Sherlock Holmes vs. Dracula

The full title is "Sherlock Holmes vs. Dracula: The Adventure of the Sanguinary Court." The book is well written, fully aping both Doyle's and Stoker's mannerisms and atmosphere. Some of the scenes are quite effective, but ultimately this book fails to live up to the title! Here, Sherlock Holmes, the world's greatest detective is relegated to third banana.. he is seemingly always playing catch-up to Harker, the protagonist from the Dracula novel.

Estleman is so reverent to the Dracula novel that Holmes is irrelevant and inconsequential to the story. It's similar to the trend in publishing today; just dropping in bits of horror into literary classics like Pride & Prejudice & Zombies..) The reader, along with Holmes, must make a giant leap over the supernatural hurdle ("The world is big enough for us. No ghosts need apply.") and the book doesn't make the jump or make it worthwhile.

The Return of Moriarty

John Gardner has written a trilogy dealing with Professor Moriarty (The Return of..., The Revenge of..., and simply, Moriarty (which came out this year.))

While I do enjoy his attention to details and reading about the details of the Napoleon of Crime and his empire, all three rely on one simple thing; Sherlock Holmes' forbearance.

Set almost immediately after The Adventure of the Empty House, "The Return of Moriarty" states that the Professor and the Great Detective had entered into "an understanding" where they will not engage each other. That doesn't sit well with me. From the canon we understand that Holmes would perish gladly if he could be sure that Moriarty was destroyed, but a few years later he's okay with a criminal empire being run in England? I might understand if the agreement kept Moriarty out of Great Britain, but not for this seeming acceptance by Holmes of Moriarty's evil.

Sherlock Holmes' passion for justice, and not the law, was always a major part of the character to me and this condonation seems anathema.

So, sadly, I have to give all three books a thumbs down. I didn't like them. (though I did read all three and what does that say about me?)

7% Solution

The Seven-Per-Cent Solution by Nicholas Meyer.

It’s a fun, quick read and probably the first “major” Sherlock Holmes historical team-up. It was made into a rather successful movie starring Nicol Williamson and Robert Duvall as Holmes and Watson, respectively. The book has Watson discovering that Holmes is in severe addiction throes and decides to trick his friend into seeing a new specialist in Vienna. With Dr. Freud’s help, Sherlock remembers and confronts a secret from his past and then they solve a crime.

It’s one of the better non-canon reads and deserves the reputation it has. It is interesting to note that Nicholas Meyer wrote this book when he was only 28. He would later direct another historical fiction, the movie Time After Time, where H.G. Welles chases Jack the Ripper into the 20^th century.

The book was quite popular so you should be able to find it used for very cheap and then movie is on Netflix and pops up on cable once in a while.

Sherlock Holmes and the Baker Street Irregulars

This is simply a boring and tedious attempt to flesh out the Baker Street Irregulars. The characters are all stereotypes with the mystery being painfully obvious. The use of Irene Adler will be inconsequential to non-Holmes fans, and annoying to Sherlockians. Poor use of a canonical character.

Jonathan Pryce does his best with a weak script, but I would love to see him try again with a stronger project.

Sherlock Holmes & the Case of the Silk Stocking

Awful. What a great opportunity wasted. The only reason that I did not give this disc 1 star is that I thought the performances were well done. The creators of this show clearly have not read the Holmes canon and just have mapped a "regular" mystery onto a Holmes story. The concept of Mrs. Watson being brought into the "team" of Holmes of Watson is an admirable one, but not with the character being such a rebel... that would have been abhorrent to Watson (Holmes would have loved it, though.) The mystery and the MO (of both the detectives and criminals) are lame. Taken straight from a regular network show instead of utilizing the time period for something interesting. A wonderful opportunity to attempt something post-Brett simply squandered by poor writing, directing and producing. If producers want to use an old or rejected CSI script, please don't drag Mr. Holmes into it.

The Dark Beginnings of Sherlock Holmes

It's not really a Holmes story but I would consider it part of the Holmesian genre... This very well-made, very fun BBC mini-series has a young Arthur Conan Doyle teaming up with his mentor Dr. Joseph Bell (whose methods of observation and deduction for patient analysis were the basis for Sherlock Holmes) to solve various murders.

The acting and writing are quite strong, though most of the installments could be a bit shorter (most run 90 minutes, but could be 60 with ease.) There's a little bit of the Shakespeare in Love effect... where something happens and you think, "Ah, there's where THAT came from..." It's done with a light touch and it's not the point of the stories. If you're a fan of Sherlock Holmes, I recommend this series.

Par Excellance

I might be a little spoiled. Even as a little kid I was a big fan of Sherlock Holmes. I had read Hound of the Baskervilles and then in my sister's Big Book of Horse Stories, Silver Blaze. I sought out and found the complete works and re-read the canon every year. To me, the Granada series (for the BBC, I believe) starring Jeremy Brett as Sherlock Holmes is simply the best. I cannot imagine a more faithful yet original adaptation of the canon. Brett is stunning. Already an accomplished performer, he looked and sounded the part as if he was born to it. He's the bar for all performers faithful to the books. I could go on and on, but I just recommend watching those works... they adapted the entire canon.