I liked the Hound of the Baskervilles. That one was definitely 4 stars, but the second story, the Valley of fear, was a bit boring.

five stars for ONLY the hound of the baskervilles -- i absolutely LOVED this novel. it was well written and full of spooky supernatural elements. i am not surprised that this is on my "100 best novels" list. i wish i had read it sooner! on the contrary, i did not really enjoy the valley of fear. it took me forever to get through, it was pretty boring (except for a few scenes), and i just didn't care about the story/characters. perhaps i should have read it first, because nothing really compares to the hound of the baskervilles!

well I read The Hound of the Baskervilles : so amazing and captivating. I made some guesses that were right and now I am proud of myself

I already have read The hound of the Baskervilles and have left my review on another edition but it is the Valley of the fear i now pay my attention too. Slowly over the 140 pages by rating has progress from 3.5 stars, to 4 until 5 stars. This novel was incredible. Tightly plotted, with amazing character development. It left me nothing short of amazed.

The actual story is good, but Arthur Conan Doyle had no concept of what dialogue to include in its entirety and what to summarize. Every line of every conversation, no matter how mundane, is fully written out.

Two of the largest works that Arthur Conan Doyle wrote around Sherlock Holmes. Both good books, Hound of the Baskervilles was by far the best book out of the two.

Si bien es un clasico del genero detectivesco, no pareciera mantener el atractivo y la dinamica que podria tener una novela atemporal. Se notan los ritmos, las problematicas y los miedos de otros tiempos que actualmente no generan el mismo efecto que seguramente tuvo tiempo atras.

Good to be back with Holmes and Watson! The Hound of the Baskervilles was great, The Valley of Fear was good, but I don't love the stories that have part of the narrative take place in a different time and setting.

Le pondría 5 estrellas, más porqué amo a Sherlock Holmes, pero la segunda historia; "el valle del terror" no me pareció tan entretenida como estoy acostumbrada a leer en los relatos de Arthur Conan Doyle. Sin embargo, el final sin duda fue muy bueno, así que por eso no lo juzgo mal. Además la primera historia fue muy buena, le pondría 4.5 realmente, pero no sé como hacer eso

'Baskervilles' is as good as Holmes gets; 'Valley of Fear' is unfortunately let down by the novel's second component, which serves to explain the vendetta that is the focus of the preceding part, and does not contain Holmes or Watson at all.

That was so boring.

Though familiar with this story from various TV adaptations, I've never read the actual story (I KNOW, right?), so this gave me a feeling of experiencing this brand new. I hadn't realized the story was basically a narration of Dr. Watson's journal which made it telling, not doing, so I'm not sure I liked that aspect of the story. Only at the end when he finally meets up with Holmes does the story take on a here and now tone. Does that make any sense?

Once again it feels like Holmes is absent through much of the story - he first takes on the case in the beginning, then makes an appearance towards the end. When I read a Sherlock Holmes story, I'd prefer to have him throughout the story. I mean, after all, he's my crush! :)

So, while this story was interesting enough, I can't say it is one of my favorites. The title The Hound of the Baskervilles sounds like it is full of gothic-y menace, but yet I really didn't get that feeling while reading the book. Oh well, at least I liked this one a whole lot more than the other novel of Doyle's I read, The Valley of Fear.