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

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

• 
  paper0r0ss0

  Per la serie: se mia nonna avesse le ruote... Un libro di apprezzabile cazzeggio intellettuale sui personaggi letterari e su quelli della letteratura gialla in particolare. E se Sherlock avesse sbagliato l'indagine!? E se Conan Doyle avesse volutamente seminato indizi per la vera soluzione del suo celebre caso!? E ancora piu' intrigante: se i personaggi letterari avessero una vita propria, reale, aldila' della volonta' degli autori stessi!? Quel che e' certo e' che l'approccio psicanalitico (non pesante) dell'autore contribuisce ad evidenziare la dinamica emotiva autore-personaggi, a chiarire come molte discrepanze nella trama, apparenti "errori", siano probabilmente frutto delle tensioni nella coppia suddetta, nel nostro caso dell'odio malcelato di Conan Doyle verso il personaggio che l'aveva assorbito e messo inopinatamente in secondo piano, che addirittura tenta di uccidere senza successo. La vera e propria sommossa dei lettori inferociti lo costringe a una rinascita maldigerita. Un libricino denso, a volte un po' tortuoso ma che un appassionato di Holmes e del giallo in generale, puo' trovare intrigante.
• 
  Jonathan Terrington

  With such an ambitious, and in some aspects arrogant, title Pierre Bayard was always going to have to write a very convincing analysis. Which in my opinion he managed to do while also throwing in a hint of literary criticism of a type I had not paid attention to as of yet. And while such things appeared at first disconnected from his analysis he managed to pull everything back together by the end to throw the entire case on its head.
  
  Bayard for the first half of the book begins with a recap of past events. This is the more taxing and uninteresting aspect of his work. And when he leaves The Hounds of the Baskervilles to talk about how he developed a mode of detective criticism for use on
  Hamlet and
  The Murder of Roger Ackroyd serves to do little but tell how good Bayard is at solving mysteries the writers cannot. However once you pass through this unnecessary hurdle the true magic of Bayard's analysis appears.
  
  He begins by breaking down Holmes' method through drawing attention to passages from both The Hound of the Baskervilles and other notable stories in the canon. Through quotes and references he quickly reveals the subtle flaws behind Holmes' technique.
  
  Bayard also indicates that since the crime is observed from Watson's point of view all observation of clues and suspects is tainted by his opinion. This of course influences the way the reader observes the case in the end.
  
  The next part in the investigation involves a look at the accused parties and creating proper alibis from the text. Firstly the hound is examined so that Bayard can indicate why he doesn't believe the creature guilty. Secondly a look is offered at the hound's master to find out why he is likely not guilty.
  
  A proper examination of the crime out of place Bayard proceeds on a slight tangent. It is this aspect of his work which lowers its overall standard. His observations are quality and his final judgements profound but his method of informing the reader lets him down. Perhaps that is in part resultant from translation but nonetheless it is an obvious flaw.
  
  The tangent involves a look at how the literary and real worlds collide. The author of course uses this to point out how Sherlock Holmes took on a life beyond that which Sir Arthur Conan Doyle intended. After all Hound of the Baskervilles was written after he had killed the great detective. This look at how Holmes became an almost real character provides some intriguing discussion apart from the case but is also used to provide reasoning to the structure of Doyle's bizarre tale.
  
  The penultimate procedure is an explanation of how Holmes falls into being manipulated and used. In this section a brief examination is made of how Holmes comes to ignore his own rules about theorising and gathering data.
  
  "It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence. It biases the judgement."
  
  And again:
  
  "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."
  
  For it becomes clear that in The Hound of the Baskervilles Holmes does theorise before gathering all data. As such his final judgement appears on the whole flawed despite his surety that he is correct.
  
  Sherlock Holmes is renowned for one of my personal favourite quotes. "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." However, as Bayard shows in his conclusion, the impossible has not in this case been completely eliminated. There remains one highly possible and more probable solution passed over by the detective. And it is this revelation of the true and more likely suspect which makes reading Bayard's work worth all the flaws and disjointed sentences.
  
