Review: Anathem

Anathem
Anathem by Neal Stephenson
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Well.

To start, I have far less to say than this book has to say about itself.

Though I first picked it up in July, and didn’t finish it until a concentrated burst this afternoon, as the library simply wouldn’t let me keep it anymore, it’s a quick read. I only picked it up after I heard about another of the author’s books, [b:Reamde|10552338|Reamde|Neal Stephenson|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1305993115s/10552338.jpg|15458989], from my friend’s dad while on vacation. Apparently every guy in the family had been reading and enjoying it, but the library only had Anathem. My friend hasn’t been enjoying that one, so my choice is just as well.

Not being much a reader of speculative fiction (I suppose the only genre I know to put this in, it’s not like anything I’ve ever read)the wildly different worldbuilding might have put me off, but I found the narrative voice strangely charming.

And really, that describes much of the book for me—fun and enthralling, bordering on silly. You know, I didn’t read any other reviews before either checking out this book or writing my review, so I don’t know what other readers will make of my response. Succinctly: it’s the familiar Campbell-ian hero’s journey only set somewhere else and with lots of exposition. Specifically, it’s about less a character and more a personality to walk the reader through the world without having to worry about a complex or unfamiliar plot. It tracks almost too perfectly.

I did enjoy the worldbuilding though, which saved it. I think the way I arranged in my head, to keep everything straight and not rely too heavily on the glossary right from the start went something like this: Eramus (Sp??) is a member of an academically-themed monkhood, on a planet much like our own, or at least ours in a parallel universe, if civilization had diverged technologically four hundred years ago and from there where it would be in another three thousand years all before it turned out to be the plot in-text. Sort of. Then, of course, he’s almost immediately outside the convent—sorry, concent—because that’s how this kind of plot goes. He meets up with his sister, or rather, ‘sib’, and while all the theoretical discussions are interesting, at least to me, I wonder how much of this is just a send up of, well, modern everything. That would be a really interesting discussion if I were smart enough to try it, and remembered enough of the work. I really have too much else to get to to try and get through this behemoth, however. Maybe I’ll get back to it, I have plenty of notes. After meeting his sib, Raz gets into trouble and has to stay home—at least until he has to leave again—there are so many more theoretical arguments to be made about the outside world! And anyway, we have to get to the sort of aliens somehow.

So the only reason I question whether or not this is a satire of modern culture, or rather, exactly how much of is, is because as I said, most of it is worldbuilding. There is lots and lots of worldbuilding with lots of theoretical math-ish type conversations. I couldn’t say whether it’s real math, because math isn’t my thing. Also, math is a term in the novel for a subset of the concent.

There are many random terms in the novel, really, that’s half the worldbuilding. He chooses what words to use carefully: I didn’t think there were too many, though most significant nouns were of unconventional usage. At least there were no apostrophes. It’s a bit pulpy, which is fun, and sometimes techno-babbly, which I’m not sure is the term as it’s been used, but sounds right. I wish I could tell how much of the concent was supposed to be satire, because I’m not sure of Stephenson’s point with the concent idea. The ideas and concepts are simplistic—but then again, it’s only a thousand pages, and long as that is for fiction, it’s hardly enough to start with reality. Of course, he’s not engaging with many tricky human quirks except in the most general sense…like I said, we’re led through the world by a personality, less a character. No one is particularly deep or complex, but suit their purposes.

I’ve barely even started with what I want to say…I’m not even sure what that is. I’ll have to give myself some time to format a proper argument or at least some cohesion. Let me think on it, look out for a proper review after I’ve had a chance to cogitate.

View all my reviews

Advertisements

Review: The Lies of Locke Lamora

The Lies of Locke Lamora
The Lies of Locke Lamora by Scott Lynch
My rating: 2 of 5 stars

Doesn’t it have a lovely cover?

Unfortunately, it’s entirely inappropriate for the tone and style of the novel. I should have paid more attention to another edition’s comparison to Ocean’s Eleven, which is not my genre, and the comparison to Robin Hood at all is pushing it.

They should have stuck with this one:

burning city cover

Problem was, I hated Locke. Didn’t find him the least bit charming, and yet I don’t think I was supposed to see him as a sociopath, though I’m fairly sure he was. Surely Locke’s genius should have provided some consolation? Only it felt like an informed attribute: everyone’s always just so impressed by Locke, and we spend so much time going on about his various gambits (’cause he’s a genius), I just got bored.

