Sherlock Holmes Was Wrong: Reopening the Case of the Hound of the Baskervilles (Hardcover)

~ (Author)

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

French literature professor and psychoanalyst Bayard (How to Talk About Books You Haven't Read) returns to the close reading and iconoclastic analysis of classic detective fiction he did in Who Killed Roger Ackroyd? with this audacious revisionist view of one of the best-known mysteries of all time. As always, Bayard playfully counters the ways literary academics read with the way real people read as he explains his theory of detective criticism. Arguing that Sherlock Holmes often drew false conclusions, Bayard picks apart the apparently airtight case Holmes assembled in The Hound of the Baskervilles and offers an alternative solution. He goes a step further than with the Agatha Christie whodunit by suggesting that Holmes erred in his identification not only of the murderer but of the murder victim. Readers may be more impressed with Bayard's cleverness than his tongue-in-cheek arguments, but his logic will lead many to hope that his opinion on who really killed Hamlet's father (in Enquête sur Hamlet) will be translated into English as well. (Nov.)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Review

“Bayard bases his conclusion that Holmes got it wrong on a close reading of the novel and a sharply reasoned appraisal of the characters’ actions and Holmes’s own interpretations of them. This is a fascinating approach to literature…Bayard rewards [readers] with a new appreciation of the story, its hero, and its creator.”—Booklist

“Close reading and iconoclastic analysis of classic detective fiction…[An] audacious revisionist view of one of the best-known mysteries of all time…Bayard picks apart the apparently airtight case Holmes assembled in The Hound of the Baskervilles and offers an alternative solution.”—Publishers Weekly

“Cultural gadfly Pierre Bayard returns to the genre of ‘detective criticism,’ which he invented fifteen years ago… The result is a new, startling way to think about one of Sherlock Holmes’s most famous cases.”—Very Short List

--This text refers to the Paperback edition.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 208 pages
• Publisher: Bloomsbury USA; 1 edition (October 28, 2008)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1596916052
• ISBN-13: 978-1596916050
• Product Dimensions: 8 x 5.3 x 0.9 inches
• Shipping Weight: 9.6 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.7 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (11 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #469,405 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

  Popular in these categories: (What's this?)

  #56 in	Books > Mystery & Thrillers > Authors, A-Z > ( D ) > Doyle, Arthur Conan
  #83 in	Books > Mystery & Thrillers > Mystery > Reference

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

10 of 10 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Another but deadlier "Irene Adler" tricked Sherlock Holmes, November 1, 2008

By	DorothyFan1 - See all my reviews

Reading this book made me scramble back to my old copy of Sherlock Holmes mysteries. One particularly disturbing aspect of this stunning new analysis suggests Sir Arthur Conan Doyle had a vendetta not only against his creation...but also Sherlock Holmes fanatics. It warns the reader of an unorthodox way of understanding the complex interaction between fiction and reality. The cruel irony of realizing we as readers can be tricked into believing one conclusion when the real one is in plain view should be lost on no one. This book may end up becoming a classic in literary criticism.

7 of 8 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars A gem, December 2, 2008

By	Michael D. Colacino (New York, NY USA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

If you are interested in semiotics, freudian analysis, and sherlock holmes (and I am sure most of you are) then this book is a brilliant find. In its frugal, non-franco-typical 188 pages, the author covers a very broad range of topics from contemporary lit-crit to cognitive psychology, while demonstrating a delightful command off Holmes and Holmes critical impedimentia.

There are two central ideas. First, Bayard explores the relationship between literary characters and reality, which leads to a quick detour through our collective subconscious. Second, there is a meditation on positivism and pseudoscience, with a shout-out to freudian contributions to the scientific method. These two ideas are dialectically synthesized into the conclusion that Holmes' methods are fundamentally flawed and lead to a flawed outcome in the Hound of the Baskervilles, which quite simply Sherlock fouls up to a fair-the-well.

Bayard, with a better understanding of the cognitive processes of real and fictional characters (Conan Doyle and Holmes, specifically) is able to utilize Holmes' techniques of close observation and deduction to discover the true culprit in the tale, which I won't spoil by revealing. His "solution" is analytically compelling and represents a coup de main for the new criticism ideas of close textual reading and multiple interpretations of texts. In fact, he makes those highly academic ideas quite fun while letting that poor doggy off the hook.

