Kate Blazejewski, Jakob Margetta, Sam Choiniere, Anna Wagner, Caleigh D’Angelo, Rachel Erwin, Ava Smith, Catherine O’Connor, Meaghan Lancaster, Salima Amiji, Evan Andrews, Jocelyn Taylor, Caitlin Neary, Yiming Zhao, Danny Billard
My favorite character in The Hound of the Baskervilles is Sir Henry Baskerville. I admire his bold personality and bravery. One example of this is when Sir Henry insists upon moving to Baskerville Hall despite receiving a letter warning him of his own death if he goes. He says, “...Mr Holmes, and there is no man upon earth who can prevent me from going to the home of my own people, and you may take that to be my final answer.”
My favorite part of the book is when Watson discovers Holmes's makeshift living quarters inside an ancient abandoned hut on the moor. At first discovery, Watson believes the hut to be the hiding place of some mysterious stranger, but then Holmes returns to the hut and they are both pleasantly surprised by each other. I like this scene because it is the point where the unstoppable duo are reunited to share their findings and get back on track to solving the Baskerville mystery.
One criticism of the plot I have about this book is how Mr. Stapleton dies down under the Grimpen Mire before Holmes and Watson can question him about his crimes. Because of his sudden death, his plans for the future are still a mystery. I think the story's ending would be more complete with some sort of explanation from Stapleton himself. Caitlin Neary
You make a good criticism. Stapleton's death leaves us a little unsatisfied.
Here is your question from me: Can you explain what makes the book a tug of war between the supernatural and the scientific? Then explain which side wins out in the end.
I agree with you that the scene where Holmes and Watson are reunited is an excellent part of the story. It is also a turning point where Holmes becomes more directly involved in the plot again rather than being mistaken for a criminal from afar. I feel like after that scene the book becomes more interesting and the solution to the whole mystery begins to be uncovered, for example, we learn who the man on the Tor was. Readers are also given another example of how clever Sherlock Holmes is by sneaking around and convincing everybody that he was back in London so he could see the story from two perspectives, his own on the moor and Watson’s from inside of Baskerville Hall.
To answer your question, the legend of the hound of the Baskervilles surrounds Sir Charles even before he passes. So when he does die and no reasonable explanation comes, some people immediately jump to the conclusion that his death is the work of the supernatural hound from the legend. They support their theory with evidence, such as the paw prints found at the murder scene and witnesses claiming to have seen the glowing dog. Holmes and Watson lead the investigation without entertaining the idea of the supernatural dog and eventually they discover the true scientific facts of the case. They find that Stapleton designed his murder weapon, an ordinary hound, to seem as if it were the mythical one from the legend in order to scare Sir Charles to death. Because the weapon was designed to deceive Sir Charles into believing it was really the mythical hound, it also stumps investigators of the murder as they try to explain the witness statements and footprints found. The scientific side wins out in the end because the footprints are proven to be those of the regular hound, and the glowing flames on the dog seen by witnesses are proven to be phosphorus placed there intentionally by Stapleton.
My favorite character in the book is Dr. Mortimer. I feel this way because he is a caring and thoughtful friend who looks out for Sir Charles and tries to comfort him during his time of fear and anxiety at Baskerville Hall. He also looks out for the well being and safety of Sir Henry before Sir Henry even knows what he could be facing. Overall, Dr. Mortimer stands by the Baskerville family despite the gory and dark fate that possibly awaits them.
My favorite part of the book is when Holmes uncovers the fact that Mr. Stapleton was behind the whole scheme. After this is revealed, although everything isn't resolved, the whole mystery begins to make sense and come together. It answers many questions that I was asking myself throughout the book.
One criticism that I had of the book is how Mr. Stapleton supposedly "died". Although we are led to believe that Mr. Stapleton sank into the Grimpen Mire, I feel that he could have faked his death and found another way out by leading the investigators to the mire. For example, one way he could have mislead everybody is by purposefully leaving the boot before fleeing, which would lead them to come to the conclusion that he had drowned in the mire. He also could have not shared all of his plan with his wife. He is clearly a very intelligent character who seems to think of everything regarding his plans. Altogether, I felt that the book was well written and had many twists and turns which kept its audience engaged and wondering what would happen next, however, I wish there had been a further investigation assuring that Mr. Stapleton was dead rather than assuming.
Meaghan, I agree with you that Stapleton's death isn't truly proven. I think it's possible that Stapleton faked his own death in order to escape from his failed scam and inevitable jail time . We already know that he he stole a great deal of public money in his earlier life, and escaped imprisonment by changing his name and leaving the country. Because of this, we know that Stapleton is capable of going through with such an escape.
Meaghan, I agree with your thoughts on Dr. Mortimer. I did not pay as much attention to him as I did to other characters, such as Holmes, Watson, and Stapleton. You brought to my attention that he was an important and kind character. I never thought about how helpful he was to the Baskervilles throughout the tragic and gory incident. He made sure his friend, Sir Henry Baskerville, was safe and comfortable in his new home.
The physical appearance of Mr. Stapleton leads readers and the characters in the book to believe that he is a very calm and kind naturalist who could never be a threat. He seems very gentle and friendly, however he is a vengeful criminal. Mr. Stapleton does a thorough job covering up his true identity. Another character whose physical appearance allows people to think falsely of them is none other than the hound of the Baskervilles. The phosphate allows the hound to look immortal and dangerous, which causes the inhabitants of the moor to feel threatened by a phantom hound, however, it is just a normal, mortal hound.
Meghan, it is true that Stapleton could have faked his own death to escape persecution. He had done it once before and it was clear he could do it again, but I don’t believe he did. Many other students wished there was proof Stapleton was deceased. In such a rush I don’t think Stapleton would have had the time to plant the boot in his escape. He wasn’t planning on being caught that night. The only reason he fled was because he heard gunshots. I think he panicked and couldn’t see the guiding markers he and Mrs. Stapleton had planted earlier on because of the heavy fog. I think Arthur Conan Doyle left it up to us to decide what really happened to him. -Sam Choiniere
My favorite character in the book was Sherlock Holmes. I found him intriguing because he could look at an object and tell you many details about it in an instant. He also could be given a few facts and would be able to draw a thorough conclusion from them. Holmes was also interesting because he could be sneaky and mysterious when he had to be. Holmes was an intelligent character who I greatly admired for his detective work.
My favorite part of the book was when Watson came across Holmes hiding out on the moor. I thought it was amazing that he had been there all that time and no one knew about it. It showed Holmes's sneaky side. I also found it quite amusing to hear about Watson's shock.
I had only one criticism of the book. I would have liked to hear Holmes narrate the case instead. It would have been much more interesting to hear how over the course of the case Holmes figured it out. I did not particularly like Watson because he was nowhere near as intelligent as Holmes. Also, I had two questions. First, I don't quite understand scientifically how Stapleton used phosphorus to make the hound look supernatural. It's really a science question but I wish it had explained more about that. Second, I think they should've had more evidence about Stapleton's death. How could they be so sure he was dead? Overall, I enjoyed the book greatly as it was suspenseful and well-written.
Good question about the phosphorus. A lot of Sherlock Holmes deals with what was cutting edge new science in the late 1800s. Some of the science was not fully understood, however, which means that some of the stories suggest that chemicals have powers that are not 100% possible in reality.
Here is my question for you:
The following selection is from Ch. 15. Explain what Holmes means here and give an example (other than the boot) of an incident in the story that fits this description.
"The more outre and grotesque an incident is the more carefully it deserves to be examined, and the very point which appears to complicate a case is, when duly considered and scientifically handled, the one which is most likely to elucidate it."
Holmes means that while something so strange and seemingly unexplainable seems to complicate a case even more, it can, if examined thoroughly, be the answer to a case. One example of this in the story is the supposedly "supernatural" hound. The hound seemed supernatural and hard to understand, but when Holmes searched for the clues about it, he was able to understand the case much easier. It, in fact, was not supernatural or the killer in the case. It was a regular hound enhanced scientifically with phosphorus and the killer was actually extreme fright caused by the hound.
My favorite character in the book was Sherlock Holmes. He was my favorite character because of his personality. He was brave, intelligent, and observant. He was brave because he was not afraid of the curse of the Baskerville family. Instead, he was interested in solving the curse and wanted to protect Sir Henry Baskerville. He was also intelligent. One example that showed his intelligence was that he was a great crime solver. Sherlock was also vey observant. One example that showed Sherlock was observant was when he was collecting little things in the carriage. He picked them up and then put them in little containers. He was also the hero in the book. I think he was kind and looked things carefully. He was also sneaky. For example, he was watching Sir Henry Baskerville and Dr. Watson secretly. He was a very intelligent and observant character in the book.