You might ask: if you see so much of his planning, how can his intelligence be an informed attribute? Because I don’t remember any scenes of Locke working to figure it out. Have you ever watched Sherlock? Even the consulting detective himself has to stop and put all the clues together, but as I recall, most of Locke’s brilliance was recounted after the fact.

That could be unfair. Still, what with Locke-as-protagonist, and this terrible, terrible world, the novel felt too self-satisfied. It reveled in all the ugliness and gore.

But I didn’t care about anyone! All the side characters were one-dimensional, especially the significant ones—which is just as well, considering they amounted to nothing more than motivation fodder for Locke. Yes, there was a lot of graphic violence, but it didn’t serve the story. Now, I’m not opposed to violence or gore in books, but it was so over the top, I occasionally snorted in amusement before I could stop myself (which makes me feel like a terrible person).

I suppose I liked Doña Vorchenza and Sophia(?). Unfortunately, I can’t remember much about them.

There’s my real trouble right there. Because I didn’t like Locke, I kept putting the book down; every time I put the book down, I forgot what was going on, who was who, and why I should care. Also, related to that, the pacing felt choppy. I read this on my nook, and the segments were all really short, and—this can’t be faulted to the author—after every section break, the first paragraph was formatted in a larger font. It very much seemed to drag anything out.

I can see why others like this book: if you don’t despise Locke, you won’t be as distracted from the plot like I was, and there is a lot of it. I honestly can’t think of how to put the positives, but if this is your thing, please go and read it.

But if, like me, you saw the cover, but not Ocean’s Eleven, just know what you’re getting into, and be prepared for a long, digressing set-up and conventional plot.

View all my reviews

You are a Lying Liar who Lies!

 

Sorry to accuse, but I’m sure you can’t help it. You’re human, after all.

 

Unless you’re invading aliens, in which case you may as well skip this post, because it probably won’t help you out in your conquest, or even in translating humanity, at all.

 

Anyway, we’ve discovered the television in the living room can connect directly to Netflix, and I’ve been watching it much more often, and you know, I pay for it. So that’s good. It also gives me time to knit and I’ve nearly finished the back of my first top!

 

This time, my recommended tags include: Barack Obama, United States, Mitt Romney, Maryland, Stephanie Cutter, Joe Biden, People, and History.

 

 

I is amused.

 

Mostly because, though I am accusing everyone of being a liar, it’s in relation to the TV show Lie to Me, hence the reference to Netflix. It’s not a great show, honestly, but at least it’s fun to watch. Lie to Me has another Sherlock Holmes–style character, at least in that the character has been such an enduring influence on our culture. The idea is, he can automatically tell you’re lying because Science.

 

It seems to be about on the level of every other show using Science to solve crimes. Or Numb3rs. Yes, I like that show too. Sorry, scientists, the silly conclusions and far-reaching fantasy conclusions do not stop me from watching fake science crime dramas—at least I won’t watch the CSIs…except sometimes when they’re particularly funny.

 

Back to Lie to Me. It’s a little harder to talk about because, despite having seen six episodes, I don’t know any of the character names. Anyway, so you have the genius-jerk type character, his Girl Friday, the weird guy, the new girl, and the secretary. Secretary, her name is Heidi, hardly shows up, and the weird guy takes awhile to get screen-time during the set up, but now is a foil for the new girl. The new girl is fun, but surely can’t have decent relationships outside of work, even if we haven’t seen that at all, because she doesn’t seem very clearly with humanity, except for identifying emotions. I like Girl Friday, she’s got back story and fun quirks. Main character, as I said, is a typical genius jerk, snarky, ought to get sued for harassment, can quell any naysayer with just one quip. These shows never acknowledge how attached people are to their opinions whether or not they’re caught.

 

Hotch on Criminal Minds did it better though. Mostly because he’s not a jerk, but because calling out the lawyer in the courtroom played with concepts of hubris and poetic justice

 

 

Not that Lie to Me isn’t trying to do the same thing, but the main character is supposed to pull it off every episode, and it’s less impressive that way. Also, they telegraph the guilty party a lot, and you generally know the answer as soon as the character comes on-screen. The fun comes from seeing how they’ll tease out the truth. It is nice that just because they can see a lie, they can’t necessarily force the truth.

 

A little less inerrancy, perhaps, in drawing conclusions would be nice. The characters are always right when they interpret the ‘micro-expressions.’ I are aware that these things exist but it’s not a straightforward science and there are, or should be, more ways of going wrong.

