Reviews with content warning for Blood - The Angel of the Crows

Reviews tagging 'Blood'

The Angel of the Crows by Katherine Addison

8 reviews

turrean's review

adventurous mysterious tense slow-paced

Plot- or character-driven? A mix
Strong character development? No
Loveable characters? Yes
Diverse cast of characters? No
Flaws of characters a main focus? No

4.75

The audiobook was superb.

This is a marvelous recreation of the world of Sherlock Holmes. It’s a mix of supernatural fantasy and mystery, with a richly imagined Victorian London peopled by hellhounds, angels, vampires, stolid constables, and cunning criminals. The “Holmes” and “Watson” characters are delightful, and the references to the Conan Doyle stories are clever and plentiful.

I was sorry when it ended!

Content Warnings

bergha1998's review against another edition

Go to review page

adventurous dark mysterious reflective medium-paced

Plot- or character-driven? Plot
Strong character development? Yes
Loveable characters? Yes
Diverse cast of characters? Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

3.75

This is such an interesting plot idea. A fantasy world with angels and fallen angels, but it’s Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson with different names. Also, they’re trying to solve Jack the Ripper, along with several other mysteries. Not to mention the surprising diversity.

Fantasy/Mystery, LGBTQIA+

Content Warnings

massivepizzacrust's review against another edition

Go to review page

adventurous dark tense slow-paced

Plot- or character-driven? Plot
Strong character development? Yes
Loveable characters? Yes
Diverse cast of characters? Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus? No

4.0

I'll read anything Katherine Addison writes but I agree that this isn't the best of her works. I still think the writing her is gorgeous. I loved our main two characters, and the several character reveals were great and got me every time. I agree that the world building is a little hazy but I actually enjoyed just being plopped down into the middle of it and not thinking too hard about how things worked. I would be completely willing to read more in this universe, which is how I always feel about Addison's books (and okay, if a book centered on the Moriarty hunt I would be okay with that. I'm basic, sue me).
I was completely sucked in until the Hound of the Baskervilles section, at which point I started losing interest. I thought it was just the epistolary style of that section, but I also found the climax of the overarching Jack the Ripper plot to be a little disappointing. I could really see some of the loose ends being tied up in a sequel, which I would be very willing to read.

Content Warnings

pvbobrien's review against another edition

Go to review page

adventurous mysterious slow-paced

Plot- or character-driven? A mix
Strong character development? Yes
Loveable characters? Yes
Diverse cast of characters? Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

4.75

Content Warnings

ehmannky's review against another edition

Go to review page

dark mysterious slow-paced

Plot- or character-driven? Plot
Strong character development? Yes
Loveable characters? Yes
Diverse cast of characters? No
Flaws of characters a main focus? No

4.25

I have no idea why the book summary is so dramatic when this book would draw twice the readers if it just shouted from the rooftops that it's a Sherlock wingfic. I had a lot of fun reading this, even if the mysteries themselves have the same beats as the originals with little tweaks here and there. But I also am dumb and can't remember plot points from the original Doyle stories so that was fun for me. I think the weakest part of this book is the Jack the Ripper stuff, and I do think that Addison could have achieved the narrative if she had come up with her own murder mystery to be in the background of the story. But other than that, it's a good time.

For the closest example of what this book reminds me of, it's reminiscent of a MUCH better-written Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, and even though it mentions the BBC Sherlock, the character of Crow is much more kind and true to the original character of Sherlock Holmes than most adaptations are and I just found myself loving him. I also thought that the fantasy element was delightful and molded so well into the stories. Like, even the minor mentions of Jenny Greenteeth in the Hounds of the Baskervilles story was fun.

