Have one to sell?
Flip to back Flip to front
Listen Playing... Paused   You're listening to a sample of the Audible audio edition.
Learn more
See this image

Sherlock Holmes Was Wrong: Reopening the Case of the Hound of the Baskervilles Audio CD – Audiobook, CD, Unabridged


See all 5 formats and editions Hide other formats and editions
Amazon Price New from Used from
Paperback
"Please retry"
£2.41
Audio CD, Audiobook, CD, Unabridged
£25.74

Special Offers and Product Promotions

  • Audible.co.uk, an Amazon Company, is home to more than 100,000 audiobook downloads. Start a 30-day free trial today and get your first audiobook for FREE.




Free One-Day Delivery for six months with Amazon Student


Product details

  • Audio CD
  • Publisher: Tantor Media, Inc; Unabridged edition (28 Oct. 2008)
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 1400109833
  • ISBN-13: 978-1400109838
  • Product Dimensions: 16.3 x 2.8 x 13.5 cm
  • Average Customer Review: 4.3 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (3 customer reviews)
  • Amazon Bestsellers Rank: 3,220,699 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Authors

Discover books, learn about writers, and more.

Product Description

Synopsis

A reinvestigation of "The Hound of the Baskervilles" poses an alternative solution to the case that is based on hidden clues within the story's text, in a fan's recreation that illuminates unusual interstices between Doyle's fiction and the real world. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

Inside This Book (Learn More)
Browse and search another edition of this book.
Browse Sample Pages
Front Cover | Copyright | Table of Contents | Excerpt
Search inside this book:

What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?

Customer Reviews

4.3 out of 5 stars
5 star
1
4 star
2
3 star
0
2 star
0
1 star
0
See all 3 customer reviews
Share your thoughts with other customers

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

By Lynette Baines VINE VOICE on 7 Sept. 2009
Format: Hardcover
What if Sherlock Holmes missed some vital clues in his investigation of the mystery of the Hound of the Baskervilles? Bayard reimagines the classic crime story from a new angle. He takes the story as written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, & interprets the clues differently to come up with a different ending - & a different murderer. This is a lighthearted look at a classic story & an iconic figure of crime fiction. Bayard has previously written about Agatha Christie in Who Killed Roger Ackroyd? & does a great job of breathing new life into the Holmes legend.
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
2 of 3 people found the following review helpful By DR on 11 Mar. 2009
Format: Audio CD
This CD is excellent. It really stimulates thought and causes one to reflect on how literary characters do indeed - much like great music - have an almost independent life of their own: they are living, breathing entities who take on a virtual reality through the many minds (their readers) who re-create them afresh.
The French literary critic, Pierre Bayard, claims that the real murderer - and in fact the real murder - in the 'Hound of the Baskervilles' has for decades gone unnoticed. The former is not Stapleton and the latter not Sir Charles Baskerville or Selden, Bayard contends. He indulges in a highly ingenious, but rather fanciful analysis of what is really going on in this famous story. He claims to have invented a new form of literary criticism, which he calls 'detective criticism', in which the critic acts as a kind of detective to uncover the TRUE murderers in works of crime fiction, since (according to Bayard) even the author of a crime novel can be deceived by his largely autonomous creations. It's a fascinating concept and provides much intellectual entertainment. But at the end of the day, I felt that he strays much too far into the terrain of the fanciful and tries to explain away (sometimes rather weakly) evidence that would contradict his peculiar theory regarding 'The Hound of the Baskervilles'. It's a bit like Freudian psycho-analysis, which can make of a dream, etc., anything the analyst almost arbitrarily chooses it to mean (interestingly, Bayard seems to be a fan of Freud). Nevertheless, this is intellectual creativity of a high order, and I recommend it unreservedly - especially as the text finds a very accomplished reader in the person of its narrator, John Lee.
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
0 of 1 people found the following review helpful By Clementine de Vries on 24 Jan. 2010
Format: Hardcover
Interesting, stimulating and generally very entertaining, some abstrusely academic longueurs notwithstanding. The alternative solution (proving Sherlock Holmes got it wrong) is much more plausible than the one Bayard offers at the end of Who Killed Roger Ackroyd? My favourite chapter has got to be In Defence of the Hound.
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again

Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)

Amazon.com: 20 reviews
18 of 19 people found the following review helpful
A silly and mostly harmless exercise in literary criticism. 15 Oct. 2010
By Jason Kirkfield - Published on Amazon.com
Format: Hardcover Verified Purchase
I have nothing against reexamining a literary classic. Even with such well-trodden turf as the Holmesian canon, enjoying a familiar story through someone else's lens may provide fresh perspective. So why just 2 stars here? Much of this book is simply Bayard indulging his own specialty (psychoanalysis), ultimately asking the ridiculous question: Are the characters in a book committing crimes behind the reader's (even the author's) back? Bayard: "The book is not the story of an investigation, but a secret narrative of an interminable killing of which the reader is the unconscious voyeur and accomplice." (!)