My favorite part of the book was when Sir Henry Baskerville was heading home across the moor and he was attacked by the hound. The reason why Henry was attacked on his way home was becasue of Mr. Jack Stapleton. Mr. Jack Stapleton had set a trap for Henry on his way home. He was the one who released the hound. When Holmes and Watson found him and the hound, they shoot the hound and solved the mystery. Sir Henry Baskerville was attacked by the hound but he was still alive. Holmes and Watson were excited when they killed the hound but they were also nervous because of Sir Henry Baskerville. After they killed the hound, Watson was taking Henry to the Baskerville Hall.
I have one criticism about the book. I think Mr. Stapleton should be an important character in the book. I think he should be as important as Watson. They should talk more about his past and what leads him to become a criminal. I think he should not die so quickly in the book. I was expecting to find some more information about him.
I definitely understand your comment on Stapleton being a less important character when he was technically one of the most important. However, I personally believe that his character being of less importance was a great idea of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's. I think Stapleton's somewhat lack of importance was crucial for an element of surprise. Not many readers would even suspect him to be responsible for the hound until maybe later on in the book when we received more information about him. After all, a mystery usually isn't solved until the end of the book. The author probably wanted that element of surprise because he didn't want us to figure out what would happen! We would have no reason to finish it!
What do you think of the Barrymores? Were they criminals for helping Selden? If you were Sir Henry, would you have turned them over to the police, fired them, helped them feed Selden, or done something else?
My favorite character in the book is Dr. Watson. Dr. Watson is my favorite character because he is Sherlock Holmes sidekick who travels to Devonshire to stay by Sir Charles and protect him until the mystery of Baskerville Hall is solved. Watson agrees to Holmes' request to report back to him with his theories and suspicions. He is eager to please and impress Holmes with his mystery solving skills.
My favorite part of the book was when Watson made his way across the moor heading for the stoney hills to sit in the hut and wait for the stranger who lived there. As Watson waited in the dark with his revolver ready he was very surprised to here "it is a lovely evening, my dear Watson", from his friend Sherlock Holmes. I found this part to be exciting and surprising at the same time.
My one criticism I have is that I would have liked to find out exactly what happened to Stapleton rather than what they think happened to him. It was never proven that he died in Grimpen Mire because his body was never found and that left a lot of question in my . It made me think that he could have escaped to another place just like they thought the convict had when in fact he hadn't.
I think Holmes was more instrumental in solving the case even though throughout the book it seemed like Watson was gathering all the evidence. It was Holmes who told Watson about his own investigation into Stapleton's past and the sister that was actually his wife. At this point the mystery starts to make more sense. This is why I think Holmes is more instrumental in solving the case.
My favorite character in the book is Stapleton. I admire his ability to fake his identity and have people on his side just because they fear him. For example his wife is forced to help him because she fears him. She is secretly trying to help Holmes and Watson because she does not want anyone to die. Although while I think what Stapleton did was genius, I do not understand his motive for harming the Baskervilles. I think it is interesting how he pretends to be a completely different person around certain people to cover up what he did.
My favorite part of the book is when the hound dies. I like how Holmes and Watson saved Sir Henry Baskerville even though they initially gave him to the beast as bait. This is my favorite part of the book because it was the end of the suffering for the Baskervilles. They all found out what had happened to Sir Charles around this part, too. This is pretty much the end of the case after they find out how Stapleton could do this.
One criticism I had of the book is that I think there should have been another perspective from Holmes of what happened during the time he was hiding. The whole time Watson was at Baskerville Hall, I wanted to see what Holmes was doing during the time. I think they should have had both Holmes' and Watson's perspective of that time.
Who is Mr. Frankland and how does he contribute to the progression of the plot? (First describe him and explain who he is and what he does. Then explain how he helps move the story along by clearing up some of the mysteries in the book.)
I agree with you that what Stapleton did was genius. I think his motive for harming the Baskervilles was to inherit all their fortune. He figured if he could get rid of them he would be entitled to all of it. It was discovered that he was born into the higher class family and looked exactly like Hugo Baskerville. He probably figured if he could get rid of all the known Baskervilles and get away with it then he could claim the fortune for himself.
I agree with you that Holmes should have narrated instead of Watson. I feel this way because Holmes did many things during the time he was hiding that we do not know. He explained some of his adventures to Watson but I wanted to read his perspective of that time. I liked Watson's narration but would've liked to have known what Holmes would have said. I think it would have been more interesting.
Caitlin, I agree with your criticism about Mr. Stapleton. I did not like Mr. Stapleton until I was done with the book. I think he should an important character in the book. What you said about his plan for the future is a mystery but, if he is still alive, his plan would a evil plan.
My favorite character in The Hound of the Baskervilles is Miss Stapleton. She is my favorite character because even though she is terrified of her husband, she still managed to help Sir Henry Baskerville. I also was impressed by this character's ability to keep the secret of her marriage to her supposed "brother", Mr. Jack Stapleton. I believe she meant well all along, and she definitely stood out to me with lines such as, "... Go back to London! Get away from this place at all costs! Hush, my brother is coming! Not a word of what I have said."
My favorite part of the book was the very end, when Sherlock and Watson had solved the mystery. It was like a summary of the book with all the questions answered. Almost everything had an explanation, down to Sir Henry's missing boots.
One thing I definitely had to criticize was Mr. Stapleton's motive for murder. It didn't seem like it was discussed much, which really confused me because the motive seems like a very big piece of the puzzle. I also would have liked more background on the hound itself, for example what the phosphorus on the dog was about. How was a dog that big bred, or created for that matter? I found that very unrealistic. This mystery, with its partial lack of information at times, did not leave me totally satisfied.
Most of the criticisms you have are actually answered in the book. For your question, I am going to ask you to do some closer reading.
Paste the link below into your URL bar. It will take you to a separate blog page (since this is just your question and I don't want to confuse the others). Read the selection from Ch. 13 posted at the top. Then as your assignment, briefly summarize the scene and explain which of your criticisms/questions it helps to explain.
In the passage I have been assigned to read, I discovered that Stapleton's motive was actually quite clearly stated. The passage itself was about Sir Henry Baskerville showing Holmes and Watson the gallery of family portraits. One portrait happens to catch Holmes' attention- the one of Hugo Baskerville. Later that night, Holmes and Watson go back go the gallery of family portraits and they discover the portrait of Hugo looks exactly like Stapleton! They then realize that they have a motive. "With designs upon the succession." Stapleton's motive- with Sir Henry gone, he could be entitled to family money. Re-reading this selection completely explains Stapleton's motive.
Kate, I agree with you about how during some instances the story became very unrealistic and not very informative. I would have also liked to learn more about Mr. Stapleton's motive for murder. Was he jealous? Was he upset about Sir Henry's relationship with his so-called sister? Secondly, I would also have liked to learn more about the mysterious hound, however, I do not believe that more background was necessary to the story and the background given was enough.
I think the Barrymores were nice people and they were just trying to help a man who was homeless. They were helping Selden, because Selden was related to Mrs. Barrymore. I don't think they were criminals for helping Selden. If I was Henry, I would like to talk to them about this.
My favorite character in The Hound of the Baskervilles is Sherlock Holmes. Sherlock’s ability to see an item and instantly know so much about it astonished me. His mind is different from the other characters’ and that made him very interesting. Sherlock could process information and evidence very quickly and come to a logical conclusion, which amazed me. Even when Sherlock is under pressure he is able to remain attentive and make smart decisions.
My favorite part of the book is the killing of the hound. This was one of the few parts of the book I really enjoyed reading. The fear of Sherlock, Watson, and Lestrade made me anxious to see what would happen next. When the hound began chasing Sir Henry, the four were all frightened. I liked Watson’s view of the chase because it was very detailed and informative. He wrote, “I was in time to see the beast spring upon its victim, hurl him to the ground, and worry at his throat. But the next instant Holmes had emptied five barrels of his revolver into the creatures flank… The giant hound was dead.”
One criticism I had of the book was some parts were too dull. One example of this is that I didn’t like the letters back to Holmes that were explaining the situation while he was in London. Some of the information given in those letters was irrelevant. In my opinion the letters should not have been necessary because Holmes should have been with Watson at the moor the entire story. In conclusion, I would recommend this book to anyone who is likes the classic novel genre.
My question for you is specifically about the beginning of the book. In the first chapter, Holmes and Watson spend several pages discussing a walking stick. The author, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, clearly chose such on opening for a reason. Here is your question from me:
What are three reasons Conan Doyle may have begun his story with the examination of the stick? (Consider how it helps to introduce important aspects of the characters/story.) Be specific.
I very much agree with you about some parts being too dull and that the letters were not needed but if Sherlock Holmes was on the moor with Dr. Watson then the criminal who committed the the crime maybe would've fled the area because Sherlock Holmes is the worlds best detective and the criminal maybe would've feared that Holmes would find out who did it so having him not there for most of the time seemed like a better approach to solving the crime. If Holmes was on the moor with Watson the whole time then the criminal probably would've found out he was there. Having him sneak onto the moor after Dr. Watson did a lot of observing was in turn a good idea if you think about it. Also there were cases to solve back in London so he was needed there as well.
