reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP (04/06/85)
On the heels of a recent net discussion on Sherlock Holmes pastiches, I
came across a new one I hadn't heard of before: "The Case of the
Revolutionist's Daughter", by Lewis S. Feuer. Following in the lamentable
footsteps of the other "Sherlock Holmes meets every famous person in
Victorian England" writers, Feuer now offers us "Sherlock Holmes Meets
Karl Marx". I personally think that the use of historical figures is a poor
starting point for new Sherlock Holmes stories, and Feuer does nothing to
change my mind. Not content to give us Sherlock Holmes and Karl Marx, he
also offers up Engles, George Bernard Shaw, and Beatrix Potter (Beatrix
Potter? One of the more interesting revelations of this book is that the
author of "The Tale of Peter Rabbit" was once a socialist.)
Not content to settle for this flaw, Feuer commits the other classic Holmes
pastiche flaw: he brings back characters from other Holmes stories. In this
case, in a display of wretched excess, we get both Irene Adler and Prof.
Moriarty. I expected Mycroft to pop up momentarily.
The story concerns Holmes' investigation of the disappearance of Marx's
daughter Eleanor. Yet another weakness of the book is that the mystery
itself is feeble. Eleanor Marx proves childishly easy to find, and I
can't picture even moderately intelligent men requiring Holmes' help in
locating her. In fact, the mystery is largely an excuse to have Holmes
run around London talking to every socialist he can find, and talking to
them at very great length indeed about matters having much more to do with
socialism than the case at hand.
The greatest of the book's failings is that it does not provide what we
look for in a Sherlock Holmes story. There are no instances of great
deductions, just an early stab at identifying Engels when he first shows
up at 221B Baker Street. Feuer provides no pleasingly Holmsian moments,
either. Holmes and Watson show some uncharacteristic traits as well. I
honestly can't see Holmes reading "Madame Bovary" or sitting still for an
evening of Ibsen. The only point of interest to Holmes fans is that Feuer
provides an interesting and plausible motivation and genesis for Moriarty's
criminal organization.
As an introduction to the British socialists of the 19th century, "The Case
of the Revolutionist's Daughter" is more successful. Since it's only 150
pages long and not badly written, those with any interest in this subject
could do worse. There's little here for Sherlock Holmes fans, though.
--
Peter Reiher
reiher@ucla-cs.arpa
{...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiherguy@sun.uucp (Guy Harris) (04/11/85)
> Not content to give us Sherlock Holmes and Karl Marx, he also offers up ... > and Beatrix Potter (Beatrix Potter? One of the more interesting revelations > of this book is that the author of "The Tale of Peter Rabbit" was once a > socialist.) No, I suspect he meant *Beatrice* Potter (Webb), who was a Fabian socialist (and who married Sidney Webb, another Fabian). Guy Harris sun!guy
stratton@brl-tgr.ARPA (Sue Stratton ) (04/12/85)
> > I'd say avoid this one, but the only people who are likely to even run > across this book are the completists (like myself) who will buy it no matter > *how* bad it is. > > Evelyn C. Leeper > ...ihnp4!ahutb!ecl I recognized myself in that last paragraph there, and decided to post. I suppose I'm pretty tolerant of most Holmes pastiches, not only due to the normal Sherlockian's thirst for tales featuring the great detective (should I have capitalized that?), but also because I was introduced to the Conan Doyle stories though two non-canonical sources (Nicholas Meyer's "7%" and the 1939 Rathbone/Bruce "Hound" film, which was released for a brief run (I think Buster Keaton's "Sherlock Jr." was also on the bill) in Charlotte,NC theatres about the same time "7%" came out in paperback). In any event, I agree that there is a problem with many/most Holmes pastiches, and I'm not just referring to the use of historical figures (something that doesn't bother me too much; the involvement of an historical figure at least provides "Watson" with a plausible excuse for having withheld the manuscript from publication, leaving it instead to rot in some attic until "found" by someone in our day). No, I think I could stand almost any plot twist if only the authors wouldn't insist on what I call "sentimentalizing." You know the kind of thing I mean--having Holmes refer to "the woman," only with regretful, romantic overtones that Doyle's Holmes wouldn't have used (or that Doyle's Watson would have been too delicate to record); having Holmes shower Watson with appreciation for the latter's faithful service, rather than relying on the tacit understanding that seemed to exist between the two in the originals; or--perhaps this is the worst--endowing Watson with a "past," or with some extraordinary skill or secret (as if to prove him a worthy companion for Holmes, a condition I have to admit the Rathbone/Bruce films don't meet), forgetting that it is Watson's very "ordinariness" that made/makes him the perfect foil for Holmes. And has anyone else noticed that the Holmes of the pastiches almost always tends to be better-read (i.e., more learned in a wide variety of subjects) than the Holmes of the Canon? Question, then: who can recommend Holmes pastiches that are somewhat more faithful to the originals than some of the ones that have recently been criticized on this net? Just last week a fellow netter recommended (by mail) one called "The Giant Rat of Sumatra." I've not found it yet, but in the meantime I'm re-reading my Canon! Thanks, Karen Wilson