It was also queer in a way most queer retellings of Sherlock aren't. Like,

how has not a single reviewer on her not mentioned that Doyle (the Watson character) is nonbinary and that they explicitly say that they are neither a man or a woman, but living as a man just happens to suit them

Content Warnings

missindyrose's review against another edition

Go to review page

adventurous emotional lighthearted mysterious tense slow-paced

Plot- or character-driven? Character
Strong character development? It's complicated
Loveable characters? Yes
Diverse cast of characters? Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus? N/A

4.25

Content Warnings

obviousthings's review against another edition

Go to review page

mysterious medium-paced

Plot- or character-driven? A mix
Strong character development? No
Loveable characters? Yes
Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated

3.0

Well... it was okay. As someone who's VERY familiar with the Holmes stories, this book stuck too close to the plot of the originals for my taste, particularly with A Study in Scarlet and The Sign of the Four in the first half. I liked how Addison treated women and characters of colour from the Holmes canon with much more respect than they get in the original books, and I liked the supernatural elements that were added (especially the hellhounds and cerberi), but this feels more like Sherlock Holmes with some fantasy set dressing than an original novel.

It's worth noting that there are three Holmes novels, multiple short stories, and the Jack the Ripper case compressed into one book here. I can see why that was done - does anyone actually like the part of A Study in Scarlet that's just about the mormons? - but I feel like some of the themes were lost in the abridgement, and there wasn't enough added to replace them. I would have liked to see a stronger character arc for Dr. Doyle, with fantasy elements more thoroughly incorporated into the plot. The setting has a ton of potential, but it wasn't explored as much as it could have been in this book.

Content Warnings

wardenred's review against another edition

Go to review page

adventurous inspiring reflective medium-paced

Strong character development? Yes
Loveable characters? Yes
Diverse cast of characters? Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated

3.75

Although his public, formal manners were perfect, as angels' manners always were, I had discovered that he had no real understanding of how to treat someone with whom he did not have a strictly defined, formal relationship. I often caught him staring at me as if he had simply no idea what to do with the fact of my existence. It was not that he disliked me or that he did not wish us to be friends. He simply had no idea how and in some ways only the vaguest conception that the thing was possible at all.

Well, this was... certainly different from The Goblin Emperor, which happens to be one of my favorite books ever.

I did know, going in, that this was a Sherlock Holmes retelling. I figured that maybe, since it's been years since I last cracked open a Conan Doyle book, my recollection of the specifics of the crimes would be dim enough for me to still enjoy the plot. Apparently, my memory functions are faring better than I thought. Even with all the supernatural twists and the addition of an overarching storyline connecting the familiar investigation, the plot was incredibly predictable and I had trouble focusing on the plotty bits. Er... on most of the book.

I did enjoy the moments that were focused more on character interactions. Addison's version of Moriarty is now officially my favorite, and Crow—the Sherlock stand-in—is a compelling character, as well. Most of all, I enjoyed the parts that explored the setting. As I said in one earlier review of another book (The Bear and the Nightingale), the setting alone isn't enough to carry the story for me, but in this case, combined with interesting characters, it at least held my attention. I strongly feel that this version of Victorian London with all its angels and vampires and hemophages and hellhounds deserves a book with its own original plot that focuses on fully exploring what this world has to offer. I hope to read it someday.

My favorite moment was the conversation that revealed the characters' queerness. Like some reviews I've seen state, it did come pretty much out of the blue and it didn't influence anything much. However, that's precisely what I loved it. I always enjoy stories where queer characters get to just, you know, exist and do stuff and not have parts of their fictional lives turn into educational pamphlets. There doesn't have to be a point to a character being queer any more than there needs to be a point to a character being straight. If you don't ask questions like, "But what was the point of X being cishet? It doesn't add anything to the story!", you shouldn't ask these questions about characters who are trans, or ace, or gay, or queer in any other way. That's my hill, I'm prepared to die on it. :)

Overall, however, I'm sad to say I didn't enjoy the book very much. I did enjoy the parts of it that belonged to Katherine Addison's imagination and not the one that came from Conan Doyle's stories. I'll say it again: this world and these characters deserve something uniquely their own.

Read for the following September 2020 readathons:
- Monsterathon: Mystery

Content Warnings

More...