So I'm currently doing a marathon of the Sherlock Holmes stories since I haven't read them since I was a tyke, and I just finished the fourth and last of the novels - "The Valley of Fear" which I wanted to flag up since I felt it represented all that was good, and all that was bad in Arthur Conan-Doyle's writing. And I wrote an overly long (and spoiler free!) review of it.
First things first, this novel is often the go to example of continuity problems in the Holmes mythos. The fact that when Holmes' nemesis Moriarty first appeared in "The Final Problem" Holmes had to explain who he was to Watson as the latter hadn't ever heard of the man. But come this novel (which serves as a prequel), Watson not only knows of the man but is also aware that he's a criminal mastermind. Honestly? I don't really care, but it's worth mentioning since it's one of the more blatant examples of error.
Actually, speaking of Moriarty. I remember being disappointed when I first read this story because the edition I had billed it dramatically as the first appearance of Professor Moriarty and somesuch...and yet not only does he not appear in the book itself, but he has only a tangential connection to most of the goings on in the plot. Anyways, enough babbling and onto the book itself.
I wanted to start with something positive, and that would be that the actual mystery (don't worry, no spoilers here) that Sherlock is one of the most interesting in the mythos and has some of the best plot twists. Added to that, Doyle became rather self aware of the trappings of the mystery genre as there's a meta conversation between Holmes and a detective about mystery literature and how the heroes of such stories often don't "play fair" when it comes to showing the audience how they came about to solving the crime. And to that end, Holmes does play fair for about 90% of his appearance in the story, he verbalises both everything that he has seen and his theories of the crime to Watson and the detective. It is only at the climax of Part 1 that Holmes becomes separated from Watson and discovers the final clue that allows him to solve the mystery. So while it may not be possible for the audience to solve it without some serious leaps of logic, I at least appreciated the attempt at playing fair. What else was good? Ah, the characters of Holmes and Watson were on fine form as usual, and the supporting cast were actually interesting which is always good.
And now onto the not so positive. As you may have gathered, this novel is split into two very different parts. Part 1 is your standard Holmes story, but that only comprises about 45% of the book. Part 2 is where the meat of the book lies in that it is a very long backstory of the murder victim's history with a secret society in America - Doyle does love these doesn't he? First the Mormons in "A Study in Scarlett", then the KKK in "The Five Orange Pips" but I digress. From what I understand, Part 2 is inspired by Allan Pinkerton's account of how his agency infiltrated the Molly Maguires. But as I'm not familiar with American history I'll leave that there. Anyways, Part 2 is very much a hard boiled crime thriller that could have easily been it's own novel but Doyle felt the need to squeeze it into a Sherlock Holmes story. Perhaps he got really bored of writing Holmes again, or perhaps he has a problem with writing backstories as the murderer's motives in "A Study in Scarlett" was also bloated at several chapters long. "Brevity is the soul of wit" as someone said, and that's the main reason I feel that the Holmes short stories tend to be the tightest in the writing department.
Brevity is not the soul of this review apparently, it's far longer than I had intended so I'll swiftly draw it to a close and give my final thoughts. "The Valley of Fear" is an oft forgotten entry into the Holmes mythos. Which is a bit of a shame, as the bits with Sherlock in a definitely worth checking out at the least and the Pinkerton thriller is a decent read with an entertaining twist at the end. Both could have been great stories in their own right, but mashed together in the same book unfortunately drags both down.
Actually, speaking of Moriarty. I remember being disappointed when I first read this story because the edition I had billed it dramatically as the first appearance of Professor Moriarty and somesuch...and yet not only does he not appear in the book itself, but he has only a tangential connection to most of the goings on in the plot. Anyways, enough babbling and onto the book itself.
I wanted to start with something positive, and that would be that the actual mystery (don't worry, no spoilers here) that Sherlock is one of the most interesting in the mythos and has some of the best plot twists. Added to that, Doyle became rather self aware of the trappings of the mystery genre as there's a meta conversation between Holmes and a detective about mystery literature and how the heroes of such stories often don't "play fair" when it comes to showing the audience how they came about to solving the crime. And to that end, Holmes does play fair for about 90% of his appearance in the story, he verbalises both everything that he has seen and his theories of the crime to Watson and the detective. It is only at the climax of Part 1 that Holmes becomes separated from Watson and discovers the final clue that allows him to solve the mystery. So while it may not be possible for the audience to solve it without some serious leaps of logic, I at least appreciated the attempt at playing fair. What else was good? Ah, the characters of Holmes and Watson were on fine form as usual, and the supporting cast were actually interesting which is always good.
And now onto the not so positive. As you may have gathered, this novel is split into two very different parts. Part 1 is your standard Holmes story, but that only comprises about 45% of the book. Part 2 is where the meat of the book lies in that it is a very long backstory of the murder victim's history with a secret society in America - Doyle does love these doesn't he? First the Mormons in "A Study in Scarlett", then the KKK in "The Five Orange Pips" but I digress. From what I understand, Part 2 is inspired by Allan Pinkerton's account of how his agency infiltrated the Molly Maguires. But as I'm not familiar with American history I'll leave that there. Anyways, Part 2 is very much a hard boiled crime thriller that could have easily been it's own novel but Doyle felt the need to squeeze it into a Sherlock Holmes story. Perhaps he got really bored of writing Holmes again, or perhaps he has a problem with writing backstories as the murderer's motives in "A Study in Scarlett" was also bloated at several chapters long. "Brevity is the soul of wit" as someone said, and that's the main reason I feel that the Holmes short stories tend to be the tightest in the writing department.
Brevity is not the soul of this review apparently, it's far longer than I had intended so I'll swiftly draw it to a close and give my final thoughts. "The Valley of Fear" is an oft forgotten entry into the Holmes mythos. Which is a bit of a shame, as the bits with Sherlock in a definitely worth checking out at the least and the Pinkerton thriller is a decent read with an entertaining twist at the end. Both could have been great stories in their own right, but mashed together in the same book unfortunately drags both down.
I understand the idea of everydays AU because you are using your favorite characters to talk through something personal. Or you are just curious on how they would react in a different setting/scenario.