Scan barcode
alexrobinsonsupergenius's review against another edition
4.0
Terrific--if disturbing--adventure combinging Sherlock Holmes and Jack the Ripper.
hsblechman's review against another edition
4.0
Thought this was going to go the (boring) royal conspiracy route and then rather pleasantly subverts it! hurrah!
stevewhitaker's review against another edition
1.0
It's a Holmes story without Watson as the narrator, and which portrays the great detective as desperate and indecisive. Ultimately, the book fails - not on every level, to be sure, but on all the key ones.
avrilhj's review
4.0
This book is a lot of fun. While it sadly finishes without definitively identifying Jack the Ripper, the path it takes to its non-conclusion is an enjoyable journey. Perhaps the best part is the 'Notes'; 120 end notes that assume that Holmes and Watson are historical figures and so add historical references and explanations to the narrative. It's a little disappointing that the book is written in the third person, rather than by Watson, but since some of the action takes place while Watson is on Dartmoor with Sir Henry Baskerville it's unavoidable. It's also a pity that Watson expresses some of the homophobia undoubtedly shared by most Englishmen of his time, class and education - I can't believe that Holmes would be quite so dismissive of Oscar Wilde, for example, as Watson is. But, all in all, a worthy addition to Sherlockia.
miss_alaina's review against another edition
5.0
This book is chock full of footnotes, but, whatever you do, don't skip them. This is one of my favorite books, mainly because I'm in love with Sherlock Holmes and mildly obsessed with Jack the Ripper - so what could be better than a story about both of them?
bev_reads_mysteries's review
3.0
The Further Adventures of Sherlock Holmes: The Whitechapel Horrors by Edward B. Hanna plays at "What If?" What if Sherlock Holmes were a real person? (Gasp! Who could doubt it?) And what if he had investigated the horrible murders committed by Jack the Ripper? For surely, the Great Detective would have been called in on such a notorious case.
There is no doubt that Hanna knew his Holmes. He was a long-time Holmes buff and a member of the Baker Street Irregulars. And he most definitely had done his research in Ripper lore. Though a work of fiction, the novel is meticulously footnoted. Those who are well-acquainted with the Holmes canon may say, too much footnoting--he chooses to footnote material that anyone who knows the least bit about Holmes and Watson should know--but better too much than not enough. Hanna has used the Holmes canon and the facts of the terrible murders in 1888 and blended them into a dandy little tale. And it is very interesting to follow Holmes on the track of one of the most notorious killers of all time.
Almost 300 pages long, the book flies by (I finished it in a little over the day) and I didn't want to put it down until I got to the end. Hanna gets almost everything right. Almost. I quibble with bits of his portrayal of Watson--I maintain that the doctor is too good-hearted to espouse some of the derogatory comments and prejudicial beliefs Hanna attributes to him. Yes, some of the comments about the poor and certain races living in London were true of the day--but surely Hanna could have presented those details without putting them in the mouth of the good doctor. Watson does in a lot of ways represent the stalwart British man of his time, but not in all ways.
My other quibble is the ending--or rather the lack thereof. It is very disquieting to follow Holmes throughout the story and be left hanging at the end. We aren't told who the Great Detective believes Jack the Ripper to be and we are supposed to believe that at the end of the day Holmes doesn't even know. That Holmes is no more enlightened than the police. That is not the Holmes we know.
Overall, a good tale. Hanna makes it very believable that Holmes could have investigated this case. And the blend of fact and fiction is very good. An enjoyable read worth three stars.
{This review is mine and was first posted on my blog at http://myreadersblock.blogspot.com/2012/04/sherlock-holmes-white-chapel-horrors.html. Please request permission to repost any portion. Thanks.}
etkahler's review
3.0
My actual rating is probably more like 2.5 stars.
This book brought out more emotion in me than any other book has in quite a long time. The emotions are not necessarily positive ones (including anger, lots of anger), but the fact that it did bring out an emotion in me nudged the rating from two to three stars.
We'll start with the good. The red herrings in this book were fantastic. I was never sure which pieces of information were important and which were incidental and this makes for an excellent mystery. I enjoyed the footnotes at the end of the book. I found them useful and amusing to read and shed a little more light on the time period or on the Holmesian tradition.
I also enjoyed the inclusion of the conspiracy theory that the royal family was somehow involved in the Ripper murders. There were other historical figures included, such as the Prime Minister at the time, and Inspector Abberline. However, I would have liked to see even more people that actually existed, especially that of the suspects, both those of the time and of present day.
But that's about all the good I can muster. The third person limited point of view was very jarring for me when most all Sherlock Holmes novels are written in first person (Watson's). This might not have been so odd for me had the third person limited still been mostly in Watson's point of view, but there are large portions of the novel where we follow Holmes' footsteps during times Watson is never around.
There were many sections of the book that I just glazed over due to the unnecessarily long descriptions of places and people. I understand that there are times when such descriptions are needed, especially for a mystery in which details are of utmost importance, but many parts were unnecessary.
Finally, the resolution of the book infuriated me. Despite the canon Holmes insisting many times that he fails more than Watson lets on, I still expect my Sherlock Holmes to be on top form. But when I found out at the end of this book that Holmes hasn't "a clue to who he is . . . Not a single clue" I literally threw the book down in frustration. (The throwaway line two pages later where Watson accuses Holmes of lying to him and Holmes cryptically replying that there are "some things it is best not to know" only heightened my frustration.)