  In summary I would state that this is a work with on the whole excellent depth. A book that reveals how superficial the seemingly conclusive solution is in The Hound of the Baskervilles. And it is worth all the painstaking disassembly by Bayard to see the end conclusion. A conclusion which will flip your idea of The Hound of the Baskervilles on its head. So I suggest that if you haven't read
  The Hound of the Baskervilles that you do so and then right afterwards delve into this. You'll go from being impressed with the depth of the book to being impressed with the crime behind the crime. And I still cannot figure out if the brilliant Sir Arthur Conan Doyle intended his work to end that way or not. Although it seems he did with all the obvious threads...
  
  
• 
  Valentina Vekovishcheva

  Police criticism is now my thing! I will have to use whodunnit approach to texts! And I will sure have to read the one about Ackroyd...
• 
  Sarah W

  I can't quite decide if this is a perfect example of tongue-in-cheek meta-criticism, or a nutty rereading padded with chapters of justification that essentially sum up to "It's my opinion, so it can't be wrong." I suggest skipping to the last chapter and just enjoying Bayard's reworking of the plot, which isn't without its own gaping holes but is somewhat more satisfying than the solution in the original.
• 
  Julia Rubtsova

  I did it! I had guessed the murderer before I read the book!
• 
  Helmut

  Holmes war ein blutiger Anfänger
  Wirklich faszinierend: Die Aufzählung so vieler Fehler, die Holmes im Laufe seiner Ermittlungen gemacht hat. Kaum zu glauben, dass so jemand einen solchen Ruf haben kann. Aber Holmes' Macken überspielen seine Inkompetenz grandios, das muss man ihm zugestehen.
  
  Wie bei vielen Büchern Bayards gibt es Missverständnisse - viele Leser meinen, dass es Bayard darum gehe, Holmes (oder Conan Doyle) in Misskredit zu bringen, aus Neid, Arroganz, Besserwisserei oder sonst einem niederen Motiv. Doch in Wahrheit nutzt Bayard immer wieder solche frechen Thesen, um literaturwissenschaftliche Theorien knallig zu verpacken. Subjektivität auf allen literarischen Ebenen (Autor-Erzähler-Protagonist-Leser), die Stilfigur des "unzuverlässigen Erzählers" und die Idee, dass sich Texte vom Autor und vom Leser lösen und ihr Eigenleben aufnehmen, das ein eigenes "lückenhaftes Universum" bildet, das in sich analysiert werden kann, werden unter anderem in diesem Buch behandelt. Wo endet Realität und beginnt Fiktion? Und gehen beide nicht irgendwie ineinander über?
  
  Besonders fasziniert mich diese letzte These, die Bayard von
  Thomas Pavel aufgreift. Eigentlich ist sie, so verrückt sie sich auf den ersten Blick anhören mag, doch irgendwie plausibel - für mich ist beispielsweise Benjamin Franklin oder sogar Angela Merkel nicht "realistischer", oder besser gesagt, weniger fiktional, als Sherlock Holmes oder James Bond; ich kenne alle diese Figuren nur aus den Medien, und man kann sicher nicht sagen, dass Holmes weniger Einfluss auf mein Leben hat als Franklin.
  
  Wie immer ist Bayard herrlich unterhaltsam, mit seinem feinen, aber ausgesprochen wirksamen Humor, und einer absolut beneidenswerten Klugheit und Sinnesschärfe, die aus jedem Satz strahlt. Das mag auf den einen oder anderen vielleicht einschüchternd, arrogant oder herablassend wirken - aber Bayard kann schließlich nichts für die Minderwertigkeitskomplexe mancher Leser.
  
