BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 » Were there any hidden clues that Hound = H.O.U.N.D.?

aWorldlyPhilosopher · October 20, 2012 12:15 am

Were there any clues that the hound SH is looking for is actually H.O.U.N.D. before we see it on screen?

I ask, because I haven't found any, and would be disappointed if the writers didn't leave any clues for us to miss.

tobeornot221b made a great point in this post from another thread:

tobeornot221b wrote:
The writers take every opportunity to have Sherlock make his deductions.
I think the ketchup/nicotine stains just serve this purpose; they are the starting points for the "show off" deduction.
Sherlock could have easily identified Henry as being a smoker by smelling his clothes, but the TV audience of course isn't able to ascertain that. Visible nicotine stains enable us to reconstruct Sherlock's thoughts on this matter.
As far as I know ACD had to put up with the reproach of being unfair to his readers because they allegedly weren't able to find the solutions by themselves - until tada! Sherlock Holmes appeared with his brilliant mind. That's why ACD put all the clues and hints in the story - then it wasn't HIS fault that the readers couldn't put two and two together.
This, of course, reminds me of the Sherlock writers who claim that even someone who has watched TRF just once could tell how Sherlock faked his death - if that person would only be as clever as Sherlock...

One of the brilliant aspects of this show is the way all/most of the critical clues are hidden in plain sight. I hope I missed them, because the alternative would feel like a small cheat by the writers.

tobeornot221b · October 20, 2012 5:29 am

Yes, there is a hint before the onscreen H.O.U.N.D.S. is shown that Sherlock is looking for it as an acronym.

Prior to the "I don't have friends - I've just got one" scene Sherlock is wondering why Henry, always referring to some "hound", makes this "strange choice of words": "Hound - why say HOUND?"
Right after that, John admits that UMQRA is kind of a red herring. In spite of this, Sherlock acknowledges John being a "conductor of light" being able to stimulate the genius in others. He writes the HOUND word in his notebook (UMQRA
style):

Then he says:
"But what if it’s not a word? What if it is individual letters?"
and writes down the acronym.

So, we can be aware that Sherlock stores away the H.O.U.N.D.S. in his mind palace.
For later use.

Harriet · October 20, 2012 9:10 am

Tobe. they should cast you for the team!

besleybean · October 20, 2012 10:21 am

Sorry, am I being exceptionally thick and missing something here?
Surely we all knew at the above pictured scene that it may be initials rather than a word, as that is what the boys say?
Sure we didn't know it was names, until they appeared on the screen.

Harriet · October 20, 2012 10:28 am

Don't worry, you are not missing something, imho, but the acronym hint is what matters,
and the UMQRA is a fine preparation for that.

besleybean · October 20, 2012 10:29 am

Yes, so that's what we were saying? Oh right, cool!

Harriet · October 20, 2012 2:39 pm

We germans are using the word hound though (well, in its roots), our word for dog is Hund.
And there is also a relation between dog and german Dogge

Last edited by Harriet (October 20, 2012 2:40 pm)

besleybean · October 20, 2012 3:23 pm

' That commentator' was Mark Gatiss, the Writer.
Yes, he phoned several chemist friends...hoping for a chemical formula that would fit.
He also thought it was a cunning twist to have the word ' hound' as the very reason Sherlock took the case.

carrot · October 20, 2012 4:07 pm

I don't know if this has already been discussed elsewhere, but you think there's also a hidden clue for dontknowwhat with "UMQRA"?
It's been a while since I last watched "The Hounds" but I can't remember any sort of resolution (is this the correct word?) of these letters (apart from the fact that John mistook the light signals).

besleybean · October 20, 2012 4:10 pm

It was just a red herring...other than it led Sherlock to realise 'hound' may be ' H.O.U.N.D '.

Last edited by besleybean (October 20, 2012 4:10 pm)

carrot · October 20, 2012 4:15 pm

Yes, I know it was a red herring, I just wonder if the letters UMQRA are an acronym (maybe something from the canon...), just a little insider joke by Moftiss (such as 1895)...?

besleybean · October 20, 2012 4:16 pm

Oh no, it was completely invented.

Index
» The Hounds Of Baskerville
» Were there any hidden clues that Hound = H.O.U.N.D.?

October 20, 2012 12:15 am #1

Were there any hidden clues that Hound = H.O.U.N.D.?

tobeornot221b wrote:

October 20, 2012 5:29 am #2

Re: Were there any hidden clues that Hound = H.O.U.N.D.?

October 20, 2012 9:10 am #3

Re: Were there any hidden clues that Hound = H.O.U.N.D.?

October 20, 2012 10:21 am #4

Re: Were there any hidden clues that Hound = H.O.U.N.D.?

October 20, 2012 10:28 am #5

Re: Were there any hidden clues that Hound = H.O.U.N.D.?

October 20, 2012 10:29 am #6

Re: Were there any hidden clues that Hound = H.O.U.N.D.?

October 20, 2012 2:39 pm #7

Re: Were there any hidden clues that Hound = H.O.U.N.D.?

October 20, 2012 3:23 pm #8

Re: Were there any hidden clues that Hound = H.O.U.N.D.?

October 20, 2012 4:07 pm #9

Re: Were there any hidden clues that Hound = H.O.U.N.D.?

October 20, 2012 4:10 pm #10

Re: Were there any hidden clues that Hound = H.O.U.N.D.?

October 20, 2012 4:15 pm #11

Re: Were there any hidden clues that Hound = H.O.U.N.D.?

October 20, 2012 4:16 pm #12

Re: Were there any hidden clues that Hound = H.O.U.N.D.?

Index
» The Hounds Of Baskerville
» Were there any hidden clues that Hound = H.O.U.N.D.?

Board footera