Hey Sam - I also have to agree with you. I thought that some parts were too dull. For example, I thought there wasn't much information given about Stapelton being the true murderer. I thought there would be more clues earlier in the story which may lead us to figure out Stapleton was the murderer. Instead it took me a while to figure out about Stapleton. -Danny Billard
Miss Baudinet, Arthur Conan Doyle began the story with the examination of the stick. One reason why he did this is because it showed how Sherlock could examine details and process them very quickly. This chapter proved how well Sherlock could notice tiny details that would be so important later on. An example of this is the fact he noticed the tiny letters stood for ‘Charing Cross.’
Another fact it shows is who Dr. Mortimer is, and what he does for a living. Sherlock and Holmes's examination of the stick showed that Dr. Mortimer was a “country practitioner who does a great deal of his visiting on foot.”
The walking stick was a gift, and Sherlock believes it was given when Dr. Mortimer left London.
The final reason Conan Doyle may have begun the story with such detail is that it reveals where the majority of the story will occur. Sherlock says, “Now, you will observe that he could not have been on the staff of the hospital, since only a man well-established in a London practice could hold such a position, and such a one would not drift into the country”
Sherlock’s examination proved that Dr. Mortimer left London to live in the country, but he does not know why.
Arthur Conan Doyle began the story with the examination of the stick and, in my opinion, the facts listed above explain why.
My favorite character in The Hound of the Baskervilles is Sherlock Holmes. Although he isn't seen for a big part of the book, he still grabbed my attention when he was seen from his outstanding intelligence and ability to recognize faces and objects. His ability to see even the smallest details and to remember them when observing over the case that is in front of him was truly incredibly and it made him very unique compared to the other characters.
My favorite part of the book was when Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson were observing the paintings and they came across a painting of Hugo Baskerville and then realized it was really Stapleton. Up to that point I had never thought that Stapleton was a Baskerville or that he could have been the reason for Sir Charles's death. I was immediately surprised by that fact and it completely made me reconsider who or what killed Sir Charles.
One criticism I have of this book is how or where Stapleton got the massive hound that killed Selden and almost killed Sir Henry. I don't remember it ever saying where or how the hound came to be. It just says that everyone reported hearing a bone-chilling howl from somewhere on the moor. I don't believe he could've gotten it from the wild considering the fact that it is bigger than any other hound that anyone has seen. It would've made it more realistic and clear if we found out how the massive hound came into existence because it seems like a fairytale kind of creature.
The book does indeed mention the origin of the hound. Look more carefully at the last chapter for the answer. Here is your question:
Can you explain two or three times when Stapleton does something in front of Watson that, in hindsight, might indicate he is the one behind the attacks. In other words, looking back, did any of Stapleton's actions seem strange, cruel, or otherwise suspicious?
One event I thought was strange was when Dr. Watson and Stapleton hear a load man in the distance that sounds like a hound but Stapleton tells him that its probably the cry of a bittern and then mysteriously runs off to catch a butterfly specimen. Another event that I thought was suspicious that Stapleton did was when Watson was secretly spying on Sir Henry while he was with Mrs. Stapleton and out of nowhere Stapleton came running up to Sir Henry flushed with anger and then later apologizes for his actions and tells Sir Henry that he doesn't want to loose his only companion.
Mr. Frankland is an elderly man with a red face and white hair. He is also Laura Lyons' father. He enjoys causing legal trouble for his neighbors and spies on them with his telescope. He enjoys wasting his money on lawsuits. He is described as an "unknown factor" so basically they don't know if he is the criminal. I did not really think he was a major part of the story. I feel he is just a character they put in to confuse the readers and keep things interesting.
My favorite character in the book would have to the narrator of the story, Dr. Watson. Dr. Watson is a very bright man that doesn't get enough credit. He is very easy to relate to and is also very easy to understand. He is a great helper to Holmes and is a key component to the crime solving duo. I also don't think anyone else would be as good of a narrator as Watson just because he is a character that makes you feel more connected to the story. All other character seemed much more flat and flawless, rather than Watson being more "human" in a way.
My favorite part of the book would have to be in Chapter 12, when Watson realizes that the man at the door is Sherlock Holmes. This part would have to be my favorite because Watson was so happy to see Holmes, he's business partner and best friend. Im sure Watson felt lonely while Holmes was gone. Also, Holmes and Watson complement each other when solving mysteries. With the both of them, they can solve mysteries, but it is harder when they are by themselves. Another reason why this part of the book is my favorite because most of the book is suspenseful and cliff-hanging, this part of the book was different in a way since it made you feel happy. This part of the book was like "a breath of fresh air."
One critique I had for "The Hound of the Baskervilles" would be that the plot at times can be a bit dragged on and not as much action and interaction among characters. At some points in the book, i felt as if there wasn't much dialogue and and points of suspense. I felt that there should have been more excitement throughout the whole book, not just the last few chapters, which were filled with thrilling twists. Overall I was pleased with the book, I just thought since it was a mystery it would have been more entertaining.
I am also pleased with the book “Sherlock Holmes: The Hound of the Baskervilles”. There were many interesting parts and imaginative characters. However, there were times, especially in the early part of the book, that there was no suspense or real engagement of the reader. Some of the characters were not very well developed. It would have been a lot better to put some of the excitement early in the book as well as the end to make sure the reader is excited and continues to enjoy the book throughout.
My favorite character in “Sherlock Holmes the Hound of the Baskervilles” is Mrs. Barrymore. She is the wife of Mr. Barrymore and also one of the maids for the Baskerville Hall. I truly love her personality – loyal and caring. Even though her younger brother Selden is a prisoner and ignored the family to do cruel acts, Mrs. Barrymore stills gives up her time and assists him. Additionally, Mrs. Barrymore does have the quality of being straightforward. When Watson and Sir Henry wanted to know what the light on the moor was, Mrs. Barrymore immediately tells them the truth. My favorite part of the book was found in chapter fourteen when Watson, Holmes, and Lestrade were exploring around the Merripit House. There was a hound chasing them who wanted to rip apart Sir Henry’s throat, but Holmes shot it five times and killed the evil creature. This was my favorite part because while I reading, I was frightened that Sir Henry was going to die, but luckily Holmes was able to save him. One criticism I had was that initially in the first chapter, the writing did not make sense to me and it felt uninteresting. I feel that the novel should have started a little bit more suspenseful, rather than looking at a walking stick and meeting Dr. Mortimer. Maybe, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle could have started with another character that was in distress and needed help from Holmes, so the story could have a little more tension.
I agree with you about how the first chapter didn't make sense and was very uninteresting. I think that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle should've of started with a opening problem not just looking at the walking stick and then meeting Dr. Mortimer. Overall I thought the book would've been more interesting opening it a different way I found the beginning very boring.
Interesting comments on Mrs. Barrymore. Here is your question:
Explain how the character Laura Lyons tied in with the mystery and helped Holmes solve it. (In other words, what pieces was Holmes able to put together once Barrymore revealed the L.L. letter?)
When Mr. Barrymore revealed the Laura Lyons letter to Holmes, we find out some information that was useful to the case. Even though Stapleton told Laura Lyons not to go and get money from Sir Charles, she still did. As such, Stapleton brought out his hound and frightened Sir Charles to death. The hound left a paw print, which Dr. Mortimer later saw and thought that the hound had physically killed Sir Charles. Overall, if Mr. Barrymore never said anything to Holmes about this letter, the case would be unsolved and one would never find out how Sir Charles had died.
My favorite character in The Hound of the Baskervilles is Sherlock Holmes. I found Holmes to be a very observant person. In the first chapter when Homes and Dr. Watson are sitting back to back from each other Holmes saw Dr. Watson's reflection and saw that he was thinking and asked him what he was thinking about. Sherlock Holmes was very smart even though he wasn't a huge part in the story. I found it amazing that Sherlock could work so fast and smartly even under pressure. Holmes was a very brilliant individual he could look at a person and know everything about them I found that a very amazing thing to be able to do.
My favorite part of the book is in chapter twelve when Sir Henry argues with Mr. Barrymore over the chase of his brother-in-law, Selden. Mr. Barrymore refuses to tell Sir Henry why he was near the window and he kicked Mr. Barrymore out of the house, but Mrs. Barrymore tells him why. I found this part in the book to be the most memorable to me because I found it shocking that the Barrymore's would betray Sir Henry if they lied to him and didn't tell him why they were actually near the windows. I liked how the told the truth and it made it my favorite part.
