Eruditorum Press

Is this Spearhead From Space, cause we’re in color now

Skip to content

Elizabeth Sandifer

Elizabeth Sandifer created Eruditorum Press. She’s not really sure why she did that, and she apologizes for the inconvenience. She currently writes Last War in Albion, a history of the magical war between Alan Moore and Grant Morrison. She used to write TARDIS Eruditorum, a history of Britain told through the lens of a ropey sci-fi series. She also wrote Neoreaction a Basilisk, writes comics these days, and has ADHD so will probably just randomly write some other shit sooner or later.Support Elizabeth on Patreon.

17 Comments

  1. Oliver Bain
    September 29, 2014 @ 3:37 am

    A good post for someone who hasn't read the original text! Actually it does rather run roughshod over the original story, which has been adapted so often simply because it is extraordinarily easy and straightforward to adapt.

    Ignoring that I don't like this episode of 'Sherlock' very much at all, it does at least have that rarest of instances in this series: A client or Lestrade showing up at Baker Street with a case. The growing arc tendency of the show will eliminate that completely pretty soon.

    Reply

  2. ScarvesandCelery
    September 29, 2014 @ 8:01 am

    One thing that may be worth discussing is Gatiss and Moffats' stated aim to make Sherlock confront fear (part of a series – long character arc in which he stops pretending to be above everyone else and becomes a hero). Particularly in the wake of "Listen", a story where Moffat does a similar thing with the Doctor.
    So where is the difference in Gatiss and Moffat's respective approaches?
    Well, in "Hounds", Sherlock sees the Hound, admits he is scared, then carries out a deduction at double speed just to prove he's still in control of his faculties, that he's still above mere humans.
    By contrast, in "Listen", the Doctor's arc requires him not being willing to admit that he's afraid – his resolution involves him confronting the fact that he's afraid of the unknown and accepting that there are some things he cannot understand.
    Where "Hounds" is a story about textual adaptation that tries to sneak in fear – based character development for its protagonist, "Listen" is an episode about fear that zooms in on the Doctor to make its central theme more personal. Without getting too review-like, this is why I feel "Listen" works better – because the character scenes are relatively throwaway (though brilliant), they don't seem to change Sherlock as much as they are intended to. By contrast, Listen leaves one with a clear sense that the Doctor has been profoundly affected by the episode's events.

    Reply

  3. TheSmilingStallionInn
    September 29, 2014 @ 8:20 am

    Another thing is the conspiracy theory will become a big part of the Sherlock mythos after the Reichenbach Fall episode where fans will spend the better part of two years trying to come up with ideas/'solve' the mystery of the fall and how Sherlock survived, only for the show to twist that expectation and make the mystery and the solution almost irrelevant. This episode seems to set up or hint at that forthcoming 'conspiracy' that will prove to be a red herring more than anything else.

    And the conspiracy theme is really a big part of the original Sherlock Holmes story as there is a conspiracy by the bastard heir of the Baskervilles to take over/inherit the fortune by using the myth of the Hound to scare the legitimate heir to death. And the bastard heir uses his wife as a ploy to get close to the legitimate heir and set up an encounter with the trained, painted dog that is shot to death by…I think it was Lestrade or Watson in the original story. I seem to remember that Lestrade or one of the other Scotland Yard officers also wound up going to Baskerville Hall. And there was that whole thing with the escaped prisoner as a red herring in the original story as well.

    There is an interesting point that in the original story, Sherlock stays behind in London, 'vanishes' and Watson is left to deal with Baskerville Hall on his own, only for it to be revealed that Sherlock was there all along on the moor. He had followed after Watson and the others in secret to observe things from a distance and keep his reputation from scaring off the real perpetrators.

    So in the TV series, Sherlock vanishes for a couple of minutes and leaves Watson on his own in the laboratory to deal with the frightening hound, only for it later to be revealed that Sherlock was watching/observing Watson, suffering from the effects of that drug, and tricking him into believing the hound was really there. And later on in this series, Sherlock vanishes again when he fakes his death, so that he can deal with Moriarty's syndicate after Moriarty kills himself, with Watson believing himself to be alone in dealing with his grief while Sherlock observes him from a distance. An interesting reflection here.

    Reply

  4. Alan
    September 29, 2014 @ 10:58 am

    Another possible point of connection on the "conspiracy theory" angle. I for one was convinced that the true solution to "Reichenbach Falls" was that either Sherlock, John or both had been exposed to some variation on the Baskerville hallucinogen and that some or all of the season finale was a nightmarish delusion about Moriarty destroying Sherlock's life. Certainly heaping swathes of the finale don't make any sense without the imposition of mind-altering chemicals.

