I am writing these reviews at the suggestion of a friend (who was probably just sick of me constantly talking about the books). Please bear in mind that they are just my opinion of the pastiche in question - each to their own, and you are more than welcome to disagree. If you have any suggestions for future reading, please let me know!
This book is a collection of six short stories by Tim Symonds, three of which have appeared previously in various instalments of The MX Book of New Sherlock Holmes Stories. Tim Symonds is also the author of a number of other Holmes pastiches, some of which I have reviewed on here.
Individual stories range from 3/5 - 4/5 stars; overall comments below.
Each of the six stories is a more or less self contained mystery, although there seems to be a running theme of fear (victims dying of fright; ghosts and apparitions; etc.), unfinished business, and revenge (generally on the part of canon villains coming back in one way or another) tying most of them together
Tim Symonds clearly has a love for and detailed knowledge of the canon, which is extensively referenced. Several of the stories feature characters - villains, allies, and victims - from the canon, and I always do love it when that happens.
If you are unfamiliar with the canon stories referenced you needn’t worry about becoming lost; Symonds quotes from and summaries the stories regularly. For me personally, the flow of the narrative could in some places be improved by fewer lengthy direct quotes, which on one occasion extend to over an entire page of canon material. However, looking up the first appearance of these stories, this does seem to be reduced in the more recently written; the canon is still referenced, but the inclusion is smoother and more natural later on. Symonds moves to paraphrasing and summarising for clarity when necessary, and much shorter quotes are used; for me this was much more effective than inserting paragraphs of text from the canon.
The mysteries vary in complexity throughout; if you enjoy trying to untangle the answer before the characters these are definitely good stories for you; there are enough clues that you may well get there first, but not so many that it should be frustratingly easy.
The respect and love for the canon extends into the portrayal of the characters as well, which anyone who has read my other reviews will know is make-or-break for me. I particularly enjoy the way that Symonds writes Watson, who is intelligent and capable in his own right, rather than a bumbling fool and/or expendable sidekick (if you think Watson is in any way expendable to Holmes, I advise you to read The Three Garridebs again), as happens disappointingly often in some adaptations (admittedly largely older and/or on-screen versions).
Watson often has foolish moments in the canon; Holmes is often impatient and even occasionally callous towards him; but their friendship and individual value always shines though, and I think Symonds manages to show these qualities well in his writing.
Two particularly good examples of this are in The Ghost of Dorset House and The Mystery of the Missing Artefacts.
Ghost was probably my favourite of the collection, despite not featuring Holmes at all (even in the canon, I usually prefer Holmes-and-Watson than either of them independently). In this short story, Watson is really given his chance to shine; using what he has learnt from Holmes over the years Watson solves, or almost solves, the mystery more or less alone.
I think Artefacts displays a different side of this rather well, too. As mentioned above, I think some adaptations risk making it appear that Holmes thinks of Watson as expendable, which is plainly not true. He does, in this story and in the canon, often seem dismissive towards Watson, verging on callous, and deliberately places him in danger. Crucially, though, it is always for a reason, or it is through characteristic lack of thought rather than being a deliberate slight... and he does make a point of ensuring Watson is safe after all, once his purposes are achieved.
The collection ends with The Captain in the Duke of Wellington’s Regiment. I won’t say too much, as I try to keep these reviews mostly spoiler free, but I suspect - or rather, hope - that this is not the last we will hear of this particular story, as it is somewhat open-ended. It is not what I might have expected from an appearance by these particular canon characters, but then you don’t always want to read what you expect. It certainly tied in well with the revenge theme, and could definitely be further developed in future...
Conclusion
A good selection of short mysteries for a quick read, ideal if you enjoy links and follow ups to the canon, and regular displays of an intelligent, capable Watson. Almost all set late in Holmes’s career, many post-retirement. Scattered references in those set around 1902-1903 actually provide for a much smoother transition between Baker Street and the Sussex Downs than is depicted in the canon, which I rather liked.
I do apologise for my inconsistent posts, and the very long delay. I do intend to return to these reviews very soon, although I won’t promise they will be regular. They will also probably follow a slightly different format; I will still be talking about all the key points in my previous reviews e.g. story, character etc., but arranged in a different way to make it easier and quicker for me to write.
Anyway... just a heads up, I should be back sometime in January, and I am very sorry for being away for so long if anyone is still reading these...
"A Slight Trick of the Mind”, aka “Mr Holmes”, by Mitch Cullin
Rating: 4.5/5
Although I think I first heard of this book – originally published as A Slight Trick of the Mind – some time ago, my interest was not fully peaked until the new film adaptation Mr Holmes was released. I have not yet managed to see the film, but having now read the book I am very confident that Ian McKellen was a perfect choice for Holmes. The book is touching and rather sad, quite different to many if not all of the other pastiches I have read, and well worth a read as long as you have either a box of tissues handy or remarkable control of your tear ducts.
Style: The story has quite a meandering, gently paced style. It does not move quickly, and in a way does not move anywhere much at all – it is a character study more than anything, which I love. I have said before how important I think characters are to a story, so I will never object to a book which pays more attention to them than the plot (not to say there isn’t one). Parts of the book are told in third person and parts in first, from Holmes’s point of view, depending on when the section in question is set. The switches between 1947 and 1902 are quite easy to follow because of the change in POV and drastic change in setting. The switches between the two portions of 1947 are smoother, both being in third person, and occasionally more difficult to immediately grasp. The whole book is quite melancholy, dipping further into genuine sadness in some places and utterly heartbreaking in a few. It is reverent, careful, and thoughtful; more of the story seems to take place inside of Holmes’s head than outside, and Cullin is immensely respectful of the characters of Holmes and Watson even while making some deliberate changes to canonical details – see later. All in all a well written book and with an impressively maintained tone.
Characters: Although numerous canonical characters are mentioned – and in some cases play a quite significant role in the sadness alluded to above – Holmes is the only one to actually appear in the course of the story, which is told alternately in third person and from his point of view. Many original characters are introduced, however, and all are well developed and likeable or otherwise as personal taste permits. Some important roles include a pair of Japanese men whom Holmes has been visiting just before the story begins, and to whom his thoughts frequently return throughout the book; Holmes’s new housekeeper and her young son, who rather admires Holmes and is somewhat taken under his wing; and a troubled couple who form the centre of a case from 1902, to which there are frequent flashbacks. There is very little I can say about the original characters in case of spoilers, but Roger – the housekeeper’s son – is a sort of latter-day Irregular towards whom Holmes admits to feeling quite paternal. Roger is unquestionably, aside from Holmes, my favourite character in the book. Holmes is a very old man during the main portion of the book – now in his nineties, both his body and his mind are not in the shape they once were. His memory is failing and he seems to become confused and disoriented by small changes, which is heartbreaking to read while thinking back to Holmes of Baker Street, or even the (relatively) recently retired Holmes we see in His Last Bow. It is pulled off extremely well, is sensitively and realistically written, and manages to remain in character throughout. Holmes is both more vulnerable and, in a sense, more independent than ever. There are moments when he seems as removed as he ever could be during a case, and others when his surprising kindness shines through brilliantly. I think one of the overwhelming impressions of Holmes in this book is that he is lonely. He has no one left; he has outlived everyone and everything which made up his entire adult life, and as a reader it hurts, even though you only really get hints towards this feeling. My only real ‘complaint’ would be that much of the book hinges on Holmes forming an immediate and inexplicable attachment – bordering on obsession – to a woman based on her husband’s description and a photograph. It seems a little out of character, although written very well, but as the point of the book and the flashbacks are largely Holmes trying to work out why he formed such an attachment, and what it meant, then this can be more than forgiven.
Canon: This story is set long, long after the canon finishes, and even the flashbacks to 1902 take place during a relatively short period of previously sparsely documented time, so there is not much opportunity for clashes. Cullin has taken the approach of assuming that Watson heavily embellished his stories, and has deliberately changed certain canonical details – whether or not Holmes smokes a pipe or a cigar, certain details of Holmes’s appearance or dress, the way he refers to Watson (“you know, I never did call him Watson – he was John, simply John”) but these are explicitly mentioned as being different because of Watson’s “imagination”. As mentioned, various canonical characters appear in Holmes’s thoughts but not on the page, and a few canonical events are referred to but do not play a major part. This book certainly has the potential to be considered as a continuation of the canon, with little or nothing to contradict it except personal feeling on the part of the reader.
