FD is reading Dust and Shadow: An Account of the Ripper Killings by Dr. John H. Watson by Lyndsay Faye. FD doesn’t often read historical mysteries, nor is FD a huge fan of Sherlock Holmes pastiche (a pretty large genre, and one that shows no sign of lessening) but a good friend suggested this, so FD borrowed it from the local public library. So far, it’s OK, providing the particular pleasure of a pastiche: a new way of thinking of those old characters.
Particularly interesting to FD is that a woman author is providing the voice of Dr. Watson. FD believes (though perhaps this is more created than actually perceived) that the author has subtly enhanced Watson’s feminine side, that there is, more than in the Doyle originals, something of a woman’s eye in Watson.
FD was surprised to see that the original Publishers’ Weekly review (as quoted by Amazon) calls the book “impressive if flawed,” complaining that the solution to the mystery is too obvious too soon. This seems a bit harsh for a first book, especially one whose pleasures are to be found as much in the author’s creativity in using the givens of the Holmes genre, not in the creation of a clever plot. Many mysteries fail to mystify for long — indeed, sometimes it seems to FD that there has to be a balance — if you cannot form at least a good guess for the identity of the murderer before the “reveal” it is a failure of the author, rather than a strength.
Writers are not appreciated enough, thanks for taking the time to post this.