The Hound of the Baskervilles Review (Arthur Conan Doyle, Ian Edginton)

The toffee-nosed Baskervilles are cursed with a spooky monster dog that’s killing off the family, one by one – the game is a-paw, Watson!

You know what I’ve remembered reading these comics adaptations of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Holmes novels? I don’t like the originals and I never did - Conan Doyle was a lousy writer! (The Lost World: has there ever been such an awesome concept so poorly realised?) The Hound of the Baskervilles is probably my favourite book of his but I only ever thought it was mediocre.

Ian Edginton and INJ Culbard’s version is worse, partly because I know the story well enough that none of the twists surprised me and partly because Culbard’s art is so slapdash and cartoony that it does a total disservice to the tone of horror and menace Doyle tried for (and more or less accomplished) in his tale. Drawn by a better artist and the creepy butterfly collector, the isolated country setting and, most importantly, the hell hound itself could’ve all been unsettling but in Culbard’s hands they’re rendered kiddie-safe and silly.

Like most Holmes mysteries, the plot is convoluted without any of the interesting character moments between Holmes and Watson that define these books. But elements here and there are compelling like the mystery of the hound and the escaped convict hiding out on the moors, and I liked seeing Holmes and Watson outside of their usual London environment.

Of all the Sherlock Holmes books, I’d rec The Hound of the Baskervilles, though, unlike the other graphic adaptations in this series, I wouldn’t bother with this version and go for Conan Doyle’s superior original instead. Culbard’s rubbish art waters down the atmosphere of Conan Doyle’s decent narrative too damn much.