Most Helpful Customer Reviews
28 of 32 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
A variation on the death of Mr. Holmes, August 14, 2000
Brash, audacious, or perhaps blasphemous, are all expressions that the devotees of Arthur Conan Doyle could exclaim upon hearing that the final tale of Sherlock Holmes was to be re-written. There is literary precedent for this; at least two completed novels of Dickens were subjected to sequels by Authors who were not, and theories for solving the mystery of "The Mystery Of Edwin Drood", also by Mr. Dickens are vast in number. The latter exercise is not inappropriate as "Edwin Drood" stops in mid thought, as the Author left it for his dinner, and then a rest he was not to recover from. More recently "Gone With The Wind" was either the subject or the victim of a sequel as well. Why the fuss? The Bible is the most reproduced book in History, and if counted, might also take the crown for being offered in more variations than any other work as well. The revision here is to one story only, albeit the final one, but a challenge nonetheless. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is on record as not taking issue with others placing his creation in circumstances other than those he originally created. An example of his feelings is at the beginning of this work, but I leave that for the reader. The difference here is that the final story tells of the death of Mr. Holmes and his nemesis Moriarty at Reichenbach Falls. The first diversion that makes this tale unique is the inclusion of the Whitechapel Murders. These acts were not fictional, but rather the results of the still infamous Jack The Ripper. The primary players remain the same, Holmes, Moriarty, and Dr. Watson. Dr. Watson relates the tale as he wrote it, and per this story had it locked away for 50 years after his death, when it then could be opened. So the summer of 1976 is the setting Michael Dibdin begins his tale, and a very good one it is. It takes a great sensitivity to emulate writing that is so well known, to take the creations of another's pen and make them credible without being little more than a plagiarist. The more devoted of Mr. Doyle's readers may well refuse this read, but to do so would be to miss a great contemporary writer of the genre pay homage to, rather than besmirch the memory of Sir Doyle. Much of what you read is familiar, the fundamentals of course are not. If you choose to spend the time you will have a wonderful read, even if you are the strongest of advocates for the original Author's work.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
18 of 22 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Defending Dibdin, July 5, 2000
As an ardent Sherlockian I am clearly in a minority in thinking this book stunning. Far from criticising the liberties Dibdin takes with Holmes, I applaud him for his interpretation - surely better than preserving the character in aspic. In brief then, Holmes is pitted against the Ripper, but this narrative has the feel of a gritty documentary, as compared to the white-washed 'screenplay' of the original stories. Dibdin skillfully extrapolates what was always present beneath the surface, if we're honest. Of course such a mind would be precariously balanced, of course the showy deductions would occasionally fail, and of course Holmes' Moriarty fixation is dangerously close to a persecution complex. What Dibdin attempts to do here is present us with a 'true' manuscript, beqeathed in Watson's Will, of his final 'adventure' with Holmes. All the old elements are in place, but very different, we feel as though someone has drawn back a veil. The ending of this book has been much criticised in other reviews, chiefly because of it's lack of a 'double-bluff' twist. But I think I'm giving nothing away when I say that the very lack of a double-bluff is in itself the plot twist, the writer plays games with our expectations by dangling the most blatant of clues throughout the book, then answering them in the most shocking way. Essentially it's power comes from precisely the faith we have in Holmes, and this in the end makes it a respectful work, NOT a hatchet-job. Love it or hate it, few seem to be ambivalent. Read it!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
13 of 16 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Holmes in a different light, December 12, 2002
As you can see, either people loved or hated this book--no in between. So, if you are still wondering if you should try this Holmes pastiche, answer these two questions: Do you like Holmes pastiche that tries to replicate the Arthur Conan Doyle stories as best as possible? If so, then skip this book. It's as simple as that. Do you prefer more insight into the great criminal detective and what makes him tick? For those of us who do not think Sherlock Holmes is a completely untouchable sacred cow, then you might enjoy this book. In my experience, a person is either VERY protective about Holmes' personality or is open-minded. You HAVE TO BE OPEN-MINDED about Holmes' character to read this book. I admit, when I read this book and got to the "shocking" part, at first I was p-o'ed by the author. But the more I read and the more I thought about it, the story line is not ENTIRELY implausible. And in fact, it is definitely one of the most ORIGINAL Holmes pastiche out there. If you prefer Sherlock Holmes the way Conan Doyle portrayed him, then go back to the canon of stories; I don't think ANY pastiche can capture what Conan Doyle did.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
