The Hound of the Baskervilles is the third of the crime novels written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle featuring the detective Sherlock Holmes. On this page you can find the full text, links to the film adaptations, plot summary and analysis of the adaptations.
SUMMARY (spoilers)
The Hound of the Baskervilles is the third written novel of the British writer Sir Arthur Conan Doyle that was originally serialized in The Strand Magazine from 1901 to 1902. Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson meet Dr.James Mortimer on 221B Baker street at Holmes's apartment because Mortimer is really worried about the recent events that had happened to his friend Charles Baskerville’s death. He tells Holmes and Watson about the curse on Baskerville’s family and how now he assumes that an enormous hound is hanging around the Baskerville Hall and is the one who killed the poor Charles. Now Charles’s nephew, Henry Baskerville, is heading to the Baskerville Hall and Mortimer thinks that his destiny may be the same as his uncle’s. Holmes and Watson meet Sir Henry Baskerville right away when he arrives from Canada who has just received an anonymous note that says “As you value your life, or your reason, keep away from the moor” as well as his new shoe got stolen from the hotel room. After their meeting Henry and Mortimer go back to their hotel room and Sherlock and Watson secretly follow them, they notice a bearded man following Sir Henry in the cab. Sherlock thinks that it is the Baskerville Hall butler Barrymore because Mortimer applied that he has a beard. Also they discover that one murderer escaped from the jail awhile ago and is suppose to be in the area of the Baskerville Hall. Holmes tells Watson to go with Henry and Mortimer to the Hall and provide him with only facts through telegrams. When Watson arrives to the Baskerville Hall he finds out that Barrymore and his wife want to leave the estate. Later in the day Watson meets Mr. Stapleton and his sister who lives nearby and Mrs. Stapleton warns Watson to leave the Baskerville Hall immediately, confusing his with Henry Baskerville. Overnight Watson hears Mrs. Barrymore crying but in the morning Mr. Barrymore denies it. The next night Watson and Henry catches Mr. Barrymore in an empty room with a candle in front of the window looking very suspicious however he refuses to give Henry and Watson any answers. Mrs. Barrymore then comes in and confesses that Selden - the runaway prisoner is her brother and is hiding in the moor and Mr. Barrymore making signals through the window to provide Selden with food. When Henry and Watson agrees not to give away Seldon, Barrymore tells them about the letters that has been given to the now dead Charles Baskerville and asked him for a meeting at the place where he was killed and signed L.L. Watson thinks that the person who wrote the letter is Laura Lyons who lives nearby. On the way to find out Watson sees a mysterious man who appears to be Holmes. They together go to Laura and she tells them that she has written the letters because she wanted to meet Charles so he could help her with the divorce, but Stapleton told her to cancel the appointment. Holmes provides Watson with the information that Mrs.Stapleton is actually not his sister but his wife and that Stapleton promised to marry Laura so she would cooperate with him. On the way back to the Baskerville Hall Holmes and Watson hear a scream and discover a dead Seldon in Henry’s clothes. Back at the house Sherlock notices the resembles between Henry and Stapleton while looking at the Hugo Baskerville’s portrait and thinks that they may appear to be family members. Holmes calls Inspector Lestrade for help with the investigation and all three of them head to the Stapleton’s house where Henry Baskerville is dining to rescue him on the way home. When Henry leaves the house, the giant hound attacks him but Holmes get a chance to shoot it first. The hound appears to be a real dog - a mix of bloodhound and a mastiff painted with phosphorus to make it light in the dark. They try to find Stapleton who quickly ran away but find him dead as well as they find Henry’s stolen shoe. In the end of the novel Sherlock tells Watson the Stapleton really was Henry’s relative and wanted to get a fortune by destroying all of the Baskervilles.
MASLENNIKOV, THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES (1981)
A Russian adaptation of The Hound of the Baskervilles (1981) is directed by Igor Maslennikov starring Vasily Livanov as Holmes, Vitaly Solomin as Dr. Watson, and Nikita Mikhalkov as Sir Henry Baskerville. It was and is extremely popular in Eastern Europe, and has received numerous awards due to its great cast and directing. One IMDb review says, The movie, as well as others of this series, proves that if you got a talent, you can shoot even if you are somewhat short on means. To shoot this movie, the crew, of course, could not go to some British location, and its London portion was shot in the ancient quarter of Riga. But more than anything, marvelous play of V. Livanov and Co. made it possible to express the spirit of this novel by Arthur Conan Doyle as well as the atmosphere of the 19th century England (which, on the whole, was not the case when the Soviet movie-makers had to deal with American settings.) Unforgettable irony of almost omniscient Sherlock Holmes, Watson's ignorance, bordering on stupidity, charming sagacity of Mrs. Hudson, thick-witted inspector Lestrade - that's how the movie about Sherlock Holmes should look like. ("Sherlock Holmes Review." IMDb. IMDb.com, n.d. Web. 04 May 2016.)