Story: In one sense, there are three separate stories within this book. One takes place in the ‘present’, in 1947. Another is set in flashbacks to the very recent past – the trip to Japan which Holmes is only just returning from at the start of the book. A third, which in a sense is one of the driving forces of the whole novel, takes place in flashbacks to the more distant 1902. It is only this last one which has a ‘set’ storyline, so to speak; the rest is something of a slice of life, bits and pieces told in a rather rambling fashion (perhaps to – successfully – reflect Holmes’s unsettled and often confused mind at this point). There are some major events and some stories-within-stories, but there is little in the way of one overarching plot. Even the 1902 case is only quite loosely concluded. I think this is rather the point of the book, though – it is not meant to feel complete, decided, absolute. It is meant to be meandering and unfinished. Holmes is searching for answers and hardly seems to know what the questions are; we are following him through a period of this; following, in essence, a very old, fiercely independent but lonely man trying to make sense of himself and his world in post-war Britain while his mind and body are starting to fail. It is a story about a man out of his time, or at least one who seems out of his time, although he never admits as much and is by his own admission not a nostalgic person. It is touching and quite beautiful in places, albeit sometimes hard to follow where the various setting changes occur.
Conclusion: A few minor, purely personal qualms about characters or canonical detail – it is very well done but I’m not sure how I feel about the number or type of (admittedly very small) changes made. Other than that a wonderful, heart-wrenching, well written and respectful book. Strong recommended, but be prepared for tears.
Hello, I enjoyed your review and your interest in the subjects around Holmes. i have just completed a series of short stories,The Case of the Mahjong Dragon and other Russell Holmes stories. I was asked if my character was a relation to Sherlock Holmes.I would welcome your opinion. Best regards, James McEwan
Hello - thank you very much! I’m glad you enjoyed them.
That definitely sounds interesting - I will look up the stories straight away, and consider them added to my “to read” list!
“Sherlock Holmes and the Sword of Osman” by Tim Symonds
Rating: 3.5-4/5
Well, firstly I want to offer my sincere thanks to Tim Symonds, the author of this pastiche, who offered me a pre-publication copy in exchange for a review – which I was more than happy to provide. I have previously reviewed Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Bulgarian Codex by the same author, and I fully intend to search out his other books soon. The range in the rating is because parts of the book are better than others so I found it difficult to decide – read on for details…
Style: Much like The Case of the Bulgarian Codex, this is a fairly short book and therefore reasonably fast-paced. Although the book opens relatively quickly into the story, it then slows down for some time as preparations are made and explanations are given. These explanations are many and detailed, as well as necessary to set the scene especially for anyone not familiar with the complex world-wide politics at the time – like myself. (Facts, dates, and customs I can immerse myself in totally; politics and their motivations tend to lose me quite quickly – I just find them difficult to follow.) The explanations, although slowing the progress of the book a little, are handled in a creative and realistic way, largely through the use of letters between the characters – many of them from Mycroft, who is of course the natural source of political knowledge at the time. The writing is simple and to the point, with nevertheless detailed and vivid descriptions given of many of the locations and people encountered. Occasionally there is something a little forced about the writing; certain backstories seem pushed in without much connection to the story around them, or a phrase is a little awkward, but overall it is well done.
Canon: This story is set in 1906, and so is outside the main canonical timeline – or at least in between events, as it is some eight years before His Last Bow. As such there are no timeline contradictions of which I am aware, and appearances by minor canon characters is limited. As with Codex, there are several references to canonical cases with one in particular playing a more important role than the others. (If I were more specific it would definitely constitute a spoiler, and I’m trying to be especially careful to avoid those in this review.) It is also, like many stories pastiche or otherwise set around this time – i.e. between around 1900 and 1914 – heavily influenced by the very delicate, very tense political situations of a large number of countries. I confess I know fairly little about this time period – most of my historical knowledge, such as it is, is pre-1900 – so what I do know almost all comes from fiction of one sort or another. As a result I don’t know how much of this foreshadowing is ‘accurate’ – how aware were people of what was to come? Was everyone really on such tenterhooks, or were the majority of people blissfully ignorant? This is something which always intrigues me, so I do find stories dealing with it quite interesting. It is easy, in hindsight, to write as if what is coming is inevitable – and these particular characters’ roles being what they are, they are probably privy to more information than most – but how much did the average civilian really know of their fate? A point for consideration, at least.
There is some talk of Watson travelling – without Holmes, and not for a case. Although this does not come to pass in this book, it will be interesting to see if Symonds goes through with these plans in future pastiches. The years between Holmes’s retirement and His Last Bow are full of opportunities for pastiche writers, whether they deal with Holmes or Watson or both, and I look forward to finding out more about what Symonds has planned, if he writes more in this time period. He seems – from the two books I have read – to be setting up his own timeline, as there are references to some of his other stories present, so perhaps he will lead us all the way up to 1914? We can only hope, I suppose.
Characters: This story features Holmes and Watson directly, and Mycroft largely through a series of letters, as well as an array of original and/or historical characters in a variety of roles. One of my favourite moments in the book comes near the end, with Holmes’s reaction to a letter from Mycroft. (If you read the book, you will know what I mean. I really, really liked that moment.) I think the relationship between the Holmes brothers, and how it is affected by their respective occupations, is dealt with particularly well. They operate on such different levels, and there is such an aura of competition about them even in the small glimpses we get in the canon that this has been played on more than once in pastiches – and this take is both in character and rather lovely.
There are also, of course, some excellent moments between Holmes and Watson, and I like the fact that Symonds takes the time build up details of Watson’s personal life away from Holmes. Although I would never, ever advocate splitting them up for good – I can hardly bear the thought of it – Watson is his own person with his own interests, not just an extension of Holmes’s self and motives. He – Watson – is considering extended travel, and he still thinks frequently about Mary (the section with the rings was very touching). Holmes is at times a little harsher than I usually interpret him (forgetting facts I would not expect him to, with hurtful consequences, etc.). However, much of this can be explained by either me being overly soft or Holmes deliberately planning his comments to elicit a certain reaction (again, saying more would be a spoiler…).
Overall the characters are well handled, although with some slightly rushed backstories probably necessitated by the length of the story. Watson as an individual, and Holmes and Mycroft’s relationship I am particularly pleased with.
Story: This story is grand in scale; you are never allowed to forget the potential consequences of the case, or the danger, or the power of the characters Holmes and Watson are dealing with. Nevertheless I think it is in the detail where Symonds really shines. A passing observation, a single peculiar word choice, improbable movements or timings – these are all vital to the conclusion of the case. Having now read two of Symonds’ pastiches, I am beginning to see a talent for putting personal motives in political situations. That is, Symonds’ sets up vast, wide-reaching cases which involve entire governments or monarchies or countries, situations that could lead to wars or the downfall of empires… and he brings in the people. People who have personal lives and worries, people who are emotional or petty or scared, or even just plain power hungry, but who are individuals. As someone who values characters above almost anything else in a story – I really appreciate this approach.
Now, this next part is very much personal opinion (as are all these reviews really, but anyway): If I were to give one piece of advice to Tim Symonds, it would be to cut down the big dramatic plotlines and place more emphasis on his characters. I mean, not that the plotlines aren’t good – very good – gripping and exciting and fully of intrigue – but perhaps it’s down to my mild dislike (is dislike too strong a word?) of political stories (only because, and I admit it freely, I don’t always understand them) – I just think he does small character moments better than the macro-level of the story, if that makes sense? That, or stretch it out a bit – these plots deserve a bigger space, so that the information can be spread out and the characters given all the time they deserve and that Symonds clearly has the talent for. Perhaps rather than a political situation leading to personal revelations, the other way around might work well, as a change – a personal story with political consequences (a la The Second Stain?). Anyhow, a personal opinion more than an objective one. I’ve probably rambled for long enough now.
Conclusion: A short-ish adventure complete with heavy foreshadowing, excellent deductive detail (both on Holmes’s part and on the part of certain other characters), and some lovely character moments. Well worth a read.
EDIT - Extra Note: OH MY GOODNESS, Tim Symonds has a short story in the new MX Book of New Sherlock Holmes Stories and the summary/extract looks AMAZING!! I cannot wait.
“In the Company of Sherlock Holmes” edited by Laurie R. King and Leslie S. Klinger
This pastiche is a small collection of short stories – some considerably shorter than others – rather than a single novel. As several of the stories are much too short to fit with my usual style of reviews, I’ve decided to just deal with each one individually and give it a paragraph or so of general comments.
Overall: 4/5
I picked this book up – as I am doing increasingly often for pastiches – on a whim. I spotted it in a shop and flicked through, as I usually do, to have a quick look at the writing style before I made any decisions… I fell upon a Facebook-style retelling of The Hound of the Baskervilles. I didn’t look at any other stories; I decided then and there to buy it.
The collection as a whole is very varied; for just two or three of them alone, it was more than worth buying, and I enjoyed most of the rest as well, in different ways. I don’t think there were any I outright disliked, but certainly there were some I liked more than others – which after all is also true of the canon. For individual comments, read on…
The Crooked Man, by Michael Connelly: 4/5
I believe I have read one or two of Michael Connelly’s other works, and found them relatively enjoyable although sometimes a little dark for my tastes. This story reads like a snippet of one of those longer books, and in actual fact relates only quite vaguely to Holmes. It is set in modern times and features only original characters of Connelly’s, opening with two detectives arriving at the scene of a murder. The pathologist is one “Art Doyle”, nicknamed Sherlock for his observational skills and powers of deduction, which are readily demonstrated in the story. The characters are interesting and likable in the short span of text given to them, and I admit I was quite disappointed that the story seems rather unfinished – I’m almost tempted to genuinely wonder if this is an extract from a work-in-progress, or an already published book I haven’t read. It serves as a good opening and leaves you wanting more – which can only be a good thing.