 

No, instead they’re always right. And lying is bad regardless of situation or intent.

 

For instance, I recently read about a Japanese social construct tatemae. That particular website compared it to a ‘social reality:’ for instance, when you go through the grocery store checkout line and the clerk asks how you are, you say ‘fine,’ well, unless you’re particularly socially inept or just a selfish jerk. The article I read described tatemae as similar to the white lie, but without the Western connection toward a lie: in other words, a necessary truth for social life. When trying to find that article again, I also found another article that defined it as pretense and considered it problematic.

 

That second article does make a very good point on the social scale, but in discussing Lie to Me, I want to discuss the idea that whole-scale truth isn’t necessarily a good idea. For instance, there’s no need for the woman at the end of the first episode to admit she’s glad to have gotten another candidate fired, except to cause bad blood—as if the workplace needs any more of that.

 

Culturally, in the US anyway, I don’t think our problem is increased lying, but the lying is a symptom of our overall lack of..dare I call it ‘honor’. People don’t care about how their actions, for example, cheating, plagiarizer  lying, cause problems for others and are more willing to break social norms for personal gain. A consequence, I think, of our idealization of individualism. The problem comes down to lack of ethics, and not more lying. But I’m supposed to be talking about a television show where people have already started lying, and this fictional corporation has to determine the truth.

 

Which, is, in part, the reason for the awkward nature of the show. The main character apparently started this company, and every episode they’re hired to solve two problems, often criminally related. So they have no investment except to find the Truth. Conceivably, if the client doesn’t go alone with them, the human lie-detectors could just walk away. Also, I’m not sure how they’re paid.

 

I don’t know. Several how-to writer’s books insist the protagonist must have high personal stake in the plot, otherwise the reader will question why they don’t just quit when it gets hard. Aside from that not being a desirable trait, fictionally or otherwise, it’s a valid concern. Why shouldn’t the characters of Lie to Me not walk away?

 

Heh. It’s not a question that the show asks, and it definitely doesn’t support it. That’s just what happens when I go off on a tangent. It’s a fun show to watch though. As I knit more this winter, it’ll definitely be on in the background.

 

Review: The Cloud Sketcher

The Cloud SketcherThe Cloud Sketcher by Richard Rayner
My rating: 2 of 5 stars

I don’t hate Esko, but I do find him distasteful. I don’t like his relationship with Katerina, because she’s just not there — as a character, she simply can’t support Esko’s obsession. Esko’s story is told in close, close third person, but all Rayner can do is repeat endlessly how fascinated by Katerina Esko is. But she has no particular quality of any kind that really seems interesting enough. And given the back story Rayner offers? It seems somewhat obscene. I should care about her, for that very reason. I hope that isn’t why she has such a back story, all for the plot point.

Is it because Rayner wants to show the horror of war? Just how bad things got? It feels unreal, though, it feels like a device. Katerina doesn’t really show any signs of being effected, or at least Esko can’t see them.

Perhaps that’s what the story is about. Creepy-stalker Esko’s obsesson with a woman who is ultimately shallow. Or whatever her true story, Esko can’t isn’t seeing her, he’s seeing this fantasy of wealth that he built as a poor abandoned child. Still, I’the text hasn’t really given me any reason to truly belive that, and I can’t quite figure out why.

It’s a ‘telling’ sort of book though, because Esko is a thoughtful, analytic guy, or I assume he must be, because that’s all he does: think at the audience and analysis every little thing unless he comes to an actual insight that might actually move the plot, such as it is, too soon. Esko’s narration also feels terribly passive, and yet he is a driving force in his own life. As reactive as his thoughts are, it reads like things happen to him instead.

Needless to say, I find this a very disappointing novel.

And I’m not sure architecture works in-text. On paper, in two dimensions, all that’s left is the visual, and at least Rayner doesn’t start giving dimensions. But there’s only so many ways to talk about buildings, and none of them are particularly visual, unless you are already familiar with the architecture. It might be easier for these digressions to be from the perspective of a character who doesn’t know architecture, because he or she could offer concrete detail, not knowing the jargon. But Esko only talks in jargon, and reminds the audience again and again about how awesome modern architecture is, but I don’t see it and I don’t care.

Rayner has also failed at giving me any particularly strong impression of early 1900s Finland, or 1920s New York. Sure there are props as he talks about the atmosphere, I can’t feel it, or sense it. Because when the character is just telling the reader how he feels, as opposed to what’s there giving him those feelings, it’s hard for a reader to get the same impression.

