Almost as good as the original. 4/5 stars.
The blurb: In freezing London, November 1890, Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson receive a man unnerved by a scarred-face stalker with piercing eyes. A conspiracy reaches to the Boston criminal underworld. The whispered phrase ‘the House of Silk’ hints at a deadly foe.
My take:
If you enjoy Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes adventures then it’s likely you will enjoy this book. Anthony Horowitz does an admirable job mimicking the style of the original tales for this new Holmes-Watson adventure. However, this mimicry extends to the perhaps less enjoyable aspects of Conan Doyle’s style. For example, characters are allowed to sit down and give three-page long monologues to explain their predicament. If that sort of thing bothered you in the original stories – which are usually only a few pages long – then you might not be able to stick with it over the 300 pages of The House of Silk.
The mystery at the heart of The House of Silk is sufficiently complex to keep you puzzled. Its resolution is also far darker than we might have come to expect from Holmes’ stories. Watson warns us of this in the prologue, but I was still surprised by just how grim the big secret turned out to be. Apart from a couple of moments which dragged slightly, the pacing is excellent and our heroes face enough peril to keep you turning the pages.
Overall: an entertaining mystery in the company of one of my favourite fictional duos. I already have the sequel waiting!
This sounds fantastic! Just the kind of thing Daniel would like. I often pass on your reading suggestions to him. You have very similar tastes, very neat. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ah, that’s nice 🙂 I was worried it would be awful… when authors try to copy the style of classics it can go horribly wrong. But thankfully Horowitz does an excellent job.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I haven’t read the second one yet, but I did enjoy the first one very much. But then again, I’m a sucker for anything Sherlock Holmes 🙂 Great review as always!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you! I’m a fan of all things Sherlock too 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reading your review makes me want to get a copy straight away! It sounds like a really good read. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
If you like the original stories, it’s great 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Will definitely read this some time this year. Funny, I don’t think I’ve read the original Doyle novels, but have read quite a number of Holmes retellings. Shameless me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The earlier Conan Doyle stories are the best. You can tell his heart wasn’t in the later ones (he was forced to bring Holmes back from the dead to satisfy public demand and he wasn’t happy about it! ).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh goody. Now I’m excited for this addition to the Sherlock canon (I’m one of those people who liked the monologues, because I thought they added to the ‘feel’ of the stories, even though I can’t stand them in other styles of books).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Personally, I never minded the monologues. As you say, they were such a part of the stories, they didn’t seem out of place. I already have the second book (with the promising title “Moriarty”) and I’m looking forward to it!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sounds really interesting- this is not generally the type of thing I read, but I’m always looking to try out something new 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t read that many mysteries either. I liked them a lot when I was younger (The Three Investigators series and Nancy Drew… and I suppose even The Famous Five qualify!) and I always enjoyed the Sherlock stories so I figured I give this a go. I’m really pleased it was so good.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh I loved the Famous Five- I never thought of that! Totally counts! Awesome 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: WWW Wednesday 2nd March 2016 | Art and Soul
Pingback: WWW Wednesday 6th April 2016 | Art and Soul
Mmm. I’m a bit afraid for the three-page long monologues. If it’s anything like Sophie Hanna’s retelling of Agatha Christie’s Monogrammed Murders, I felt there was too much talk, repetition and confusing descriptions. Didn’t like that one at all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I didn’t mind it, but then it doesn’t bother me in the original stories either. I think Moriarty will be quite different because the story isn’t narrated by Watson, so I guess that means Horowitz doesn’t have to copy Conan Doyle’s style as closely.
LikeLike
Pingback: Review | Moriarty (Sherlock Holmes #2) by Anthony Horowitz | Art and Soul
Pingback: WWW Wednesday 13th April 2016 | Art and Soul