Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

Sherlock Holmes Was Wrong: Reopening the Case of The Hound of the Baskervilles
Sherlock Holmes Was Wrong: Reopening the Case of The Hound of the Baskervilles
Sherlock Holmes Was Wrong: Reopening the Case of The Hound of the Baskervilles
Ebook190 pages3 hours

Sherlock Holmes Was Wrong: Reopening the Case of The Hound of the Baskervilles

Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

3.5/5

()

Read preview

About this ebook

In his brilliant reinvestigation of the classic case of The Hound of the Baskervilles, Pierre Bayard uses the last thoughts of the murder victim as his key to unravel the mystery, leading the reader to the astonishing conclusion that Holmes-and, in fact, Arthur Conan Doyle-got things all wrong. Part intellectual entertainment, part love letter to crime novels, and part crime novel in itself, Sherlock Holmes Was Wrong turns one of our most beloved stories delightfully on its head.
LanguageEnglish
Release dateSep 1, 2010
ISBN9781608192441
Author

Pierre Bayard

Pierre Bayard is a professor of French literature at the University of Paris VIII and a psychoanalyst. He is the author of Who Killed Roger Ackroyd?, and many other books.

Read more from Pierre Bayard

Related to Sherlock Holmes Was Wrong

Related ebooks

Literary Criticism For You

View More

Related articles

Reviews for Sherlock Holmes Was Wrong

Rating: 3.4272727745454548 out of 5 stars
3.5/5

55 ratings6 reviews

What did you think?

Tap to rate

Review must be at least 10 words

  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    Egad, I say. Whatever is this? Apparently 823.912 is the Dewey number for criticism and commentary on 19th and 20th century English authors, so as I ogled my way through a shelf of books looking for Tolkien commentary, I saw things like 'The James Joyce Companion', several Agatha Christie readers, a dozen books about Dickens, and this one that caught my eye. It presents an astoundingly sound re-examination of the case and also had some essaying about the reality of fictional characters. Really, it was more like two short books mixed together. The author discussed how we psychologically enter the realm of fictional characters (which is what makes the good stories so universally appealing), and, in their own way, the fictional personas enter into our reality. This is more obvious with Holmes, as his methods of observation and deduction are quite handy and impressive. I have amazed people by noticing the white line where a ring has been or asking someone where they got their pantlegs wet on a sunny day. I love the human intellect. It's such a fun buddy to have around. But I digress from my point. Apparently Conan Doyle really grew to hate Holmes because the clamor for more Holmes tales took time away from what he considered his more important writings, like the White Company and all that other stuff of his that almost nobody reads. That's why he killed of Holmes at Reichenbach Falls and had to invent an anti-Holmes to carry out the murder. The public uproar was such that his publishers demanded more Holmes stories and Conan Doyle did so reluctantly, and only with the doubling of his royalties. Bayard then goes on to show how Doyle's hatred for Holmes carried into that return story, The Hound of the Baskervilles. He builds up a surprisingly strong case around Holmes errors, of which there are actually several in the corpus of stories, shows how Doyle portrayed Holmes as a feral hound himself, points out that Holmes is actually absent in person from almost the entire story, then finishes with an alternative solution that actually makes more sense than the original. I was very surprised with this book, most notably with the psychological reality of fiction part. That alone made this a fairly valuable read and explains why fantasy lovers really, really love their favorites. Or why others hate it, I suppose. The bit about Doyle was fairly old news to me, but it may not be to others, and the parsing of a fictional story was the highlight of the book in theory, but was actually not that important. It's not like Monsieur Bayard found Jimmy Hoffa's body or solved some real crime. Still, I say if your library has this book, go ahead and check it out as it is a pretty fulfilling and yet short read. Oh, Bayard also wrote Who Killed Roger Ackroyd? along the same lines, and as a minor warning he throws in a total spoiler of Christie's Towards Zero as part of his theory about the Baskerville murders.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    This book is playful, funny and amazing and adds so much to its subject. Having read THotB though is pretty much required preparation, and ideally some more Sherlock Holmes stories.

