Sherlock Holmes Was Wrong, by Pierre Bayard

Bayard Sherlock Holmes Was Wrong

Bayard Sherlock Holmes Was Wrong

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.

Here 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.

Conan Doyle

Conan Doyle

Failing to understand that, Conan Doyle let Sherlock Holmes err in his most famous investigation, The Hound of the Baskervilles, and wrongly accused anunfortunate 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?

Bayard 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.

The Hound Of the Baskervilles Paget

The Hound Of the Baskervilles by Paget

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.

Print Friendly

8 Comments to “Sherlock Holmes Was Wrong, by Pierre Bayard”

  1. general francis says:

    Greetings to you ,

    Dear Friend

    It is my pleasure to contact you for a business venture which I hope you will be able to assist out.Actually my name is General Nanna I am the director of the Liberian refugee camp here in Angola.I have been approached by young John and his sick mother to assist them look for a reliable receiver to receive their family treasure box which was sent to Europe with information s supplied by one Mr. Saleh Ibrahim 2 week ago, but we have receive message from his people that he has auto crash last week, and his lawyer has given power of attorney for us to look for a new person to receive the treasure box from the diplomat now in Europe.

    If you can assist the family pick up this consignment box from the diplomat in Europe, then reply to me immediately, as the family is very worried that they might lost us$10million which they say is in the treasure box.

    The family says you will be given 20% of the total sum if you can assist them receive it from the diplomat. You will also help them to buy a house and invest in your country for a percentage fee. I will give you more details as soon as i hear from you that you will be kind.

    Thanks and as i await your mail
    General Francis Nanna
    Director of the refugee Camp.(Angola.)
    E-mail:gfrancis001@live.com

  2. william says:

    I really liked this post about sherlock holmes! iI think it really stands out.

  3. Catherine Delors says:

    I am sure there are many adaptations, Elisa, but I am always reluctant to see TV/movie adaptations of books I love. I am so afraid of being disappointed, or, worse, infuriated (as I was, for instance, with the Keira Knightley Pride and Prejudice.) I will look for the PBS series on Sir Arthur, though. Such a fascinating man.

  4. Elisa says:

    I’m sure there’s a number of “The Hound” adaptations from over the years.

    Several years ago, PBS’s “Mystery!” did a 2 part drama series on Sir Arthur. One part was when he was in medical school and the second as he was establishing himself as a doctor. The late Sir Ian Richardson appeared in both series.

  5. Catherine Delors says:

    Eva, glad you see things in the same light re: Emma. A fascinating, complex novel that can be read and enjoyed at so many levels.

  6. Eva says:

    What an interesting analysis! I’ve never been a huge fan of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, but I love the take on Sherlock Holmes in Laurie King’s Mary Russell series. Perhaps I’ll go reread The House of the Baskervilles now and see if I enjoy more this time around. :)

    And since I just reread Emma a few months ago, I completely agree that there are mysteries and puzzles all over that novel. I’ve never heard it described as a foreshadow of the cozy mystery genre, but now that I think about it I can definitely see that.

  7. Catherine Delors says:

    Ma Chere Penny – I see many mysteries, riddles, puzzles, etc. in Emma. I believe (and I know Arnie completely agrees on this point) it foreshadows the traditional British cozy mystery genre. If you haven’t read Hound, maybe you should. Wonderful scary atmosphere.

  8. Penny Klein says:

    I was following you until you brought up Emma. then you lost me. I never saw a mystery in Emma, except for why somone would fall in love with her that is. Hound is one the few Holmes stories i missed. i had read that Doyle ended up hating Holmes. i have read his other works and i think they are hard to get a hold of in the States but then again i have not tried lately.
    thanks for pointing this out.

Leave a Reply