While I realize that the author's intent was likely to stay realistic to history, that is precisely why I read fiction. History tells me that we will never know who Jack the Ripper is, so I read stories to give me supposed answers instead. To read 400 pages of detective work, deductions, and red herrings only to be denied an answer was not an easy pill to swallow, and I admit that I partially resent the whole experience.
In conclusion, this is most definitely not my favorite Sherlock Holmes/Jack the Ripper pastiche and I would recommend Lyndsay Faye's "Dust and Shadow" or "The Last Sherlock Holmes Story" by Michael Dibdin before this one.
This book brought out more emotion in me than any other book has in quite a long time. The emotions are not necessarily positive ones (including anger, lots of anger), but the fact that it did bring out an emotion in me nudged the rating from two to three stars.
We'll start with the good. The red herrings in this book were fantastic. I was never sure which pieces of information were important and which were incidental and this makes for an excellent mystery. I enjoyed the footnotes at the end of the book. I found them useful and amusing to read and shed a little more light on the time period or on the Holmesian tradition.
I also enjoyed the inclusion of the conspiracy theory that the royal family was somehow involved in the Ripper murders. There were other historical figures included, such as the Prime Minister at the time, and Inspector Abberline. However, I would have liked to see even more people that actually existed, especially that of the suspects, both those of the time and of present day.
But that's about all the good I can muster. The third person limited point of view was very jarring for me when most all Sherlock Holmes novels are written in first person (Watson's). This might not have been so odd for me had the third person limited still been mostly in Watson's point of view, but there are large portions of the novel where we follow Holmes' footsteps during times Watson is never around.
There were many sections of the book that I just glazed over due to the unnecessarily long descriptions of places and people. I understand that there are times when such descriptions are needed, especially for a mystery in which details are of utmost importance, but many parts were unnecessary.
Finally, the resolution of the book infuriated me. Despite the canon Holmes insisting many times that he fails more than Watson lets on, I still expect my Sherlock Holmes to be on top form. But when I found out at the end of this book that Holmes hasn't "a clue to who he is . . . Not a single clue" I literally threw the book down in frustration. (The throwaway line two pages later where Watson accuses Holmes of lying to him and Holmes cryptically replying that there are "some things it is best not to know" only heightened my frustration.)
While I realize that the author's intent was likely to stay realistic to history, that is precisely why I read fiction. History tells me that we will never know who Jack the Ripper is, so I read stories to give me supposed answers instead. To read 400 pages of detective work, deductions, and red herrings only to be denied an answer was not an easy pill to swallow, and I admit that I partially resent the whole experience.
In conclusion, this is most definitely not my favorite Sherlock Holmes/Jack the Ripper pastiche and I would recommend Lyndsay Faye's "Dust and Shadow" or "The Last Sherlock Holmes Story" by Michael Dibdin before this one.
strikingthirteen's review against another edition
2.0
Reading a Holmes pastiche tends to go one of two ways: very good or very bad. I wouldn't call this one very bad but it wasn't as good as I'd hoped it would be. Sherlock Holmes investigating the Ripper murders seems like an awesome idea(and it is) but this just seemed a bit too forced. I mean that in the sense that it read like the author had just inserted Holmes into places that made sense and then didn't really smooth out the rough edges to make it flow nicely. The parts I believed the most were the bits at the end with Mycroft and the whole royal cover up. The rest just didn't feel as natural as some other Holmes pastiches that I've read where he's basically inserted into historical events. The book is incredibly well researched and I guess that is to the story's detriment - at points it reads like a Holmesian essay than a pastiche.
It was a good and engaging read despite all that. I burned through the book pretty quick considering the length and I really did enjoy the ending - which frustrated me but I liked that it did instead of going an easy way and just have Holmes know everything and sit on it forever. Considering the theory that was adopted and the route that was taken I liked the fact that Holmes didn't know who the Ripper was in the end - or else would not tell Watson. Or maybe Watson did know and just never recorded it. Love the toss up there.
I guess it would be fair to say the payoff was mostly worth the journey. As much as I liked the ending as aspects of the story I don't think I'll be visiting this pastiche again.
It was a good and engaging read despite all that. I burned through the book pretty quick considering the length and I really did enjoy the ending - which frustrated me but I liked that it did instead of going an easy way and just have Holmes know everything and sit on it forever. Considering the theory that was adopted and the route that was taken I liked the fact that Holmes didn't know who the Ripper was in the end - or else would not tell Watson. Or maybe Watson did know and just never recorded it. Love the toss up there.
I guess it would be fair to say the payoff was mostly worth the journey. As much as I liked the ending as aspects of the story I don't think I'll be visiting this pastiche again.
zoer03's review against another edition
3.0
I love the story and love the fact that this is Holmes vs The Ripper but and here is the biggie its very long winded and feels more like a factual and indepth look at the whole atmosphere and political undercurrents of the time with a side story of Sherlock holmes and Watson thrown in. I am afraid that though the story is great and I do enjoy the book it just feels sluggish, slow and laborious and at times dull. But its still good fun and though the ending is a complete sell out its still got that conan doylesque taste.
More...