Gosh, this book is an absurd flight-of-fancy, irritatingly smug, and sits at the opposite end of the literary theory spectrum to myself. It is also, incidentally, well-written and coherent within its own framework.

Bayard adopts the viewpoint of the 19th century school of literary theory (somewhat back in vogue) that characters can have a life beyond the page. He argues forcefully for the fact that we all play some role in bringing characters to life, interpreting the gaps and lacunae in the author's descriptions and bringing our own biases with us. He takes this theory further, arguing that it is dull to accept what the author tells us, and we must instead fashion our own work out of that on the page. An intriguing theory that doesn't sit well with my New-Criticism-cum-New-Historicism viewpoints, but I'm willing to let other opinions stand.

Without spoiling anything, Bayard's ultimate conclusion about what really happened in [b:The Hound of the Baskervilles|8921|The Hound of the Baskervilles (Sherlock Holmes, #5)|Arthur Conan Doyle|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1355929358l/8921._SY75_.jpg|3311984] is quite clever, really. He makes a convincing case that Holmes' faulty reasoning and preconceived notions led to an incorrect conclusion, and he argues forcefully that readers' love of Holmes since his conception goes beyond that of fans and a character. That, in a sense, Conan Doyle created a character who outgrew him, who outgrew the world of fiction.

Undeniably this work (in translation) would have been better as a long essay than an entire volume. The first 53 pages are a retelling of Conan Doyle's novel, which seems excessive. The section on Conan Doyle's relationship with his character is entirely filler, if interesting historically. Nevertheless, this is the book that we have, and thus it's the book I'm reviewing.

Much of your feeling on this book will depend on how you take Bayard's own attitude. Is he being wryly self-aware or does he truly believe his own argument? Evidently a lot of Goodreads reviewers are frustrated by the theorist arguing that characters experience lives we are not a part of. I suspect Bayard knows exactly what he's doing, and is having fun with his own conceit. He knows, as well as we do, that this is not possible, and that if Conan Doyle had intended for Holmes to get the case wrong, he would have made that clear. Thus, we must approach the whole work within Bayard's own framework or there is no point reading it at all.

From this point of view, the book is rather good. On reflection, even the seemingly excessive chapters (such as a deep analysis of the eponymous hound's mindset) are relevant to the central argument. This is a book that can inspire great literary debates - as indeed it has in my friendship circle - and for that we should be grateful. (Although the fact that Bayard has written three such books as this - another on Hamlet and one on Agatha Christie's Roger Ackroyd - may annoy literary elitists like myself, who would rather theorists devote themselves to exploring the texts themselves rather than making a career out of the spaces in between!)

What am I saying? If the work is one long con, it's a damn good one. If it's completely serious, it's trash. If it's somewhere in between, I suspect it's a cunning little argument that helped earn a writer some royalties, and it needn't be any more than that. ( )

This was fun, and I liked Bayard's arguments. I'll never read mysteries the same way again! ( )

> L'Affaire du chien des Baskerville, par Pierre Bayard. — Pierre Bayard nous montre comment les personnages de fiction peuvent échapper à leurs créateurs.
Sherlock Holmes serait à l'origine de l'une des plus célèbres erreurs judiciaires de l'histoire littéraire : le fameux chien des Baskerville ne serait pour rien dans les mystérieux assassinats qui troublent la lande de Dartmoor. A partir de ce postulat ludique, Pierre Bayard se livre à une très savoureuse déconstruction du roman de Conan Doyle et montre comment les personnages de fiction peuvent échapper à leurs créateurs. Notre détective des lettres finit même par désigner le "véritable" coupable. Elémentaire, mon cher Bayard...
—L'Express

I'm really very much not a fan of **Sherlock Holmes Was Wrong: Reopening the Case of The Hound of the Baskervilles** by *Pierre Bayard*. Spoilers ahead, though I won't spoil the proposed solution to the Baskerville case.

The book's premise is this: Doyle was so tilted by having to bring back Sherlock Holmes that he didn't correctly solve this case, because he was busy writing an evil-associated, incompetent, absent Holmes. The author proposes an alternate resolution, and shows plenty of sources for his judgement of both Doyle and Holmes. This part of the book is fine! Speculating about other plausible interpretations of a story, and addressing inconsistencies is fun! I enjoyed the speculation, and the solution.

The problem is – well, this would have made a fine essay. Or, you know, do what everybody else is doing and write fan fiction. Instead, the author decided he was a fancy, intellectual scholar with his own school of literature interpretation. So, before in true detective style we get a grand reveal in the end, we have to sit through a long, rambling, and condescending retelling of what the author thinks of literature. Y'know, generally. Points for style because he teasers his other books (he did a similar book on the Roger Ackroyd murder by Agatha Christie), complete with "you'll have to buy them to find out my solution".

I tend to trust translators, so I'd like to place the blame for the Doylian, pretentious and condescending tone with the author. Funnily enough, the translator doesn't only add the customary required footnotes, but also corrects the author's opinions where appropriate: Bayard bases parts of his argument and comparison on associations provided by the French translation that aren't present in the English original.

So all things considered: A good idea that would have been enjoyable if it didn't take itself so goddamn seriously. Write some fanfic, dude. ( )

If understood as having tongue firmly in cheek, this is the best kind of literary criticism: inventive, thoroughly, approachable, rigorously grounded in the text, and fun to read. It's possible that Bayard is serious, but given the subjects of his other works, I think we can rule that out as an impossibility. ( )