other Holmes stories.
The other Holmes stories, or at least the majority of them, are distinct from and superior to Hound in several ways.
Firstly, the melodrama in the stories is used chiefly to set up bizarre and complicated situations for Holmes to solve. This story is a very melodramatic one: a ghostly hound; an old family legend; mysterious deaths attributed (in this case, only until after the investigation) to supernatural means; chases on the moors at night; an escaped convict; a family ancestor known for his violent misconduct with women and drunken ways. The descriptions are overblown, as for example the following: "...an evil yellow face, a terrible animal face, all seamed and scored with vile passions...The light...was reflected in his small, cunning eyes which peered fiercely to right and left through the darkness...." Melodrama is not neccessarily a poor style of literature; in truth, it is the style most often used by Doyle. Here, however, it is rather poorly utilized, reading almost like a "B" movie. The melodrama in Hound seems to be in place primarily for the shock value.
Secondly, Holmes is involved as a main character in most of the other stories. In Hound, Holmes is not even present for a third of the book's chapters; incidentally, those six chapters in which Holmes does not appear are those in which the greatest plot developments occur. In the beginning of the novel, Sir Henry and Dr. Mortimer request Holmes to travel to Yorkshire and take up the case. Holmes declines with the excuse that he is working on another case, and offers to send Watson along. He then appears on the moor to Watson several days later, having been in hiding there ever since the day after Watson traveled to Yorkshire. Holmes' reason for thus concealing his presence in Yorkshire is that "my presence would have warned our very formidable opponents to be on their guard." This is absolute nonsense. In story after story a crime easily as heinous as that in Hound takes place and Holmes is called to the scene, making no secret of his involvement in the case. The choice of Doyle to absent Holmes from a large part of the book is inexplicable and the reasons given for doing so are far from satisfactory; consequently, the story suffers.
Thirdly, Sherlock Holmes treats Watson almost viciously in several sections of the book...and speaks very highly of him in others. Many of the stories contain amusing segments portraying Dr. Watson's lack of imagination in his attempts at detection, yet in those stories Holmes rarely, if ever, does more than point out that Watson suffers from a "lack of imagination." Compare such to the detective's treatment of Watson in Hound.
At the start of the novel, Dr. Mortimer, waiting at the Baker Street flat for Holmes to return, becomes impatient and leaves the flat to return later, forgetting his walking stick. Dr. Watson and Holmes return to the flat, and examine the walking stick, attempting to find out about its owner through a diagnosis of the possession. Watson presents Holmes with his erroneous conclusions concerning the stick, and Holmes replies: "Really, Watson, you excel yourself. I am bound to say that in all the accounts which you have been so good as to give of my own small achievements you have habitually underrated your own abilities. It may be that you are not yourself luminous, but you are a conductor of light. Some people without possessing genius have a remarkable power of stimulating it. I confess, my dear fellow, that I am very much in your debt." The above statement is quite contradictory. At first, Holmes congratulates Watson on his conclusions, seemingly for their brilliance. He then goes on to deride Watson's intelligence and explain that his congratulations are due to Watson's inadvertant stimulation of Holmes' own intelligence. The remarks are not only curiously and bitingly sarcastic, they are also unpleasantly arrogant.
To add even more contradiction to Holmes' treatment of Watson, a few chapters later, after declining to accompany Sir Henry to Yorkshire, Holmes says: "If my friend [Dr. Watson] would undertake it there is no man who is better worth having at your side when you are in a tight place. No one can say so more confidently than I." Granted, the statement is more in admiration of Watson's loyalty and physical usefulness, yet it seems odd coming from a man able to speak of Watson as cruelly as above.
My point in all this is that the characterization of Holmes is schizophrenic and out of character with his portrayal in other cases.
Fourthly, the morality of the characters in some sections of the novel is questionable. I spoke of an escaped convict above, and will elaborate here. The butler, Barrymore, and his wife at Sir Henry's Baskerville Hall are related to a murderer who has escaped a nearby prison and is running loose on the moors. Barrymore and his wife aid the convict (he is, after all, a relative) by providing him food and clothing. Late one night Sir Henry and Watson, seeing the convict Selden signalling the all clear to Barrymore for the delivery of supplies, go out upon the moors to chase the man. Unsuccessful, they return and speak with Barrymore who convinces them to leave Selden alone. Watson's reasoning runs that to let the man go scot-free "would relieve the tax-payer of a burden." It is strange that Watson, who has spent so much time aiding Holmes in the capture of criminals, so quickly and so pragmatically justifies the continued freedom of a convicted murderer. It is also very strange that Sir Henry should agree with Watson.
Fifthly, and perhaps most annoying to the reader, is the fact that throughout the entire novel the narrator, Dr. Watson, is kept in the dark by Holmes. The detective does not share his clues with Watson, or his conjectures. The reason this is so annoying to the reader is because in many of the stories, a great part of the enjoyment in the reading comes from attempting to solve the case as bits and pieces and clues are fed to Watson by Holmes and thus to the reader. None of this occurs in Hound, and it is only at the very end of the novel that we get any idea as to who the criminal is, or for that matter as to the motivations behind the criminal's actions.
The above listed detracting factors add up very quickly. Doyle was not a genius, and his strong point was not characterization nor a particularly realistic writing style, yet the characterization is so poor and the style so melodramatic that Hound of the Baskervilles accordingly rates very low among Doyle's other writings. The errors are difficult to overlook, however, and the book suffers. As a classic, it is worth a read, if for no other reason than to be able to boast that one has read it. And also, despite all its faults and inconsistencies, the novel is certainly an enjoyable read, especially to a fan of Sherlock Holmes such as myself.
-----
©2004 by Pieter J. Friedrich. Read this for reproduction conditions.
