When imitations fail to flatter
Recently got to read a book named "House of Silk" shared by my birend mister mages of teerthadanam fame. Its the latest installment of yet another author trying to add to the Sherlock Holmes novels. Read from Wiki about the author and was surprised to find that the novel was commissioned by Conan Doyle's estate themselves!!
Titlea padichitu ivan ennamo peria lord labakku mathiriyum matha writersa kora solla vantaanu nenachukaatheenga. Me crazy about Sherlock Holmes novels. This blog id was originally called Sherlokshanki :D I've read almost all the volumes written by Conan Doyle and have re-read each of them numerous times to the point of recital, once upon a time. With huge expectations I read this novel, probably that set the tone for the review.
If ever there is a checklist for writing a Sherlock Holmes novel, the author ticks every single one of them. Right from the Watson-Sherlock meet, to the way he guesses..err..deducts people's life story, to the mandatory "frightened to death" and "emotionally weak" client, who jumps at shadows, erstwhile London, the chariots and trains and streets description, everything tallies to a "T". But once the case work begins, that's where I felt, it majorly deviated from the "norms" set by Doyle. Watson and even Sherlock is shown to sympathize with Lestrade and at times, even admits some of the methods of Lestrade yielded results. It was almost as if, the author was trying to politically correct the image of Holmes. Watson, sounds in a frustrating tone about Holmes lack of respect for his works. It was implicitly mentioned, if at all, in a humorous tone, in the original series and the devotion of Watson to Sherlock was supposed to be way too much to even consider this blasphemy.
Like, how Hollywood is trying to humanize superheroes, by picturing their vulnerabilities, probably the author had tried his bit to make Sherlock more fallible is my guess. Even this can be accepted. But the singularity with which Doyle goes about the case investigation takes a sound beating here. It starts as a case of stalking for ransom to robbery to kidnapping and gruesome death and all of a sudden makes a hop, skip and jump to child trafficking by the titular "House of silk". Holmes is shown on a revenge mode to avenge the death of his informer kid, which is highly atypical of that character, for he is rarely , if not never, emotional.
Gils verdict: I've read all great reviews about this novel on the net. The author's language has been so similar to that of erstwhile era and almost Doyle-ish. But as a fan of Sherlock I find it unconvincing. Overa review podreno??!!...back to back to back review posts :D Ithana naala vitathukku serthu vechu postisthaanu :D
Titlea padichitu ivan ennamo peria lord labakku mathiriyum matha writersa kora solla vantaanu nenachukaatheenga. Me crazy about Sherlock Holmes novels. This blog id was originally called Sherlokshanki :D I've read almost all the volumes written by Conan Doyle and have re-read each of them numerous times to the point of recital, once upon a time. With huge expectations I read this novel, probably that set the tone for the review.
If ever there is a checklist for writing a Sherlock Holmes novel, the author ticks every single one of them. Right from the Watson-Sherlock meet, to the way he guesses..err..deducts people's life story, to the mandatory "frightened to death" and "emotionally weak" client, who jumps at shadows, erstwhile London, the chariots and trains and streets description, everything tallies to a "T". But once the case work begins, that's where I felt, it majorly deviated from the "norms" set by Doyle. Watson and even Sherlock is shown to sympathize with Lestrade and at times, even admits some of the methods of Lestrade yielded results. It was almost as if, the author was trying to politically correct the image of Holmes. Watson, sounds in a frustrating tone about Holmes lack of respect for his works. It was implicitly mentioned, if at all, in a humorous tone, in the original series and the devotion of Watson to Sherlock was supposed to be way too much to even consider this blasphemy.
Like, how Hollywood is trying to humanize superheroes, by picturing their vulnerabilities, probably the author had tried his bit to make Sherlock more fallible is my guess. Even this can be accepted. But the singularity with which Doyle goes about the case investigation takes a sound beating here. It starts as a case of stalking for ransom to robbery to kidnapping and gruesome death and all of a sudden makes a hop, skip and jump to child trafficking by the titular "House of silk". Holmes is shown on a revenge mode to avenge the death of his informer kid, which is highly atypical of that character, for he is rarely , if not never, emotional.
Gils verdict: I've read all great reviews about this novel on the net. The author's language has been so similar to that of erstwhile era and almost Doyle-ish. But as a fan of Sherlock I find it unconvincing. Overa review podreno??!!...back to back to back review posts :D Ithana naala vitathukku serthu vechu postisthaanu :D
Comments
Cheers,
M