The Hound of the Baskervilles

Story: 8/31

The Hound of the Baskervilles

by Arthur Conan Doyle

Listening Time: 5 hours 41 minutes

Link: https://librivox.org/the-hound-of-the-baskervilles-dramatic-reading-by-sir-arthur-conan-doyle/

Quote: "The Devil's agents may be of flesh and blood, may they not?"

Theme: Superstition

Sir Conan Doyle did write some legit Gothic stories, and at some point I will be reading them, but Sherlock Holmes is one of my favorite characters. So when I read that The Hound of the Baskervilles plays off of a lot of Gothic themes, I definitely wanted to check it out. 

This story does use a lot of the elements of Gothic style: there's an ancient manor house, an eerie setting on the moor, a connection to the past, a cycle of entrapment (that repeats itself though history), spectral figures...and a curse!

But of course, it's all mixed with a dose of Sherlock Holmes-style skepticism. Holmes' analytical style provides a pretty heavy and distracting contrast to the atmosphere of the mystery.

From a storytelling perspective, it's fortunate then, that for much of the time he's not present and  it's actually Dr Watson doing most of the investigating. 

While Watson is by no means superstitious, he sees the world in quite a different way than Mr Holmes does...

For example:

“The longer one stays here, the more does the spirit of the moor sink into one’s soul. Its vastness, and also its grim charm. [...] On all sides of you as you walk are the houses of these forgotten folk, with their graves and the huge monoliths which are supposed to have marked their temples. As you look at their grey stone huts against the scarred hillsides you leave your own age behind you, and if you were to see a skin-clad, hairy man crawl out from the low door, fitting a flint-tipped arrow on to the string of his bow, you would feel that the presence there was more natural than your own.”

(Sherlock Holmes rarely waxes this poetic!)

Sherlock is extremely analytical and outcome oriented. Listening to the story a second time today, I can tell he has the end in sight (even though he might not know exactly what that end is) from the questions he asks at the beginning. 

Watson, on the other hand, is more immersed in the atmosphere. He's experiencing everything first hand instead of just watching Holmes try to figure it out. And he becomes more invested in the connections between the potential victim and his colorful neighbors (who basically constitute 'the usual suspects') than Holmes would have.

The contrast between he two detectives is emphasized to an even greater degree when Mr Holmes re-appears at the end. When the mystery is finally concluded, and then wondering what he'll have for lunch. 

It strikes me that this story wouldn't have been nearly as engaging if Mr Holmes had taken the lead. Don't get me wrong: I'm glad he's here to solve the mystery. But with Watson, it becomes more than a game. And I think that's important too.