Customer Reviews

Dust and Shadow: An Account of the Ripper Killings by Dr. John H. Watson

5 star:		(53)
4 star:		(23)
3 star:		(9)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Review: This is a first novel for Ms. Faye and it is subtitled "An Account of the Ripper Killings by Dr. John H. Watson." As a Sherlockian scholar, I maintain a database of Sherlockian pastiches, parodies and related fiction. Among other things, this database keeps reference to the subjects of its entries and "Jack the Ripper" is the single most popular subject for pastiche writers, other than "The Hound of the Baskervilles." There are at least seventy five different items on file about attempts to tell the story of JACK, including Ellery Queen's excellent "A Study in Terror" and Carol Nelson Douglas' two volumes from her Irene Adler series; "Chapel Noir" and "Castle Rouge."

The literature on the Ripper killings is also complex and lengthy. Numerous individuals have been nominated for the role and reasons for the abrupt end to the killings are also legion. Among the Sherlockian offerings, the number of ripper suspects approaches seventy five with almost as many explanations offered for the end to the killings. Although the Sherlockian works are often interesting, they offer little in the way of solid evidence from history for their resolutions of the questions left by the events. The true Ripper Literature tends toward the `Police Procedural' school and is often merely gross, with little entertainment value except to sensationalists.

In this book, one is taken by the Good Doctor along on an investigation by The Master into the world of monsters. This is not the world of Vampires and Ghosties; instead a sense of growing horror brings both the investigators and the reader to the awarenes of the monsters that dwell amongst us, the human monsters that may be our neighbors or our contemporaries. Holmes and Watson are driven to face this reality and to find ways to deal with apparently `motiveless crimes.' Holmes says "But I have repeated to myself Cui bono? until I can feel the words burned upon my brain, and the only answer is No one." This adjustment in outlook is what made the Ripper Killings so difficult for contemporary society to deal with. No one could believe that Jack wandered around like a normal person, killed his victims and then dissolved back into the crowd of humanity in Whitechaple.

This novel presents an interesting solution to the identity of The Ripper and to the resolution of his fate. So far as I have read, it does not duplicate other proposed solutions, but it does seem to fit the established facts. There are a number of `unestablished facts' that surround the Ripper Murders but many of those have been debunked by one author or another and many are discussed here. The activities of Press and the reactions of the denizens of Whitechaple are well covered in this book, in fact, they are integral to it. I wish I could call it a `pleasant read' or a `good Holmesian tale,' but it is not either of these things. It is dark and disturbing and frustrating. Holmes is discouraged, the Doctor is outraged and Scotland Yard is held up to ridicule by everyone involved.

The resolution is believable and the identity given for the Ripper is plausible. The book is hard to leave for even a moment and the usual distractions of Americanisms and untimely slang are mostly absent. Holmes' investigation is real to the reader and his frustrations are apparent. The book is well worth reading and deeply disturbing.

Reviewed by: Philip K. Jones, February 2009.

Having grown-up on a steady diet of Sherlock Holmes' stories as well as the macabre tale of Jack the Ripper [thanks to mom who is an ardent true crime fan], my interest was piqued by this latest pastiche of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes' stories. Though I'm no Sherlockian scholar, I thought Lyndsay Faye's debut was well-written and made for a riveting read, engrossing me in the period details as much as the intriguing plot and character development.

In "Dust and Shadow", the master detective Sherlock Holmes, and his able sidekick Dr John H Watson undertake to solve a series of gruesome murders committed in the Whitechapel district of London in 1888. Those familiar with the story of Jack the Ripper know that the number of victims attributed to the Ripper totaled five in all: Mary Ann "Polly" Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth "Long Liz" Stride, "Catherine Eddowes", and "Mary Jane Kelley". In this pastiche, the author attributes another earlier murder to the Ripper, that of Martha Tabram, who was murdered on Aug 7th 1888, a victim of multiple stab wounds [39 in all].

In the process of solving the murders and uncovering the killer's identity, Holmes himself falls victim to the press of the day, and his very reputation is put on the line as he has to deal with speculations that he himself may have something to do with the murders. Thus the stage is set for a true potboiler, with rich period details and complex characterizations that had me racing through the pages.

I am amazed that this is a debut novel by the author - she writes with flair and assurance, and through the authentic re-creation of Whitechapel in 1888, manages to transport readers into a world that seems altogether familiar. The resolution of the Ripper's identity is also deftly managed, and though this is once again pure speculation, I'd have to say, Ms Faye made quite a convincing case. "Dust and Shadow: An Account of the Ripper Killings" is a great period thriller, and will appeal to fans of the genre as well as fans of both Holmes and "the Knife".

