A review of Stephen Kendrick's "Night Watch"

Jun 20, 2007 22:55

It's Christmas day, 1902, and Sherlock Holmes receives an urgent summons from his brother Mycroft. A priest has been found murdered in his own chapel. The case must be solved quickly and quietly if an international incident is to be avoided, as the church was hosting a secret meeting of seven representatives from the world's major religions. But can an incident be avoided at all if one of these men is the killer?

This is the premise of Stephen Kendrick's "Night Watch", presented as the recently unearthed manuscript of Watson's only remaining unpublished case of his friend Sherlock Holmes. But as if creating a worthy addition to the Holmes canon were not enough of a challenge, Kendrick adds further spice to the mix in the form of the priest who acts as translator for the Roman Catholic representative, a young curate by the name of Father Brown.

I promised to write a review of it once I'd read it. So, what's the verdict?

Two things left me disappointed. One is that Holmes is famous for wrapping up his cases by listing the obscure clues, describing their significance and the deductions they led to with total precision. Kendricks is not as meticulous as Doyle, however, and some of the answers are frustratingly vague.

The other is that despite the crossover appeal Father Brown gets too little time onstage. It would have been fascinating to see more interaction between the two; as it is we are left with tantalising glimpses.

In a way I think both these flaws come down to Kendrick's handling of Watson. Doyle's Watson sees and records everything even when he doesn't understand it, allowing Holmes to enlighten him at the end. Here there are times when it seems that Watson missed things altogether, and where he wasn't actually present Holmes is less meticulous about filling him in. So when, for instance, Holmes marks Brown early on as being shrewder than he appears and a man to pay closer attention to, it feels more like foreshadowing on Kendrick's part than observation on Holmes' because the evidence isn't there.

When it comes to faithfully recreating the characters, however, Kendrick is at his best. In the original Arthur Conan Doyle tales Watson often showed us the inner workings of Holmes the detective but less of Holmes the person, though it may be more fair to say that the two were inseperable. Here, however, Watson devotes a little less time to the wizard who can pull the answers magically out of the air and a little more to the man looking lost in the moments between, while the clues still elude him. And in the calmer moments of the tale we see an ageing Holmes in a more contemplative mood. Though his own religious convictions remain unchanged, in the seven elders who are his suspects he is faced with some shrewd and wise observers of human nature, all of whose observations give him cause to reflect on his place in life. The book is set shortly before his retirement to keep bees on the Sussex Downs, a decision which Watson speculates may well have been affected by this case.

All this is handled entirely convincingly; this is very much the Holmes we know. Kendrick's prose is equally respectful to Watson, both as a character and a narrator. Mycroft and Lestrade are present and correct. And the characterisation of Father Brown is just as beautifully observed and his entry to the Holmesian universe is made perfectly credible.

Overall it's a decent Holmes story plotwise, but lacking a bit of the Holmes magic in the telling. But as an attempt to faithfully recreate and integrate Holmes and Father Brown it's a pretty remarkable success. Worth a look from any fan of either detective.

For those not familiar with Father Brown, incidentally, you can find The Complete Father Brown online.

And I seem to have somehow ordered The Mammoth Book of New Sherlock Holmes Adventures. Bugger.

sherlock holmes, books

Previous post Next post
Up