Scan barcode
A review by etkahler
The Further Adventures of Sherlock Holmes: The Whitechapel Horrors by Edward B. Hanna
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.