One criticism for this book is that I don't like how it jumps into the story. I found it very confusing because it just jumped right it to the story and didn't explain anything. I also didn't like how it changed settings a lot because I found it hard to follow every place they went. Also I found it unnecessary to put Dr. Watson's letters in the story it just took up space and most of the details I'm them were irrelevant and didn't need to be put in them.
Here is your question: What are three incidents that really highlight Watson's amateur status as a detective? In other words, can you list three times Watson screws up or seems foolish or unintelligent?
In the book Sherlock Holmes: The Hound of The Baskervilles, my favorite character is Sherlock Holmes because he is a very thorough and smart detective. The only weird thing is he is not like a normal detective as he does things in different ways, like using his senses to gather information in seconds, which not a lot of people can do.
-Danny Billard My favorite part of the book is when Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson awake to find in their apartment there was a person in it who left behind his walking stick. Then it gets exciting as they immediately start trying to find out who it was.
One criticism I have was the first several chapters were very boring to read. I kept on reading and then the book started to get interesting. In the end I enjoyed reading it and could understand what was happening very well.
Here is your question: What are two minor mysteries that end up distracting Watson from suspecting Stapleton as the true mastermind behind the hound attacks? (These keep Sir Henry and Watson nervous and busy, but turn out to be unrelated to the issue of the hellhound.)
The two minor mysteries that end up distracting Watson from suspecting Stapleton as the true mastermind behind the hound attacks are when he is trying to go to bed and he hears a women crying during the night which make him unable to sleep and the other distraction is that he keeps on losing shoes first a new brown one and next an old black one. -Danny Billard
My favorite character in “The Hound of the Baskervilles” is Mrs. Stapleton because she is a very smart, courageous and headstrong woman. She goes against her husband while knowing that if he ever finds out what she is doing that she will face great danger from him and his gigantic hound, yet she still does it.
My favorite part of the book was when Watson and Holmes found and killed the gigantic hound. It was a victorious time in the story because although Sir Henry had been greatly endangered, the hound had been dealt with and would no longer, under the control of Mr. Stapleton, hunt the Baskerville family.
I have just a couple criticisms about “The Hound of the Baskervilles.” I did not like how the book started. I felt that the start was very abrupt, and that instead of just Holmes and Watson finding Dr. Mortimer’s walking stick, they should have started the book with a prologue. I also think that more information should have been given on Mr. Stapleton’s motive for murder. Was he jealous? Did he want Mrs. Stapleton all to himself?
Read carefully. Stapleton's motive is explained in Ch. 13 and Ch. 15. Here is your question:
Can you please explain how the setting in the story helps to increase the suspense, fear, and mystery of the book? (You'll have to briefly mention what the setting is to answer this.)
Miss Baudinet, The setting through most of the book is the moor. This increases the suspense, fear, and mystery because the moor is a very creepy, quiet place. It is suspenseful because since Selden is hiding there, you don’t know whether or not he will come out or if he will attack somebody. The fear is increased because many things happened on the moor during the story, such as Selden, the escaped murderer hiding there, and the baying of the giant hound being heard, both day and night. It is very mysterious because when the fog drifts over the moor, it is a mystery of what is hiding in the fog and could come out at any second.
My favorite Character in the Hound of the Baskervilles is Hugo Baskerville. Although this seems shocking and untraditional, I feel that in some strange way Hugo Baskerville's role in this story is undervalued. Without him being evil enough to trap an innocent woman in his house, this curse would have never been bestowed. Though his actions created great tragedy, the story would not have had it's foundation of mystery.
My favorite part of the book was definitely when the hound finally died. During this scene, so many suspenseful actions took place in such a short time. This part excited me more than any other part in the book. When the Hound was inches away from Henry's throat and Sherlock Holmes was able to shoot it just in time. I felt that it was a perfect way for the hound to come to an end. The hound caused such commotion throughout the story. Having it's life taken in such an exciting way was a perfect way to complete the intriguing plot.
After reading this novel, I have come to the conclusion that I am not a fan of mystery novels. I do not enjoy being led through the story by clues only to have a recap of what actually happened at the very end. I would prefer to know what was going on throughout the story. It almost makes me feel as if I should read it a second time to make the plot more satisfying.
How would the book be different if Watson were taken out of the story? Describe at least three ways. Consider the way the crime would be solved, how Sir Henry would act, who would narrate the story and in what person (point of view), how we would feel while reading about the events, or anything else you can think of.
Ava, In response to your post, I also agree that Hugo Baskerville is unappreciated during the book as a main character that helps solve the problem. The mystery would not have been solved if it wasn't for his evil act to an innocent woman who did no harm. Although Hugo isn't my personal favorite character, he helped solve the crime, even though he created a crime himself.
I agree with Natasha's opinions, I do not like that chapters eight and nine are directed specifically toward Holmes. I think those chapters are confusing. All the little missing pieces from earlier on in the story are in those chapters, and I personally do not like that style of book. I would have preferred to know what happened while reading. It would have been nice to know specifically what happened to Stapleton as well. I was not satisfied with the information the author included. If he said exactly what happened then it would have been more believable that he died. However, there is no real proof with the information displayed that he did in fact die.
Miss Baudinet, After all of this time searching and trying to find and figure out the mystery of the hound, it ended up being an immortal hellhound. It couldn't have been real because of all the fire that randomly bursts out when the "hound" jumps out from the Stapleton's house and attacks Sir Henry in Chapter 14. I honestly think that the hound was just terrorizing the Baskerville family in their minds and that they kept imagining this devil hound. Catherine O'Connor
Three incidents that highlight Watson's amateur are in chapter one when Watson and Holmes are sitting back to back from each other and Watson is examining the walking stick that was left in their home and Holmes asks Watson what he makes of it and Watson thinks he has eyes in the back of his head, but he doesn't think that Holmes can just see his reflection. He doesn't think that thoroughly. In chapter 7 Watson and Sir Henry are talking about the Baskerville mansion and Watson doesn't tell Sir Henry about how he heard crying the previous night and he doesn't mention how Mr. Barrymore gets flustered when Sir Henry asks if he heard crying the pervious night. I think Watson should have said to Sir Henry he heard crying and that Mr. Barrymore got flustered when he asked about the crying instead of keeping it to himself. In chapter 13 Holmes was greeting Watson, Watson was trying to find out how Holmes found him and Holmes said that he saw Watson's brand of cigarettes stubbed out near the hut. Watson doesn't think how Holmes thinks at a detective to find people.
The story would have been very different without Watson for multiple reasons. Watson was Holmes' helper. He did not perform any significant heroic acts in the book. Without Watson Holmes probably would have done everything that took place anyway. It just would have taken longer doing it all alone. Watson is there doing what he is told. He does not really affect the outcome of the story. The book, however, may have been told extremely differently, if t had been narrated by Holmes. If that were the case, the book would have been much easier to follow. All of the questions Watson had were known by Holmes, so it would not have been as mysterious or suspenseful. Also, if Watson was not in this book Sir Henry would have been more anxious. One of Watson's jobs was to keep Sir Henry safe by not letting him out of his sight. If Sir Henry had not been under the watch of Watson, he might have gone on a walk or done something that would have gotten him killed. The story had many factors with and without Watson, so it's hard to say if the plot itself would have been different. However, the story would have been extremely different, because we would have most likely known what Holmes was thinking about and doing to solve the crime.
My favorite character in The Hound of the Baskervilles is Sir Henry Baskerville. I admire his bold personality and bravery. One example of this is when Sir Henry insists upon moving to Baskerville Hall despite receiving a letter warning him of his own death if he goes. He says, “...Mr Holmes, and there is no man upon earth who can prevent me from going to the home of my own people, and you may take that to be my final answer.”
ReplyDeleteMy favorite part of the book is when Watson discovers Holmes's makeshift living quarters inside an ancient abandoned hut on the moor. At first discovery, Watson believes the hut to be the hiding place of some mysterious stranger, but then Holmes returns to the hut and they are both pleasantly surprised by each other. I like this scene because it is the point where the unstoppable duo are reunited to share their findings and get back on track to solving the Baskerville mystery.
One criticism of the plot I have about this book is how Mr. Stapleton dies down under the Grimpen Mire before Holmes and Watson can question him about his crimes. Because of his sudden death, his plans for the future are still a mystery. I think the story's ending would be more complete with some sort of explanation from Stapleton himself.
Caitlin Neary
Caitlin,
DeleteYou make a good criticism. Stapleton's death leaves us a little unsatisfied.
Here is your question from me: Can you explain what makes the book a tug of war between the supernatural and the scientific? Then explain which side wins out in the end.