The Curious Affair of the Italian Art Dealer, by Sara Paretsky: 4/5
A slightly longer story than Connelly’s, this one is not only complete but is an ‘actual’ pastiche. It is a fairly typical ACD-style mystery, featuring Holmes and Watson in the canonical era solving a case involving art theft and fraud. It also features – according to a note at the end – Amelia Butterworth, a character created by Anna Katherine Green. I very much liked Miss Butterworth while I was reading, but I admit I had not heard of AKG, so I did not realise she was not an original character of Paretsky. It is a good story, one of those where the case is solved but not necessarily by Holmes, and quite neatly ties into the canon. It was not as ‘different’ or, as a result, memorable as some of the other stories – but a worthy addition nevertheless, with an intriguing mystery, interesting characters, and some good old Holmes-and-Watson friendship.
The Memoirs of Silver Blaze, by Michael Sims: 4/5
Oh. My. God. This story gets 4/5 for sheer unashamed weirdness. When I first saw the title I thought it was a continuation or addendum to the canonical Silver Blaze story – or, like The Crooked Man mentioned above, a sort of modern re-telling or adaptation. No. This is very much the exact same story as the original ACD one. The difference is… it is narrated by Silver Blaze. In first person. From the point of view of Silver Blaze, the race horse. Michael Sims decided to write a Sherlock Holmes story entirely from the point of view of a horse.
And the very strangest part? It works. It actually works. It’s good. I mean, there’s not a whole lot to say about the story itself – go and read the original Silver Blaze and you pretty much have it – only imagine events from the point of view of a proud and rather sarcastic horse. Don’t get me wrong, I read a lot of fantasy; I can take talking animals very much in my stride (not that Silver Blaze talks in this – don’t worry, for all its oddity it is still the original with no additions to the plot), and I am not averse to animal main characters, POVs, you name it. I just… really didn’t expect it from a Sherlock Holmes story.
Anyway, all rambling about the strangeness aside, as I said – it works. It is one of my favourite of the canon stories, so it already had that in its favour, and it’s quite a fun little re-telling, although some sticklers for convention might turn their noses up at it. (I am gradually coming out of being such a stickler for convention myself – in published pastiche at least, I’ve read much stranger fanfiction – so I mean no offense – just be warned, it is enjoyable but perhaps not for everyone.)
Dr Watson’s Casebook, by Andrew Grant: 4.5/5
Oh Lord, I would have paid twice the amount for this story alone. It is gloriously fun and again draws on one of my favourite original stories. It also plays into one of my favourite… tropes? Memes? … from internet fandom. That is, taking historical or fantasy characters… and putting them on Facebook. Yes, this is the Hound of the Baskervilles retelling, and again little to nothing of the original story has been actually changed. It’s… well, this is an occasion where I think it might be best to read for yourself. Here are some extracts (spoilers ahead, but nothing that isn’t in the original story – just reworded somewhat!).
The opening:
Dr James Mortimer was at 221B Baker Street, London.
Sherlock Holmes likes this.
A little later:
Sherlock Holmes: The more I hear of the facts of this case, the more intrigued I become. I vaguely remember reading about it at the time, but I was too busy with an engagement in Italy to pay full attention.
The Pope likes this.
I mean… The Pope likes this. That genuinely made me laugh aloud.
Later still:
Doctor Watson has left the group Physicians who like Atmospheric Country Houses.
Doctor Watson has re-joined the group Physicians who like Atmospheric Country Houses.
Stapleton has joined the group Inconvenient Heirs No One Knew Existed – Until Now!
Stapleton has joined the group Entomologists Who Don’t Know Deadly Mires As Well As They Thought They Did.
… And so on, etcetera, etcetera. It really is worth a read, so even if none of the other stories in the collection appeal to you, I strongly recommend this one.
The Adventure of the Laughing Fisherman, by Jeffery Deaver: 4/5
Another author I have heard of before, but I don’t believe I’ve ever read any of his work. This is a story about a modern-day man named Paul, who is an avid fan of Sherlock Holmes and extremely interested in crime and detection. He greatly admires a certain someone from the original books, and there are several excellent twists during the story as you find out more about how this influences his life, and how it ties into a current case in which he is advising the police. To say much more would be a spoiler, but this is a well written and well-paced story, will good characters and an impressive sprinkling of Holmesian deduction, mystery, and red herrings. Well worth a read.
Art in the Blood, by Laura Caldwell: 3.5/5
Another story about art fraud and theft – almost a theme in this collection – and once again not one which actually features any of the original Holmesian characters except in passing reference. It is set in the modern day, and one of the main characters is called Moriarty while another is compared to Holmes, although beyond that there is not a great deal of similarity. It’s a good story though, quite emotionally intense, interspersed with explanatory flashbacks which fit quite well in such a short space. There are a few scenes which are very tense, one to the point of making me uncomfortable but that’s just because I don’t like drawn out scenes where characters are doing things they shouldn’t and might get caught… I get very, very nervous. Which I suppose is a testament to how well it’s done, too, so please don’t take that as a complaint. A different and interesting addition to the collection.
Dunkirk, by John Lescroart: 4.5/5
One of the longest stories in the book, and one of my personal favourites. This has a decidedly more serious air than two of the previous ‘actual’ pastiches discussed, and like the Hound retelling, deserves to have the book bought entirely for its own sake. It follows Holmes – going by the name Sigerson – as he takes part in the effort to rescue British troops from Dunkirk during WWII. It is an impressive, well written and well characterised story, filled with sensitivity, peril and heroics and all that you’d want or expect from a wartime Sherlock Holmes story. There are plenty of observations from other characters about “Sigerson” and it is very interesting to get a view of Holmes from this perspective – from someone who is not Watson and does not even know that this man is Sherlock Holmes. Very highly recommended.
The Problem of the Empty Slipper, story by Leah Moore and John Reppion, illustrations by Chris Doherty and Adam Cadwell: 4/5
This is a wonderful little comic strip only a few pages long. It mixes the serious – an actual case, although this only really appears at the very beginning and very end – with the humorously admiring – gentle fun with an air of great fondness and respect. It is like something out of a sketch show or a certain sort of sitcom, and I am surprised by how much I like it. The majority of the story is taken up by Holmes running full speed through London in pursuit of [spoiler], casually solving crimes, rescuing civilians, and dishing out life advice to the general populace along the way. The illustrations are simple and effective, with excellent ‘action sequences’ and facial expressions; the dialogue is amusing, in character, and suitably detailed to flesh out a whole (short) story while still being quite concise. It is the sort of thing that would never work outside a comic strip, at least in print – it needs to be visualised rather than described. A fantastic addition to the collection. (It has also, incidentally, left me wanting more Holmes comics/graphic novels… any recommendations?)
Lost Boys, by Cornelia Funke: 4.5/5
Oh. This story is quite beautiful as well as quite short and fairly vague. It is in the style of a letter from Watson to Holmes, and is once more by an author I recognise, although I have not (yet) read any of her other work. Another serious piece, which could well have veered into being quite out of character but never even strayed close. My only complaint is that it was not longer. I would certainly love to see more Holmes stories from Cornelia Funke; she handles the characters with obvious love, and I have come to appreciate that as much as the story itself in this sort of thing.
The Thinking Machine, by Denise Hamilton: 3.5/5
That rating is potentially slightly misleading, in that it may be too low. This is a very good story – it’s just not the type of story I found myself as enamoured with as some of the others. Again a modern-day story littered with nods to the originals; a character named Moriarty, a computer programme made Sherlock, a man working out details of people’s lives by… analysing their spending habits. It’s a combination of a work-story and a family-story, if that makes sense; it concentrates on the main character, Bill Gleason, who designs a computer programme which analyses the spending habits of customers in order to send out “personalised” advertisements. It’s an interesting idea and does not ignore ethics. It culminates in said programme revealing certain potential truths about Bill’s family, and makes for a good slice-of-life sort of story.
By Any Other Name, by Michael Dirda: 3/5
I’ll admit I’m still quite torn about this story. I can’t quite decide what I think of it, although objectively it is a good idea and well pulled off. The idea is that John Watson is friends with Arthur Conan Doyle and uses his name as a pseudonym for publishing stories. The problem is… so do several others, and this leads to a whole lot of confusion and home troubles about who wrote what, why, and when… etc. I quite like certain ideas presented in it, but for some reason I’m just a little… uncomfortable with the story? I don’t know. I’m a little wary about stories featuring real people unless they are either true or fictionalised accounts of true events. It just strikes me as a bit strange. Don’t let my trepidation put you off if it sounds like your cup of tea though, because that aside it really is quite well done. Nicely tied together and used to smooth over potential inconsistencies in the canon stories themselves as well. Recommended for those who like the general concept.