  Ach, hätte ich doch im Literaturwissenschaftsstudium statt den Professoren, denen es wichtig war, die Bedeutung der Farbe blau in diesem oder jenen Text in mich hineinzuzwängen oder ihre angelesene Interpretation eines Texts dann auch noch mir überzustülpen, einen Lehrer wie Bayard gehabt. Das Studium wäre nicht so elend stumpf gewesen; ich hätte es durchgehalten statt gefrustet nach der Zwischenprüfung hinzuschmeißen und mich der Informatik zuzuwenden.
  
  Wichtig ist nur eins - wenn man noch vorhat, ein paar der hier besprochenen Stories von Conan Doyle oder Agatha Christie zu lesen, sollte man dies vorher tun, denn es wird hier massivst gespoilert.
• 
  Sandy

  This slim volume takes a clever idea (re-solving the mystery of the House of the Baskervilles) and pads it out in an attempt to be able to justify the idea being presented as a full book instead of a single essay. Bayard expounds on literary theories of whether or not fictional characters can do things without the author knowing (handled pretentiously here; much more cleverly done in the fictional universes of Jasper Fforde), he has a tediously long chapter on whether or not Sherlock Holmes makes mistakes (um, yes), he actually has a chapter where he recaps other books he's written. Each of these things might have been useful to touch on in an introduction, but expanding each out to its own chapter feels like clawing for page space.
  
  The re-solving of the mystery itself is pretty great, albeit a fairly small part of the total book. It takes a lot of things that didn't quite sit right with me when I was reading the novel, and fits them together in an alternate theory that holds up as a superior resolution to the mystery.
  
  I would say, if you're interested in this book, pick it up and read the chapter where he details his alternate Baskervilles solution and skip the rest of it.
  
  Two stars.
• 
  Michael

  I'm going to chalk much of my distaste for this book due to bad translation. The flow of language is terrible, making this a difficult read for me from the start.
  
  Another large part of my distaste is the sheer arrogance of the author that drips from every page. Holmes was arrogant, too, but his was derived from his success in solving problems where others where having trouble discerning the mere existence of an issue. Holmes also showed a more humble side numerous times. Pierre Bayard exemplifies the stereotype the Anglophone world has of the French: snide, arrogant and dismissive.
  
  He spends too much of the book retelling the story in a most pedestrian and boring manner, boldly poking the reader with quick jabs about the original conclusion while telling us that all will be revealed later. I don't know if this was a nod to the way Holmes worked in the original stories, but Bayard lacks the charm of the former.
  
  Bayard does pick up on one thing that's quite apparent: Holmes was fixated on Stapleton from the very beginning. Bayard's problem is that he keeps harping on it rather than allowing the Great Detective this one idiosyncrasy. His conclusion is just as forced as he claims the original one is, reading into Doyle's writing in a way only a psychologist can. At the end, I'm left with wondering why I plodded through this and why it took me so long to read less than 200 pages. I give this book two stars simply because it wasn't boring in the sense that I wanted to finish it so I could yell at the book like one does at a referee on a televised sports game.
• 
  Martha

  I think this author really likes to listen to himself. It seems to me that his main argument is that in the world of fictional works, only a fraction (say 25%) is put down in words, the reader supplies the rest with their imagination and knowledge (which is why you can never read the same book twice [you gain knowledge and imagination and thus fill the book's world just slightly differently each time] and why you'll never read the same book as your friends). And because the author cannot control the majority of the book's world, the author doesn't really know what is happening. Ok, let's just take that there are an infinite number of worlds that make up any one book. If that's the case, then surely there is at least one where the author got the ending right. And if there is a world where the author got it right, then why challenge how they came to the conclusion? Because every possible conclusion can be challenged and be proven to be both wrong and right. It seems an exercise in futility to me.
  That being said, this is interesting to read if for no other reason than to entertain a different viewpoint. It is interesting how a different conclusion can be reached with the same information, the same words. And the book makes some good points, one being that people put so much stock in Sherlockian logic when, if we look at the stories, he is often either wrong or comes to no conclusion. Another being that a hound is a very silly way to murder someone (but I always figured that was more for atmosphere than actual logic).
  If you like analyzing stories, you'll probably enjoy this read. Personally, I enjoy just riding along with fictional stories more than actually deciding if it's logical (because I figure, it's fiction: if you're reading it, you've already made a pact that this is not truth/actual facts, that it is made-up).
  So, all of that being said, his conclusion is quite a fun one. And it is his conclusion alone that bumps this up to 3 stars. I think if he had spent less time pontificating about how fictional this fictional world and its elements are, I'd have been hooked.
• 
  Thomas Rau