    However, a caveat: This book requires you to like metafiction and be prepared to tolerate a charming arrogance/wankiness about literature though, but if you've read Sherlock Holmes then you should be up to the task. If you don't read it with too serious a face, it's really enjoyable.
  • Rating: 2 out of 5 stars
    2/5
    The fog swirls along shuttered streets. Voices make their disembodied way in the mist, now near, now fading off. An ominous howl warns mariners from these ancient rocks, lest they join their drowned brothers in the octopus quadrille. There's a sudden gasp as tendrils of fog part to reveal a giant hound, slavering, straining at the leash. Two men immediately cross the street to escape its wolfish jaws.Could this beast be the fearful curse of the Baskervilles? No, merely me walking Kai, our malamute mix along the beach in Seattle. Atmophere does funny things to perspective.Which is sort of the point of Bayard's piece of literary criticism. I found the concept more interesting than the execution. While his rendering of a possible alternate killer, and the reasons behind it, were intriguing and plausible, his manner of getting there was a yawn. First off, relying on Freudian psychology for a portion of his explanation of the relationship between Doyle and his creation struck me as a bit of an eye brow raiser. I think it's fine to pschoanalyze this relationship, if one is still into that sort of thing. But Freud? Really? As great a man as he was, I can't take his theories seriously at this point. Too much time, science, experience, knowledge has gone by.Also, I found his exposition of the reality of the shared space between the creation/creator/reader just a little too Ffordian for me. Sure, as a writer my characters become real for me, and I hope they become real for my readers. I do not expect them to start having a "real" life of their own. And if literary characters are going to start doing that, may I make a request as to which ones could come visit?Overall, I didn't feel it added anything new to the canon, or to my perspective on literature.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    I wish this 188 page book had been about 133 pages long but, otherwise, enjoyed it.Peter Bayard’s notion is that the characters of a novel live and operate independently of their author and that the latter is often unaware of the true events taking place in a story (the quote from Jasper Fforde at the beginning of the book gives the reader his first inkling). In previous stories, he has apparently shown that Claudius was not the villain of Hamlet and that Hercule Poirot misidentified the murderer in The Murder of Roger Ackroyd. In this volume he tackles Sherlock Holmes, showing that the detective got it entirely wrong in The Hound of the Baskervilles.The book comprises six actual sections, but is divided into roughly four parts that don’t quite correspond to the author’s divisions. The first is a recapitulation of the plot of The Hound of the Baskervilles. It is done quickly and is useful if you haven’t read the latter recently. The second is an explanation and critique of Holmes’ methods. If you are a fan of the detective, this section is nothing new, for you are certainly familiar with those methods. Quite probably, you have also reached the independent conclusion that Holmes often treats statistical probabilities as facts and often leaps to ill-supported conclusions that seem brilliant only because the comparison is Watson, who is such a dunderhead. Yet, Bayard expresses his ideas quickly and with many examples and it is enjoyable to read.The third section came close to ruining the book for me. It is a psycho-philosophical discourse on the “realness” of fictional works, along with a recounting of Doyle’s actual dissatisfaction with Holmes. And it is long. And it is tedious. Essentially, Bayard sets up the premise that Doyle was so upset with his inability to kill Holmes that he could not be trusted to provide an unbiased reporting of events. It felt like five pages of text ballooned into over 60.The fourth section is the payoff, in which Bayard exposes the real murderer in the book. No spoilers but, quite simply, his solution is much better than Doyle’s. The resolution is a much better fit of the facts of the story; the crime more intricate and interesting to the reader; the oddities and coincidences which fill this story are explained.A recommended read but, if you skim the third section, I shan’t blame you.
  • Rating: 2 out of 5 stars
    2/5
    Disappointing. The author should have left the case closed. There are quite a few problems with the book. Two have to do with the author who is a psychoanalyst and French. The problem with him being a psychoanalyst is that he writes like one. Much of the middle part of the book is a lot of back and forth about fictional characters and their relationships with the authors and readers and their ability to move in and out of the text and reality, etc. My eyes tended to glaze over during this discussion. The problem with him being French is that he used a French translation of the Hound and (as the translator brings out in some notes), the author bases some of his arguments on language that just doesn’t match the English text. Additionally in his summary of the Hound at the beginning of the book he gets at least two of the plot points wrong. They aren’t really major but when you are basing your book on a close reading and reinterpretation of the text you should at least get the plot right. He did make some good points about some unlikely events in the original novel and his suggestion for an alternate villain is interesting but it just was not that convincing. He doesn’t really make a better case for his suspect that Doyle does for Stapleton. The idea for the book was very good I just did not feel that the execution lived up to the promise.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    This was fun, and I liked Bayard's arguments. I'll never read mysteries the same way again!

Book preview

Sherlock Holmes Was Wrong - Pierre Bayard

Bayard

Cast of Characters

Sherlock Holmes: English detective. Believed to be dead after his disappearance in the Reichenbach Falls, in Switzerland, he is resurrected by Conan Doyle, eight years later, in The Hound of the Baskervilles.

Dr. Watson: friend and colleague of the detective.

Sir Charles Baskerville: owner of the manor house that bears his name. Dies under mysterious circumstances just before the beginning of the novel.

Henry Baskerville: nephew of Charles Baskerville, heir to his uncle’s manor house and fortune.

Dr. James Mortimer: friend of the Baskervilles. Travels to London at the beginning of the novel to ask Sherlock Holmes to investigate Sir Charles Baskerville’s death; he thinks the police brought their investigation to a close too quickly.

