From: Chuck.Lavazzi@launchpad.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Subject: Time for another Sherlockian paper
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 05:24:31 GMT


	Things seem to be getting a bit quiet, so here's yet another recent
paper I submitted to the Jefferson Hopes locally.  With tongue somewhat in
cheek, I might note.
	The following is copyright 1992 by Chuck Lavazzi, naturally.
=============================================================================
"However Improbable"
(c) 1992 by Chuck Lavazzi

     We all know the story of the Hound of the Baskervilles.
Holmes demonstrates that the "hell hound" that literally
frightened Sir Charles Baskerville to death was, in fact, a
mutant mastiff (or possibly a staghound)1 trained into
viciousness by Stapleton (a.k.a. The Missing Baskerville) and
painted with phosphorous (or possibly barium sulphide)2 to
make it glow in the dark .  The dog itself is shot and
Stapleton (we are to assume) meets his end in an attempt to
negotiate the Great Grimpen Mire.  The clouds part, the
mystery is explained, and once again Science and Reason are
shown to be triumphant.
     Or are they?  While it is true that Holmes' wholly
materialistic explanation covers all the relevant facts (or
at least most of them), it must be noted that it does not
actually disprove the existence of the hell-hound.  We (and
Holmes) accept the more prosaic explanation because we regard
it as more probable than the alternative.  But even
improbable events have been known to occur; to quote Eleanor
of Aquitaine in "The Lion in Winter": "In a world where
carpenters get resurrected, anything is possible."  Or as
Holmes himself noted, "when you have eliminated the
impossible whatever remains, however improbable, must be the
truth".3
     Holmes, as befits his training and temperament,
immediately discounts a supernatural explanation.  "Of
course," he notes, "if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be
correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary
laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation.  But we
are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back
upon this one."   And yet even the Great Ratiocinator has a
twinge of misgiving, as we see in his reply to Watson's
comment on the desolate aspect of the area around Baskerville
Hall:
"It must be a wild place."
"Yes, the setting is a worthy one.  If the devil did desire
to have a hand in the affairs of men ---"
"Then you are yourself inclining to the supernatural
explanation."
"The devil's agents may be of flesh and blood, may they not?"
They may be of fire and brimstone, as well.
     Is there any substance to the legend of the Baskerville
curse?  Obviously Sir Hugo thought enough of it in 1742 to
caution his sons Rodger and John.  Would he have been so
stern if the curse had not manifested itself during the
preceding three generations?  The story itself seems odd for
a folk-tale and lacks the obvious moral associated with the
genre.  Certainly if the intent was simply to warn of the
dangers of wandering about on the moor after sundown, a
simpler stratagem could have been devised.
     Then there is the actual death of Sir Charles
Baskerville.  Holmes concludes that Sir Charles' weak heart,
combined with the shock of seeing the illuminated hound,
caused his death.  And yet Dr. Mortimer describes Sir Charles
as "a strong-minded man...shrewd, practical, and as
unimaginative as I am myself".  Does it seem likely that such
a man could be frightened literally to death by a staghound
painted with glowing pigment?  There were no actual witnesses
to Sir Charles' death, after all, so we are left to assume
the bogus hound caused his death.  Could its spectral brother
have been present as well?
     Let us not forget the disappearance of Stapelton.  Did
he actually fall victim to the mire he had so skillfully
negotiated in the past?  Or did the evil force he had so
flagrantly mocked simply decided to claim its revenge?
Cheated of the chance to claim the soul of an innocent
Baskerville, did it choose instead the soul of a guilty one?
Stapleton was, after all, a throwback to the original Sir
Rodger in appearance; did the ancient curse finally light on
an appropriate victim?
     These are rhetorical questions, in the final analysis.
They do, however, serve to point out that the course followed
by logic is profoundly affected by the basic assumptions
underlying that logic.  Change one assumption -- the absence
of supernatural forces -- and the adventure of the Hound of
the Baskervilles takes on an entirely new complexion.  And
one that is unlikely to be comforting to those of a
materialistic bent.
     Holmes would no doubt agree, with Joseph Conrad, that "a
belief in a supernatural source of evil is not necessary; men
alone are quite capable of every wickedness"4  Perhaps he was
right.  And yet the tale of the Hound of the Baskervilles
continues to fire the imagination not because of its rational
conclusion, but because of its hints of lurkers at the
threshold of our limited reality and of the things that may
lie beyond the border of Shakespeare's "undiscover'd country
from whose bourn no traveller returns".5  For as The Master
himself noted, "where there is no imagination, there is no
horror."6
 
 
 
Notes:
 
1 Frisbee, Owen "On the Origin of the Hound of the
Baskervilles", cited in The Annotated Sherlock Holmes
 
2 Redmond, D.A. "Some Chemical Problems in the Canon", cited
in The Annotated Sherlock Holmes
 
3 "The Sign of Four"
 
4 Conrad, Joseph "Under Western Eyes"
 
5 Shakespeare, William "Hamlet" Act III, sc. 1
 
6 "A Study in Scarlet"
=============================================================================
Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'

Newsgroups: alt.fan.holmes