Customer Reviews

Last Sherlock Holmes Story

5 star:		(16)
4 star:		(9)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(9)
1 star:		(19)

 

 

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.

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!

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.

I was spellbound by this book. It's certainly not for the faint-hearted, but if you're a fan of Holmes this one's worth reading.

I cannot deny that this novel is effectively written, and was difficult to put down. Nevertheless, with hindsight I have to take note of how Dibdin resorts to some fudging of the Holmes canon to fit his square peg into the round hole of his seemingly ingenious payoff. The one fudging he can't be allowed to get away with is the total absence of the character of Mycroft Holmes from this story. I would have had a lot more respect for his unorthodox conclusion that admittedly is an outrage for true Holmes fans had he found a way of working Mycroft into the story. It soon becomes patently obvious after reading this story again that Dibdin has to pretend Mycroft doesn't exist in order to make his story and his theory fly. And that's something he really should be called to the carpet for when analyzing his story construction, and not just the simple visceral anger one might feel over the outcome itself.

Not a great contribution to the 'Vintage Crime' series for Random House. Dibdin pits Sherlock Holmes against Jack the Ripper in a "shocking" tale that takes the most obvious plot option to accomplish the task. The subsequent text just manages to keep you muttering "please get on with it" because you never really doubt where it is going to go. But, mercifully, a short book.

The most controversial Holmes story is more like it. There have been a few original novels involving Sherlock Holmes and the Whitechapel killings, i.e. the Jack the Ripper murders. However, none of them are as controversial as Michael Didbin's The Last Sherlock Holmes Story.

What differentiates this story is that this is a case in which some of Holmes' later classic cases take place inbetween murders, such as The Red-Headed League and Silver Blaze, and those are merely referred to as taking place.

There are references to previous cases, such as "The Cardboard Box" and "The Speckled Band." And there is a proposed theory that maybe another Andaman Islander (like The Sign Of Four's Tonga) is on the loose. However, the chief suspect becomes Moriarty, usually the mastermind, but given the way Holmes has put a stop to many a criminal scheme, the actual killer. One clue is to the location of the killings and what letter they make.

Lestrade is portrayed as a pompous idiot and someone who is more antagonistic of Holmes rather than deferential in the original Arthur Conan Doyle stories.

One interesting aspect is that ACD is a character hired to publish some of Holmes' cases, and is given A Study In Scarlet and The Sign Of Four--"Mr. Thaddeus and Brother Bartholomew. Jonathan Small and Tonga!" Holmes is contemptuous of Doyle's glamorizing and bits of artistic license, whereas Watson doesn't seem to mind so much.

The Holmes and Watson team dynamic is maintained here in exactly the way ACD portrayed it. Holmes' methods of detection and his classic arrogance is done to a tee here. The suspense and description of the defiled bodies are pretty graphic, so strong stomachs, please.

Hardline acolytes will probably be in an uproar regarding the book's resolution. Others, such as myself, will be interested at this interpretation of the Whitechapel murders. Compare this to the graphic novel and movie From Hell, also about Jolly Jack--a far different point of view.

Irascible is the only word for Michael Dibdin. He's unafraid to take on the heavy mythology of Holmes, but his REAL target -- I have to believe -- are writers who muck around with the creations of others (Laurie King, for an egregious example). As a Doyle fan, I was disappointed at the conclusion, but it was certainly more credible than having a doddering Holmes marry some young chippie with anachronistic feminist ideas (see "Monstrous Regiment of Women"). And it should be the LAST Sherlock Holmes story -- future writers should originate their own dadburned characters.

Let me say this first: this is not a novel for the squeamish. The Last Sherlock Holmes story is a visceral retelling of the events surrounding the Jack the Ripper murders with the fanciful addition of Holmes as chief investigator. Though the novel abounds with the trappings of classic Holmes stories -- the narration of Watson, the scalpel-sharp intellect of Holmes, even the pipe and Persian slipper -- the comparison ends there. Dibdin's Holmes is a man of deep complications, as is his Watson. The classic characters are given rich humanity, with sometimes frightening results. Though purists of the Holmes genre might quibble, this is a powerful and convincing novel, made all the more plausible by its inclusion of accurate details from the Ripper murders. How convincing is it? After I put the book down, the numb shock didn't wear off for at least two days. Read this book!

With all due respect to the author, who has performed great feats with other work, I not only HATED with RUE BLOOD what he did to Holmes in this book, I knew what he was going to do within the first five or six pages. Let me explain, my fellow Watsons...

See, I was about to embark on a trip to the UK. I spotted this beautifully rendered cover, depicting Whitechapel in the 1880's, which evoked images of Holmes, the Ripper, and the fascinating and troubling times in which Londoners lived. I thought, "Hmm. Holmes versus the Ripper. Sounds great! I've seen it done here and there, but, this one looks neat!"

I bought said book. I began reading it on my flight to London. Before the plane took off, I put it down.

Why? Well for starters, the author telegraphs EVERYTHING by making three mistakes. He quotes Doyle, or at least offers a quote attributed to ACD when a playwright asked him if he could "marry Holmes" to a woman for the sake of a play he was writing. Doyle's response, and I am paraphrasing what was quoted because I THREW THIS BOOK AWAY, was something akin to, "Marry him, kill him, do whatever you like." In other words, ACD was not averse to doing some wild things to Holmes as long as it told a good Holmes story. But the presence of that quote indicated something to me. I got a gut sense that the author wanted to get "pseudo-creative-post-modernist-gimmicky" on me. The next few pages (describing how a box had been held at a bank for Watson for 75 years after his death, and that he'd asked that it not be opened until those years had passed because the final manuscript in it was so devastating) -- well those told me almost everything I needed to know.

Have ya guessed yet? Yeah, doesn't take much, does it?

Then, I noticed that the author was playing fast and loose with Holmes' supposed drug use, something which is barely mentioned in the canon of real stories, and which Watson got Holmes to stop when they realized it was too dangerous. I HATE it when people try to mix Holmes' character with their own modern takes on what is a super-genius or a 'troubled mind'. Don't waste my time. Just create your own character and leave the Holmes character alone. In this case, Dibdin tries to convince us that Holmes was so bored and into drugs that Watson worried over his mental state. (BINGBINGBINGBING! Ya hear the alarm bells ringing?)

Sooo, as you might have already figured out, those three things told me everything I needed to know about what the author was going to do, and it made me very angry. Doyle said to other authors that they could do what they wanted to do to Holmes, but it was HOLMES, not a garbled-homicidal version of Holmes, not a person who is, in fact, so far from being Holmes that it's an insult to give him that name. I knew within those first few pages that Mr. Dibdin was going to make Holmes the Ripper - snooze. Is one supposed to think this is inspired plotting? Something so crude and obvious is distasteful and trite. Stupid to the extreme. Insulting. I decided to confirm my suspicions by flipping to the back of the book, and lo-and-behold, I was correct. Five or six pages, and you can predict the ending. Wonderful.

So not only is this insulting to the character and work of Doyle, it is boring and as predictable as a baby soiling its diaper.

I did with it what most people do with diapers. I tossed it in the trash. No way was I going to let someone else pick up this dung and spread it around.

Thank you. Please tip your waitstaff.