Jack Stapleton: naturalist living near Baskerville Hall. Sherlock Holmes discovers that he belongs to the Baskerville family and suspects him of being Charles’s murderer.

Beryl Stapleton: wife of Jack Stapleton. He passes her off as his sister.

John Barrymore: butler in Baskerville Hall.

Eliza Barrymore: wife of John Barrymore and sister of Selden.

Selden: escaped convict, brother of Eliza Barrymore.

Frankland: bitter old man who lives on the moor and constantly sues his neighbors. Father of Laura Lyons, from whom he is estranged.

Laura Lyons: daughter of Frankland and mistress of Staple-ton. Lives alone on the moor.

The hound: watchdog. Accused by Sherlock Holmes of two murders and one attempted murder.

The Devonshire Moors:

Dartmoor

From the chamber where she has been locked for hours, the young woman hears shouts and laughter rising from the great dining hall below. As the evening advances and talk becomes more heated under the influence of alcohol, her anxiety mounts at the thought of the fate intended for her by the men she can hear carousing below. First among them, worst of them all, is the leader of the gang, Hugo Baskerville, corrupt owner of the manor house that bears his name.

For months Hugo had been hovering around the young country lass, whom he had tried to attract by every possible means, first by trying to seduce her, then by offering her father large sums of money if he would agree to further their relationship. But she found him vile, repulsive; she kept avoiding him. So Hugo and his men, on this Michaelmas, have resorted to violence. While the girl’s father and brothers have been away, the have kidnapped her and brought her to Baskerville Hall.

When the bedroom door had first closed behind her, the girl had stayed motionless for a while, paralyzed by emotion. Now, overcoming her fear, she comes to herself and begins looking for a way to escape. First she tries to force the lock, but she soon abandons the idea. Made of metal and set into a massive oak door, it would be impervious to her blows.

A quick look around the room reveals that aside from an inaccessible chimney flue there is only one available opening: a little window, just large enough for a slender person to climb through. But leaning out, she sees that the ground is far below; jumping would mean breaking a limb, even killing herself.

But this opening is the only one that lets the prisoner entertain a faint hope—provided she can show some nimbleness, and is willing to risk her life on one stroke of luck. There is ivy climbing the front of the house from the ground to the roof, and so she resolves, daring everything, to stretch out her arm, grab hold of it, and begin a perilous descent.

Having finally reached the ground, the young woman ignores her scratches and at once starts running away from the Hall and toward her father’s house, whose lights three leagues across the moor she can more intuit than glimpse.

Despite her pain and anguish, her hope begins to rekindle as she gets farther from her prison. She fights off the terror of the darkness and the eerie noises from the moor, a world inhabited by supernatural creatures, in this era not yet civilized by science.

These indistinct noises are soon dominated by a stronger, more regular sound approaching quickly. The origin is easy to recognize. It is a horse galloping along the path at top speed, urged on with shouts by its rider, and there can be no doubt about its target.

But whoever attentively lends his ear to the sounds of the moor will hear even worse. More terrifying than the noise of galloping hooves is the howling of a pack of dogs, the barking closer and closer, as if they were outrunning the horse and had already left it far behind.

The young woman realizes now that her jailer has found her missing and is in hot pursuit. But he wasn’t content to ride after her. He also set the pack of hounds that he uses for hunting on her trail, probably after having them sniff a piece of clothing of the prisoner who is now their quarry.

Dropping from fatigue, dying of fright, the young woman has no choice but to abandon the path and hurl herself into a broad ravine, a goyal, marked long ago by the inhabitants of the place with two tall stones. She knows she has no chance of escaping her kidnapper; all she can do is gain a few minutes’ respite before she is discovered and torn apart by the hounds.

Crouching low to the ground and trying to catch her breath, she waits for the inevitable end, making her last resigned prayers. The end is not long in coming. Hugo Baskerville jumps down from his horse, not even taking the time to tie it to a tree, and bounds into the goyal.

But the pursuer does not look like the formidable man she was fearfully expecting to see leap from the shadows. His face is deformed not with the fury of the hunter who has allowed his prey to escape, but with a nameless terror. Hugo Baskerville, like his victim, is now reduced to the status of prey.

Behind him rises up the monstrous form of a giant black dog, so huge it defies imagining. With its bloodshot eyes, it seems to have come straight out of hell to the edge of the goyal. With a giant leap, it hurls itself onto Hugo, who rolls on the ground, shouting with horror. His shout is stifled in his throat at once as the monster sets his fangs into it, and the young man quickly loses consciousness.

Stunned by the sight, her nerves spent, the young woman collapses and dies of exhaustion and fear, so that when Hugo’s companions reach the edge of the goyal there are two corpses for them to discover. So shocking is the spectacle that some of them—it would be said in the neighboring villages—die of fear and others go mad ever after.