- Miss Baudinet
Caitlin Neary –
DeleteI agree with you that the scene where Holmes and Watson are reunited is an excellent part of the story. It is also a turning point where Holmes becomes more directly involved in the plot again rather than being mistaken for a criminal from afar. I feel like after that scene the book becomes more interesting and the solution to the whole mystery begins to be uncovered, for example, we learn who the man on the Tor was. Readers are also given another example of how clever Sherlock Holmes is by sneaking around and convincing everybody that he was back in London so he could see the story from two perspectives, his own on the moor and Watson’s from inside of Baskerville Hall.
Meaghan Lancaster
Miss Baudinet-
DeleteTo answer your question, the legend of the hound of the Baskervilles surrounds Sir Charles even before he passes. So when he does die and no reasonable explanation comes, some people immediately jump to the conclusion that his death is the work of the supernatural hound from the legend. They support their theory with evidence, such as the paw prints found at the murder scene and witnesses claiming to have seen the glowing dog. Holmes and Watson lead the investigation without entertaining the idea of the supernatural dog and eventually they discover the true scientific facts of the case. They find that Stapleton designed his murder weapon, an ordinary hound, to seem as if it were the mythical one from the legend in order to scare Sir Charles to death. Because the weapon was designed to deceive Sir Charles into believing it was really the mythical hound, it also stumps investigators of the murder as they try to explain the witness statements and footprints found. The scientific side wins out in the end because the footprints are proven to be those of the regular hound, and the glowing flames on the dog seen by witnesses are proven to be phosphorus placed there intentionally by Stapleton.
Caitlin Neary
My favorite character in the book is Dr. Mortimer. I feel this way because he is a caring and thoughtful friend who looks out for Sir Charles and tries to comfort him during his time of fear and anxiety at Baskerville Hall. He also looks out for the well being and safety of Sir Henry before Sir Henry even knows what he could be facing. Overall, Dr. Mortimer stands by the Baskerville family despite the gory and dark fate that possibly awaits them.
ReplyDeleteMy favorite part of the book is when Holmes uncovers the fact that Mr. Stapleton was behind the whole scheme. After this is revealed, although everything isn't resolved, the whole mystery begins to make sense and come together. It answers many questions that I was asking myself throughout the book.
One criticism that I had of the book is how Mr. Stapleton supposedly "died". Although we are led to believe that Mr. Stapleton sank into the Grimpen Mire, I feel that he could have faked his death and found another way out by leading the investigators to the mire. For example, one way he could have mislead everybody is by purposefully leaving the boot before fleeing, which would lead them to come to the conclusion that he had drowned in the mire. He also could have not shared all of his plan with his wife. He is clearly a very intelligent character who seems to think of everything regarding his plans. Altogether, I felt that the book was well written and had many twists and turns which kept its audience engaged and wondering what would happen next, however, I wish there had been a further investigation assuring that Mr. Stapleton was dead rather than assuming.
Meaghan Lancaster
Meaghan L.,
DeleteVery well-written response. Here is your question:
Please explain how the physical appearance of two characters (other than Holmes and Watson) helps to either reveal or hide their true characters.
- Miss Baudinet
Meaghan, I agree with you that Stapleton's death isn't truly proven. I think it's possible that Stapleton faked his own death in order to escape from his failed scam and inevitable jail time . We already know that he he stole a great deal of public money in his earlier life, and escaped imprisonment by changing his name and leaving the country. Because of this, we know that Stapleton is capable of going through with such an escape.
DeleteCaitlin Neary
Meaghan, I agree with your thoughts on Dr. Mortimer. I did not pay as much attention to him as I did to other characters, such as Holmes, Watson, and Stapleton. You brought to my attention that he was an important and kind character. I never thought about how helpful he was to the Baskervilles throughout the tragic and gory incident. He made sure his friend, Sir Henry Baskerville, was safe and comfortable in his new home.
DeleteRachel Erwin
Miss Baudinet,
DeleteThe physical appearance of Mr. Stapleton leads readers and the characters in the book to believe that he is a very calm and kind naturalist who could never be a threat. He seems very gentle and friendly, however he is a vengeful criminal. Mr. Stapleton does a thorough job covering up his true identity. Another character whose physical appearance allows people to think falsely of them is none other than the hound of the Baskervilles. The phosphate allows the hound to look immortal and dangerous, which causes the inhabitants of the moor to feel threatened by a phantom hound, however, it is just a normal, mortal hound.
Meaghan Lancaster
Meghan, it is true that Stapleton could have faked his own death to escape persecution. He had done it once before and it was clear he could do it again, but I don’t believe he did. Many other students wished there was proof Stapleton was deceased. In such a rush I don’t think Stapleton would have had the time to plant the boot in his escape. He wasn’t planning on being caught that night. The only reason he fled was because he heard gunshots. I think he panicked and couldn’t see the guiding markers he and Mrs. Stapleton had planted earlier on because of the heavy fog. I think Arthur Conan Doyle left it up to us to decide what really happened to him.
Delete-Sam Choiniere
My favorite character in the book was Sherlock Holmes. I found him intriguing because he could look at an object and tell you many details about it in an instant. He also could be given a few facts and would be able to draw a thorough conclusion from them. Holmes was also interesting because he could be sneaky and mysterious when he had to be. Holmes was an intelligent character who I greatly admired for his detective work.
ReplyDeleteMy favorite part of the book was when Watson came across Holmes hiding out on the moor. I thought it was amazing that he had been there all that time and no one knew about it. It showed Holmes's sneaky side. I also found it quite amusing to hear about Watson's shock.
I had only one criticism of the book. I would have liked to hear Holmes narrate the case instead. It would have been much more interesting to hear how over the course of the case Holmes figured it out. I did not particularly like Watson because he was nowhere near as intelligent as Holmes. Also, I had two questions. First, I don't quite understand scientifically how Stapleton used phosphorus to make the hound look supernatural. It's really a science question but I wish it had explained more about that. Second, I think they should've had more evidence about Stapleton's death. How could they be so sure he was dead? Overall, I enjoyed the book greatly as it was suspenseful and well-written.
Rachel Erwin
Rachel,
DeleteGood question about the phosphorus. A lot of Sherlock Holmes deals with what was cutting edge new science in the late 1800s. Some of the science was not fully understood, however, which means that some of the stories suggest that chemicals have powers that are not 100% possible in reality.
Here is my question for you:
The following selection is from Ch. 15. Explain what Holmes means here and give an example (other than the boot) of an incident in the story that fits this description.
"The more outre and grotesque an incident is the more carefully it deserves to be examined, and the very point which appears to complicate a case is, when duly considered and scientifically handled, the one which is most likely to elucidate it."
- Miss Baudinet
Holmes means that while something so strange and seemingly unexplainable seems to complicate a case even more, it can, if examined thoroughly, be the answer to a case. One example of this in the story is the supposedly "supernatural" hound. The hound seemed supernatural and hard to understand, but when Holmes searched for the clues about it, he was able to understand the case much easier. It, in fact, was not supernatural or the killer in the case. It was a regular hound enhanced scientifically with phosphorus and the killer was actually extreme fright caused by the hound.
DeleteRachel Erwin
My favorite character in the book was Sherlock Holmes. He was my favorite character because of his personality. He was brave, intelligent, and observant. He was brave because he was not afraid of the curse of the Baskerville family. Instead, he was interested in solving the curse and wanted to protect Sir Henry Baskerville. He was also intelligent. One example that showed his intelligence was that he was a great crime solver. Sherlock was also vey observant. One example that showed Sherlock was observant was when he was collecting little things in the carriage. He picked them up and then put them in little containers. He was also the hero in the book. I think he was kind and looked things carefully. He was also sneaky. For example, he was watching Sir Henry Baskerville and Dr. Watson secretly. He was a very intelligent and observant character in the book.
ReplyDeleteMy favorite part of the book was when Sir Henry Baskerville was heading home across the moor and he was attacked by the hound. The reason why Henry was attacked on his way home was becasue of Mr. Jack Stapleton. Mr. Jack Stapleton had set a trap for Henry on his way home. He was the one who released the hound. When Holmes and Watson found him and the hound, they shoot the hound and solved the mystery. Sir Henry Baskerville was attacked by the hound but he was still alive. Holmes and Watson were excited when they killed the hound but they were also nervous because of Sir Henry Baskerville. After they killed the hound, Watson was taking Henry to the Baskerville Hall.
I have one criticism about the book. I think Mr. Stapleton should be an important character in the book. I think he should be as important as Watson. They should talk more about his past and what leads him to become a criminal. I think he should not die so quickly in the book. I was expecting to find some more information about him.
Yiming Zhao
Yiming,
DeleteI definitely understand your comment on Stapleton being a less important character when he was technically one of the most important. However, I personally believe that his character being of less importance was a great idea of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's. I think Stapleton's somewhat lack of importance was crucial for an element of surprise. Not many readers would even suspect him to be responsible for the hound until maybe later on in the book when we received more information about him. After all, a mystery usually isn't solved until the end of the book. The author probably wanted that element of surprise because he didn't want us to figure out what would happen! We would have no reason to finish it!