The idea of Sherlock Holmes facing off against Jack the Ripper is such a natural (they "operated" in the same time frame) that one is surprised that Conan Doyle didn't use it himself. But no worries, at least a dozen others have used it since. Probably the best novel version is Nicholas Meyers' "The West End Horror', and, undeniably, the best film version is "Murder by Decree" starring Christopher Plummer as Holmes and James Mason as the best Watson ever! All of which is a long-winded way of saying that each new version must be viewed by, not the originality of the idea, but how well each writer pulls it off. By that standard, first time author Lyndsay Faye pulls it off very well indeed, thank you. Her Holmes, Watson, indeed all her characters, are more than credible as human beings and, within the confines of paying all due homage to the Conan Doyle canon, she manages not a few very interestting surprises of her own. A must for Sherlockians and a damn good read for anyone else!

The beauty of Arthur Conan Doyle is that no one writes like him. His creation of Sherlock Holmes was/is so utterly perfect that all other attempts miss the mark... perhaps not by much, but they often lack that certain spice that lets you know that is was not done by the master's hand.

Of the many Holmes tales I have read over the last 50 years, I must admit that Dust and Shadow comes closer than most.

To read a Sherlock Holmes tale is to venture into the period of the 1880s, and it is the author's responsibility to take you there. Lyndsay Faye does so, and quite well. As an actress, she uses the terminology of the period and slight, but significant references within London to help you feel that you have ventured into Holmes' world. Whether you believe the outcome of the Ripper tale is secondary; the treat is getting there.

Her descriptions and explanations are reflective of those expected of Doyle, and her incorporation of the facts of the real-life Jack the Ripper simply serve to enhance the era. I was also quite pleased that she used characters referred to by Doyle including Mycroft Holmes, Sherlock's older, and some contend, more astute brother.

Followers of Doyle will find the tale entertaining and well-written. It is among the better stories of Sherlock Holmes I have read.

I have read a great many Sherlock Holmes' take-offs, pastiches, etc. over the years. Some were pretty good, some were OK and most were awful. This lastest attempt to combine Holmes and the Ripper kind of falls on the line between "good" and "OK".

Lyndsay Faye does a very nice job in recreating the "Watsonian voice". Her narrative through Watson's eyes is spot-on with the canon stories. She does well also in her descriptions and dialogs. She might have over-done her attempt to create a deeper (or maybe more obvious) friendship between Holmes and Lestrade but what's the fun of playing with established charaters if you can't do a bit of creative interpreting?

My real complaint is that the story itself was rather bland. The idea of bringing Holmes and the Ripper together is not a new one and it has been better done. The history of Jack the Ripper is well-known and gives a pretty rigid framework to operate in. An author really only needs to be creative with the actual criminal. Who was the Ripper? Why did he commit such crimes? How would someone like Sherlock Holmes approach this case?

Ms. Faye does answer those questions but the whole thing kind of flopped for me. At first the inclusion of a female hired by Holmes to serve as an inside source seemed to be a good idea. But as the story progressed it actually got rather tedious and felt unnecessary. The emotions surrounding the case lacked, too. I got no sense of terror when she described the riots in Whitechapel. There was no real feeling of panic or desperation. And there were no brilliant deductions from Holmes himself. In the end the criminal himself and the reasons behind his behavior seemed a bit stretched and rather hurried. Actually the criminal was pretty obvious from the beginning -- and I am not good at guessing "whodunnit", as a rule.

So as I say, the ingredients were all there for a good story but it just came up a little short. I hope now that she has one "under her belt", Ms. Faye will ramp it up and continue her stories of the Master with just a bit more spice to the mystery itself.

There are good things about this book, atmosphere and the author's obvious knowledge of "gaslight" London are two. But there are flaws as well. One example is the way Holmes and Watson realize another murder has occurred. A carriage is stopped and the reins of the horse are slack. The slack reins forces Holmes to get out of his own carriage and investigate. Why? Holmes explains later that since the carriage driver and the horse were returning home, there was no reason for the horse to stop pulling the wagon (indeed it would have been in a hurry to get home) unless something (a murder victim?) had startled it. A bit weak but worse is that there was no way for Holmes to know the horse and driver were going home! This fact is learned only after he talks to the driver, so there was no real reason to stop and investigate.Besides, the reins could be slack even if the horse was pulling the wagon, reins are used to turn the horse.

