Talk:The Hound of the Baskervilles

Possible Copyright Violation
Portions of this article appear to have been copied verbatim from here:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.132.59.139 (talk) 03:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Plot
The page on "The Hound of the Baskervilles", as I currently read it, contains some background information about the story but nothing about the story itself. I do not suggest a complete plot summary (we wouldn't want to ruin the story, which is, after all, a mystery) but wouldn't the Wiki page better begin with a summary of the main story line and theme? And some discussion of the atmosphere, which is perhaps the most striking thing about the book to the modern reader?


 * Why would an encyclopedia not want to be complete in its plot summaries? 195.24.29.51 07:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Additions
I haven't made these additions because I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia to know how novels are normally handled here.

In the Main Characters Section,Mr.Frankland of Lafter Hall is not mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.221.184.24 (talk) 09:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Continuity
Hound presents a continuity problem. It takes place in 1892. However, as Holmes was presumed dead at the time (following the Switzerland incident) and did not reunite with Watson till 1894 pace "Empty House", the story could not have taken place in that year.


 * Not so. The date on Mortimer's stick is 1884, and Holmes says this was "five years ago". Even if that's not exact, this definitely places the story before Holmes's disappearance in 1891. (Wistaria Lodge, however, is dated to 1892 by Watson, so the problem you mention does arise there......) 84.66.147.64 12:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * "Watson" in an introduction to Hound specifically says it's an earlier case, before the events in "The Final Problem". CFLeon 02:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Regardless, how is this novel a continuity problem - for Wikipedia, that is? 195.24.29.51 07:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Doyle's practice
Doyle was never "a general practitioner in Plymouth."
 * I slapped a label onto that claim. 195.24.29.51 08:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Reference: Hound of the Whiskervilles
I'm actually very sure that the hound of the Whiskervilles form one of Keno Don Rosa's comics about The Life and Times of Scrooge McDuck also is a reference to this book. Can anyone check this? (I won't be home for the next four months, so I won't be able to check it myself, that's why.) This hound is in part one, when young Scrooge is secretly visiting the old family castle in Scotland.

Umberto Eco
I edited out "most probably" since Eco is pretty explicit in his borrowings from Conan Doyle. Adso remarks upon William's drug habit much as Watson does with Holmes. And in 'The Mysterious Flame of Queen Loana" Eco divulges more of his Holmes fandom. Artsfiend 08:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, if you don't have a source, please refrain from stating facts. In fact, without a source, the entire claim should probably be removed. 195.24.29.51 08:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Page fix
The page looks kind of messy right around the "other novels" box, can anyone fix the arrangement?-- T h e E d i t o r 1 1 1 1 17:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Additional discussion
I feel the following subjects needs to be discussed in order to improve the quality of this page:

- are there any inconsistencies or errors in the story? (other wiki entries on Holmes stories have this)

- what was the impact of this story on the popularity of Doyle/Holmes? How successful was the novel format compared to the short story compilation format?

- did Doyle have to be persuaded to write this story (which presumably was written after he had "killed off" Holmes) and what kind of public pressure did he face? Or was this story planned?

- is there any thought behind the decision to have Holmes stay out of most of the story (meaning that Doyle could equally well have decided to write a story where Holmes did not have a natural reason for staying away)?

195.24.29.51 08:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, Hound was originally devised without Holmes. Doyle had learned of various legends and came up with the idea for a mystery/horror story set on Dartmoor, then realised he needed a strong character to hold the story together and that Holmes fitted the bill; plus of course there was the financial benefit. Holmes is absent for much of the story, perhaps because he's basically deduced both the murderer and the weapon by the end of chapter four (maybe a hangover from before he entered the plot), perhaps because of Doyle's antipathy to his creation.

Film adaptations
I have seen several of the film and TV versions, and one thing always stands out: all of them (at least, the ones I have seen) make the same mistake in the passage where Holmes deduces that the newspaper clipping must have come from The Times. The quote, in full, reads: "There is as much difference to my eyes between the leaded bourgeois type of a Times article and the slovenly print of an evening halfpenny paper as there could be between your negro and your Esquimaux."

The mistake concerns the word "bourgeois", which is consistently mispronounced, due to the actor and/or director misunderstanding its meaning. The word, as used in this context, does not refer to "middle class", but to a size of type (roughly 9-point). Unfortunately, both words are spelled the same. However, the word that applies to the type size is pronounced quite differently. I am not sufficiently expert in the use of pronunciation guides, but the word is pronounced in two distinct syllables. The first sounds like "burr", and the second sounds like the female name "Joyce", and it is the second syllable that's accented: burr-JOYCE. Prior to the widesprread adoption of numerical "point-sizes" for type, printers used a restricted range of predetermined sizes, each of which was named. These included ruby, agate, pica ... and bourgeois, hence Holmes's reference: he was able to deduce its origin not only because of the way it was leaded ("ledded", or spaced), but because of its size, which was larger than that used in the evening halfpennies. I've always felt that a large part of the attraction of these movies is their accurate depiction of historical detail, so this strikes me as a curious and regrettable error. AlistairLW (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * How right you are! Well, ya learn something new everyday: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bourgeois Softlavender (talk) 02:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