  Eigentlich eine schöne Idee für einen 100-Seiten-Essay, leider auf 200 Seiten aufgebläht: Das erste Viertel enthält eine sicher hilfreiche Zusammenfassung des Doyle-Romans, das letzte Viertel enthält das, was der Titel verspricht: Eine alternative Deutung der Handlung.
  
  Dazwischen findet sich wenig Interessantes, das dafür oft wiederholt, und der immer wieder vor sich her getragene Stolz auf die eigene Erfindung der "Kriminalkritik", das Prinzip, Krimis anders zu lesen als vorgesehen - als sei das nicht erstens ohnehin dem Krimi inhärent (denn dort gibt es ja schon traditionell zwei Geschichten, die wirkliche und die dem Leser vorgegaukelte) und zweitens eine über hundert Jahre alte Tradition. 1911 begann Ronald Knox mit "Studies in the Literature of Sherlock Holmes" das, was Holmes-Aficionados "The Game" nennen: Die Werke gegen den Strich lesen, Fehler entdecken. Seit 1946 veröffentlicht das Baker Street Journal Aufsätze dazu, und zu Lücken und Unklarheiten in The Hound of the Baskervilles gibt es etliche. (Auch außerhalb des Holmes-Kanons oder Krimigenres gibt es viele ähnliche Werke.)
  
  Interessant ist Bayards Beitrag dazu allemal. Aber das Ignorieren jeglicher anderer Beiträge zum Thema stört; die Emporhebung herkömmlicher literaturwissenschaftlicher Gedanken zu etwas Einzigartigem stört. Und wenn Bayard eine Beschreibung der Reichenbachfälle zitiert und danach schreibt: "Ein Ort, der, wie nicht zu übersehen ist, das Bild einer sumpfigen Landschaft heraufbeschwört", dann ist das einfach Käse - mag aber an der Übersetzung liegen; in der englischen steht "drenched landscape", was eher passt, aber so oder so ist der Bezug zum Moor so weit hergeholt, dass man ihn allenfalls mit etwas bescheidenerem Tonfall akzeptieren würde.
  
  Zweieinhalb Sterne, weil an sich gute Idee, nur nervige Ausführung.
• 
  Niklas

  Sadly, this is not a very amusing read. Unlike "The Physics of Superheroes", a book with a similar idea of applying real world reasoning to a world of fiction, this book takes itself a bit too seriously. I will say however that when Bayard's version of the crime was fleshed out in the final chapters I could not disagree with his findings. Annoying as it is, his theory does make a lot of sense.
  That having been said, his overall reasoning is flawed at best. He makes assumptions based apparently solely on the french translation of the book. Which is, like the language itself, slightly more romanticized and makes more allusions to the moon and the apparent wolf-like properties of the Great Detective and are not apparent in the original English. One would think Bayard would have omitted such parts had he found they dd not fit in with the original novel, as his reasoning stems a lot more from how he believes Doyle felt about his creation than the narrative itself at times.
  While there are, as previously stated no real flaws with Bayard's ultimate theory based on the narrative itself, his attitude towards both the reader and the original author is one of almost smug superiority. He paints himself up as being wiser than most for having figured it all out. A quality that would have been much better suited had his theory been based on facts and not an interpretation of a fictional story. Regardless of how good it is.
• 
  Rachel

  I made the mistake of thinking this book was a parody. Unfortunately, it was not.
  