Kate Blazejewski
Thanks, Yiming.
DeleteHere is your question:
What do you think of the Barrymores? Were they criminals for helping Selden? If you were Sir Henry, would you have turned them over to the police, fired them, helped them feed Selden, or done something else?
-Miss Baudinet
My favorite character in the book is Dr. Watson. Dr. Watson is my favorite character because he is Sherlock Holmes sidekick who travels to Devonshire to stay by Sir Charles and protect him until the mystery of Baskerville Hall is solved. Watson agrees to Holmes' request to report back to him with his theories and suspicions. He is eager to please and impress Holmes with his mystery solving skills.
ReplyDeleteMy favorite part of the book was when Watson made his way across the moor heading for the stoney hills to sit in the hut and wait for the stranger who lived there. As Watson waited in the dark with his revolver ready he was very surprised to here "it is a lovely evening, my dear Watson", from his friend Sherlock Holmes. I found this part to be exciting and surprising at the same time.
My one criticism I have is that I would have liked to find out exactly what happened to Stapleton rather than what they think happened to him. It was never proven that he died in Grimpen Mire because his body was never found and that left a lot of question in my . It made me think that he could have escaped to another place just like they thought the convict had when in fact he hadn't.
-Jakob Margetta-
Jakob,
DeleteThanks for posting. Here is your question:
Who do you think was more instrumental in solving the case, Watson or Holmes? Why?
-Miss Baudinet
Miss Baudinet,
DeleteI think Holmes was more instrumental in solving the case even though throughout the book it seemed like Watson was gathering all the evidence. It was Holmes who told Watson about his own investigation into Stapleton's past and the sister that was actually his wife. At this point the mystery starts to make more sense. This is why I think Holmes is more instrumental in solving the case.
Jakob Margetta
My favorite character in the book is Stapleton. I admire his ability to fake his identity and have people on his side just because they fear him. For example his wife is forced to help him because she fears him. She is secretly trying to help Holmes and Watson because she does not want anyone to die. Although while I think what Stapleton did was genius, I do not understand his motive for harming the Baskervilles. I think it is interesting how he pretends to be a completely different person around certain people to cover up what he did.
ReplyDeleteMy favorite part of the book is when the hound dies. I like how Holmes and Watson saved Sir Henry Baskerville even though they initially gave him to the beast as bait. This is my favorite part of the book because it was the end of the suffering for the Baskervilles. They all found out what had happened to Sir Charles around this part, too. This is pretty much the end of the case after they find out how Stapleton could do this.
One criticism I had of the book is that I think there should have been another perspective from Holmes of what happened during the time he was hiding. The whole time Watson was at Baskerville Hall, I wanted to see what Holmes was doing during the time. I think they should have had both Holmes' and Watson's perspective of that time.
Anna Wagner
Anna,
DeleteInteresting criticism. Here is your question:
Who is Mr. Frankland and how does he contribute to the progression of the plot? (First describe him and explain who he is and what he does. Then explain how he helps move the story along by clearing up some of the mysteries in the book.)
-Miss Baudinet
Anna,
DeleteI agree with you that what Stapleton did was genius. I think his motive for harming the Baskervilles was to inherit all their fortune. He figured if he could get rid of them he would be entitled to all of it. It was discovered that he was born into the higher class family and looked exactly like Hugo Baskerville. He probably figured if he could get rid of all the known Baskervilles and get away with it then he could claim the fortune for himself.
Jakob Margetta
Rachel,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that Holmes should have narrated instead of Watson. I feel this way because Holmes did many things during the time he was hiding that we do not know. He explained some of his adventures to Watson but I wanted to read his perspective of that time. I liked Watson's narration but would've liked to have known what Holmes would have said. I think it would have been more interesting.
Anna Wagner
Caitlin, I agree with your criticism about Mr. Stapleton. I did not like Mr. Stapleton until I was done with the book. I think he should an important character in the book.
ReplyDeleteWhat you said about his plan for the future is a mystery but, if he is still alive, his plan would a evil plan.
My favorite character in The Hound of the Baskervilles is Miss Stapleton. She is my favorite character because even though she is terrified of her husband, she still managed to help Sir Henry Baskerville. I also was impressed by this character's ability to keep the secret of her marriage to her supposed "brother", Mr. Jack Stapleton. I believe she meant well all along, and she definitely stood out to me with lines such as, "... Go back to London! Get away from this place at all costs! Hush, my brother is coming! Not a word of what I have said."
ReplyDeleteMy favorite part of the book was the very end, when Sherlock and Watson had solved the mystery. It was like a summary of the book with all the questions answered. Almost everything had an explanation, down to Sir Henry's missing boots.
One thing I definitely had to criticize was Mr. Stapleton's motive for murder. It didn't seem like it was discussed much, which really confused me because the motive seems like a very big piece of the puzzle. I also would have liked more background on the hound itself, for example what the phosphorus on the dog was about. How was a dog that big bred, or created for that matter? I found that very unrealistic. This mystery, with its partial lack of information at times, did not leave me totally satisfied.
Kate Blazejewski
Kate
DeleteMost of the criticisms you have are actually answered in the book. For your question, I am going to ask you to do some closer reading.
Paste the link below into your URL bar. It will take you to a separate blog page (since this is just your question and I don't want to confuse the others). Read the selection from Ch. 13 posted at the top. Then as your assignment, briefly summarize the scene and explain which of your criticisms/questions it helps to explain.
http://sjeenglish82014.blogspot.com/
-Miss Baudinet
Miss Baudinet,
DeleteIn the passage I have been assigned to read, I discovered that Stapleton's motive was actually quite clearly stated. The passage itself was about Sir Henry Baskerville showing Holmes and Watson the gallery of family portraits. One portrait happens to catch Holmes' attention- the one of Hugo Baskerville. Later that night, Holmes and Watson go back go the gallery of family portraits and they discover the portrait of Hugo looks exactly like Stapleton! They then realize that they have a motive. "With designs upon the succession."
Stapleton's motive- with Sir Henry gone, he could be entitled to family money.
Re-reading this selection completely explains Stapleton's motive.
Kate Blazejewski
Kate, I agree with you about how during some instances the story became very unrealistic and not very informative. I would have also liked to learn more about Mr. Stapleton's motive for murder. Was he jealous? Was he upset about Sir Henry's relationship with his so-called sister? Secondly, I would also have liked to learn more about the mysterious hound, however, I do not believe that more background was necessary to the story and the background given was enough.
DeleteCaleigh D'Angelo
Miss Baudinet,
ReplyDeleteI think the Barrymores were nice people and they were just trying to help a man who was homeless. They were helping Selden, because Selden was related to Mrs. Barrymore. I don't think they were criminals for helping Selden. If I was Henry, I would like to talk to them about this.
Yiming Zhao
Yiming, Selden was not just a homeless man - he was a murderer! Does that fact change your opinion at all?
Delete-Miss Baudinet
My favorite character in The Hound of the Baskervilles is Sherlock Holmes. Sherlock’s ability to see an item and instantly know so much about it astonished me. His mind is different from the other characters’ and that made him very interesting. Sherlock could process information and evidence very quickly and come to a logical conclusion, which amazed me. Even when Sherlock is under pressure he is able to remain attentive and make smart decisions.
ReplyDeleteMy favorite part of the book is the killing of the hound. This was one of the few parts of the book I really enjoyed reading. The fear of Sherlock, Watson, and Lestrade made me anxious to see what would happen next. When the hound began chasing Sir Henry, the four were all frightened. I liked Watson’s view of the chase because it was very detailed and informative. He wrote, “I was in time to see the beast spring upon its victim, hurl him to the ground, and worry at his throat. But the next instant Holmes had emptied five barrels of his revolver into the creatures flank… The giant hound was dead.”
One criticism I had of the book was some parts were too dull. One example of this is that I didn’t like the letters back to Holmes that were explaining the situation while he was in London. Some of the information given in those letters was irrelevant. In my opinion the letters should not have been necessary because Holmes should have been with Watson at the moor the entire story. In conclusion, I would recommend this book to anyone who is likes the classic novel genre.
Sam Choiniere
Sam,
DeleteMy question for you is specifically about the beginning of the book. In the first chapter, Holmes and Watson spend several pages discussing a walking stick. The author, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, clearly chose such on opening for a reason. Here is your question from me:
What are three reasons Conan Doyle may have begun his story with the examination of the stick? (Consider how it helps to introduce important aspects of the characters/story.) Be specific.
- Miss Baudinet
Sam,
DeleteI very much agree with you about some parts being too dull and that the letters were not needed but if Sherlock Holmes was on the moor with Dr. Watson then the criminal who committed the the crime maybe would've fled the area because Sherlock Holmes is the worlds best detective and the criminal maybe would've feared that Holmes would find out who did it so having him not there for most of the time seemed like a better approach to solving the crime. If Holmes was on the moor with Watson the whole time then the criminal probably would've found out he was there. Having him sneak onto the moor after Dr. Watson did a lot of observing was in turn a good idea if you think about it. Also there were cases to solve back in London so he was needed there as well.