What is the girl thinking about as she is dying? Although the texts that have come down to us remain silent on this point, we are not forbidden to use our imaginations. The thoughts of characters in literature are not forever locked up inside their creators. More alive than many living people, these characters spread themselves through those who read their authors’ work, they impregnate the books that tell their tales, they cross centuries in search of a benevolent listener.

This is true for the young woman whose final moments at the bottom of a goyal on the Devonshire moor I have just related. Her last thoughts carry an encoded message, a message without which Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s most famous work remains incomprehensible. It is to reconstruct these thoughts and their secret effects on the plot that this book has been undertaken—for this, and for the dead girl’s memory.

To understand what she had to tell us, I have taken up in minute detail an investigation into the murders blamed on the Hound of the Baskervilles. In so doing, I have made a number of discoveries that, piece by piece, go far to cast doubt on the official verdict. After examining a series of convergent clues, I feel there is every reason to suppose that the generally acknowledged solution of the atrocious crimes that bloodied the Devonshire moors simply does not hold up, and that the real murderer escaped justice.

How could Conan Doyle be so mistaken about this? Faced with such a complex enigma, he probably lacked the tools of contemporary thought on the topic of literary characters. These characters are not, as we too often believe, creatures who exist only on paper, but living beings who lead an autonomous existence—sometimes going so far as to commit murders unbeknownst to the author. Failing to grasp his characters’ independence, Conan Doyle did not realize that one of them had entirely escaped his control and was amusing himself by misleading his detective.

By undertaking a theoretical reflection on the nature of literary characters, their unsuspected abilities, and the rights they are entitled to claim, this book intends to reopen the file of The Hound of the Baskervilles and finally to solve Sherlock Holmes’s incomplete investigation—and in so doing, to allow the young girl who died on bleak Dartmoor and has wandered for centuries since in one of those in-between worlds that surround literature, to find her rest at last.*

* All my thanks to François Hoff, eminent Sherlock Holmes specialist, for reading this manuscript so carefully and for giving me some useful suggestions.

Investigation

I

In London

One morning Sherlock Holmes is visited at his London flat in Baker Street by a country practitioner, Dr. Mortimer. He is carrying a document dated 1742, entrusted to him by his friend, Sir Charles Baskerville, who has died tragically three months earlier. This document, handed down from generation to generation, relates the legendary death of Hugo Baskerville, who was said to have been slain by an enormous hound of diabolical aspect as he was chasing a young woman who had escaped from the manor house where he had imprisoned her.

Sherlock Holmes shows little interest in Dr. Mortimer’s document, which he deems interesting only to a collector of fairy tales.¹ But the doctor hasn’t come only to tell about events long past. He has come to request Holmes’s aid. He has been wondering if, more than two centuries after its first crime, the Hound of the Baskervilles hasn’t just made its reappearance.

Dr. Mortimer then tells a strange tale, the story of the death of his friend and neighbor Sir Charles Baskerville, Hugo’s descendant. Sir Charles had the habit of strolling every evening in a yew-tree alley on the grounds of his manor house. Three months before Dr. Mortimer’s visit to London, Sir Charles went out one night as usual, but did not return. At midnight, his servant, Barrymore, finding the door unlocked, grew worried and went out in search of his master. He found him dead in the yew alley, without any mark of violence on his body but with his face profoundly distorted. Everything indicated that Sir Charles had been the victim of a heart attack, and that indeed was the conclusion of the police investigation.

Dr. Mortimer, however, is not satisfied with this conclusion. He believes that Sir Charles Baskerville’s death cannot be separated from the legend of the evil hound. His friend had lived in dread, convinced that a curse had weighed over his family for centuries and that the monster was bound to reappear. This, Dr. Mortimer reasons, could not be unrelated to his friend’s death.

But above all Dr. Mortimer’s reasoning is built on his access to the scene of the murder. There he saw, about twenty yards from the body, the footprints of a gigantic hound. These prints were on the path itself, not on the grass borders to either side of it. The prints escaped the attention of the police who, since they were unaware of the legend of the Baskervilles, had no reason to be interested in marks of this sort.

But they immediately attract the attention of Holmes, who subjects Dr. Mortimer to close questioning about the murder scene. These questions elicit the importance of a wicket-gate opening from the yew alley onto the moor. The victim must have paused for some minutes in front of this gate; the fact that the ashes from his cigar fell twice testifies to this. It was as if he were waiting to meet someone.

Holmes also pays attention to the variations in the footprints left by Baskerville. According to the doctor’s testimony, the prints changed their appearance as soon as Baskerville went past the gate giving onto the moor, as if he were walking upon his toes.² Holmes is careful not to neglect this detail and suggests a hypothesis to Watson early on:

"Mortimer said that the man

Enjoying the preview?
Page 1 of 1