    Reply

  5. Ed Azad
    September 29, 2014 @ 2:21 pm

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    Reply

  6. Ed Azad
    September 29, 2014 @ 2:22 pm

    Another reason why Hound was a bad choice was Stapleton. John Stapleton is one of the big-leaguer villains in Holmes canon — the others being Moriarty and asociates and C.H. Milverton. (He was wonderfully played by Richard E. Grant in the adaptation before this one.) Obviously you can't toss in a heavyweight like that at this stage. So the physician (a red herring in the original) is remade into the villain, and a government spook to boot. His scheme is so full of logical holes that he reminds me of Max Payne's villainess.

    Also, the original is very much a Day in the Limelight for Watson. He's already our audience participation character in Sherlock, so the novelty is lost.
    ReplyDelete

    Reply

  7. Oliver Bain
    September 29, 2014 @ 6:15 pm

    I had been rather looking forward to this as a Watson segment. You're right. It was disappointing at the time that Freeman didn't get his chance to carry the thing.

    Reply

  8. Jarl
    September 29, 2014 @ 10:08 pm

    I think of all the Gatiss stories I've seen, this is the one I like best. But then, this is also my favorite Holmes story, so it's starting off from a good place.

    The bit at the end where we see the Holmes-eye-view of Watson's freakout was adorable.

    I'm gonna be honest, I'm not sure I see what the point of making the sugar a red herring was. It only seems to set up Lestrade seeing the Hound too, which itself only lasts about ten seconds, so it wasn't much of a payoff…

    Reply

  9. David Anderson
    September 30, 2014 @ 4:21 am

    My memory is that at the time I had trouble following the plot. As I'm the sort of person who thinks Inception and Memento are perfectly straightforward on the one hand, and is completely oblivious to plot holes in Doctor Who on the other, that was an unusual experience for me.
    (I suspect it's partially because 'it was a hallucinogen' can be an explanation for anything, and therefore is unsatisfactory as an explanation for something in particular.)

    Reply

  10. BerserkRL
    September 30, 2014 @ 5:11 am

    The original story is in effect Holmes crashing into a different genre (gothic horror); I think the long delay in having Holmes show up is to let the other genre run as long as possible — since Holmes' presence would undermine the credibility of the supernatural that makes the main story work. But the original story is so iconic now that Holmes can no longer crash into it as into another genre; it's his own genre now.

    Incidentally, given Conan Doyle's own belief in the supernatural, it's interesting how carefully he keeps it out of Holmes' world. He wrote a novel, Land of Mist, essentially a propaganda novel for spiritualism, in which his other famous protagonist, Professor Challenger, confronts the evidence for spiritualism with a skeptical eye but then becomes convinced. In order to do this he has to make Challenger initially more skeptical than he would probably have been; the Challenger of Land of Mist, for example, disbelieves in an afterlife, even though it had been established in an earlier Challenger story that he believes in it. Indeed Challenger — unlike Holmes — is generally a prover rather than a debunker of fantastic claims. Thus in one sense Holmes rather than Challenger would have been a better choice for Land of Mist — except that Doyle had sufficient aesthetic sense to see that this would be a disaster.

    Reply

  11. Nicholas Tosoni
    September 30, 2014 @ 5:54 am

    …A shout-out to "The Moonbase," maybe?

    Reply

  12. Daibhid C
    September 30, 2014 @ 1:17 pm

    I recall enjoying this one; in particular I liked the way it played with aspects of the original; making the red herring of the lights on the hill into a red herring of a red herring (the escaped prisoner gets mentioned briefly); Sherlock going up to the moors but claiming he's not taking the case instead of taking the case and claiming he's not going to the moors; that Harry's dad was killed by an actual dog when the real threat was fright, whereas Sir Henry's died of fright when the real threat was an actual dog; and above all the very Doctor Who idea that, if adaptations of Hound must have atmospheric mists drifting over the moors, why not make the mists themselves the threat?

    Downside of being familiar with the book: as soon as I heard the phrase "Grimpen Minefield" I thought "Okay, so that's how it's going to end."