4 of 4 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Pierre Bayard is wrong too, still a great read, March 1, 2009

By	Catherine Delors "Catherine Delors" (Los Angeles, Paris) - See all my reviews

First I must thank Arnie Perlstein, fellow member of Eighteenth Century Worlds, for bringing to my attention this essay, subtitled Reopening the Case of the Hound of the Baskervilles, by Pierre Bayard (no relation to Louis Bayard.) I became all the more interested that the plot of The Hound of the Baskervilles is eerily similar to the - true - story that is the basis for my third novel. Had Conan Doyle heard of it? I have no idea.

Pierre Bayard Sherlock Holmes was wrongHere is an excerpt of Pierre Bayard's book:

Fictional characters are not, as often believed, beings of paper, but living creatures, who lead an autonomous life within the text and go as far as commit murder without the author's knowledge.

Failing to understand that, Conan Doyle let Sherlock Holmes err in his most famous investigation, The Hound of the Baskervilles, and wrongly accused an unfortunate animal, thus allowing it the true culprit to escape justice. This book sets the record straight.

Bayard begins with a very pedestrian exposition of the plot of The Hound of the Baskervilles. As a Conan Doyle enthusiast, I found this a bit irritating. Now I understand Bayard's reasons: he needed to strip the novel of its wonderful atmosphere, its poetry. Bayard undoes Conan Doyle's work, he de-writes the novel. Why? To expose the workings of the plot, the shoddiness of Holmes's deductions and the improbability of the supposed solution to the mystery. And why would a writer of Conan Doyle's caliber make his detective commit such a gross blunder?

Conan Doyle The Hound of the BaskervillesBayard explains that Conan Doyle had come to hate his most famous character. His publisher was pressuring him in writing always more Holmes stories, to the detriment of Conan Doyle's other, and preferred literary endeavors. Conan Doyle was so dismayed by the importance Holmes had taken in his life and work that he "killed" his most famous character in The Adventure of the Final Problem. Holmes fans were outraged and demanded that the author bring the detective back to life.

Conan Doyle, under the pressure of his readers and publisher, reluctantly relented, and thus wrote The Hound of the Baskervilles. According to Bayard, he unconsciously made his protagonist fail miserably in his investigation. Bayard, after demonstrating the absurdity of Holmes's conclusions, explains to propose his own "correct" solution to the mystery (sorry, no spoilers here, so I won't tell you what it is.)

I agree that Holmes's solution doesn't pass the test of rational analysis. I had long had misgivings about it, and Bayard perfectly underlines the flaws of the Holmesian reasoning. Where I disagree with the author is when he writes that Conan Doyle subconsciously set up Holmes to fail. Bayard is a psychoanalyst by trade and I believe he shows some professional bias here. No, in my opinion, this was a deliberate move on the part of Conan Doyle. The writer's animosity for his character was perfectly conscious and acknowledged, and so was this thorough debunking of Holmes's supposed superior abilities.

Sidney Paget Arthur Conan Doyle
Further, while I agree that Holmes's solution is incorrect, I find Bayard's equally far-fetched and unconvincing. Yet until yesterday I couldn't put my finger on why I felt so. And then suddenly it hit me: one needs, as is so often the case, to go back to Jane Austen's novels. The Hound of the Baskervilles, just like Emma, is a mystery without a murder, a comedy, or rather a tragedy of errors.

Contrary to Bayard, I believe that there is not one single murder in this story. Only people running away from the past, or in search of an elusive future. This is, by the way, the mirror image of the story in my third novel: a series of murders that were not recognized as such.

Conan Doyle, frustrated by his readers' infatuation with Holmes, had some fun at the expense of the detective and his admirers. Certainly, as Bayard points out, characters are not only beings of paper, they can, and will run away from the novelist. But in this novel Conan Doyle, though forced to deal again with a character he wanted to destroy, masterfully reestablishes the balance in favor of the writer. Quite an achievement, Sir Arthur!

It remains that Bayard, though I disagree with his conclusions, provides us with a wonderfully stimulating book. A great read.