9/12: I regard The Hound of the Baskervilles to be the most overrated Sherlock Holmes story. For some reason, it's practically the only story most will read and/or see a film of. And the mass public, as far as it is concerned, thinks that that's all Sherlock Holmes there is, and the rest is picked up by the many, many awful movies that don't resemble a fraction of what the legendary character is about. Back to the story, yes..it's well-written and very enjoyable to read. Many will be surprised to see that Sherlock Holmes plays a very little role and is mostly out of the scenes throughout the story. That's why The Hound of the Baskervilles is not really good definitive Holmes story because what he is and how he goes by his sleuthing work are best described in other earlier stories. For sure, The Hound of the Baskervilles should be thought of as an aberration, but I am not bothered by it. It is amusing to see Holmes to be referred as the "second highest expert in Europe" after Alphonse Bertillon. Tough luck. Really, the best Holmes story of any will always be The Sign of Four. Of course, The Study in Scarlet is not even that bad either, but I get put off by the long winding story in the second part of it. All in all, The Hound of the Baskervilles is certainly overrated because probably it's easier to read?