Still, I hope there’s something to tie all this together at the end. I’m okay with protagonists I don’t like, though usually because there is at least a side character who’s interesting: Esko has several, though Rayner keeps killing them off. But I love the idea behind this novel, Finnish history, architecture, even a character growing beyond obsessions. But it seems to be a story about fate, and a narrator too genre-savvy to even make the journey interesting.

View all my reviews

Not So Elementary

Last week, I watched CBS’s newest drama Elementary.

Then I went and read reviews, but only the next day when I was less…riled. Both the reviews I read—from within the industry I believe—however, both seemed to think it was a good show. They seemed to believe it would work for all but fans of Sherlock Holmes.

I’d like to argue otherwise.

Yes, I know the original Sherlock Holmes. I’ve read all the short stories and novels…actually, I just checked and I read most of them this year. I don’t obsess over the canon details, however. Doyle hated his character enough to (attempt) kill him off, he clearly wasn’t worrying about the consistency of details—which is why there aren’t any. Once at college, I checked out Baring-Gould’s The Annotated Sherlock Holmes and read it in two weeks. They’re catchy, but there aren’t many character details. And I most remember the theory that between the two parts of the series, Watson and Mycroft had the real Sherlock murdered and replaced him to make more money. I’d watch that show.

Cover of "The Great Mouse Detective"

Cover of The Great Mouse Detective

I am a fan of the permutations of the Sherlock Holmes ‘mythos’. Not just the remakes into movies and television shows (like the recent Downy, and Sherlock), but the more creative pastiches as well, like The Young Sherlock Holmes (self explanatory), Without a Clue (where Watson is the secret genius), and The Great Mouse Detective (come on, it’s adorable). Elementary really doesn’t break as much ground as it thinks it does.

What else is a Sherlock Holmes pastiche? House.

I suppose Elementary follows most closely in that vein, that attitude. This Sherlock is just as much a jerk as House (which is not a show I’ve ever gotten into). Not that Sherlock‘s Sherlock is nice (and even if he were kind, I don’t think he’d appreciate such a vacuous term), but he’s also a sociopath. Even so, part of his story arc is his consideration of others, especially as inspired by Watson.

Elementary‘s Sherlock, however…like Dr. House, there’s little redeemable about him outside of intelligence. Sure, it’s interesting to see him put the pieces together, but you wouldn’t want to run into him in real life.

More on him later, because I wouldn’t be as bothered by this iteration of Sherlock if it weren’t for Watson. I really wanted to like Lucy Liu, and had great hope (in spite of all evidence and common sense) for a female, American Watson. Instead. Well you can’t see me shaking my head, but I would have preferred anything but what we got. What’d we get?

A wimp.

Sherlock’s a jerk: that’s the consistent trait they give him anymore. This Watson, unlike  Law’s and Freeman’s, however, don’t just take it. At least they snark at him. The writers made Lui’s character a doormat. She just takes all of his shit. There are several sequences where Sherlock oh-so-sincerely apologizes, because Watson has what he wants. And she buys it! Does it ever end well for her? Of course not, and despite the fact he’s clearly as sociopathic as Cumberbatch’s character, it’s never acknowledged by the show.

Dr. Watson

Dr. Watson (Photo credit: Scott Monty)

In fact, I suspect he is supposed to be sincere (even though if he meant it, he would have changed his behavior), so that he and Watson can get it on.

Now the very first scene has Watson walking up to Sherlock’s apartment, passing a prostitute on the sidewalk that he’s just sent off—probably just to unnerve her (charming)—and Sherlock’s hanging out topless. That may have been intended as fangirl bait, but, ummm…I guess Miller just doesn’t do it for me, because my only thought was ‘ick!’. Sherlock just explains to Watson (as I said, just to make her uncomfortable) that he needs sex for his thought process, and this brings me to the fundamental problem I have with this show.

It is, at once, but completely unoriginal and entirely unrelated to the source text except for the names. As Sherlock proved, you can change all the details and still have something that has something of the spirit of the original. Elementary seems to get what canon details it has from all the time it’s riffing off Sherlock.

