=
I recently read this Arthur Conan Doyle classic, first published in 1901, for a book club I am in. In case you don’t know, Sir Charles Baskerville dies under mysterious circumstances at Baskerville Hall, located in Devon, along the moors of Dartmoor. Charles’s friend and neighbor, Sr. Mortimer, contacts Holmes for help. Mortimer explains that there is a curse on the family involving an ancestor, Hugo, who chased and locked up a young woman. The girl escaped, running across the moor, and Hugo called on evil spirits to help him capture her. Both the ancestor and the girl were found dead, their throats ripped out by a giant hound standing over their bodies.
Henry Baskerville, heir to the Baskerville estate, arrives form Canada to claim his inheritance, and is warned away by a strange letter. Holmes and Watson are on the case. Watson travels with Henry as a kind of bodyguard/sleuth to the Baskerville Estate, while Holmes remains in London. They meet the Barrymores, a couple who have long looked after the house, and the Stapletons, Jack and Beryl, a brother-sister neighbor family. There’s a deranged killer on the loose upon the moors, which is of course, a red herring.
One of the tensions in the book is between Holmes’s scientific approach and the mythic tale of the demonic hound. Holmes refuses to accept that that a scientific worldview cannot capture and explain the events, but the people of Dartmoor are more inclined to believe in supernatural phenomena. Holmes, of course, ends up right.
I didn’t hate reading the book, and I appreciated the storytelling gift Doyle possessed. We also watched the 1988 film starring Jeremy Brett, which was excellent (it is one of 24 film versions of the novel). I was struck by some similarities and differences to the romance reading I have been doing. The following comments are about this book, not about mystery as a genre.
A similarity is the use of folk tales to frame the plot, something I have seen in a lot of romance. Also, of course, you can feel the genre constraints — you are secure in knowing that the mystery will be solved and justice will prevail. This last point raises a question I had: what does a book have to have to be called a “mystery”? Does justice have to prevail? Does the reader have to be able to solve the mystery (no reader could have figured out who the culprit is in this book — Holmes gathered information off stage). Does the culprit have to be unmasked and the main questions answered about motive and method, etc.?
The differences from romance struck me even more. For one thing, this is a very male-centric book. Not only do you have a central relationship between two men who have no women in their lives, Holmes and Watson (there is a ton of slash fiction, I discovered, about these two, much of it BDSM, with Watson the subordinate to Holmes’ controlled domination. It fits really well with their personalities in the book.). But all of the other women in the book are victims or tools of the men they are with. Women’s sexuality is a prop for the generation of crimes, an item of of exchange between men dueling for masculine supremacy, but never explored in its own right. Women in this book are used, killed, beaten, betrayed, and deceived. And yet we are never told their stories in the detail we are told the men’s – what motivated them? What did they hope for? The moor — which is unpredictable, dangerous, easy to get lost in — it actually sucked the culprit to his doom — symbolizes femininity, women’s sexuality, women’s fertility, and the danger they pose to men.
I realized in addition to the HEA, there is something I can count on when I read romances: they take the experiences of women seriously. Extract the perspective of female characters from romance, and you no longer have a book. Or at least not a book I would want to read.
Related posts:
- Good Words Gone Bad: A Few Thoughts About Titles A Post About Romance Novel Titles in Two Parts (1) I was chatting with my one female colleague yesterday. She...
- I Finally Read a Stephanie Meyer. Thoughts on New Moon. Stay away from this post if you like this series, if you dislike snark, or if you don’t want to...
- Fuzzy Thoughts on Promotion and Book Blogging I’ll start with three quotations: 1. In an interesting post called “The Reviewer/Promoter Hat“, Mrs. Giggles wrote, I found myself...
- Review: Cold Case, Hot Bodies, Jule McBride Cover Comment: Pure Blaze — very good looking models though! Setting: Present day New York city. Series: No, unless you...
- Naked In Death, The Worst Romance Ever Written NOTE: This is a “joke” review, meant as a parody of Amazon reviews. By Guest Reviewer, Ms. Emma Zon I...
- Review: Games of Command, Linnea Sinclair My Take in Brief: A lovesick cyborg hero, an intelligent and fun heroine with a secret past, and great worldbuilding...
#1 by katiebabs on November 15, 2009 - 12:33 pm
Nice post. I always loved the dynamics between Holmes and Watson. I wonder if Richie will tap into this in the movie with Robert Downey and Jude Law playing each part?
I always felt Holmes and Watson were the best written male friends in literature.
#2 by Ann Somerville on November 15, 2009 - 2:14 pm
That would be a yes
Robert Downey Jr said: ‘We’re two men who happen to be room-mates, wrestle a lot and share a bed.. It’s badass.’
