Scan barcode
A review by crystalstarrlight
The Hound of the Baskervilles by Arthur Conan Doyle
4.0
Dr. Mortimer appears at 221B Baker Street to elicit the help of the famous Sherlock Holmes. Sir Charles Baskerville is dead, and it is supposed that he died because of a curse on the family. Now, Sir Henry Baskerville is ready to take over for his grandfather, only will he soon suffer the same curse?
I've only had the chance to read one other Sherlock Holmes story--a short story, whose name I've long forgotten, where the clever use of a carriage came into play (by the way, that was one of the only stories I read in high school that I really liked). My book club chose this small read for the holiday season and I was pumped, but also nervous. Writings from this era tend to be heavy, very reliant on wordy prose. Could I penetrate the words, figure out the meaning AND finish this deceptively slim book in time for book club?
Surprisingly, yes. I was pleased to see that the prose wasn't a cripple to the novel. The pace is brisk, yet still somehow descriptive. Sure, there are words that are used oddly to modern readers, a bit of the sentence structure that is odd, but of all the older novels, this is one of the most understandable to the modern reader. Plus, the atmosphere is truly creepy, causing more than a few shivers when I tried to sleep at night.
Mysteries tend to focus on the, duh, mystery. Who did it and how, and can our clever detective figure it out? There isn't much of an emphasis on character (although for serial mysteries, a detective figure that is interesting and hopefully changing is a big plus--look at Cornwell's, Grafton's, Patterson's, or any other mystery authors' main character). So I was somewhat expecting the characters--minus perhaps Holmes and Watson--to be boring. Again, I was proven wrong. Watson, who I thought would be stupid and boring, was actually really clever (though not as clever as Holmes, of course) and very interesting. Dr. Mortimer was a nice guy; Sir Henry young and spry; even the ladies weren't stereotypical wimps. The baddie wasn't stupidly cliched.
As for the mystery itself...it is good. Not great, but good. There is no pulling the bad guy out of thin air, the mystery follows a logical course. The problem? I was expecting more (bad thing, I know). I kinda wanted Holmes to be more clever, to reveal the bad guy with some sort of ultimate clever plan that would make me gasp and be in shock that I totally missed whodunnit. But I, sometimes the most dense of readers, was able to clearly see who it was by the final pages. And having Holmes recap was unnecessary. Sure, it tied up some details (such as who was stalking them, who cut out the message, etc.), but overall, it pretty much told me everything I had learned earlier.
So I know I probably came in with unrealistic expectations, but I won't let that drag down my overall opinion. This was an interesting, engaging novel, and I truly was interested in solving the mystery. I definitely recommend.
I've only had the chance to read one other Sherlock Holmes story--a short story, whose name I've long forgotten, where the clever use of a carriage came into play (by the way, that was one of the only stories I read in high school that I really liked). My book club chose this small read for the holiday season and I was pumped, but also nervous. Writings from this era tend to be heavy, very reliant on wordy prose. Could I penetrate the words, figure out the meaning AND finish this deceptively slim book in time for book club?
Surprisingly, yes. I was pleased to see that the prose wasn't a cripple to the novel. The pace is brisk, yet still somehow descriptive. Sure, there are words that are used oddly to modern readers, a bit of the sentence structure that is odd, but of all the older novels, this is one of the most understandable to the modern reader. Plus, the atmosphere is truly creepy, causing more than a few shivers when I tried to sleep at night.
Mysteries tend to focus on the, duh, mystery. Who did it and how, and can our clever detective figure it out? There isn't much of an emphasis on character (although for serial mysteries, a detective figure that is interesting and hopefully changing is a big plus--look at Cornwell's, Grafton's, Patterson's, or any other mystery authors' main character). So I was somewhat expecting the characters--minus perhaps Holmes and Watson--to be boring. Again, I was proven wrong. Watson, who I thought would be stupid and boring, was actually really clever (though not as clever as Holmes, of course) and very interesting. Dr. Mortimer was a nice guy; Sir Henry young and spry; even the ladies weren't stereotypical wimps. The baddie wasn't stupidly cliched.
As for the mystery itself...it is good. Not great, but good. There is no pulling the bad guy out of thin air, the mystery follows a logical course. The problem? I was expecting more (bad thing, I know). I kinda wanted Holmes to be more clever, to reveal the bad guy with some sort of ultimate clever plan that would make me gasp and be in shock that I totally missed whodunnit. But I, sometimes the most dense of readers, was able to clearly see who it was by the final pages. And having Holmes recap was unnecessary. Sure, it tied up some details (such as who was stalking them, who cut out the message, etc.), but overall, it pretty much told me everything I had learned earlier.
So I know I probably came in with unrealistic expectations, but I won't let that drag down my overall opinion. This was an interesting, engaging novel, and I truly was interested in solving the mystery. I definitely recommend.