If Sir Arthur Conan Doyle were to watch the 1981 adaptation, he would be more than satisfied. The actors truly devoted themselves to Doyle’s characters and anyone who read the book would say, “That is exactly how I imagined them!” Not only the acting, but the costume design and make up, decoration, props and of course directing create this feeling. With only minimal changes made, the plot remains generally untouched.
VERDICT - Good and satisfying book to film adaptation, great directing and acting; however, lack of creative change and any different perspective whatsoever.
If Sir Arthur Conan Doyle were to watch the 1981 adaptation, he would be more than satisfied. The actors truly devoted themselves to Doyle’s characters and anyone who read the book would say, “That is exactly how I imagined them!” Not only the acting, but the costume design and make up, decoration, props and of course directing create this feeling. With only minimal changes made, the plot remains generally untouched.
VERDICT - Good and satisfying book to film adaptation, great directing and acting; however, lack of creative change and any different perspective whatsoever.
MCGUIGAN, BBC SHERLOCK: THE HOUNDS OF THE BASKERVILLES (2002)
An undoubtedly successful BBC TV series “Sherlock”, directed by Paul McGuigan and written by Mark Gittis, presents their version of Doyle’s Hound of the Baskervilles (season 2, episode 2, 88 minutes). In this adaptation the plot was severely changed, however the work that was done to both move Doyle’s old-fashioned, classy Sherlock into the modern world and to rewrite The Hound of The Baskervilles as no one has ever imagined deserves all kinds of appreciation. Sherlock and specifically The Hounds of The Baskerville were highly acclaimed by the general public around the world and created immense fanfare.
Sherlock and Watson hear Henry’s story of how his father was killed by the Hound when Henry was a kid and begin their investigation. They find secret labs that makes experiments on animals and discover that long ago one of the experiments under the codename H.O.U.N.D. created the drug that creates hallucinations and turns people insane. The symptoms matched Henry’s experience, and the evil co - worker of his deceased father was to blame.
Benedict Cumberbatch as Sherlock and Martin Freeman as Watson made for something different and significantly more interesting than the original characters and have since been adored by the entire world. Editing, special effects, filming, directing, written dialogues are genius and from my point of view the work filmmakers had done for this adaptation is perfect.
Even though many of the general public have read The Hound of The Baskervilles and consider themselves fans of the original text, which may cause them to heavily criticize the adaptation, it received incredible ratings from both critics and the general public.
VERDICT - Amazing interpretation of the original piece: even though the plot is significantly changed, the mood/essence is saved and even improved; a novel point of view is found. Acting, directing, filming and editing are amazing. A+
Sherlock and Watson hear Henry’s story of how his father was killed by the Hound when Henry was a kid and begin their investigation. They find secret labs that makes experiments on animals and discover that long ago one of the experiments under the codename H.O.U.N.D. created the drug that creates hallucinations and turns people insane. The symptoms matched Henry’s experience, and the evil co - worker of his deceased father was to blame.
Benedict Cumberbatch as Sherlock and Martin Freeman as Watson made for something different and significantly more interesting than the original characters and have since been adored by the entire world. Editing, special effects, filming, directing, written dialogues are genius and from my point of view the work filmmakers had done for this adaptation is perfect.
Even though many of the general public have read The Hound of The Baskervilles and consider themselves fans of the original text, which may cause them to heavily criticize the adaptation, it received incredible ratings from both critics and the general public.
VERDICT - Amazing interpretation of the original piece: even though the plot is significantly changed, the mood/essence is saved and even improved; a novel point of view is found. Acting, directing, filming and editing are amazing. A+
GIBSON, THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES (2000)
A Canadian TV adaptation of “The Hound of The Baskervilles” directed by Rodney Gibson is an example of a bad adaptation—or at least an unnecessary, strange adaptation. In a nutshell, screenwriters decided to follow the original plot and the original dialogues for the entire movie, flipping everything upside down only at the climax. Stapleton starts a fight with Watson; Sherlock, who was supposed to appear long before, unsuccessfully shoots the hound, who eats Stapleton for some reason. Yes the movie is cheaply made, Watson is older than Sherlock, Sherlock does not look like Sherlock, and the soundtrack is not suitable because it creates the wrong atmosphere in the wrong places. The change, however, that they decided to make in the end is a pure abomination. A successful adaptation requires change, yes, but a thought-through, reasonable change. Not a change for the sake of change.
VERDICT - A bad adaptation with an unsuccessful change, strange casting, horrible soundtrack and no interesting point of view. The only pro of the adaptation is the somewhat saved mood of the book , but only initially.
VERDICT - A bad adaptation with an unsuccessful change, strange casting, horrible soundtrack and no interesting point of view. The only pro of the adaptation is the somewhat saved mood of the book , but only initially.