Detective criticism is Bayard's unique approach; he tried it previously with Who Killed Roger Ackroyd?: The Mystery Behind the Agatha Christie Mystery, which appears to have received a lukewarm reception. So instead of Stapleton's dog, we are presented with an alternate murderer. All well and good in the main, but when you realize that Bayard bases his insight on a loose French translation of Conan Doyle's original, most of whatever power his punch may have had is lost. For example, the translator's note on page 144, following Bayard's analogy of Holmes to the Hound, cautions us that, "Bayard is working from a French translation" which renders Conan Doyle's original text of "his eyes shining brightly in the moonlight" to the much narrower "his eyes gleamed like a wolf's." (!!)

Bayard registers some good observations, such as questioning why Holmes takes Dr. Mortimer's account at face value ("If Mortimer, for whatever reason, has given an inexact version--for instance by mistaking the prints of some other animal for a dog's--then the detective's whole solution collapses.") or wondering how the dog could perceive Sir Charles' state of vitality so quickly and from such a distance ("How can we think that in such a brief time Sir Charles Baskerville could suffer a heart attack and die, leaving the dog time to make a precise enough diagnosis to decide, in the interest of its dietary preferences, to cease its efforts before reaching the body?"). He also takes a well-placed stab at playing The Game, asserting that the Hound only attacked Sir Henry after Holmes and Watson shoot at it ("Can we reproach a dog hit by a bullet for being overcome with rage and rushing at one of the people it legitimately supposes to be its assailants?"). These however are hardly ample reward for having to slog through the rest of the book.

Bayard is pretentious, verbose, and, not insignificantly, unkind to both Holmes and Conan Doyle. He also repeats ("It is said...") the apocryphal black armband story which to my knowledge has never been substantiated by primary sources.

Anyone new to the HOUND story would do best to start with the original in its well and creepy goodness: on its own (The Hound of the Baskervilles: 150th Anniversary Edition (Signet Classics)) or as part of the handy albeit heavy collection (The Complete Sherlock Holmes: All 4 Novels and 56 Short Stories). Longtime fans have plenty of options, chief among them the third volume of Les Klinger's The New Annotated Sherlock Holmes: The Novels (A Study in Scarlet, The Sign of Four, The Hound of the Baskervilles, The Valley of Fear).
6 of 6 people found the following review helpful
An overly tricky book that will appeal to or infuriate die-hard Holmes fans 28 April 2010
By David J. Loftus - Published on Amazon.com
Pierre Bayard, a professor of French literature at the University of Paris VIII and psychoanalyst, asserts that in fingering Jack Stapleton and his hound, Holmes nailed the wrong suspect(s): "... I feel there is every reason to suppose that the generally acknowledged solution of the atrocious crimes that bloodied the Devonshire moors simply does not hold up, and that the real murderer escaped justice."

In brief chapters, Bayard recounts the well-known plot, describes Holmes's methods of inquiry (along the way noting a number of mistakes committed by the master throughout the canon, both acknowledged by Holmes or Watson and not), presents his own method of "detective criticism" ("The aim ... is to become more rigorous than even the detectives in literature and the writers who create them, and thus to work out solutions that are more satisfying to the soul"), and then delineates all the problems with the received text and solution.

Among the problems Bayard highlights are: Why did the hound leave no marks on the first corpse, that of Sir Charles Baskerville? When Selden, the convict, dies wearing the clothes of Sir Henry Baskerville, the hound is never actually seen, so why assume that it was responsible? It does attack Sir Henry near the end, but only after a shot has wounded it first.

Bayard also notes that, after fastening on Stapleton as his suspect, reading all the clues as pointing in his direction, and then driving the man out onto the moor to his certain death, Holmes waves away the issue of motive! Watson asks him, "If Stapleton came into the succession, how could he explain the fact that he, the heir, had been living unannounced under another name so close to the property? How could he claim it without causing suspicion and inquiry?"

In case you're wondering, Sherlock Holmes Was Wrong is probably a satire -- an ostensibly earnest yet loving one. Bayard has created his own minor subgenre, which he calls "detective criticism" and describes in this slim volume, although only one other example has been translated into English: a critique of Agatha Christie's The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, called Who Killed Roger Ackroyd? Most regrettable, his 2002 Enquête sur Hamlet, in which he apparently proves that Claudius did not kill Hamlet's father, remains untranslated. Of more than a dozen works published by Bayard in French, the only other to have been translated thus far is the even more sly and cerebral How To Talk About Books You Haven't Read, which was a minor U.S. bestseller last year.