Evan Andrews
Hey Sam - I also have to agree with you. I thought that some parts were too dull. For example, I thought there wasn't much information given about Stapelton being the true murderer. I thought there would be more clues earlier in the story which may lead us to figure out Stapleton was the murderer. Instead it took me a while to figure out about Stapleton.
Delete-Danny Billard
Miss Baudinet,
DeleteArthur Conan Doyle began the story with the examination of the stick. One reason why he did this is because it showed how Sherlock could examine details and process them very quickly. This chapter proved how well Sherlock could notice tiny details that would be so important later on. An example of this is the fact he noticed the tiny letters stood for ‘Charing Cross.’
Another fact it shows is who Dr. Mortimer is, and what he does for a living. Sherlock and Holmes's examination of the stick showed that Dr. Mortimer was a “country practitioner who does a great deal of his visiting on foot.”
The walking stick was a gift, and Sherlock believes it was given when Dr. Mortimer left London.
The final reason Conan Doyle may have begun the story with such detail is that it reveals where the majority of the story will occur. Sherlock says, “Now, you will observe that he could not have been on the staff of the hospital, since only a man well-established in a London practice could hold such a position, and such a one would not drift into the country”
Sherlock’s examination proved that Dr. Mortimer left London to live in the country, but he does not know why.
Arthur Conan Doyle began the story with the examination of the stick and, in my opinion, the facts listed above explain why.
-Sam Choiniere
My favorite character in The Hound of the Baskervilles is Sherlock Holmes. Although he isn't seen for a big part of the book, he still grabbed my attention when he was seen from his outstanding intelligence and ability to recognize faces and objects. His ability to see even the smallest details and to remember them when observing over the case that is in front of him was truly incredibly and it made him very unique compared to the other characters.
ReplyDeleteMy favorite part of the book was when Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson were observing the paintings and they came across a painting of Hugo Baskerville and then realized it was really Stapleton. Up to that point I had never thought that Stapleton was a Baskerville or that he could have been the reason for Sir Charles's death. I was immediately surprised by that fact and it completely made me reconsider who or what killed Sir Charles.
One criticism I have of this book is how or where Stapleton got the massive hound that killed Selden and almost killed Sir Henry. I don't remember it ever saying where or how the hound came to be. It just says that everyone reported hearing a bone-chilling howl from somewhere on the moor. I don't believe he could've gotten it from the wild considering the fact that it is bigger than any other hound that anyone has seen. It would've made it more realistic and clear if we found out how the massive hound came into existence because it seems like a fairytale kind of creature.
Evan Andrews
Evan,
ReplyDeleteThe book does indeed mention the origin of the hound. Look more carefully at the last chapter for the answer. Here is your question:
Can you explain two or three times when Stapleton does something in front of Watson that, in hindsight, might indicate he is the one behind the attacks. In other words, looking back, did any of Stapleton's actions seem strange, cruel, or otherwise suspicious?
-Miss Baudinet
One event I thought was strange was when Dr. Watson and Stapleton hear a load man in the distance that sounds like a hound but Stapleton tells him that its probably the cry of a bittern and then mysteriously runs off to catch a butterfly specimen. Another event that I thought was suspicious that Stapleton did was when Watson was secretly spying on Sir Henry while he was with Mrs. Stapleton and out of nowhere Stapleton came running up to Sir Henry flushed with anger and then later apologizes for his actions and tells Sir Henry that he doesn't want to loose his only companion.
DeleteEvan Andrews
Ms. Baudinet,
ReplyDeleteMr. Frankland is an elderly man with a red face and white hair. He is also Laura Lyons' father. He enjoys causing legal trouble for his neighbors and spies on them with his telescope. He enjoys wasting his money on lawsuits. He is described as an "unknown factor" so basically they don't know if he is the criminal. I did not really think he was a major part of the story. I feel he is just a character they put in to confuse the readers and keep things interesting.
Anna Wagner
My favorite character in the book would have to the narrator of the story, Dr. Watson. Dr. Watson is a very bright man that doesn't get enough credit. He is very easy to relate to and is also very easy to understand. He is a great helper to Holmes and is a key component to the crime solving duo. I also don't think anyone else would be as good of a narrator as Watson just because he is a character that makes you feel more connected to the story. All other character seemed much more flat and flawless, rather than Watson being more "human" in a way.
ReplyDeleteMy favorite part of the book would have to be in Chapter 12, when Watson realizes that the man at the door is Sherlock Holmes. This part would have to be my favorite because Watson was so happy to see Holmes, he's business partner and best friend. Im sure Watson felt lonely while Holmes was gone. Also, Holmes and Watson complement each other when solving mysteries. With the both of them, they can solve mysteries, but it is harder when they are by themselves. Another reason why this part of the book is my favorite because most of the book is suspenseful and cliff-hanging, this part of the book was different in a way since it made you feel happy. This part of the book was like "a breath of fresh air."
One critique I had for "The Hound of the Baskervilles" would be that the plot at times can be a bit dragged on and not as much action and interaction among characters. At some points in the book, i felt as if there wasn't much dialogue and and points of suspense. I felt that there should have been more excitement throughout the whole book, not just the last few chapters, which were filled with thrilling twists. Overall I was pleased with the book, I just thought since it was a mystery it would have been more entertaining.
Catherine O'Connor
Catherine,
DeleteI am also pleased with the book “Sherlock Holmes: The Hound of the Baskervilles”. There were many interesting parts and imaginative characters. However, there were times, especially in the early part of the book, that there was no suspense or real engagement of the reader. Some of the characters were not very well developed. It would have been a lot better to put some of the excitement early in the book as well as the end to make sure the reader is excited and continues to enjoy the book throughout.
-Salima Amiji
Catherine,
DeleteI'm glad you were able to post. Here is your question:
What was the hound (real mortal dog or immortal hellhound?) and how can we tell? If mortal, how can we explain the fire?
Refer to the attack scene in Ch. 14 for details to help you answer this correctly.
- Miss Baudinet
My favorite character in “Sherlock Holmes the Hound of the Baskervilles” is Mrs. Barrymore. She is the wife of Mr. Barrymore and also one of the maids for the Baskerville Hall. I truly love her personality – loyal and caring. Even though her younger brother Selden is a prisoner and ignored the family to do cruel acts, Mrs. Barrymore stills gives up her time and assists him. Additionally, Mrs. Barrymore does have the quality of being straightforward. When Watson and Sir Henry wanted to know what the light on the moor was, Mrs. Barrymore immediately tells them the truth.
ReplyDeleteMy favorite part of the book was found in chapter fourteen when Watson, Holmes, and Lestrade were exploring around the Merripit House. There was a hound chasing them who wanted to rip apart Sir Henry’s throat, but Holmes shot it five times and killed the evil creature. This was my favorite part because while I reading, I was frightened that Sir Henry was going to die, but luckily Holmes was able to save him.
One criticism I had was that initially in the first chapter, the writing did not make sense to me and it felt uninteresting. I feel that the novel should have started a little bit more suspenseful, rather than looking at a walking stick and meeting Dr. Mortimer. Maybe, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle could have started with another character that was in distress and needed help from Holmes, so the story could have a little more tension.
-Salima Amiji
Salima,
DeleteI agree with you about how the first chapter didn't make sense and was very uninteresting. I think that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle should've of started with a opening problem not just looking at the walking stick and then meeting Dr. Mortimer. Overall I thought the book would've been more interesting opening it a different way I found the beginning very boring.
Jocelyn Taylor
Salima,
DeleteInteresting comments on Mrs. Barrymore. Here is your question:
Explain how the character Laura Lyons tied in with the mystery and helped Holmes solve it. (In other words, what pieces was Holmes able to put together once Barrymore revealed the L.L. letter?)
-Miss Baudinet
Miss Baudinet,
DeleteWhen Mr. Barrymore revealed the Laura Lyons letter to Holmes, we find out some information that was useful to the case. Even though Stapleton told Laura Lyons not to go and get money from Sir Charles, she still did. As such, Stapleton brought out his hound and frightened Sir Charles to death. The hound left a paw print, which Dr. Mortimer later saw and thought that the hound had physically killed Sir Charles. Overall, if Mr. Barrymore never said anything to Holmes about this letter, the case would be unsolved and one would never find out how Sir Charles had died.