Even then, I don’t need it to be entirely faithful. Frankly, Jeremy Brett exemplifies the canon-Sherlock for a (mostly) canon adaptation. Brett also proved that Sherlock does not have to be devoid of all human qualities to be fun to watch. If nothing else is going to resemble canon, why not stray further: Sherlock likes sex, that’s fine, but if  it’s strictly for his mental process why not make him gay or bi? If Watson is a woman, why does she have to be a surgeon (a failed one, at that)? Why not make her a mortician? She knows all about death and can get information to Sherlock that he can’t get otherwise—and then she’s torn between her irresponsibility and detecting—conflict!

And why, oh why, is Sherlock even from London? It’s set in the US! Do it properly, and have him from New York City, and his arrogance even supports his back story (what, I’m from California, we can make fun of NY). And there is no reason whatsoever for the connection to Scotland Yard; I mean, why bother?

Especially since, for whatever reason, his primary police contact also met him at Scotland Yard. I may have to resort to smilies to express my full bemusement. For some reason, Sherlock bothered me less, but I can’t imagine Elementary‘s Sherlock getting away with this. For one thing, Britain is more accustomed to authoritative government and class differences, and Lestrade’s career is clearly damaged by association. Elementary hasn’t even touched it so far, and I can only imagine his cases going to court: “You let an addict find all your clues? Innocent!” For the record, I had an exceedingly similar response when I heard about TNT’s Perception.

Hopefully, I’ve shown my issues aren’t with Elementary‘s canon discrepancies, only that it’s so…Hollywood. And I do mean that in the most derogatory sense of the term. They go for all the easy answers and forgo any real creativity or risk. I suppose I’ll watch the next episode tomorrow. Maybe it only failed because they were introducing the characters, and I’ll get to see Joan punching Sherlock in the face. I will be a fan for life.

Review: Yesterday’s News

Yesterday's News
Yesterday’s News by Kajsa Ingemarsson
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Agnes has most things in life: a job at a fancy restaurant, a boyfriend who loves her, and a best friend whom she knows inside out. Or does she? All of a sudden things begin to crumble, one by one, and soon nothing is as it was. Her boyfriend leaves her for a big busted singer, and she is fired by the sexist and abusive owner of the restaurant where she works. She gambles everything she has on the success of a newly opened restaurant, but the road to the glowing review which will open the door to fame and fortune has, to say the least, unexpected twists and turns.

In Yesterday’s News Kajsa Ingemarsson’s comic talent comes into its own. The book is one of the greatest bestsellers of all time in Sweden with more than 800,000 copies sold. Juicy and satisfying, Yesterday’s News is a story about daring and winning and about faith in yourself, a feelgood novel sure to please anyone looking for the antithesis to Stieg Larsson.

4.5 Stars

This popped up in my inbox for B&N’s “Daily Find” which meant I got it for several dollars less, and I am so vulnerable to affordable books. Described as “the antithesis to Stieg Larsson”, whose series I cannot bring myself to read after everything I’ve heard, this description won me over.

For back cover copy, it’s remarkably faithful to the book. It doesn’t overstate the drama or pull the other tricks often used to hook readers. This paragraph for the default description, in fact, names the part that won me over:

The woman in trouble is Agnes. In Yesterday’s News she will rebound from personal tragedy and find courage in the face of the unknown. In the end she stands there as the hero of her own life.

Agnes is the steady, reliable girl, without any overwhelming ambition to be somewhere else, though she had enough to get out of her isolated small town. She’s a romantic, and in that stage of life that society arbitrarily names adulthood but is so hard to define and realize once you’re actually in it. Make sure you’re a reasonably productive member of society, and mark time until you know you’re “there”: like buying a house or winning the Nobel Prize.

this is why I'll never be an adult

But she’s just lost her job and her boyfriend dumped her, and she’s lost.

Actually, that all happens pretty quickly and the rest is Agnes defining her life thereafter. Where do we find direction? and of course, what’s really important?

So if you’ve been reading..well a great many books with romantic plot tumors…and are sick of characters like Bella Swan not recognize they have a jerk for a boyfriend—I think you’ll like Agnes. She’s not really very Bella-like, she does have a backbone, but she also has little self-confidence and doesn’t recognize her own worth. What a difference that makes, when she starts to take initiative in her own life!

I remember saying I fell in love with Agnes by first chapter. She’s basically being groped by her boss, at work, in the wine cellar, and she’s just so taken aback. A “what is happening?” kind of response, which made sense to me. She fends him off, but the victory isn’t unsullied: after all, she’s lost her job, and it’s not so easy to find a new one.