    Reply

  13. Nick Smale
    September 30, 2014 @ 10:31 pm

    "The Hound of the Baskervilles" has long been an important book for me, probably because I grew up ten miles north of Dartmoor and loved having that world portrayed in fiction. So I was really looking forward to this, to seeing an episode of Sherlock that engaged with contemporary Devon in the same way that the rest of the series did with contemporary London. And (predictably) I was disappointed in this; the world of the episode didn't look (presumably it was filmed in Wales) or feel like the Devon I know…

    Reply

  14. 5tephe
    September 30, 2014 @ 11:24 pm

    It's probably a good thing that you're not familiar with the text, Phil. It's more than a classic because of well executed Gothic themes – is one of the rare Holmes stories that finds something new to do with the character. And intimately tied to that is a certain structural brilliance.

    While this piece of television isn't by any means terrible (and well ahead of many other adaptations I can think of), I think a common thread emerging here from those of us that do know the text is that this one showed potential, almost realized it, but was a bit of a let down.

    Reply

  15. BerserkRL
    October 1, 2014 @ 8:31 am

    By the way, Hound of the Baskervilles was my introduction to Holmes, not through the book but through the beautiful and quite faithful 1975-76 Marvel Comics adaptation, which I'm happy to see is online: part one; part two.

    Reply

  16. BerserkRL
    October 1, 2014 @ 8:34 am

    There is also, of course, a Tom Baker adaptation.

    Reply

  17. Peg
    November 22, 2014 @ 5:40 pm

    I'm coming in very late in the day, but would point out that "Hounds" uses the straight-forward nature of the mystery to allow Gatiss to build in elements for later use. It's a bridge piece, as the central works of trilogies and quitologies so often are. Regardless of its suface dynamics, under the hood it's dedicated to investing in development.

    Some "investments": Sherlock being forced to recognize John as his "one friend," while at the same time illustrating repeatedly how little he understands how to treat a friend. That's critical groundwork for Reichenbach and Season 3's Empty Hearse. It establishes Sherlock's willingness to manipulate John, up to and including drugging him and intentionally terrifying him: without that Sherlock's decision in RF would have seemed to come out of the blue and been uneasily out of character. (Much of Season 2 worked toward that, but IMO "Hounds' is particularly focused on getting that aspect of the relationship cemented firmly in place so they can move into "RF" with confidence and speed when it arrives. Note that Moffat and Gatiss took what are the hardest spots in the season to be sure they built all the steps they needed for RF. After all, if the footings were in place they could always come in and fiddle Thompson's script to tighten, but if Thompson had written either of the first two scripts, his mechanical skills could have shone–but the emotional and developmentalmechanics of the arc could easily have failed)

    In the same sense that we have Moffat setting up Mycroft's involvement in pursuing Moriarty in "Scandal," in which Mycroft outright states that if Moriarty wants his attention, he can certainly provide, we see Gatiss then build in the elements that later support the notion that Mycroft's involved in the Moriarty conspiracy, with the hook set solidly when Sherlock opts to "bargain" with Mycroft–and Mycroft then sends Lestrade as Sherlock's backup–and concluding with the tail-hook of Mycroft letting Moriarty go. All that has to be in place by the end of "Hounds," and it has to be in place like a palmed ace or a bunny in a magician's hat.

    Gatiss' comment about opting to make "Hounds" a conspiracy story becomes more profound and meaningful when you realize that it's a conspiracy on more than one level. Sherlock and Mycroft and Lestrade are setting up their own conspiracy against Moriarty. They are already apparently part of a conspiracy/collaboration of which John was–and remains–unaware.

    Once you start thinking of it specifically as a bridge being slipped past as a freestanding mystery, there's just all sorts of stuff woven through.

    My own feeling is that Moffat, Gatiss, and Thompson were perfectly aware that both the original and their adaptation are superficially not all that interesting, but that they're a great choice to provide camouflage for other stuff. The story and the atmosphere are strong enough, that with a layer of emotive fireworks they can cram all sorts of things in as "investment for the future" without fans realizing that there's heavy duty construction going on.

    Which is something I think a lot of people miss about Gatiss' work. He's a pro at taking material that isn't really that profound on its own, but that is crucial when seen in a larger arc, and making it entertaining and witty and attractive enough to draw the eye away from his genius at doing the mechanical prep that will pay off authors other than himself. It's a very generous talent, and it's one he demonstrated again in "Robin of Sherlwood," which was flawed, but which was fun, entertaining, and did quite a bit of groundwork for Stephen Moffat's season-arc that no one ever seemed to notice being done.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.