Though Bayard occasionally gallops into the high alpine meadows of literary and psychoanalytic theory, he still sticks closely to the text he's given. And though he probably doesn't believe half of what he's saying, it does pass the logical plausibility test. It has an inner consistency, and that makes it worth doing -- as a challenge, as a joke, and (dare one say it?) as a work of art.

The chapters, as well as the book as a whole, are short. Bayard engages in a bit of psychological and academic gibble-gabble, but never for long. If you know and love the Holmes canon well, you'll probably enjoy it. If you don't, you might wonder what all the fuss is about.
12 of 15 people found the following review helpful
Another but deadlier "Irene Adler" tricked Sherlock Holmes 1 Nov. 2008
By DorothyFan1 - Published on Amazon.com
Format: Hardcover
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.
4 of 4 people found the following review helpful
Too clever by half 25 April 2011
By wrlord - Published on Amazon.com
Format: Hardcover
This book reads like an undergraduate thesis. It's nothing but pretentious metaphysical sophistry of the worst water. This exercise could have had a bit of fun injected into it were it not for the ponderous earnestness with which the author dully circles around his thesis. Bayard betrays a stunning lack of understanding of anything but the literal words of the translations he has read; subtext, metaphor and literary context elude him utterly, despite a penchant to name drop at least a dozen other Conan Doyle and other stories.
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful
Fascinating, But Unconvincing 13 Nov. 2013
By Sean Fraser - Published on Amazon.com
Format: Paperback Verified Purchase
I recommend this book to anyone who enjoys Sherlock Holmes mysteries. It will tend to encourage the reader to be more skeptical in the future of the Great Detective's work, and in a good way. And, of course, if you really like detective fiction, you are bound to find it interesting in its own right.

Spoiler Alert: The remainder of this review is meant for those who have already read the book.

Professor Bayard comes dangerously close to making a truly brilliant, though ultimately flawed argument: The Hound of the Baskervilles was Sir Conan Doyle's revenge upon not only Holmes, whom he had grown to despise, but also upon the legions of Holmes fans who would not let the detective stay dead. How could this joke have been exacted? By having Holmes finger an innocent man in a manner most convincing to all who adore him - yet with clues as to the real culprit available for posterity to mull over and, ultimately pass judgment upon Holmes and his legions of gullible fans. Let's face it, that would be a cool theory, and kinda hilarious, if true.

However, Professor Bayard would much rather flirt with mysticism in the form of the alleged "autonomy of fictional characters," their possible sojourns into our world, and Freudian psychoanalysis, than advance a more plausible explanation as to why Holmes was so fabulously duped.

The Professor's applied methodology is this: poke some holes in Sherlock Holmes' theory regarding the particulars of the crimes, then assert that those holes are big enough to make room for his own theory. He begins this process by arguing quite unconvincingly that the death of Sir Charles could well have been an complete accident: Stapleton's very large dog simply got away from him and chased after a frightened Sir Charles but was called away from the man before the dog could cause visible harm to his person (beyond the unintentionally induced heart attack). Or indeed, before it could leave footprints closer than 20 yards from where Sir Charles collapsed and died.

But in order for this incident to have been an accident, the Professor has to have Stapleton attend a meeting with Sir Charles, at the secluded location and irregular hour that Stapleton himself knew about ahead of time, while bringing his large and fearsome looking dog. An innocent Stapleton wants to have a cordial meeting with Sir Charles, in the hopes of enlisting his financial aid for Ms. Laura Lyons. Stapleton, knowing of the legend of the hound of the Baskervilles, and likely also Sir Charles' growing unhealthy obsession with that legend, would not have brought that dog anywhere near that meeting. Furthermore, on Professor Bayard's theory, the dog is both unruly to a fault (it had to have leapt the gate at some point in its misbehavior), with lethal effect on Sir Charles, yet obedient enough to promptly break off its chase on the audible command of Stapleton (either verbal or by dog whistle).

And as for the death of Seldon, Bayard notes correctly that no one saw the dog on that occasion. This fact, according to him, further weakens Holmes' ultimate conclusion. However, there are some details here that are not adequately addressed by the Professor's theory, details which more than adequately accumulate into solid proof that Holmes was right. Firstly, both Holmes and Watson both hear noises which strongly suggest that a large hound was in the vicinity of Seldon at the time he fell to his death. Secondly, given how fleet afoot he proved to be a few nights before this when he easily outran both Watson and Sir Henry, Seldon's accident speaks very loudly of a flight in terror from something more menacing than two human assailants. Also of note is Stapleton's presence at the scene of the accident very soon after it occurred. That he was out at that hour and at that area of the moor is quite suspicious. Then there is the fact that the person most spooked by the unseen hound just happened to be the person wearing clothing once owned by Sir Henry, the hound's presumed intended victim. Finally, and this is not remarked upon by Professor Bayard, Sir Henry only avoided being the second person on the moor that night who smelled like Sir Henry, because he ignored Stapleton's note inviting him to attend Stapleton's house for dinner -- an invitation which, incidentally, would have taken him across the moor at about the time Seldon met his end.