All the side characters are great: her relationships with her parents and sister are easy and natural to read, but they aren’t necessarily easy for Agnes. She doesn’t always understand them, and finds they can take her by surprise.

There’s the moment, about two thirds of the novel that made me cry, for several chapters. I won’t say more, but Ingemarsson writes emotion well; the reader can relate to Agnes.

My favorite part of the book was Agnes learning she didn’t have a handle on everything and didn’t have to. She’s emotionally dependent, at the start, pretty much on everyone around her. Once Tobias leaves her, she leans on her friend. When she finally gets a job, she starts taking control, but still treats it much like a crutch. Eventually, she realizes starts standing on her own, after finally hearing a few hard truths that she never really listened to before.

When I first added the book, the top shelf was “romance” and the entire 287 pages I was looking for it. Now, she does have a romantic arc, but this is not a romance book at all. In fact, even when the love interest showed up (which was fairly obvious to all but Agnes) it still barely counted as part of her character growth: there was no romance until she actually understood what she wanted in a relationship. I squeed.

Yes, I saw most of the plot-points coming, the twist was telegraphed fairly early on. But I’d still say a lot of that’s on Agnes, on her prejudices and assumptions.

Yesterday’s News stands best as a character study than even the ‘chick lit’ genre covers, at least in the US market I know. Calling it a story about “growing up” sounds ridiculous, when Agnes starts already a functioning adult. She’s just unsure of herself, and her boundaries—she hasn’t pushed herself for a time.

I gave Yesterday’s News four stars because I loved it, but it didn’t blow me away. Now I feel like the Grinch.

Don’t be a Grinch: read Yesterday’s News!

View all my reviews

Review: The Consulting Detective Trilogy Part I: University

The Consulting Detective Trilogy Part I: University
The Consulting Detective Trilogy Part I: University by Darlene A. Cypser
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

Won on First Reads! and I can’t wait til it arrives—I’m a great fan of Sherlock Holmes and am definitely crossing my fingers.

Final Review:

3.5 Stars

Maybe I should round up, but I’m trying to be as scrupulously honest as possible, and I think I liked it less than ‘really’.

The Consulting Detective Part I describes the university years of Sherlock Holmes (I’m sure you never would have guessed). It is less of a standalone novel than I’d supposed. Though The Crack in the Lens was described as a prequel, TCDpI continues directly after the events of that novel, and there’s little catch-up for new readers.

As a long-term fan fiction reader, I’m not sure how much this will throw off the average reader.

To sum up as best I can without spoilers, Sherlock survived a traumatic event back home, that left him ill and mentally fragile. By the time TCDpI takes place, he’s mostly recovered, but his convalescence is long, and he needs to decide what to do with his life.

The ‘in media res’ beginning cause some confusion for the reader, mostly in the lack of description: for instance I didn’t know Sherlock’s servant, Jonathan, was only 13 until chapter 4.

I’m not sure this book should be described as a “trilogy”. While it covers only one era of Sherlock’s life, there’s not a strong plot thread—it’s more an overall plot arc, told through an episodic structure. For the most part, I enjoyed the breadth of his experiences, as all these different events do show the growth of his character effectively.

The characters were fun. Sherrinford, Sherlock’s mother and father, Jonathan, all felt rather thin. However, I loved Mycroft; every time he showed up he right on point, exactly right. Since many writers seem to struggle with his character, I especially appreciated his few brief appearances. One character, a Lord Cecil, is the standard bully in any school story; though he and Sherlock rarely interact, so it doesn’t overwhelm Sherlock’s story. Cecil is also a self-aware jerk, and frankly I liked him better than way, but then he’s reformed.

The prose was workmanlike, for the most part. Cypserstruggles with integrated dialogue and exposition into the story. However,she clearly did her research, and there were several surprising details. I did notice a few problems with typos and run on sentences, but not too disruptive.

Sidney Paget: Sherlock Holmes

Sidney Paget: Sherlock Holmes (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

My favorite part is that in some ways, Sherlock makes some dumb decisions and lots of mistakes. He lacks much of his later self-control. Knowing Sherlock almost entirely through Watson (who, honestly, is my favorite), that sounds a little odd, but it makes sense for such a young man, and it’s never out of character, especially for the back story we’re given. Sometimes he veers toward melodrama, but not for long, and especially as he recovers and events pick up, most of that goes away.

Overall, if you like Sherlock Holmes pastiches, and are interested in a logical Sherlockian back story, I’d definitely recommend this novel!

View all my reviews