  While touted as a love-letter to crime novels, this book seeks to destroy one of the best loved crime novels. Basically, I got the impression that the author genuinely dislikes the Hound of the Baskervilles and wanted to re-write the novel how he thought it should be written, because obviously Sir Arthur Conan Doyle - the author - didn't actually know who committed the crime. On top of that, the author spent a lot of time trying to discredit Sherlock Holmes, not only during this mystery, but most of his work. While trying to show how ridiculous his deductions were during the book, he credits other fictional work as scientific proof.
  
  The book is slow going considering much of the book is either a summary of the ACD story or whole portions of the actual text.
  
  One thing not mentioned in the summary is that this reads like a book needed to pass a psychology class, the author attempting to explain how it was possible for Conan Doyle to miss the "obvious." And then trying to turn the Hound of the Baskervilles into a ghost story.
  
  Basically, if you didn't like the original story, go ahead and read this "re-opening." But if you, like I, love the original story, don't waste your time.
• 
  Riq Hoelle

  Interesting deconstruction of The Hound of the Baskervilles as well as a good introduction to deconstruction itself.
  
  It would be cool if someone made a movie of this version.
• 
  Sammy

  Gosh, this book is an absurd flight-of-fancy, irritatingly smug, and sits at the opposite end of the literary theory spectrum to myself. It is also, incidentally, well-written and coherent within its own framework.
  
  Bayard adopts the viewpoint of the 19th century school of literary theory (somewhat back in vogue) that characters can have a life beyond the page. He argues forcefully for the fact that we all play some role in bringing characters to life, interpreting the gaps and lacunae in the author's descriptions and bringing our own biases with us. He takes this theory further, arguing that it is dull to accept what the author tells us, and we must instead fashion our own work out of that on the page. An intriguing theory that doesn't sit well with my New-Criticism-cum-New-Historicism viewpoints, but I'm willing to let other opinions stand.
  
  Without spoiling anything, Bayard's ultimate conclusion about what really happened in
  The Hound of the Baskervilles is quite clever, really. He makes a convincing case that Holmes' faulty reasoning and preconceived notions led to an incorrect conclusion, and he argues forcefully that readers' love of Holmes since his conception goes beyond that of fans and a character. That, in a sense, Conan Doyle created a character who outgrew him, who outgrew the world of fiction.
  
  Undeniably this work (in translation) would have been better as a long essay than an entire volume. The first 53 pages are a retelling of Conan Doyle's novel, which seems excessive. The section on Conan Doyle's relationship with his character is entirely filler, if interesting historically. Nevertheless, this is the book that we have, and thus it's the book I'm reviewing.
  
  Much of your feeling on this book will depend on how you take Bayard's own attitude. Is he being wryly self-aware or does he truly believe his own argument? Evidently a lot of Goodreads reviewers are frustrated by the theorist arguing that characters experience lives we are not a part of. I suspect Bayard knows exactly what he's doing, and is having fun with his own conceit. He knows, as well as we do, that this is not possible, and that if Conan Doyle had intended for Holmes to get the case wrong, he would have made that clear. Thus, we must approach the whole work within Bayard's own framework or there is no point reading it at all.
  
  From this point of view, the book is rather good. On reflection, even the seemingly excessive chapters (such as a deep analysis of the eponymous hound's mindset) are relevant to the central argument. This is a book that can inspire great literary debates - as indeed it has in my friendship circle - and for that we should be grateful. (Although the fact that Bayard has written three such books as this - another on Hamlet and one on Agatha Christie's Roger Ackroyd - may annoy literary elitists like myself, who would rather theorists devote themselves to exploring the texts themselves rather than making a career out of the spaces in between!)
  