Now Professor Bayard does succeed in pointing out some serious - though non-fatal -- weaknesses in Holmes' final theory, including, but not limited to Holmes' rather silly explanation as to why the hound did not actually maul Sir Charles: hounds don't bite corpses! Though, as the Professor properly notes, the hound had no way of knowing just how far gone Sir Charles was from cardiac arrest, between the time Sir Charles stopped running, and the second or two at the most it would have taken the beast to arrive where Sir Charles lay. But of course if an innocent and horrified Stapleton could call off the hound before it reached Sir Charles, so could Stapleton the murderer, and with good reason for doing so: to cast doubt as to the involvement of a corporeal hound in the event, let alone one that can be linked to him.

Professor Bayard's theory cannot account for Stapleton's possession, treatment, and housing of the hound itself. In particular, we have the Professor suggesting that Stapleton may have painted the dog in phosphorus in order to ensure his beloved pet would not get lost in the dark, while out on the moor. He actually suggests this as an explanation for the hound's having been decked out so, when it was finally killed. As an alternative, he suggests, Stapleton painted the dog with the luminescent substance as a bit of mischief at the expense of the superstitious moorfolk, perhaps.

Both these suggestions relating to a detail that is absolutely fatal to his own theory of the case are simply absurd. If visibility is the issue, and phosphorus is part of the solution, then paint a collar or a dog vest with it, not the face and body of the animal itself. Furthermore, phosphorus is toxic and burns upon contact with the skin and mucus membranes. Applying this substance under any circumstances is not done to one's cherished pet. Sir Conan Doyle did not have to worry too much about toxicology here, because his hound was half starved and otherwise being used as nothing more than a tool for murder. (Though the nature of the substance would tend to make its canine bearer incapable of following a scent even if, as Holmes concludes, the phosphorus had been treated so as to eliminate its scent. So maybe Sir Conan Doyle did not worry enough, but this is a failure of the author, not his detective.)

That Stapleton kept the hound at a secluded location, one accessible only to him, and only seemed to have the dog at his residence when needed for serious mischief, but even then, hidden in an outhouse until the exact moment of deployment, also suggests nothing but the exact nefarious purpose Sherlock Holmes surmises. (And what of Dr. Mortimer's cocker-spaniel, found dead at Stapleton's secret kennel? That seems to be a loose end in and of itself. Though an unpleasant theory comes to mind regarding the encouragement of bloodlust in the larger animal.)

Arguably, Professor Bayard's chief flaw in his analysis is that he fails to apply the same level of critical analysis to his own theory that he is all too willing to apply to Holmes' reasoning. He is, for instance, critical of Holmes for imputing to Stapleton a means for murder that is needlessly elaborate for its purpose. While this is a perfectly valid inquiry, particularly when one asks why Stapleton would try to use the hound to kill Sir Henry, even if the hound had proved wonderfully successful in getting Sir Charles out of the way. After all, Sir Henry has no known history of heart disease or an obsession with the legend itself. In fact it's a very good question to ask. Though it's a question better asked of the author, not the detective, given the clues at hand. But Professor Bayard goes on to argue that Stapleton is innocent of two wrongful deaths, and indeed was the victim of the real murderer in the book. This is the theory he is trying so hard to make room for.

The big problem for Professor Bayard, even if he had succeeded in clearing the way for this theory to take off, is that his theory is even more complex and elaborate than the theory he seeks to supplant. Not only does the murderer seek to capitalize on the accidental death by hound of Sir Charles, that villain must also manipulate Dr. Mortimer, Dr. Watson, Stapleton (and perhaps also the hound itself), Sir Henry, and, most of all, Sherlock Holmes himself. And all for the purpose of killing Stapleton in a manner that could easily have been done on just about any ol' foggy night on the moor.

Of course our arch-villain also may have had designs on the Baskerville estate as well, but that merely justifies some of the added complexity entailed by his theory, it does not give that theory any greater explanatory power than it otherwise would have had. Put another way, those loftier designs flush out that person's motive to be this grand-manipulator, but those designs do little to explain all of the improbabilities that flow from that theory -- chief of which is existence of the big, menacing, glowing dog, who seems intent on running down anyone who smells like Sir Henry.
Were these reviews helpful? Let us know


Feedback