He Who Grew Up Reading Sherlock Homes, by Harlan Ellison: 3/5
I will admit this story was quite a confusing one. I like the general idea, which seems to be that everything is connected – everything links up and forms a whole in the end – one of those stories where you jump through several scenes which seem unconnected but are actually all somehow part of one thing… a bit like how all the individual stories in Love Actually are connected now that I think about it, except also not like that at all. I’m going to need to re-read it to fully make sense of it to be honest, but it’s certainly a good idea and probably someone a little quicker on the uptake – or less tired – than me would understand it on the first go.
The Adventure of my Ignoble Ancestress, by Nancy Holder: 3.5/5
A sort of modern sequel to the canon story The Adventure of the Beryl Coronet. Well put together, with all original characters but a twist added in that the main character – one Nancy Holder – is a descendent of the family encountered in the Beryl Coronet. A story of ghosts and grieving, I enjoyed the second half more than the first as it is more closely connected to the canon. I do enjoy the idea of finding out what happens to the minor characters once Watson has closed the story and the case is finished – even if it is rather tragic. Certainly recommended, and a very well placed addition to the collection.
The Closing, by Leslie S. Klinger: 3/5
A very short, and quite sad, story once again set in modern times featuring characters who take their names from, and/or are fans of, the original Sherlock Holmes. Rather touching and sensitively written, but so short that saying a huge amount about events would spoil most of it. Another worthy addition.
How I Came to Meet Sherlock Holmes, by Gahan Wilson: 3/5
I am genuinely uncertain as to whether or not this is a true story, or a version thereof. It is literally a two-page description of a man on a train finding himself in the same compartment as Basil Rathbone in Sherlock Holmes costume. There really isn’t anything more to it. A pleasant little anecdotal type story… although there is not much else to say about it!
Final Illustrations:
I am not sure if these are intended as a continuation of the previous story or not; there is no additional title page to signify their artist, and no additional names not already mentioned in the contents or list of authors. The final story just finishes and then is followed by three quite light-hearted cartoons, one featuring Holmes and Watson walking past a bookshop, one where they are approaching a crouching man surrounded by weapons, and a third where the Hound of the Baskervilles is sitting on Watson’s lap… little or no context for any of them, but quite a nice way to sign off.
"The Devil's Grin" (A. Kronberg #1) by A. Wendeberg
Rating: 4/5
I picked up this story on bookbub – I was hardly going to say no to a free pastiche. Since I got it on a whim there wasn’t any time to form many expectations, so I can’t say whether it met them or not. I think even if I had come across it in a shop I would have been intrigued, though. Some sections will contain spoilers; I will say when.
Canon: The story takes place in 1889/90, which means it is shortly before The Final Problem. There is very little reference to the canon because most of the story, even those parts featuring Holmes, are focused on Kronberg. There are details such as the keeping of tobacco in the slipper etc. but little in the way of events. Irene Adler’s photograph is used to good effect to develop Holmes and Kronberg’s relationship and to give us more insight into both characters. I enjoyed this moment because Kronberg specifically deduced that Irene was “not someone [Holmes was] fond of” and I have always been sceptical of the persistent assumption that Holmes was in love with her, especially as it usually seems to come hand in hand with the idea of her as a villain or at least very questionably moral, which does not bear much relation to her canonical actions at all. (He certainly respected and admired her, but does that have to mean he was in love? And she was certainly strong-willed and played the part of antagonist in ‘her’ case, but villain?) Anyway, this is not the place for an essay of Holmes and Adler’s relationship. Suffice to say, I like the conclusion drawn here that he was not in love with her, but raised an eyebrow at the suggestion that she was his “weakest spot”. There was also a very sad story about the Irregulars, and Holmes refers to them more than once as being active in this case but they do not play a large role.
Characters: [CONTAINS SPOILERS] Very few canonical characters make appearances. Mycroft, Lestrade, and the Irregulars are all mentioned and play ‘backstage’ roles, but none actually have any lines, so to speak. Watson only appears in person two or three times, but seems characterised fairly well. He is married to and living with “his new wife” – presumably Mary Morstan – at this point, and does not play a significant part in most of the case.
I very much liked the characterisation of Holmes in this pastiche. It is interesting to see him from a different point of view than Watson, but I would question the opening statement that Kronberg wishes “to paint a different picture” of him. I gather the idea is that he appears more vulnerable in this story than he generally does in the canon, but his vulnerability/his “great heart” are hardly unknown in the canon. In any case, though, I very much liked the way he was written and I enjoyed the progression of his relationship with Kronberg.
I should probably at this point get to the spoiler part. Kronberg is a woman in disguise as a man; Anna lives as Anton during the day in order to follow her desired career as a doctor. I warned for spoilers, but this would probably crop up after any small amount of research into the series (it did for me) and is revealed within the first chapter anyway. Anna herself is an engaging, intelligent and caring character who nevertheless – and here comes another similarity with TBA – is a little hypocritical. The hypocrisy – as with Mary in TBA – comes in writing style. She accuses Watson of being overly romantic in his writing and says he uses unnecessary descriptions (such as of wallpaper, hair, and eye colour) but fails to see what is important… etc. etc. She writes with as much descriptive flare as he does and often more. Like Mary though, this is an observation on her character rather than a complaint. It would also be very difficult to write a story from the point of view of a character who dislikes description; description is necessary, or it is more of a play than a novel.
She is the “best bacteriologist” in London and she knows it. Even Holmes acknowledges and appreciates her intelligence, and also respects her as a person. She is caring to the point of frequently putting herself in danger. She is also… well… quite badass. She was once assaulted and later confronted the attackers and told them she would “shoot off their testicles” if she “ever heard they touched a woman without her consent”.
Much of what we find out about both Anna and Holmes is through their own changing perceptions of each other; they both make assumptions, and many of these assumptions are later proved wrong. I have mentioned several times their “developing relationship”. I will say now, I enjoyed it. I really did; it progressed well and believably and I liked both characterisations. I was very torn when it came to the “romantic feelings” however. On the one hand, I rather liked it; like I said, it was believable, it was not overdone, and part of me was pleased because I had seen it coming. On the other hand, it was predictable and a little disappointing. It doesn’t take anything away from a female character to have her fall in love, of course, and I will have to read the rest of the series (which I intend to) to judge how much it changes her character, if at all… but I do wonder if it was really necessary. A lot of my decision on this front (I have not made it yet) will depend on what happens in future books, i.e. is she still her own character or is she going to become a love interest and little else? It worked well enough that this is still only a fairly minor qualm, though.
Story: This pastiche sticks to the very common theme of opening with a paragraph or two about how different and “outrageous” this case was, which is found in numerous canon stories as well. The story is gripping but did not have me on the edge of my seat – although it is quite short and I read it in about two days. I was particularly intrigued by the medical theme. I studied the history of medicine for my GCSEs, and one of my favourite periods to study in general is the Victorian era. I enjoyed the placement of the story in these terms, and was interesting in the historical references. I was also very interested in the difficulties faced by a woman wishing to pursue a medical career in this time. The story is not especially fast-paced, but it is not slow either; there is a lot of undercover work to be done and several tense and dangerous moments. I think it could have been ‘tighter’ in some places; the goal of either criminal or investigator could have been made clearer, but it came through eventually and perhaps it is just me. The mystery only lasts for around half of the book; after that it is a matter of catching, rather than finding, the perpetrators. I get the feeling this is not quite finished yet, and I look forward to a continuation/conclusion in further books.
Lastly… a quote from the end of the case: “Someone is at the centre of all this. We will find him in due course.” – Do I detect a hint of Moriarty, here?
And (spoiler): Anna leaves at the end for a “cottage” which is “far away from London”. I have my suspicions about where this cottage might be, and I can’t decide whether I hope I’m right or wrong. I suppose it depends on how it develops.
Conclusion: An interesting and enjoyable read with well-written original characters. Some small nit-picks but overall highly recommended.
Hello my fellow Holmes reader! I'd like to say that i love your blog. I have to read Holmes (mainly pastiches) for my exam and i like to say that i mostly agree with you (specially that review of "The giant rat of sumatra) and wish you the best :)
Thank you! I’m glad you like the blog. :-) The Giant Rat of Sumatra is an excellent pastiche, one of my favourites. Good luck with your exam.
"The Beekeeper's Apprentice" (Mary Russell #1) by Laurie R King
Rating: 4.5/5
This book is the first in the Mary Russell/Sherlock Holmes series.
I have never been as dubious before starting a pastiche as I was for this one. I knew it was one of the most well-known pastiches, or at least it was the one that cropped up the most when I first started to research them, but I was reluctant to read it because of certain spoilers I picked up and just didn’t think would work. (Warning: I will mention this spoiler in the review, but since it’s in the series description, it might not count).
I really ought to learn to just give things a go before jumping to conclusions, because it was wonderful.
