Customer Reviews

The Whitechapel Horrors

5 star:		(11)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

As both a Holmes and Ripper enthusiast, I felt this book was an almost perfect marriage of fact and fiction, and undeniably the best battle between the Master Sleuth and the Master Psychopath in print. I said "almost perfect," and I must stress the word "almost." Like some other reviewers, I did feel somewhat let down by the ending and lack of resolution. However, by studying the case, I now know that this frustration is nothing compared to the emotions the REAL investigators surely felt when the Whitechapel Horrors simply stopped and nothing was ever heard from Jack the Ripper again. If Mr. Hanna intended to evoke this feeling with his readers, he has succeeded admirably! The suspense is well-maintained, the characters (especially Watson and perhaps the most amiable, verbose Holmes in print), reflective of their times, and the author's research commendable.I love the author's proposed solution as to how the Ripper eluded capture, but I question its practicality.All in all, "The Whitechapel Horrors" is a worthy continuation of Holmes' legacy, and deserves to be read by all interested in Holmes and the Ripper.

I just enjoyed reading this book. I got hooked from the beginning and couldn't put it down. The plot is very exciting and interesting which makes the novel easy to enjoy. Edward Hanna's first novel is without a shadow of a doubt a success. He should continue to write Holmes stories confronting him against maybe the Phantom of the Opera, Arsene Lupin, etc.

The Whitechapel Horrors is one of the numerous pastiches involving Sherlock Holmes solving the Jack The Ripper murders. You'd think that it would be a great idea, mixing fact and fiction and winding up with a swell book. The thing is: it's been done too many times already! Never mind the films that have tread this ground (with another script by Brian Helgeland called "Elementary" waiting at Warner Bros.), this is at least the fourth novel covering that idea. Baring-Gould covered it, Ellery Queen covered it, Michael Didbin, in my absolute LEAST favorite Holmes book, covered it...
Don't get me wrong, Mister Hanna is a great writer who provides lots of detail and insight, but the idea has been done to death- so to speak.
Another problem I had with the book: The voice of the writer. This is not written as a first hand narrative of John Watson, and the book suffers because of it. Hanna explains that the book is taken from Watson's notes (essentially making it HIS story) but it's not enough. Many of the Holmes pastiches don't get Watson's "voice" right, but Mister Hanna didn't try.
Great writer, but the book has problems.

The story was very interesting. It showed an aspect of Holmes that had not been explored much before, failure. The author apparently did much research in order to make the atory realistic and exciting. I recommend not to read this late at night. At times the story was very detailed. This is a book that any Sherlockian should read, either to criticize or to enjoy.

This is an incredibly informative thriller showcasing the personification of evil being hunted by the personification of good. It is a tense cat-and-mouse game being played by the only person who could possibly outwit the great Sherlock Holmes! The book starts out quickly and keeps you in suspense until the ending. The author obviously spent exhaustive hours researching to give the book all the realism it could possibly have. Several of the characters are the real officers who tracked the real Jack the Ripper. Very good!

Needless to say, I read "A Study in Terror" by Ellery Queen and this book at the same time, and it was quite obvious which was better. The Whitechapel Horror is infinitely better.

Though a bit confusing because it is in third person, the story itself is remarkable, and the theory is not completely out of the world (Rasputin was the culprit in another book)... what is more, it is historically accurate, and Hanna didn't change everything to make his villain conceivable.

And finally, what I liked most about this story, was the Ripper was never discovered. The author doesn't insist that so-and-so is the Ripper, he just leaves it up to your own imagination. You must respect that. He does hint that Holmes knows, but other than that, when you close the book you just sit back and think for a moment.

A highly advisable book for any Sherlock Holmes lover, and anyone even remotely interested in Jack the Ripper. Even if you have no interest in one or the other, I can guarentee that you will enjoy this book!

Fusion of truth and fiction is fascinating for several reasons, foremost among them being the efforts on part of the author(s) to resolve the inconsistencies related to dates and events. Edward B Hanna's "The Whitechapel Horrors" is doubly fascinating because it brings together two of Victorian England's iconic figures: the beloved Sherlock Holmes and the hated Jack the Ripper! Although this particular brand of fusion has been attempted at in several previous works, beginning with Ellery Queen's "A Study in Terror" and reaching an astounding pinnacle (or nadir, since opinions do differ in such cases) in Michael Dibdin's "The Last Sherlock Holmes Story", this work amazed me due to several reasons:
1. The amount of research put into it would astonish several Ripperologists, while earning admiration from the followers of "The Game"(assuming that both Sherlock Holmes and John H. Watson were real persons) propounded by late William S. Baring-Gould.
2. Inconsistencies in the chronolgy deduced from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's works have been neatly fit into the calendar of Ripper-murders.
3. The story is eminently readable, despite the author's steadfast attachment to the Royal conspiracy theory.
My only grievance is that Mr. Hanna could have given the work some sort of finality, rather than trying to be too tactical and keeping Watson as well as us in animated suspension (Holmes KNEW!). It is for this last minute shifting of thrust towards the truth of Ripper remaining elusive that I am taking one star away from my ratings. Otherwise, it is a very-very good novel. Recommended.

It's been a while since I read this book but I remember thinking that it was the best(aside from originals of course) Holmes novel I'd read. Since then I've read a dozen or so more and I still think this one is the best. Hanna does a great job of re-creating the atmosphere of Victorian London and manages to give Holmes and Watson more character in some ways than Doyle was allowed while writing in the 1890's. If interested in reading more about the famous duo then this book is well worth it. I just wish it was easier to find.

Edward B Hanna is right on the mark, from the first chapter I felt transported into Victorian england, who would have thought a Holmes Pastiche could be so good, but I must agree with Ted koppel, this book IS good, very well written, and well researched, my congrats to the author, please write more !!

Edward Hanna has done a nice job of "inserting" Sherlock Holmes into the historical case of Jack the Ripper. There are no real surprises here, but the novel is a nice tale of Holmes's possible involvement with the case.

I'm not sure what to make of the novel's style, though. A short introductory chapter "explains" how Watson's notes on the case fell into the hands of someone apparently descended from or otherwise related to Watson's fellow medical practitioner Anstruther; we are to infer, I suppose, that the notes were written up into a novel by Hanna himself.

Unfortunately that causes some problems for readers who are looking for an adventure of what Sir Arthur's son Adrian Conan Doyle called "the old vintage." Among other things, Hanna's tale is told in the third person rather than in Watson's voice and from Watson's point of view; Doyle tried this in a couple of stories too, but I've never liked it. And in Hanna's case it means we get all sorts of authorial/editorial commentary on Holmes's state of mind and lots of florid adjectives describing his manner.

In general, the narrative voice is not terribly close to what we would have gotten from the good doctor (despite the inclusion among the blurbs of glowing testimonials from such noted Sherlockian scholars as Ted Koppel and Charles Osgood, who seem to think Hanna has somehow channeled the very spirit of Doyle himself).

But on the plus side, Hanna's characterizations ring fairly true. His Holmes and Watson mostly talk and act like the canonical Holmes and Watson; Holmes's detective work has the feel of authenticity. And the novel is well plotted, especially given the historical constraints within which the action must take place.

So maybe I'm mistaken; perhaps this novel really _is_ assembled from some of Watson's recovered notes. Let the reader be the judge.