  What am I saying? If the work is one long con, it's a damn good one. If it's completely serious, it's trash. If it's somewhere in between, I suspect it's a cunning little argument that helped earn a writer some royalties, and it needn't be any more than that.
• 
  rixx

  I'm really very much not a fan of **Sherlock Holmes Was Wrong: Reopening the Case of The Hound of the Baskervilles** by *Pierre Bayard*. Spoilers ahead, though I won't spoil the proposed solution to the Baskerville case.
  
  The book's premise is this: Doyle was so tilted by having to bring back Sherlock Holmes that he didn't correctly solve this case, because he was busy writing an evil-associated, incompetent, absent Holmes. The author proposes an alternate resolution, and shows plenty of sources for his judgement of both Doyle and Holmes. This part of the book is fine! Speculating about other plausible interpretations of a story, and addressing inconsistencies is fun! I enjoyed the speculation, and the solution.
  
  The problem is – well, this would have made a fine essay. Or, you know, do what everybody else is doing and write fan fiction. Instead, the author decided he was a fancy, intellectual scholar with his own school of literature interpretation. So, before in true detective style we get a grand reveal in the end, we have to sit through a long, rambling, and condescending retelling of what the author thinks of literature. Y'know, generally. Points for style because he teasers his other books (he did a similar book on the Roger Ackroyd murder by Agatha Christie), complete with "you'll have to buy them to find out my solution".
  
  I tend to trust translators, so I'd like to place the blame for the Doylian, pretentious and condescending tone with the author. Funnily enough, the translator doesn't only add the customary required footnotes, but also corrects the author's opinions where appropriate: Bayard bases parts of his argument and comparison on associations provided by the French translation that aren't present in the English original.
  
  So all things considered: A good idea that would have been enjoyable if it didn't take itself so goddamn seriously. Write some fanfic, dude.
• 
  Melinda

  A rather fresh look at a classic murder mystery, examined in light of the author (Arthur Conan Doyle) and the character (Sherlock Holmes) and the relationship between the two.
  
  Conan Doyle killed off Holmes in 1893 when he wrote "The Final Problem", a short story that describes the struggle between Holmes and his arch-enemy Moriarty that ends with their death over the Reichenbach Falls. Conan Doyle had written for many years that he was anxious to be done with Holmes, to kill him off and never write of him again. But Holmes' public demanded more stories about him, and eventually in 1901 "The Hound of the Baskervilles" was released in serial format. The time of the action takes place BEFORE Holmes' death. But the return of the detective signaled an inevitable bowing to the demands of the public.... and Conan Doyle once again continued writing Holmes stories.
  
  What if there are clues to Conan Doyle's dislike of Holmes in the first book written after he tried to kill off Holmes? What if there are clues to a different homicide in the book? What if Conan Doyle seems to set his "hero" up for mistake after mistake after mistake.... and the reader can now find those mistakes and account for them?
  
  That is the premise of this book. Interesting, and fun.... it does not change my mind about who Conan Doyle determined to be the murderer.... but it is an interesting romp into the life of an author and a character they create. For love ever after.... or maybe for something else??
• 
  Pointsandwheels

  I really want to discuss this book with other acadafen people. (Is that still a thing? I miss LJ.) It is so very clearly a discussion of concepts of fandom, only through an academic lens which knows nothing about fandom and is using academic terms to describe things which fans have long since assumed.
  
  It's an interesting look at *The Hound of the Baskervilles*, one which I thoroughly enjoyed. (If you want the gist of the story without reading the book, I suggest the excellent LA Theatre Works audio play of *The Hound of the Baskervilles*.) It's clearly based in academia, but uses relatively plain language, and is easy to follow for the layperson.
  
  However, there are two hilarious points in the book where the author (who is writing in French) makes points using the support of the story, from French translations. The book's translator kindly gives us their own notes, noting while the French translations use these images to convey similar meanings as the English version has, the specific metaphors the author is hanging part of their thesis on... don't exist in the original version.
  