Style: I’m not really sure what I was expecting for the style – I knew they wouldn’t be from Watson’s point of view, but I think I possibly assumed they would be in third person. As I started reading and realised they were actually from Mary’s point of view, I was even more wary than I had been initially. (Not through any dislike of Mary; I find the canon stories from Holmes’s POV or in third person strange to read. I just find it strange to read about Sherlock Holmes not from Watson’s POV.) For all of about a sentence, at least. After that I hardly noticed. It was – to me – a surprisingly easy style to get along with and I was used to it practically before the end of the first page. At times slightly reminiscent of Watson’s, but (more on this later) possibly more as a case of Mary teasing Watson than any real imitation. Mary’s character comes across quickly, clearly, and well, and it is easy to settle into the flow of the narrative even when it jumps about a little. It is well suited to a not-quite-Holmes story – it is a Holmes story, but it’s not. It’s Mary’s story. And that works. Really very well indeed.
Canon: Given that the entire plot takes place from 1915 onwards, there isn’t much in the way of canon timeline placing. The only possible qualm is that King puts Holmes’s age at 54 at the beginning of the story. He is estimated in “His Last Bow” – in 1914 – at 60, and I think this is generally accepted as fact, but since it’s never exactly stated and is hardly a vastly important detail, it’s really not an issue. I only mention it because I’m picky like that. Without giving away too much, I will say that at least one canon story plays a significant part in the conclusion, but I won’t say which or how. The majority of the canonical detail comes in the character section…
Characters: [CONTAINS SPOILERS]
As I said, I was dubious about starting this book. I knew from vague research of the series that it featured, heavily, an original character of King’s invention. This character was a fifteen year old girl who would apparently meet and eventually marry Holmes after his retirement. It was an intriguing concept, but not one I really thought could work. I was wrong. So far, they’re not married, but I can now definitely see it working and frankly I’m quite looking forward to it. Mary is a fantastic, well developed character and an excellent match for Holmes. She is compassionate but logical, intelligent but not free of mistakes, brave but occasionally reckless. She is – and I say this while honestly loving her and not meaning it nearly as harshly as it sounds – sometimes quite arrogant and hypocritical. Which of course makes her a perfect match for Holmes. She fits, without anything seeming forced, and her growing relationship with Holmes is believable without ever once seeming out of character for him, which is what I was most concerned about.
Being from Mary’s point of view, there are sections of the story that don’t even feature Holmes at all, let alone any other canonical characters, and I only just know registered that fact. I would have liked to see more of Watson, and I hope to in later stories, but I won’t really mind if not. I didn’t particularly like the way he was initially treated and my hackles raised a few times even later on, but this is where the arrogance and hypocrisy comes in, which just makes Mary a more well-rounded character, to be honest. I’m allowed to love her and disagree with her at the same time. She frequently derides Watson’s intelligence and writing style, calling him overly romantic and overly dramatic, and yet tends several times towards the exact same habits in her own narrative. She is also a long-time fan of his stories and even asks Holmes on their first meeting how one (The Valley of Fear, the last chapter of which has not yet been published) ends. Hence the hypocrisy.
She starts out “quite prepared to detest [Watson]” (the one line where I was quite prepared to detest her) and eventually grows grudgingly fond of him, although still referring to him as “doddering old fool” at every available opportunity, and indirectly (and sometimes directly) referring to herself as his better – a “thinking adult partner” (her words) whereas with Watson there was never “anything resembling true partnership” (Holmes’s words). It is only this last one I really don’t like, in the end. The rest are slights on his intelligence, which while not exactly fair, are consistent with Holmes’s canonical attitude towards almost everyone. The last…is probably supposed to be only a remark on intelligence, but I dislike the constant references to Mary being a better partner because she is more intelligent. She is more intelligent, and she is a fantastic partner for Holmes, but being (almost) intellectually equal is not the only measure of partnership, and I always felt that Holmes and Watson’s was equal in a different way. More complementary, if that makes sense.
Anyway. Apologies. Rant over. I jumped into defensive mode and I really needn’t. I wouldn’t even change it, to be honest. Well, possible that one comment of Holmes’s, but none of Mary’s. It just works for her character.
Several other canonical characters and descendants of canonical characters make appearances. Mycroft, of course, and I do love the way his relationship with Holmes – and even Mary and Watson – is portrayed. Billy the page (or at least, I’m assuming it’s that Billy), now a grown man. Mrs Hudson. Inspector Lestrade, son of the Lestrade of previous years (and that was confusing to read initially – I just couldn’t help picturing “our” Lestrade). Watson. All in character and all used to good effect, even if I would sometimes have like larger roles for one or two of them. And, of course, a devious criminal mastermind with a cruel sense of humour.
Story: It does not start out as a single plot-line, and indeed by halfway through I was wondering if it would ever have one. Initially, it is an account of the first few years of Mary and Holmes’s friendship, with a few small cases thrown in, and I assumed that was how it would continue. I would have been perfectly alright with that. It had a sort of gentle, slow pace that I liked, and that allowed me to become comfortable with the characters and to get them and their relationships well established before jumping into the real action. The ultimate big case turns out to span (much) further back than you initially suspect, and – oh I love it when this happens – it has one of those conclusions that you know you should probably have seen coming, but you never did. The clues are all there, and yet so easy to miss that you don’t even realise they were clues until the very last piece slots into place. I think this is probably even more difficult to manage with a Holmes mystery than one tackled by an “ordinary” detective, because you have to make it subtle enough that it’s believable that even he would be fooled by it. I do wonder if the rest of the series will continue in a similar style, or if they will jump into the action sooner, having done the character building in this book. I look forward to finding out. Not an on-the-edge-of-my-seat, utterly gripping, couldn’t-put-it-down story, but intriguing and enjoyable nevertheless, and possibly the former only because I read it while also revising for exams, so my mind was otherwise occupied.
Conclusion: I am officially deciding to never make judgements before starting a book again. A wonderful, engaging original character, an excellent plot, and thoroughly recommended. I will definitely be reading the rest of the series.
Holmes on justice: “Wretch as he was, he was still living under the shield of British law, and I have no doubt, Inspector, that you will see that, though that shield may fail to guard, the sword of justice is still there to avenge.” The Resident Patient. Sherlock Holmes And The Mystery of Einstein's Daughter by Tim SymondsIn late 1903 Einstein's illegitimate daughter 'Lieserl' disappears without trace in Serbia aged around 21 months. As Holmes exclaims in the Mystery of Einstein's Daughter
Thank you for the recommendation, I will look it up. :-) It might take me a while to get around to it because I have quite a lot of other books to read at the moment, but watch this space, so to speak!
I had wanted to read The Breath of God for quite a while before I finally picked it up, but I kept putting it off because although it sounded intriguing and potentially excellent, there also seemed to be a lot of possible pitfalls and I didn’t want to be disappointed. I really wasn’t.
Some spoilers ahead.
Style: Strangely enough given that Adams specifically states in the Notes at the end that he didn’t make too much effort to imitate Doyle, preferring to stick to his own style – it is actually a lot closer than several other pastiches I have read. Okay, I had some teething problems with it, but those were because of minor, personal pet peeves of mine which I generally try to ignore because they are, apart from anything else, not pastiche specific – they’re just general irritants.
I’m not sure how necessary the opening statement of “I was not there, let me clear on that point” is, especially as it is a) slightly misleading and b) was a large part of the reason it took me so long to finally read the book, because it implies Watson was absent from the story altogether. In actual fact it is only referring to the opening passage, and while it is certainly in its way a “hook” – he wasn’t there for what? Why? Why do we have to be clear about that? – there’s ultimately not much point, since Watson regularly relates clients’ tales of events for which both he and Holmes were absent in the canon, and even comments on this in the opening paragraph of this pastiche, and later on whole chapters are not only set aside for characters other than Watson – they are entirely narrated by characters other than Watson, which is also not totally unheard of in the canon, of course. (I am really only drawing attention to this line because when I picked up the book for the first time and scanned the first page, to see if it interested me, this was what made me put it down again and then not actually buy it for several more weeks. And given how much I enjoyed the book when I finally read it, this was a mistake).
