|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Jun 9, 2017 23:23:22 GMT
So, thoughts on these books, and how well Horowitz did?
Naturally, the usual spoiler rules and disclaimers.
|
|
|
|
Post by charlesuirdhein on Jun 10, 2017 1:39:47 GMT
So, thoughts on these books, and how well Horowitz did? Naturally, the usual spoiler rules and disclaimers. Meh, they were ok. The only thing that bugged me was the so-called "officialness" of them when they were first released. Sure. |
|
|
|
Post by fitzoliverj on Jun 10, 2017 7:38:19 GMT
My guess is that "The House of Silk" was the first Holmes novel authorised by the Conan Doyle estate either in the sense of
1) they commissioned it
2) all the previously authorised novels hadn't been authorised by the current Conan Doyle Estate legal entity but by its predecesssors (notably Dame Jean Conan Doyle; her brothers had a tendency to stop things being published)
The other problem with the first book is that Horowitz announced he would not read any other pastiches to ensure he came up with something original.... and came up with something using over-familiar elements. The second book, though a bit tangential, is rather better, I felt.
Still haven't got round to reading his Bond novel, although the BBC's Book of Bedtime of it was OK, as I recall.
|
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Jun 13, 2017 23:07:01 GMT
The other problem with the first book is that Horowitz announced he would not read any other pastiches to ensure he came up with something original.... and came up with something using over-familiar elements. The second book, though a bit tangential, is rather better, I felt. So, doing my spoilerless thoughts here, then the spoilery one below: I do agree with you. It's certainly not badly written: everyone sounds right, good detail and faacisimile of ACD's style. Also, well paced and the first half piles on question after question, like a good mystery. In the second half, it feels like a lot of stuff not immediately tied to the House is not resolved or called back effectively, and there's just something very 'ordinary' about it all, even when the House's secret is revealed. Steven Saville and Robert Greenberger are far less notable wrtiers than Horowitz, yet wrote a better Holmes political conspiracy with 'Murder At Sorrow's Crown' for the Titan range. |
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Jun 13, 2017 23:08:17 GMT
Okay, and now,
SPOILERS AHEAD - YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED
So, the House is really a paedo-brothel. It's odd how, given sex is such a primal and fundamentally human element, that sex offenders make for such dull villains in crime fiction: paedophilia is such an utterly disgusting yet morbidly fascinating concept to discuss psychologically, and yet, it only ever feels like it's left at the surface level, like other taboos like incest. There's no attempt to try and discuss why anyone would do it, even when the Reverend rattles off some cobblers about Greece and Rome. Is it purely because of the power dynamic? Is it some warped sense of aesthetic beauty ala Death In Venice? Is something to do with androgeny and the 'feminity' of youth? Was it purely rich men, or were there wealthy women there too? Pitting this up against an ultimate rationalist like Holmes should've been a no brainer, a powerhouse for intellectual and ideological conflict, and yet, Horowitz seems to get us out of the House just as soon as we enter.
If you're going to put a disturbing concept into a story, you should run with it and maximise that effect. Barrie Roberts' 'The Man From Hell', while not exclusively about this, did go into more detail concerning what happened to boys on prison ships, and it enhanced the drama and mystery of the book considerably. Plus, it's not just the ultimate reveal of the House that this affects: what about Holmes' relationship with Wiggins and the Irregulars? How does this experience change that, given how often Holmes is painted as a surrogate father for them (an idea which Big Finish tapped in their boxsets), and how do they feel? It just feels like, instead of just dismissal, there should've been some type of scene between them at the end. Some type of confrontation or reaffirmation.
Even Moriarty's appearance, while well drawn, feels superfluous in the grand scheme of the story: the ribbon could easily have been done by Mycroft or someone else, and the key he gives Watson is ultimately never used (not even the standard 'secret code' schtick is employed). Even what he does know of the House isn't very helpful or isn't basically repeated by Holmes later. It feels like more arbitrary than vital.
|
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Jun 15, 2017 23:29:56 GMT
Also, why was so much attention put on Patrick, and even refering to him as 'feminine'? My thought was 'Oh, he's tied to the House, maybe being porked by Carstairs', but no, it's a lot of nothing.
|
|