  Still, it's a fun read, and a lovely take on a lovely story.
• 
  T Collen

  Danger: SPOILERS
  
  Blah, blah, blah. The author rambles on for 150 pages before getting to the point of this book, that there is evidence within The Hound of the Baskervilles which (if the reader has an active imagination) indicates the final murder attempt of Henry Baskerville was the work of someone else.
  Holmes is portrayed as a doofus who never thought too highly of Watson yet blindly accepted his interpretation of many events. The real doofus is reader who takes in this author's premise.
  I was left with two questions if the author's argument is true, that Bryl is the killer -- why didn't Holmes notice that whatever knots Beryl used were ones she could have tied herself, and why did Stapleton flee into the moor on a marked path and then go off the path to his death?
  If anyone should want to read this book I would suggest they skip to the final 38 pages.
• 
  LuAnn

  Part literary criticism and fiction theory and part a dissection of Holmes' deductions. While the author has some plausible reasoning for who the real murderer was, he neglects explaining a major clue involving the ancestry of the novel's victims and killer which renders his argument insufficient. While readers interested primarily interested in the analysis of HOUNd might find the literary criticism and fiction theory tedious and irrelevant, I found in them new ideas for exploring literarature. As another reviewer points out, the author gives spoilers for two Agatha Christie mysteries that he fails to warn readers about!
• 
  Seth

  Bayard, like many Sherlockians before him, conceives a clever alternative explanation to a Holmes story. Unlike other Sherlockians before him, he sees the need to pointlessly steep his version in a watery broth of low-grade literary theory. A reader could skip the 140 pages leading up to the author's 40-page retelling and not have missed anything interesting except Bayard's translator inserting footnotes to point out errors in his reasoning. It's fair justice to Bayard that my copy of this book, bought for a $1 at my local library, is plastered across with a huge stamp that says "WITHDRAWN."
• 
  Peggy Henry

  Départ lent, il y a des longueurs. Je regrette d'avoir lu Le chien des Baskerville juste avant, Pierre Bayard nous raconte toute l'histoire dès le début! Mais j'ai beaucoup apprécié sa nouvelle interprétation de l'histoire avec un meurtrier différent, il y a quelques éléments non plausibles mais sa version est plus crédible que celle de Doyle, à mon avis. C'est tout un tour de force! Le meilleur de ce livre est donc à la fin, quand Pierre Bayard se livre à son interprétation.
• 
  Tori

  I thought this was going to be some lighthearted read about a guy making fun of Sherlock Holmes and how awful he is. But this is actually an in depth piece of literary criticism on Sherlock as a character. Parts of it were rather dry, and it took a long time to get to the point, but I still enjoyed (and mostly buy) the author's conclusion about who the real murderer is.
• 
  Anthony

  Not quite as brilliant as Who Killed Roger Ackroyd?, which was Bayard’s tour de force, but this is nevertheless a skilful and perspicuous deconstruction of The Hound Of The Baskervilles that lays bare the many flaws and inconsistencies in Arthur Conan Doyle’s classic Sherlock Holmes novel and presents an alternative reading of the story.
• 
  Graham Barrett

  (Review from 2023)
  
  I read this back in college for class immediately after reading Hound of the Baskervilles for a second time. It was alright, the only thing I really remember about the experience was writing a paper afterwards trying to explain what draws people to rewriting books in fan fic form.
• 
  Barbara

  An enjoyable, at times intriguing, but, to me, not quite convincing argument as to who 'really was' the killer in the 'Hound of the Baskervilles'. Includes an exploration of the nature of literature and reality.
• 
  Christine Fessard

  Une enquête de Holmes où la "réalité" est tordue par le célèbre détective pour arriver à une vérité qui peut être différente de celle du lecteur.
  Mise au jour du monde intermédiaire entre le réel et la fiction, où comment l l'oeuvre échappe à l auteur...Intéressant.