Other than this the style was mostly smooth and easy to follow, pet peeves aside, and I particularly liked some of Watson’s drier comments which eased, but did not destroy, the tension in some places. I did notice quite a few references to Watson’s eating habits and enjoyment of food, which at first I assumed were poking fun at the one or two comments in canon about his weight (specifically Holmes’s observation of his weight gain following his marriage, which seems to be a source of a lot of similar interpretations). Reading further, though, Watson is not the only character with multiple food references to his name, so I think it might just be a “thing” of Adams’s…
Canon: If I were being overly picky (and let’s face it, I usually am) I would point that although the story is set at the very end of 1899 it seems to imply that Mary Watson’s death and Watson’s return to Baker Street were both very recent. Canonically Watson’s marital status can appear to be somewhat inconsistent, but we can, I think, be fairly sure that Mary died sometime between The Final Problem and The Empty House, placing it around spring 1894 latest, and Watson moves back into Baker Street almost immediately following Holmes’s return (within a few months, according to The Norwood Builder). On the other hand, I am absolutely not complaining. In fact, I was very pleased to see reference to her as she is rarely included in adaptations to any great extent. (Of course she isn’t in the canon much either, so that’s fair enough). Watson’s grief and obvious love for her was touching and well done, and also slipped in an explanation for certain of the aforementioned inconsistencies. In fact there are a couple of occasions in which canonical errors/contradictions are brought up and if not explained, at least pointed out; when discussing Holmes’s dislike of the countryside as compared with his eventually retiring there, Watson at one point calls Holmes a “contrary swine” – in the narrative, not to his face. Out of context, that sounds out of character, but it actually fitted very well with the slightly dry humour Watson exhibits throughout the book, and came across as sort of fondly exasperated rather than genuinely annoyed – it made me smile rather than cringe, at least, and fitted in nicely with the portrayal of their friendship in this book, which was very well done.
Characters: Well, they were an interesting lot, I can tell you that much. First, of course, there are Holmes and Watson; in character throughout, and not only individually but as a team – I’ve mentioned before that I think the interactions are as important as the individuals, and Adams does well here. He shows concern, irritation, familiarity and trust all at once without ever overdoing it, even when events seems to be conspiring to set the two at loggerheads, as Watson is reluctantly forced into being rather more open minded than Holmes about certain matters. Then there are the minor canon characters; Mycroft, who got two or three mentions but not an actual appearance; Inspector Gregson, who was given one or two very brief appearances but did not play an important role; Mrs Hudson, long-suffering as ever; and Langdale Pike who we do not actually meet in the canon although he is mentioned, but we do – briefly – here.
And then – well.
Aleister Crowley, real-life occultist. Julian Karswell, a fictional character borrowed from MR James. Thomas Carnacki, likewise fictional, borrowed from William Hope Hodgson. John Silence, borrowed from Algernon Blackwood. I am also fairly certain there was a reference to, though not an appearance from, Bram Stoker’s Van Helsing.
I can’t say I know a huge amount about the real Aleister Crowley, although he is certainly used to good fictional effect here, however accurate or otherwise the portrayal might be. I have never read any of the stories in which the other characters mentioned appear except Dracula, so I cannot say how “in character” or otherwise they were. I did not know until reading the Notes after finishing the story that most of them even were someone else’s characters, so they at least fitted pretty much seamlessly into this narrative of a Holmes story. And I am interested enough that I plan to search out their original incarnations to have a look.
Story: This is always the hardest section to write without spoilers (for obvious reasons…). For this, it is particularly hard, so…you have been warned.
Take it from someone who does not scare easily when it comes to books; there are parts of this story best read in a well lit room long before you go to bed. It was creepy, and brilliantly so. One of the things I was most worried about as a potential pitfall was how well Adams would manage to incorporate the “supernatural” into a Sherlock Holmes pastiche without straying too far from the original tone. ACD himself was heavily into spiritualism and there are times when it is hinted towards in the canon – The Hound of the Baskervilles, The Sussex Vampire etc –, but it is always ultimately explained rationally or scientifically, and yet this pastiche seemed from the word go to be heading towards the conclusion that spirits and demons and the like were real. I wasn’t sure how well this could work, mostly in terms of whether or not Holmes would or could accept it without straying out of character – and then I was worried that it would turn out to be “inconclusive”. I thought that if he was going to go down that road, he should either go down it properly or not at all; it should, in the end, be proven as a hoax or proven as real because anything else risked being a bit of a cop-out.
Well, at first I was convinced it would be all a hoax and explained away…and then I wasn’t. And then I was again. I was constantly second-guessing myself and the characters and I genuinely didn’t know what to expect, which is excellent. It kept me interested and it was not overdone at all, even the more…elaborate…events. In the end I decided I would be fine with whatever the conclusion was because the most important thing was that the characters stayed true to themselves while it happened, and they did. I won’t spoil the ultimate conclusion, but I was very happy with it – perhaps less because of what it actually was and more because of how it was actually done, how it was explained.
Overall certainly gripping, frequently unnerving, mysterious, at times slightly confusing (in the best of ways) and extremely well pulled off. I should have had more faith in Adams from the start, because he never went too far, never strayed away from proper descriptions and explanations where necessary – there were not just vague hints and endless skirting around the topic; he dove right in and made himself at home there. And it worked. Even when there weren’t complete explanations, their absence wasn’t ignored; the characters were quite happy to question and point out gaps in reasoning and acknowledge where they didn’t actually know, yet not in a way that seemed like the author avoiding the issue.
Conclusion: An excellent read overall; an intriguing and very different story with an array of non-canon characters who were well written and developed along with good characterisations of the canon characters. Slight issues with style but mostly personal preference; highly recommended.
Note: Among many other, non-Sherlock Holmes related books, Guy Adams is also the author of Sherlock: The Casebook for the BBC adaptation, and co-author of The Case Notes of Sherlock Holmes, essentially its canon counterpart; both are excellent and you should definitely read them. On top of this, there is The Army of Doctor Moreau, another pastiche which also borrows non-ACD characters. I haven’t read it yet, but I probably will – I want to read the original The Island of Doctor Moreau by HG Wells first though, as it looks like a slightly more in-depth crossover and background understanding might be necessary…
On spotting The Giant Rat of Sumatra in my local Waterstones, I immediately thought it looked promising. By the end of chapter one it was already a tentative 4 and it just got better from there. [Warning: Potential spoilers ahead.]
Style: The last time I read a pastiche with as impeccable a style as this, it was Dust and Shadow. I can’t even place exactly what it is about these two that is so good; other pastiches often have styles which are objectively utterly without reproach and yet are not quite…there. This (and Dust and Shadow) just…sounds like Watson. You can practically forget that it wasn’t written by ACD himself at times. And if you’ve read certain others of my reviews you will know I have a pet hate (or, well…perhaps pet dislike) for footnotes; “I think they detract from the appearance and flow of the prose”. Those are not my words, they are Richard L. Boyer’s, from the author’s note, but they cover my feelings exactly. There are notes, but they are simply placed at the back of the book with page numbers and quotes for reference, which is a decision I was very pleased with, stylistically.
Canon: The few very slight discrepancies with either canon or historical, scientific or geographical fact are acknowledged and explained in the notes at the end of the book, and are so minor I did not even notice them while reading. Direct mentions of canon cases are relatively few and very well used, and other than one (explained in the notes) error, as far as I know the chronology fits in perfectly. And I can always forgive minor errors anyway, since even ACD himself was prone to them. I have been keeping an eye out for a version of The Giant Rat of Sumatra ever since I started reading pastiches, so this caught my attention immediately. I was a little worried that in an attempt to live up to the slight hype there seems to be about this particular semi-canon case, the story might go too far and ruin itself in the process, but it absolutely doesn’t. It is a wonderful mystery – two mysteries in fact, at least at first – and verging on the horror genre in much the same way as The Hound of the Baskervilles. In fact, early on there seems to be subtle strains of Hound running through the narrative but it wasn’t until much later that I found out there was a very good reason for this. I’m trying so hard to stick to my usual rule of no spoilers but…mother of all plot twists that was a good one. I literally gasped aloud and may have just sat and fangirled for several minutes before starting to read again. I think this is so far the best pastiche for representing Holmes’s boxing skills (they are often mentioned in pastiches, but rarely shown off – which to be fair is also true of the canon), which are difficult to find an appropriate place for, and deductions – often present but simplistic or absent altogether – were excellent throughout.
Characters: As I have said before, the most important part of a pastiche for me is the characters. There are other very important aspects, of course, but if everything else is met and the characters are off then it might well be an excellent mystery novel, but it also might as well not be a Sherlock Holmes pastiche, to be honest, because in that case why not simply use original characters? Once more I’ll refer back to Dust and Shadow – I was stunned by the characterisation there because it just had something that I hadn’t even realised, until then, that other pastiches lacked. It’s hard to describe exactly, but it’s the balance, I think – not just getting the characters right as individuals but as a team, getting their interactions right, getting the original characters to fit in. This one managed it too, fantastically well. For the second time in three books, there was no Mycroft (as before, only noteworthy because it is so far unusual in pastiches). There was a smattering of the usual suspects in terms of minor canon characters – Mrs Hudson, Lestrade, etc. – as well as one other I will not name, who were all also very well characterised, as well as a collection of original characters who were well developed and believable.
Story: I believe I already mentioned the mother of all plot twists? Even before that, I was massively enjoying the story because it was not, as I had feared it might be, over the top, and yet it was completely gripping and the twin mysteries had me hooked from the start. I figured out one or two things before the characters – well, Watson at least – but nowhere near enough to draw an accurate conclusion. The “Giant Rat” could have been avoided, or only vaguely referred to, or overdone – or underdone, or almost anything at all could have happened to make a story I had looked forward to so much, disappointing, but it wasn’t in the least. It was suitably frightening and mysterious at first (and I never expected to be frightened of a rat, no matter the size or the state of the characters) and even once identified the “glamour” was not lost. I always find this section so hard to write without giving anything away…!
"Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Bulgarian Codex" by Tim Symonds
Rating: 3.5/5
Up until about halfway through, Sherlock Holmes and the Case of Bulgarian Codex was a solid 3/5, but it vastly improved later on and although it petered out again towards the end, there were some excellent twists along the way.
Style: Another short-and-sweet pastiche, with the quick-fire case style of the canon short stories stretched to about the length of the novels. Although it was a little strange at first, I was very impressed by Symonds’ efforts to fuse the fictional and real worlds surrounding Sherlock Holmes, including direct reference to William Gillette’s stage performance as Holmes in 1899 – the year before this story is set. What I took to be excessively roundabout and wordy passages actually turned out to be important – even vital – to the conclusion, although the explanation (of this aspect) itself was even drawn out a little too much. At some points it seems a lot is being crammed into a small space, at others as though fairly trivial events are being given unnecessary padding, but all is explained in the end and every – or almost every – point is important.
Canon: I’m fairly sure after reading this pastiche that Tim Symonds’ favourite Sherlock Holmes stories are A Scandal in Bohemia and The Final Problem. The number of references to those two cases is bordering on excessive, but is also fitting given the situations they arise in or as a result of. Several others are mentioned, even directly quoted, but none as often as these. It works, though; the former because their client is a particular fan and because a single line in that story leads in part to the conclusion of this, the latter if for no other reason than it was a good distraction and had me worrying about foreshadowing rather than noticing other potential clues. There are multiple references to Holmes’s retirement plans; at the time of the story still a few years off, but certainly close enough for the characters to be considering them, and well weaved in. I found in The Titanic Tragedy that I quite liked references to future cases, and the same was true here.
Characters: Holmes prevaricates for the sake of either encouraging Watson to come to his own conclusions or simply to annoy him – either is possible – Watson has a bit of a crush and Mycroft makes a brief appearance. Business as usual, it seems! Once or twice, Watson was frustratingly slow on the uptake, but this is by no means out of character, and sometimes I think Holmes’s deliberate circling of the issue was a little irritating but again – he does it enough in the canon, and it was more a case of being irritated by the characters than the writing! Holmes once again pursues justice rather than sticking by the letter of the law, which Watson is uncomfortable with but reluctantly understanding of. Mycroft’s appearance is brief and not strictly necessary to the story as a whole, but given the politics involved, not out of place either. There is a small passage near the beginning of the book which borders on being a bit too sentimental but bearing in mind the looming retirement plans and Watson’s own mind-set at the time, it can be for the most part excused I think.
Story: I was somewhat thrown off balance when the original story seemed to be abandoned in favour of a new one (it wasn’t, it just seemed that way initially), but the twists and turns that came up later were excellent and the little clues that were sown early on were never forgotten. The crime, as it turned out, was more personally than politically motivated, and this was somewhat refreshing. It was good to have everything boil down to – well, I won’t spoil it, but let’s say slightly more mundane motives – in the midst of vast political struggle, because much of the introduction was taken up with pressing how very important even the slightest movement by the various Rulers of Europe were, so it was nice to have this confirmed rather than swept away and left as unnecessary tension-building.
Conclusion: Sometimes not the strongest stylistically, but a good story with more than one unexpected twist before the end.
"Sherlock Holmes and the Element of Surprise" by J. Andrew Taylor
Rating: 3/5
The plot of Sherlock Holmes and the Element of Surprise: The Wormwood Scrubs Enigma has a lot of potential which is let down slightly by mild style and once or twice – but only once or twice – characterisation issues, although overall still a good (and quite short) read.
Style: As I said, I think the writing style of this pastiche is what lets it down the most. It’s not bad, it’s just a little…off, I suppose. Not that it has a great deal of effect on the story, but there are quite a few typos (in my copy at least, I don’t know if there are other editions) which can be a bit distracting. This aside, the writing is still in places perhaps a little simplistic and the tone quite light-hearted – not that these are a problem, it just took some getting used to. There are a number of deliberate jokes – some better placed than others – although the seriousness is not undermined by them at any point. They did make me smile, and as a whole made for a good “light” read, although in all honesty…the last line is truly terrible, in the best of ways. Let’s just say J. Andrew Taylor appears to like his puns.
Canon: The story is set one month after The Red Headed League, and is I think only the second pastiche I have read which directly includes Mary Watson, though briefly (more on her in a moment). There are passing references to one or two other canon cases but overall the story stands quite independently, and does it well. The style of the mystery itself (rather than the writing) is probably closer to the original stories than most other pastiches in its brevity, and although extra “padding” wouldn’t have done it harm, it might not have improved it either; it is paced very well and, much like the originals, proceeds along the line of having an initial apparently unsolvable “locked room” scenario, followed by investigation, followed by conclusion and Holmes’s customary explanation, without too many extra distractions.
Characters: This is the first pastiche I have read which does not feature Mycroft at all – there is no reason for him to be there, and his absence wouldn’t be noteworthy if it weren’t (so far, in my experience) unique. I just felt I ought to comment. Holmes and Watson are overall well characterised, although Watson seems more prone to laughter and jokes than in the canon. It’s not enough to make his characterisation off, but it is enough to notice. Then again, perhaps he is just in a particularly good mood. I do like many of his “extra” contributions, not directly linked to the case, which involve him acting as doctor and something of a mentor to one or two minor characters. I have one complaint though. (Well, complaint might be a harsh word). Mary is rarely given much attention by writers of adaptations (on screen or paper), and appears very little in the originals anyway, so reference for her characterisation is scarce. (Then again, it is for Mycroft, too, and writers manage it!). In the canon, though, when she appears, she seems fully supportive of Holmes and Watson’s cases (in fact, in her brief appearance in The Boscombe Valley Mystery, she actively encourages them). In adaptations, this one included, she seems to be often portrayed as frustrated and irritated by them. It’s an understandable characterisation but one that is something of a pet peeve of mine, I’m afraid. It has no effect on the story as a whole, but it left an impression on me that I couldn’t shake. At one point Holmes actually calls Watson "John", which is arguably out of character but is noted as such. One (of several, to be fair) redeeming factor is, as ever, the Irregulars, who appear more in discussion than in person but who are important in the opening at least. We are even given a little speculation on their origins - which includes some backstory for Holmes himself, which is always a bonus.
Story: By far the best part of this pastiche is the story itself; sometimes weak plots are held together by good writing; sometimes a good plot makes up for weaker writing. The latter applies here, I think. It is a “locked room” mystery which couldn’t fail to interest even Holmes on first glance; two men murdered in the middle of a field of fresh snow with no footprints within ten feet of either body – and both heads missing. Holmes, of course, quickly finds and follows leads everyone else has missed and while okay, the general skeleton of the conclusion is not difficult to arrive at, the specifics are less easily identifiable and you do have to bear in mind with this sort of thing the time period it was set in – conclusions we find easy to come to now, with knowledge of modern technology, would have been much more difficult then. There is one very amusing moment which, even though it almost borders on ridiculous, I actually loved. I couldn’t help it. (And it was, in all fairness, perfectly necessary). I won’t spoil it but – something happens that I immediately worked out the reason for but which understandably confused both Holmes and Watson, initially. (A clue, though: it concerns the scientist Sir William Ramsay – who by the way appears as a character in the story).
Conclusion: This review feels quite awkward and contradictory, but that is because that’s how I felt about the book itself. Short and sweet probably about sums it up. An excellent mystery which could have been pulled off better but also could have been much worse; still well worth a read.
The Whitechapel Horrors, by Edward B. Hanna, is the second Holmes vs. Ripper story I have read. I will try my best not to draw too many comparisons to Dust and Shadow, but I can’t promise there won’t be any.
Style: Written in the third person, apparently compiled from Watson’s notes after his death, some of the occasionally awkward style can be excused. It is overall very well written, but – probably by the nature of how it’s written – sometimes lacking in…atmosphere, I suppose. And as I did mention in my review of Dust and Shadow, I’m not a huge fan of footnotes. I find they interrupt the flow and can get in the way of, as much as add to, the story, especially when they are not inserted at the end of the page but at the back of the book – and there are a lot – so you’re constantly breaking off to read them. Again, though, their explanations are often very interesting and very useful for anyone unfamiliar with either canon detail or the historical facts, and in this case a great many are provided which are not always even that relevant. The dedication to being compiled from perhaps disorganised notes is consistent and well done, including mentions of apparently missing passages and sometimes incomplete or confusing information. Some dates are historically inaccurate within the story but are commented on as being so in the footnotes – for example, Holmes apparently referencing a quote from Oscar Wilde before he ever made it, or Mycroft mentioning a hotel not yet even opened. I would not even have known they were inaccurate if the book’s own footnotes hadn’t told me, so I’m not sure what the purpose of putting them there only to then dispute them was as neither has any bearing on the overall story, but it could be simply to add to the idea of incomplete or faulty notes, compiled (as explained in the prologue of sorts) by an ageing Watson of fading memory. The style is clear and direct, however, and despite a number of twists and very deliberate red herrings, relatively easy to follow.
