I BREAK FOR HOLMES

I recently took a break from Brooks to read some Holmes. Sherlock Holmes. I have never actually read any Conan Doyle, although I am a huge fan of the old radio plays with Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce (iTunes, people -- it's a wonderful thing). I'd always wanted to hear or read the Hound of the Baskervilles, but never got around to it. Till now.

I listened to a different radio play version of the Hound about a month ago and enjoyed the story. This week, I read the book finally. I didn't realize until about Sunday night that I had one of those skinny Dover Thrift Editions, and so when I saw it, I had to take it up.

And then I couldn't put it down -- except for work time. I was almost afraid to read it at night -- I live by myself, after all, and have a vivid imagination. Yet I did. As I read, I realized how much was left out of the radio play. There was still enough in the play that I didn't miss the gist of the story -- the wife/sister, the crazy scientist, the convict. But I didn't recall Mrs. Laura Lyons from the play at all. Which means I need to go back to my old adage of not viewing or listening to any adaptations before I read the literature. It was always something that was important to me when I was younger, and I've sort of forgotten that. However, if I hadn't neglected that adage even a little bit, I might never have read the Aubrey/Maturin novels, and they are some of my favorites.

Still, I loved the Hound! It was a fun read, especially since it, as all Holmes stories, is from Dr. Watson's point of view. I definitely sympathized with the doctor, especially when it was evident that Holmes had lied to him. Poor devil, as they both would say.

FROM THE PAGE TO THE STAGE

Last year, while leading a tour through England, my students and I had the opportunity to see a powerful, two-man play: The Woman in Black. I had never heard of it, and before leaving, I endeavored to do a little research. I found that the play was an adaptation of a novel of the same name by Susan Hill. The play was magnificent. It was so terribly frightening and thought-provoking that it had my three teenaged students talking about it for days afterwards.

I finally was able to find the novel and read it, more than a year after seeing the play. As I read, I could see the play replaying (no pun intended) in my head, mentally comparing one to the other. I know it appears that I read a lot of literature that has been interpreted visually, but I usually don't. Fortunately, I'm equipped with a vivid imagination, and it doesn't always take a movie to make me "see" the story. Still, when you have, you can't help it.

The novel was short, just 160 pages, and it was very stream-of-consciousness, which I normally don't like. But the story was also very personal and once again frightening. One of the nights I was reading it, I had to put it down because it was late, and I was more than a little scared.

Still, the climax of the novel was nothing compared to the climax of the play, and even a year later, I remember the screaming, the train, and the fear that the play induced in us all.