-Salima Amiji
My favorite character in The Hound of the Baskervilles is Sherlock Holmes. I found Holmes to be a very observant person. In the first chapter when Homes and Dr. Watson are sitting back to back from each other Holmes saw Dr. Watson's reflection and saw that he was thinking and asked him what he was thinking about. Sherlock Holmes was very smart even though he wasn't a huge part in the story. I found it amazing that Sherlock could work so fast and smartly even under pressure. Holmes was a very brilliant individual he could look at a person and know everything about them I found that a very amazing thing to be able to do.
ReplyDeleteMy favorite part of the book is in chapter twelve when Sir Henry argues with Mr. Barrymore over the chase of his brother-in-law, Selden. Mr. Barrymore refuses to tell Sir Henry why he was near the window and he kicked Mr. Barrymore out of the house, but Mrs. Barrymore tells him why. I found this part in the book to be the most memorable to me because I found it shocking that the Barrymore's would betray Sir Henry if they lied to him and didn't tell him why they were actually near the windows. I liked how the told the truth and it made it my favorite part.
One criticism for this book is that I don't like how it jumps into the story. I found it very confusing because it just jumped right it to the story and didn't explain anything. I also didn't like how it changed settings a lot because I found it hard to follow every place they went. Also I found it unnecessary to put Dr. Watson's letters in the story it just took up space and most of the details I'm them were irrelevant and didn't need to be put in them.
Jocelyn Taylor
Thanks, Jocelyn,
DeleteHere is your question: What are three incidents that really highlight Watson's amateur status as a detective? In other words, can you list three times Watson screws up or seems foolish or unintelligent?
-Miss Baudinet
In the book Sherlock Holmes: The Hound of The Baskervilles, my favorite character is Sherlock Holmes because he is a very thorough and smart detective. The only weird thing is he is not like a normal detective as he does things in different ways, like using his senses to gather information in seconds, which not a lot of people can do.
ReplyDelete-Danny Billard
My favorite part of the book is when Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson awake to find in their apartment there was a person in it who left behind his walking stick. Then it gets exciting as they immediately start trying to find out who it was.
One criticism I have was the first several chapters were very boring to read. I kept on reading and then the book started to get interesting. In the end I enjoyed reading it and could understand what was happening very well.
Thanks Danny,
DeleteHere is your question: What are two minor mysteries that end up distracting Watson from suspecting Stapleton as the true mastermind behind the hound attacks? (These keep Sir Henry and Watson nervous and busy, but turn out to be unrelated to the issue of the hellhound.)
-Miss Baudinet
The two minor mysteries that end up distracting Watson from suspecting Stapleton as the true mastermind behind the hound attacks are when he is trying to go to bed and he hears a women crying during the night which make him unable to sleep and the other distraction is that he keeps on losing shoes first a new brown one and next an old black one.
Delete-Danny Billard
My favorite character in “The Hound of the Baskervilles” is Mrs. Stapleton because she is a very smart, courageous and headstrong woman. She goes against her husband while knowing that if he ever finds out what she is doing that she will face great danger from him and his gigantic hound, yet she still does it.
ReplyDeleteMy favorite part of the book was when Watson and Holmes found and killed the gigantic hound. It was a victorious time in the story because although Sir Henry had been greatly endangered, the hound had been dealt with and would no longer, under the control of Mr. Stapleton, hunt the Baskerville family.
I have just a couple criticisms about “The Hound of the Baskervilles.” I did not like how the book started. I felt that the start was very abrupt, and that instead of just Holmes and Watson finding Dr. Mortimer’s walking stick, they should have started the book with a prologue. I also think that more information should have been given on Mr. Stapleton’s motive for murder. Was he jealous? Did he want Mrs. Stapleton all to himself?
Caleigh D’Angelo
Caleigh,
DeleteRead carefully. Stapleton's motive is explained in Ch. 13 and Ch. 15. Here is your question:
Can you please explain how the setting in the story helps to increase the suspense, fear, and mystery of the book? (You'll have to briefly mention what the setting is to answer this.)
- Miss Baudinet
Miss Baudinet,
DeleteThe setting through most of the book is the moor. This increases the suspense, fear, and mystery because the moor is a very creepy, quiet place. It is suspenseful because since Selden is hiding there, you don’t know whether or not he will come out or if he will attack somebody. The fear is increased because many things happened on the moor during the story, such as Selden, the escaped murderer hiding there, and the baying of the giant hound being heard, both day and night. It is very mysterious because when the fog drifts over the moor, it is a mystery of what is hiding in the fog and could come out at any second.
Caleigh D’Angelo
My favorite Character in the Hound of the Baskervilles is Hugo Baskerville. Although this seems shocking and untraditional, I feel that in some strange way Hugo Baskerville's role in this story is undervalued. Without him being evil enough to trap an innocent woman in his house, this curse would have never been bestowed. Though his actions created great tragedy, the story would not have had it's foundation of mystery.
ReplyDeleteMy favorite part of the book was definitely when the hound finally died. During this scene, so many suspenseful actions took place in such a short time. This part excited me more than any other part in the book. When the Hound was inches away from Henry's throat and Sherlock Holmes was able to shoot it just in time. I felt that it was a perfect way for the hound to come to an end. The hound caused such commotion throughout the story. Having it's life taken in such an exciting way was a perfect way to complete the intriguing plot.
After reading this novel, I have come to the conclusion that I am not a fan of mystery novels. I do not enjoy being led through the story by clues only to have a recap of what actually happened at the very end. I would prefer to know what was going on throughout the story. It almost makes me feel as if I should read it a second time to make the plot more satisfying.
Ava Smith
Ava,
DeleteHere is your question:
How would the book be different if Watson were taken out of the story? Describe at least three ways. Consider the way the crime would be solved, how Sir Henry would act, who would narrate the story and in what person (point of view), how we would feel while reading about the events, or anything else you can think of.
-Miss Baudinet
Ava,
DeleteIn response to your post, I also agree that Hugo Baskerville is unappreciated during the book as a main character that helps solve the problem. The mystery would not have been solved if it wasn't for his evil act to an innocent woman who did no harm. Although Hugo isn't my personal favorite character, he helped solve the crime, even though he created a crime himself.
Catherine O'Connor
I agree with Natasha's opinions, I do not like that chapters eight and nine are directed specifically toward Holmes. I think those chapters are confusing. All the little missing pieces from earlier on in the story are in those chapters, and I personally do not like that style of book. I would have preferred to know what happened while reading. It would have been nice to know specifically what happened to Stapleton as well. I was not satisfied with the information the author included. If he said exactly what happened then it would have been more believable that he died. However, there is no real proof with the information displayed that he did in fact die.
ReplyDeleteAva Smith
Miss Baudinet,
ReplyDeleteAfter all of this time searching and trying to find and figure out the mystery of the hound, it ended up being an immortal hellhound. It couldn't have been real because of all the fire that randomly bursts out when the "hound" jumps out from the Stapleton's house and attacks Sir Henry in Chapter 14. I honestly think that the hound was just terrorizing the Baskerville family in their minds and that they kept imagining this devil hound.
Catherine O'Connor
Miss Baudinet,
ReplyDeleteThree incidents that highlight Watson's amateur are in chapter one when Watson and Holmes are sitting back to back from each other and Watson is examining the walking stick that was left in their home and Holmes asks Watson what he makes of it and Watson thinks he has eyes in the back of his head, but he doesn't think that Holmes can just see his reflection. He doesn't think that thoroughly. In chapter 7 Watson and Sir Henry are talking about the Baskerville mansion and Watson doesn't tell Sir Henry about how he heard crying the previous night and he doesn't mention how Mr. Barrymore gets flustered when Sir Henry asks if he heard crying the pervious night. I think Watson should have said to Sir Henry he heard crying and that Mr. Barrymore got flustered when he asked about the crying instead of keeping it to himself. In chapter 13 Holmes was greeting Watson, Watson was trying to find out how Holmes found him and Holmes said that he saw Watson's brand of cigarettes stubbed out near the hut. Watson doesn't think how Holmes thinks at a detective to find people.
Jocelyn Taylor
The story would have been very different without Watson for multiple reasons. Watson was Holmes' helper. He did not perform any significant heroic acts in the book. Without Watson Holmes probably would have done everything that took place anyway. It just would have taken longer doing it all alone. Watson is there doing what he is told. He does not really affect the outcome of the story. The book, however, may have been told extremely differently, if t had been narrated by Holmes. If that were the case, the book would have been much easier to follow. All of the questions Watson had were known by Holmes, so it would not have been as mysterious or suspenseful. Also, if Watson was not in this book Sir Henry would have been more anxious. One of Watson's jobs was to keep Sir Henry safe by not letting him out of his sight. If Sir Henry had not been under the watch of Watson, he might have gone on a walk or done something that would have gotten him killed. The story had many factors with and without Watson, so it's hard to say if the plot itself would have been different. However, the story would have been extremely different, because we would have most likely known what Holmes was thinking about and doing to solve the crime.
ReplyDeleteAva Smoth