Canon: In a truly impressive attention to detail, multiple canon cases are not only mentioned, but inserted into the narrative, as the stated or assumed dates coincide with the months encompassing the Ripper murders. My favourite reference was (again) to Holmes’s test for haemoglobin, this time because we were actually given some of the chemistry behind it and I’ve been interested in that ever since I read it in A Study in Scarlet (I’m a biochemistry student myself). Any references made only in passing are explained in the footnotes, which makes it easy to double-check or to jog your memory. In the final scene, set in 1895, Watson is not living with Holmes at Baker Street. I checked with the story referenced for this assumption (The Norwood Builder) and as far as I can tell he had actually already moved back following Holmes’s return after Reichenbach. Also, Shinwell Johnson plays a part – and while I don’t think dates are specifically mentioned in the canon, in The Illustrious Client, Watson does make a point of saying that it was only in later years that he worked with them, which I would have taken to mean quite some time after 1888 – but it’s a very minor point. Apart from this canon compliance is, as far as I can tell, almost impeccable.
Characters: Holmes is by turns much more cheerful and much ruder, and Watson for his part can often seem far more cynical, than either do in the canon, but in the course of the book this probably balances out reasonably well. Mycroft makes his customary appearance (I don’t think I’ve read a pastiche yet where he doesn’t, at least in passing – not that I’m complaining) and, of course, the Irregulars (I love the Irregulars, as I have said before, and even a token appearance – which this is not – earns points from me!). Historical figures, naturally, are scattered throughout – some with larger roles than others (Inspector Abberline, for example, was much more prominent here than in Dust and Shadow, while George Lusk was much less so) and many who make only cameo appearances are given footnoted detail. I can’t name some of the key players for spoilers, but there are several very well-known names given highly important roles.
Story: It was extremely interesting to see where The Whitechapel Horrors and Dust and Shadow coincided here, because prior to reading Dust and Shadow I knew very little of the Ripper murders at all. Before I did some brief research, I couldn’t have said which details – even in some cases which characters – were factual or were Faye’s invention. This time I was specifically looking for certain events or people I knew would appear, as well as keeping an eye out for unexpected similarities because I assumed that would point to historical fact rather than independent author invention (not always the case, as it turns out, but I won’t say why for spoilers…). Hanna’s story, as I’ve said, lacks some of the atmosphere of Faye’s (I’m so sorry, the comparisons keep making themselves), but it is still rich in historical detail and has a wholly different and exciting take on the “conclusion”. I felt that the crimes themselves could have been better represented, but the investigation made up for it in most places; Faye’s pastiche and Hanna’s (I know, I know) focus on the effects of the murders in very different ways and by the nature of this, Hanna’s is a more detached account when it comes to the victims. It is more concerned with suspects and the repercussions of success; Faye’s is more…personal, and focuses (mostly) on the possible results of failure. I think perhaps the major difference is simply in their approach to the story; Hanna sets up a fairly detailed plot and leads the characters through it, while Faye seems to let the characters lead her, and the plot can follow after (within the confines of historical fact). I personally prefer the latter approach, but of course both are equally valid (and I might be entirely wrong about them anyway).
The third quarter or so was probably the best in terms of story; it really picked up here and this was the most active portion. Hanna expounded in much more detail a historical theory Faye gave only one throwaway line to, and many of the developments were genuinely shocking to me, let alone how they would be perceived by the characters, who are obviously far more sensitive to Victorian political scandal than I am. Or perhaps I’ve just read so much from the period now that I’m getting more in tune to what their attitudes would be. I did not anticipate the ending at all, which is perhaps surprising in itself – but I won’t give away spoilers. Merely say that I am suitably impressed with Hanna’s daring for an entirely different reason than I expected to be.
Conclusion: I wavered a lot on the rating (always between 3 and 4), but ultimately a good and obviously well researched story in a style I haven’t seen before.
Note: Remember how I said I didn’t have a very high opinion of Anthony Horowitz but had to try not to let that affect my judgement of his pastiche? Something of the opposite problem here – from the Author’s Note at the end of the book…
“While it need hardly be said that this is primarily a work of fiction, custom, prudence, and legal counsel require me to do so. Of course, that part of the account relating to the affairs of Dr. John H. Watson and Mr. Sherlock Holmes is wholly factual.”
When I found The Titanic Tragedy, I was both dubious and intrigued – and I have to say, having read it my opinion is still somewhat split.
Style: Skating over a couple of points which are pet peeves of mine and probably more of an editor’s domain than an author’s anyway, the writing style is overall good. It is occasionally awkward and often weighed down by squeezing in too many unnecessary details about the Titanic itself – numbers, statistics and such – but for the most part it flows well and I have no real complaints to make. It is often nostalgic or sentimental in the same sort of way as I mentioned in my review of The House of Silk – but in both cases the context makes this perfectly fitting and it contributes well to the tone, although running dangerously close to pure fan-service sometimes. (Not that I really have much of a problem with a little fan-service!) I felt that sometimes certain characters or events were not given the time they really deserved, but there was a lot going on and, by the very nature of the setting, a limited amount of time to fit it all in, so this is perfectly understandable.
Canon: Given that the story is set in 1912 – almost ten years after Holmes’s retirement and two before the events of His Last Bow (which is incidentally very well set up here) – fitting in with the canon chronology was never going to be a problem. There are numerous references to canonical cases, usually not in the narration but by the characters themselves, in almost all cases appropriately timed and not seeming – as can happen sometimes – forced at all. There is one point in the very first chapter when Watson is showing a visitor what is practically a museum to 221B in the spare room of his flat, that seemed a bit much to me, but at the same time it was a rather (bitter)sweet moment, so it all evens out. (And again something similar at the very end, but I can’t say more about this one because it’s a spoiler!)
Characters: If you’ve read any of my other reviews, you’ll know how much I love the Irregulars and how much I look forward to any mention of them at all. I was not disappointed. Perhaps my favourite canon-character reference in the whole book, though very brief, was to one “Inspector Wiggins” of Scotland Yard. It has no actual bearing on the story itself (well…not really, although the Irregulars as an idea does I suppose), but I loved it. Then there is Mycroft’s usual, and important though again fairly brief, appearance. And two more characters – one the daughter of a former acquaintance, the other a brother of a different one, who I won’t name because it would spoil things but which were both very much appreciated, especially the first (if only because the second’s importance is, it seems at first, initially exaggerated and then dismissed out of hand, which was a little irritating). There are, of course, a handful of historical characters filling in the background, most notably Captain EJ Smith, as well as a number of original characters who make for what is sometimes quite a tangled web of victims/suspects/culprits – not necessarily all of the same crime. Holmes and Watson themselves are mostly very well written – one or two of Watson’s reactions or comments seemed slightly off to me, but not for any particular reason I can think of … I’m just being awkward. Or perhaps it’s just the slightly (sometimes) stilted style coming through.
Story: Complicated, it seems at first. Or perhaps not immediately, but fairly quickly anyway the list of victims/suspects/culprits/crimes tots up quite impressively given that they are in an enclosed space – although admittedly a very large one – in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean! It is all explained in the end though, and everything does tie together in its own way despite the large number of apparently unrelated events at the start. Of course, in a mystery novel you can always expect seemingly unrelated things to end up being vitally important to each other, and of course there are always red herrings and deliberately misleading characters or events, but sometimes they just seem too obviously red herrings. (More fool me, on at least one occasion…). Holmes makes impressive use of his skills of disguise (even if he doesn’t always fool everyone … which made for quite an amusing moment), but very little, if any, real deduction is apparent – the story itself hangs together perfectly well as it is, but the absence is noticeable, in a Holmes pastiche, even if it wouldn’t be in an average mystery. The fact that the setting is the Titanic is almost completely incidental, right up until the end. While I was glad that the entire book wasn’t taken up by unnecessary foreshadowing (Seil is very good at resisting this – there is some, but it’s not overdone), I did almost feel that it could really have been set on any ship and still worked just the same. Although I suppose, if you choose to send Sherlock Holmes across the Atlantic in 1912, you’re not really going to choose any other ship, are you? Understandably – the setting of the Titanic makes building suspense and a sense of urgency almost laughably easy, because it’s already there before you’ve even started reading. The trouble is, if you’re only doing it for the drama and suspense of the idea, then actual historical events (i.e., the sinking) might not get quite the attention they deserve. However, on the whole the story builds up as a prequel of sorts to His Last Bow, and this aspect is certainly very well done and believable, while having its own quite intriguing mysteries to keep track of!
Conclusion: Fantastic potential which it did not quite live up to, but still an enjoyable read.