#3 by katiebabs on November 15, 2009 - 2:16 pm
@Ann Somerville:
*fans self*
#4 by Ann Somerville on November 15, 2009 - 2:17 pm
Oh, I found this – too funny!
A former New York Post film critic warns director Guy Ritchie against the prospect of a gay Sherlock Holmes character, telling the Page Six gossip column that audiences feel no “hunger” to see stars Robert Downey Jr. (pictured) and Jude Law “impersonating homosexuals” in the upcoming film based on the Sir Arthur Conan Doyle character.
No hunger? I’m *starving* for this!
#5 by Maili on November 15, 2009 - 3:26 pm
I read the book but I barely remember it. My memory is strongly dominated by many film adaptations. I think women in Sherlock Holmes films receive a similar treatment.
SIr Arthur wrote each of his Sherlock Holmes stories as a magazine serial, didn’t he? I’m reasonably certain the magazines he wrote for were for men. I know one of them – The Strand magazine – was, which published mysteries and that sort. That’s probably why you noticed some genre conventions in his stories and why it’s so male-centric?
Sherlock Holmes as a lover? He’s asexual, through and through. That said, if there’s anyone he’d get in bed with, it’s his older brother Mycroft because IMO, Sherlock has a serious brother complex.
#6 by heidenkind on November 15, 2009 - 7:06 pm
LOL If only they would make a movie where RDJ and Jude Law made out… I would totally pay to see that.
I read this book in middle school, and I can remember not liking it very much. Both Watson and Sherlock kind of annoyed me. Also I kind of wanted the Hound to be a real demon.
#7 by RfP on November 15, 2009 - 8:04 pm
This is a large part of my dispute with the idea that romance is hero-centric. I read lit fic, sf, fantasy, and mystery before I discovered romance. To me, the focus on the female experience is the single attribute that most reliably sets romance apart from the other genres.
Perhaps comparing romance to other genres doesn’t set the bar high enough. In absolute terms, romance still has quite a distance to go in its treatment of female characters. Many romances cast someone else as the “hero” of the woman’s story (in the sense of who has agency and action scenes). Some romances also portray female characters as interesting primarily for their vulnerability or helplessnes (rather like the Holmes stories).
Come to think of it, I did have a favorite female character in the Holmes stories: Irene Adler, who outsmarted him. However, I believe she only appeared in one story, whereas in romance I can generally expect the female characters to receive more consistent attention than that.
That’s always been my take too, and the Mary Russell books don’t convince me otherwise.
#8 by Liz on November 15, 2009 - 11:22 pm
Irene Adler is from “A Scandal in Bohemia,” the first Holmes short story (after the novellas Study in Scarlet and Sign of Four–Sign is partly a romance, and ends with Watson’s marriage). It’s a very interesting story in gender terms: Holmes tries to read Irene according to conventional gender codes (she was an actress and the king’s mistress, so must be a blackmailing slut) and thus totally misses the clues to her real character. And she beats him in part by dressing as a boy. Not to mention Watson’s jealous insistence that “it was not that Holmes felt anything akin to love for her” (what a convoluted sentence). I love this story, which I just taught. It reads to me as if Conan Doyle was already getting bored with genre patterns he was then stuck with for story after story.
#9 by AQ on November 16, 2009 - 10:22 am
RFP: Absolutely agree. It seems like more and more romances I’m reading have the male lead in the protagonist role and the female lead as the ally character. Also, have you noticed that in general female characters in supporting roles within the romance genre either tend to be judged negatively within the story framework, non-existent or expendable? And why is the heroine surrounded by men more often than not? Why is she so often alone and isolated from any type of support network? And why do we go to such great lengths to ensure that heroines aren’t/can’t be judged negatively by society within the stories?
In some ways the typical female lead role within the romance genre isn’t that much different than the female role that Jessica’s described. It’s just dressed up prettier with the girl getting the guy and a HEA. The female lead role certainly doesn’t have the grays that we’d expect in other genres when the female is the protagonist. And I hate to admit it but there are stories written by male writers in other genres which have given me much more fully-realized female characters than anything I’ve ever experienced within the romance genre.
The romance genre may explore female sexuality** but I’m not so sure we get real motivation or hopes/fears because on average I don’t think that the female leads have real agency within the story’s framework. Their story role as allies is to turn the plot in such a way that allows the protagonist to confront and defeat the villain, and their individual stories are primarily told through the lens of their relationship with the male lead and the story’s requirement for a HEA. Who were these women outside of the love story? What were their hopes & dreams? Their goals? Have those things been changed by the love connection? Do we know? Do we care?
So, Jessica, what exactly do you mean by they (romance novels) take the experiences of women seriously? Are you looking at it from a different viewpoint or have I become much too cynical?
