Scan barcode
A review by linwearcamenel
The Improbable Adventures of Sherlock Holmes by John Joseph Adams
4.0
I really, really liked this book. I mean, I love Sherlock Holmes, so pretty much anything that's got him it it is good :-). This was also the first time I"ve ever read Holmes stories not by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, so I was a little leery about it, but I was pleasantly surprised. Most of them were good. I enjoyed almost all of them. I mean, some of them you could tell the author really wanted to be writing their own stuff and just inserted Holmes and Watson into their own style("The Specter of Tullyfane Abbey," and "The Vale of the White Horse"), but most at least made an effort to be "real" Holmes pastiches, and most of those succeeded.
Mostly, the stories that involved science fiction/fantasy elements (not all of them did, some were straight mysteries placed as red herrings)did them well. It's hard to insert someone as rational as Holmes into more fantastic stories, but most of them were well done. A few crossovers with the Cthulhu mythos, some parallel universes, etc. Plus appearances from practically every member of the Holmes canon: Moriarty (obviously) and Col. Sebastian Moran, Lestrade, the Baker Street Irregulars, Irene Adler, Mrs. Hudson. Just not Mycroft, that I remember. I thought that odd.
A few really stuck out...I now decided to read [b:The Beekeeper's Apprentice|91661|The Beekeeper's Apprentice (Mary Russell, #1)|Laurie R. King|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1298438298s/91661.jpg|891863] because of the Laurie R. King story ("Mrs. Hudson's Case") in this collection (I had always been so against the idea of Holmes + romance). I also enjoyed "The Case of the Other Detective," "The Singular Habits of Wasps," "The Adventure of the Dorset Street Lodger," "The Adventure of the Antiquarian's Niece," "Commonplaces," "The Adventure of the Pirates of Devil's Cape," and "You See But You Do Not Observe." Of course, you'll probably like different ones, and most of the others I didn't mention are pretty good; there were only about five I didn't like, because I felt they were just too different from the actual Holmes.
And then there was "A Study in Emerald." There is a reason I give this story its own section, and that's because it. is. incredible. A great alternate universe story for Holmes, combined with an alternate Lovecraftian universe (alternate from the way it was portrayed in Lovecraft's stories). Well written, a love letter to the Holmes canon and the Cthulhu mythos, references to other Victorian literature. Just an amazing story. If you are a Holmes fan, you owe it yourself to read this story. If you are a Lovecraft fan, you owe it to yourself to read this story. If you are a Neil Gaiman fan, you've probably read this story already, but if you haven't, you owe it to yourself to read this story. And if you're not, read this story anyway. The whole book is worth it just for this story.(Side note: Neil Gaiman is set to write a Doctor Who episode this year. If it's even half as good as "A Study in Emerald" it will be the best episode they've ever aired.)
Anyway, I am now a devoted Sherlockian, no longer scared of pastiches (I was for the lonest time, that they'd mess with my perception of Holmes), and ready for more. Bottom line: John Joseph Adams's anthologies are usually good, and this was a very good one. Hopefully the rest of the Holmes pastiches I find will be as good.
Mostly, the stories that involved science fiction/fantasy elements (not all of them did, some were straight mysteries placed as red herrings)did them well. It's hard to insert someone as rational as Holmes into more fantastic stories, but most of them were well done. A few crossovers with the Cthulhu mythos, some parallel universes, etc. Plus appearances from practically every member of the Holmes canon: Moriarty (obviously) and Col. Sebastian Moran, Lestrade, the Baker Street Irregulars, Irene Adler, Mrs. Hudson. Just not Mycroft, that I remember. I thought that odd.
A few really stuck out...I now decided to read [b:The Beekeeper's Apprentice|91661|The Beekeeper's Apprentice (Mary Russell, #1)|Laurie R. King|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1298438298s/91661.jpg|891863] because of the Laurie R. King story ("Mrs. Hudson's Case") in this collection (I had always been so against the idea of Holmes + romance). I also enjoyed "The Case of the Other Detective," "The Singular Habits of Wasps," "The Adventure of the Dorset Street Lodger," "The Adventure of the Antiquarian's Niece," "Commonplaces," "The Adventure of the Pirates of Devil's Cape," and "You See But You Do Not Observe." Of course, you'll probably like different ones, and most of the others I didn't mention are pretty good; there were only about five I didn't like, because I felt they were just too different from the actual Holmes.
And then there was "A Study in Emerald." There is a reason I give this story its own section, and that's because it. is. incredible. A great alternate universe story for Holmes, combined with an alternate Lovecraftian universe (alternate from the way it was portrayed in Lovecraft's stories). Well written, a love letter to the Holmes canon and the Cthulhu mythos, references to other Victorian literature. Just an amazing story. If you are a Holmes fan, you owe it yourself to read this story. If you are a Lovecraft fan, you owe it to yourself to read this story. If you are a Neil Gaiman fan, you've probably read this story already, but if you haven't, you owe it to yourself to read this story. And if you're not, read this story anyway. The whole book is worth it just for this story.(Side note: Neil Gaiman is set to write a Doctor Who episode this year. If it's even half as good as "A Study in Emerald" it will be the best episode they've ever aired.)
Anyway, I am now a devoted Sherlockian, no longer scared of pastiches (I was for the lonest time, that they'd mess with my perception of Holmes), and ready for more. Bottom line: John Joseph Adams's anthologies are usually good, and this was a very good one. Hopefully the rest of the Holmes pastiches I find will be as good.