clean-up
I have cleaned up this talk page, adding headers to make the contents automatic box appear in its proper place (first). Also, to separate various unrelated discussions. Feel fre to have a look at my revisions if you feel I have misrepresented those earlier comments. 195.24.29.51 08:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Watson
Just to let the people who have never read this book before, Watson is a bit like Sherlock's sidekick. Although Watson is a bit stupid and Holmes always saves the day. Even if Watson has a doctorate degree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NanoSpart (talk • contribs) 08:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Does Watson actually have a doctorate degree ?  He is a medical doctor,   and in those days ( and indeed in these days in Britain ),  a medical doctor does not have a doctorate degree.  Probably a Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery.Eregli bob (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, the Watson of the books and stories is not stupid. The image of a bumbling "Colonel Blimp"-like Watson comes from the movies, particularly actor Nigel Bruce's memorable portrayals (alongside the equally memorable Basil Rathbone &mdash; who together with fellow-actor William Gillette and illustrator Sidney Paget is primarily responsible for the mental image of Sherlock Holmes shared by most fans). Poor Watson! Over the canon as a whole, it is only in scattered unguarded moments that Holmes allows a momentary glimpse of his true respect for Watson; most of the time, Watson tolerates the regular put-downs from the egotistical and insecure Holmes with an equanimity approaching saintliness. Watson's good tact and judgment were especially valuable to Holmes in this very adventure, in return for which Holmes gives him a rare atta-boy: "I must compliment you exceedingly upon the zeal and the intelligence which you have shown over an extraordinarily difficult case." EEng (talk) 00:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Summary
Hello —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.55.43.28 (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Baskerville Hall
This is confusing: a Baskerville Hall exists, apparently Conan Doyle visited it multiple times? Why is this not mentioned in the article? . --Gryffindor (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Rename? Film adaptations
May I suggest that the 'Film adaptations' section be renamed 'Film and TV adaptations' as some of the titles in the list are TV adaptations rather than Film adaptations, such as the 1988 ITV Granada adaptation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.135 (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Kington
The artcile Kington, Herefordshire says:

"The Black Dog of Hergest is said to haunt the area around Hergest Ridge and his sighting reputedly presages death. It is also rumoured to have been the prototype for The Hound of the Baskervilles as Conan Doyle is known to have stayed at nearby Hergest Hall shortly before he wrote the novel."

Can anyone shed some light on that, and provide a citation, or refutation, please? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Legend of Black Dog of Hergest at http://www.haunted-britain.com/hergest-court.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.196.212.97 (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Sidney Paget Illustrator Credit
I think the info box for the book is great, but a little incomplete: Sidney Paget deserves a mention as well. If the cover artist is listed for one illustration, then surely Paget's 60 merit a credit. If no one has any objections, I'd like to add his name right under the cover artist as 'Illustrator' in the same format as everything else. --MeDrewNotYou (talk) 06:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 08:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on The Hound of the Baskervilles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140912205942/http://maamatimanush.tv/articlesTest.php?aid=408 to http://maamatimanush.tv/articlesTest.php?aid=408
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141028170216/http://peepolykus.com/touring to http://peepolykus.com/touring
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070113044027/http://sirconandoyle.com/canon/novels/hound/index.php to http://sirconandoyle.com/canon/novels/hound/index.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140726194931/http://www.bfronline.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=47&Itemid=9 to http://www.bfronline.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=47&Itemid=9
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509134344/http://www.bfronline.biz/ to http://www.bfronline.biz/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509134344/http://www.bfronline.biz/ to http://www.bfronline.biz/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509134344/http://www.bfronline.biz/ to http://www.bfronline.biz/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Plot
I added some details to the plot summary. The previous edition was omitting on intention main plot elements to avoid "spoilers", and sounded more like an advertisement instead of an encyclopedia article. Spoilers are explicitly allowed on Wikipedia and there is no point to hide key story elements while describing book plot : Spoiler 46.172.17.68 (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Largely abandoned?
Uncited text: The novel uses many traditional novelistic techniques which had been largely abandoned by the time of writing, such as letters, diary extracts, interpolated manuscripts, and the like as seen in the works of Henry Fielding and, later, Wilkie Collins. Wilkie Collins was still writing up to his death in 1889. Bram Stoker's Dracula (1897) is also an epistolary novel. I think saying this technique was largely abandoned seems to be an overstatement.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Royalties
, can you fix up the reference to royalties? It seems ungrammatical.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I meant ...to whom a 1⁄3 royalty which amounted to over 500 pounds by the end of 1901.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Year story is set
My edit asserting that the story is set in 1889 was reverted, with the explanation "It is not clear which year it is set in; there are several theories about this". In the first chapter Holmes considers a stick on which the year 1884 is engraved, and says "he left five years ago—the date is on the stick". Please say more about the dispute on this, @Sbishop? Thanks! ciphergoth (talk) 01:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I had forgotten that. Please reinsert your earlier edit if you wish Sbishop (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Date of story
The date of 1889 seems improbable, since Watson and Baskerville saw the man on the tor against a setting full moon, and on Oct. 14, 1889 the moon was first-quarter and set at 12:16 PM. A more probable date for the story is 1894, since the moon was full that night and set at 6:10 AM. (Holmes says later he had allowed the moon to rise behind him, but that would be several hours before Watson and Baskerville set out.) 32.215.234.97 (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)


 * That probably reflects only the fact that Doyle was not great at fact-checking and making sure everything lined up. There's no reason why the article can't have a section on date theories provided you can find some reliable sources rather than your own OR. Sbishop (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Another reason 1889 is improbable is that Watson met his bride in July, 1888 (The Sign of Four) and probably married soon after. She died after only a few (5?) years, which would explain why Watson is living back at Baker Street, and not merely calling on Holmes too early to expect him up and receiving callers. 32.215.234.97 (talk) 00:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)