—-
**I find female sexuality exploration to be rather narrow within the romance genre because the pre-hero acceptable experience/knowledge parameters tend to be so narrowly defined. We don’t typically see romances where the female characters are fully-realized sexual beings pre-hero who are unabashedly sexually aggressive and full partners sexually with the male leads.
#10 by SonomaLass on November 16, 2009 - 4:25 pm
Different strokes for different folks, obviously. I have always found Holmes to be dead sexy (what can I say, I’m turned on by smart men). I love Laurie R. King’s Mary Russell books, in which Holmes has a late-life romance. The fourth in that series, The Moor, is connected to The Hound Of the Baskervilles.
That said, I could seriously enjoy the Holmes-Watson thing, particularly with those two actors!
#11 by Sherry Thomas on November 16, 2009 - 7:46 pm
I clicked through one of Ann Somerville’s links–the Google Search one–and then randomly clicked through one link there.
Thirty-some comments to RDJ’s joking comment that he and Watson share a bed in the movie. And all of them completely disgusted. I was a bit surprised by the uniformity of the comments–do you ever see on a romance blog 30+ comments expressing the same opinion?–until one commenter scolded the other commenters for caring about the Holmes movie when we have a Communist/Marxist in the White House.
Sigh. When I was in second grade, on a visit to my mother’s work unit, I impressed the heck out of her colleagues by reading aloud a whole chapter of Deng Xiaoping’s oeuvre on his political philosophy, which she and her colleagues were required to set aside an afternoon per week to study at work.
That’s Communist for you. Wish people would have a %^#ing idea of what they speak before they talk.
#12 by RfP on November 22, 2009 - 6:14 pm
@AQ:
Because romances tell what’s essentially a coming-of-age story in which the heroine discovers herself. I see strong parallels with YA fiction, in which there’s often a kid surrounded by hostile peers, often alone and isolated–orphaned, even.
I’m not sure what that means, but it sounds like something interesting. Can you clarify?
We appear to read different romances
What you describe is certainly true of some, perhaps even many; I don’t have a large enough view of the most recent wave of romances to say what the proportion is. But over the years I’ve become pretty good at selecting for the opposite type of story.
Speaking in very broad brush strokes, I do see more of all of this addressed in romance than in other genres. I agree with Jessica that “(romance novels) take the experiences of women seriously”. Do romances turn those experiences into a type of emotional justice that suits me and my beliefs about women in society? Often not. But the experiences are there, not ignored, and not part of the backdrop.
#13 by AQ on November 23, 2009 - 11:26 pm
@RfP:
But I’m not seeing the heroines as the protags in the stories I’m reading so there’s no coming of age arc. I know allies can still have a character/plot arc but that requires that the character take proactive steps to resolve their arc. Too often it’s been the hero’s in love now so arc resolved.
Not without getting into a long discussion with examples and plenty of back and forth.
My shortcut example would be heroine sexuality in a Lora Leigh breed book. The heroine is highly, overly sexual but all of the components surrounding that sexuality are quite confined. Usually the heroine is a virgin or if not a virgin then not particularly sexual but then this hero comes along and everything changes. But Leigh takes it a step further and makes sure that the “breeding” heat can’t be triggered by any other males and that even a touch from another male causes the female pain. No cuckholding here. Also the almost nyphomanic qualities of the females sexuality can’t be judged because it’s only with the hero and its expected within the context of the story. We have no sluts here regardless of how hot and dirty or kinky the sex may be. Okay not as short as I’d liked and really just a limited example but it’s an awareness I have in the stories I’ve been reading lately of the lead female even outside of the sexual arena.
Yeah, right now I’m purposefully not choosing anything. I’m picking up books recommended on different sites just to see what I can see and compare it to what the blogger had to say. So I’ve had an up and down reading seasons but it’s been interesting. I’ve had to test some of my preconceptions and I’m not always liking what I’m seeing. Call me Random girl.
Sorry, I wasn’t clear. And yes, in very broad stroke, I do agree that romance takes the female experiences seriously. Just…
Lord of Scoundrels would be an example of this for me. It’s a very well crafted novel but it’s a novel about Dain not Jessica. Dain has the main character and plot arc. And although I love Jessica’s character in the first half, it’s like she’s a different person in the second. Subtly. Not this great big leap but it’s there. Even so the person the narrator tells us Jessica is, isn’t really who Jessica is. And what Jessica claims she wants isn’t what she really wants and considering what a powerful woman Jessica is in the beginning her character arc is shortchanged. Perhaps even non-existent if I’m talking about a fully-realized female character.
She doesn’t really have a true character or plot arc except to be the ally character for Dain. I know others will see that differently but that’s what I’m seeing lately with my experimental / let’s see what happens reads.
And I did enjoy the story as well as Jessica’s character. Actually I had a lot of fun with Jessica so please don’t think I’m trying to bash the story. But I don’t feel we really “know” Jessica. Certainly not like we “know” Dain.