(Spoiler alert) But the real flaw is the solution which I will not reveal except to say that it (the solution) has no validity in terms of history. And if you're going to write an "historical fiction" about a major true crime then that fiction, in my opinion, should be as true as possible to the actual historical facts. Anyone can just throw in a suspect out of the surrounding crowd.

I've read other "Holmes vs. Ripper" books, including Carraher's excellent "The Adventure of the New York Ripper" which takes a true (historical) suspect and builds the tale and the conclusion around the facts. That is not the case here. Too bad.

In her debut novel, the author pits the iconic fictional detective Sherlock Holmes against the very real murderer Jack the Ripper. With Ripperologists and Holmes purists aplenty out there, writing such a book had to be a somewhat daunting task; sticking to the confused historical record of the Whitechapel murders while not marring the Conan Doyle tradition. To her credit Faye does a pretty good job at walking - writing - this historical/literary tightrope.

Writing - as Doyle did - in the voice of Dr. Watson, the author does an excellent job in capturing Victorian London, its sights and sounds and smells; the shock of the Ripper murders; and Sherlock Holmes, with all his quirks, intelligence and methods. Faye blends Watson and Holmes into the investigation without intruding, all the while sticking close to the historical record - or at least what we believe is the historical record of Jack the Ripper.

The narrative was somewhat lacking for this reader with the inclusion of a female character that Holmes adds to the team. Unfortunately she reads more like a 21st century character than a late 19th century one. Also the solution and the culprit responsible are ascertained well before the conclusion and may not satisfy Holmes' purists.

That being said this is still a very engaging historical mystery and if that's your cup of tea, you won't be disappointed with Dust and Shadow.

First time novelist Faye does commendable job in atmosphere, characters, and dialogue as she pits Sherlock Holmes against Jack the Ripper. In fact, she channels Conan Doyle's style eerily well. But there are two missing ingredients: plot and pace. Though this match-up has been done a few times before in fiction, it should still produce chills given the true gruesome murders and the deducing detective.

Unfortunately, there are not enough twists and turns to really hold interest. I did enjoy one misdirection in the book but it did not derail me long. So then it became a question of how long it took Holmes to arrive at the correct conclusion and, more importantly, how he does it. And given that, I would argue that one will get more out of this book if they are versed in Ripper and White Chapel facts as Faye accurately integrates the real events.

Overall, very enjoyable especially for the setting and mood but if one is looking for true thrills - seek elsewhere.

I started this book a bit hopeful and a bit skeptical; as a lifelong fan of Sherlock Holmes stories, I've read many pastiches which purport to bring Holmes together with Jack the Ripper, but most have been disappointing. This, however, was a thoroughly enjoyable read. The author captures the style of Conan Doyle very well and the secondary characters were good. I liked that Lestrade wasn't a fool, and neither was Watson. Because we already know so much about these murders, the outcome must deal with the way in which Holmes solves the crimes but the identity is never revealed to the public, and that is handled well. The typical elements of a Holmes story are here -- help from the Irregulars, a visit by Mycroft, disguises, etc. and a good time is had by all. I will buy others in this series, if more follow.

Do you know what a "Mary Sue" character is?

I will begin with a quick summary--Sherlock Holmes, on the trail of Jack the Ripper. Faye captures Conan Doyle's literary "voice" quite well. The dialogue of Holmes, Watson, and Lestrade is quite convincing, & is carried off very well. The historical facts of the Ripper murders are well-researched, & few or no obvious anachronisms in the text betray that it was penned during the 21st Century, rather than the 19th.

Unto this point, it is a truly excellent Holmes novel, one worthy of praise from followers of the Canon. And then...it hits the wall.

Lyndsey Faye commits a serious mistake, a literary vice, if you will. She adds one Mary Ann Monk as an extra assistant for Holmes & Watson.

Do you know what a "Mary Sue" character is? It is a character with over-inflated abilities, who serves as a wish-fullfilment character for the author or reader. A heroic version of the author or reader, injected into the plot so the author/reader can live out a fantasy vicariously.

Mary Ann Monk is an obvious "Mary Sue" character.

Mary Ann Monk is far too well educated, well behaved, too intelligent, too independant, too confident & too observant to be a convincing London streetwalker, cira 1887. But she comes across like a detective school graduate, gifted far beyond any possible limits, given her background. She might as well be wearing a Supergirl cape & insignia.

"Mary Sue" characters are a literary vice of badly-written Fan Fiction, and have no place in a professionally-published novel.

An otherwise 5 star novel, dropped to 3 stars, for Ms Faye's poor judgement.