Book Review: My Dearest Holmes
My Dearest Holmes, Rohase Piercy, 1986, 142 pages
Although Dr Watson is known for recording some sixty of his adventures with the celebrated Sherlock Holmes, he also wrote other reminiscences of their long friendship which were never intended for publication during their lifetimes. Rescued from oblivion by Rohase Piercy, here are two previously unknown stories about the great detective and his companion, throwing a fresh light upon their famous partnership, and helping to explain much which has puzzled their devotees. Together Holmes and Watson face disturbing revelations as they investigate the case of the Queen Bee; and we finally learn what actually happened at the Reichenback Falls, and the real reasons which lay behind Holmes' faked death and his subsequent return.
*
This I read with much more zeal than Kissing Sherlock Holmes. The short of it is that I liked this book a great deal. I'm afraid, however, that my "review" of it is rather unfair because I can't help but compare it to Kissing Sherlock Holmes, which, if you read the previous entry, you'll know I found odious in the extreme.
In any case, I'll put out there what I liked about this and why. The inevitable comparisons aren't ideal, but I read these books quickly and back to back - it's hard now to separate them from how they informed each other during the act of reading. I've tried to avoid spoilers for the book, but to be safe I'll say to read this at your own discretion.
This book, at its core, is truer to the prose style and the characterization of Arthur Conan Doyle's original stories that the book I previously read. I loved reading the characters I recognized - and I truly did recognize them, despite arguably non-canon changes in character, like the question of sexuality. Our Watson here is honest about himself with himself - and with his wife. His sexuality, while not necessarily a source of torment for him or the "focus" of this book as reviews on Amazon may have you believe, is simply a part of himself, and, unfortunately, a part of himself that he must hide from a general public for whom he is now a household name. I really enjoyed and appreciated the treatment of queer sexualities in this book - fitting it into the time period and what was happening then with the laws and Oscar Wilde and increasing danger - while remaining, despite everything, a quiet, unobtrusive love story. If you're looking for sex, or even any erotica descriptive beyond a single kiss, this is not the book for you. This is a book about longing, the ties of friendship and love in dangerous times, and even what happens when those things are not enough to sustain someone's inner life. For me, that's far more satisfying than an easy get-together, acrobatic sex, and a smooth tale unencumbered by the realities of Victorian sexual mores.
I love Watson here, and I ache for a Holmes who is as clever and cerebral as ever, in love and unable, due to the times and to his own nature, to accept or express it. These men drive the story, as they do in the originals.
The first story depicts the case of blackmail. The case itself is interesting and clever and unpredictable (unlike a certain other case I could talk about). My only real criticism of the book at all is that in this case, Dr. Watson is conveniently friends with a key player, and uses that friendship to chip away at the mystery. To me, that's a sloppy deus ex machina, forced and lazy and unnatural, beggaring belief. But, you know what? If that's the only problem I can find in this book, I am perfectly willing to overlook it.
Another small gripe is that this book has a small case of the "everyone is gay and some of them are indiscreet" syndrome, which for me is both unbelievable and tiresome. However, unlike in Kissing Sherlock Holmes, such a syndrome is integral to the case in the first story and the plot of the second story. While I can't describe this aspect of the stories as seamless or 100% believable, at least Piercy has woven it into the book with a completeness, gravity and importance that McKinney and Wylis can't possibly approach.
And, as a rebuttal to the Amazon review that states that Mycroft is horribly vilified: simply untrue. Firstly, he's not enough of a presence in the book to be demonized and bashed to the extent stated on Amazon. While he is, in some ways, the instrument of Watson and Holmes's long separation, I don't view this as vilification for at least two reasons. First: even though his manner is rather sour and unpleasant, and Watson's bitter descriptions of him are unflattering in the extreme, his actions are the actions of a man trying to protect his brother's life even if it means sacrificing a measure of his emotional wellbeing. Second: guess what? Not everyone is supportive of queer love, especially back then. I think it's perfectly justified and believable that Mycroft should express concern or distaste, and also warn Dr. Watson about the laws and his habitual indiscretion. In fact, I think the warning (veiled threat, some might call this) is a kindness others may not have extended. Basically, I think someone who says that this is a vilification is being blind to Mycroft's faults and blind to the realities of the so-called morality laws of the time. Ultimately, I find the depiction of Mycroft here realistic in a sad, bleak sort of way, and I cannot fault Piercy for it.
So - My Dearest Holmes was a good, satisfying read. The touch of realism really made this tragic and true for me. I think the ending could give us a little more, but we can't have everything.
Next up, when I find some more free time: A Study in Lavender.
Although Dr Watson is known for recording some sixty of his adventures with the celebrated Sherlock Holmes, he also wrote other reminiscences of their long friendship which were never intended for publication during their lifetimes. Rescued from oblivion by Rohase Piercy, here are two previously unknown stories about the great detective and his companion, throwing a fresh light upon their famous partnership, and helping to explain much which has puzzled their devotees. Together Holmes and Watson face disturbing revelations as they investigate the case of the Queen Bee; and we finally learn what actually happened at the Reichenback Falls, and the real reasons which lay behind Holmes' faked death and his subsequent return.
*
This I read with much more zeal than Kissing Sherlock Holmes. The short of it is that I liked this book a great deal. I'm afraid, however, that my "review" of it is rather unfair because I can't help but compare it to Kissing Sherlock Holmes, which, if you read the previous entry, you'll know I found odious in the extreme.
In any case, I'll put out there what I liked about this and why. The inevitable comparisons aren't ideal, but I read these books quickly and back to back - it's hard now to separate them from how they informed each other during the act of reading. I've tried to avoid spoilers for the book, but to be safe I'll say to read this at your own discretion.
This book, at its core, is truer to the prose style and the characterization of Arthur Conan Doyle's original stories that the book I previously read. I loved reading the characters I recognized - and I truly did recognize them, despite arguably non-canon changes in character, like the question of sexuality. Our Watson here is honest about himself with himself - and with his wife. His sexuality, while not necessarily a source of torment for him or the "focus" of this book as reviews on Amazon may have you believe, is simply a part of himself, and, unfortunately, a part of himself that he must hide from a general public for whom he is now a household name. I really enjoyed and appreciated the treatment of queer sexualities in this book - fitting it into the time period and what was happening then with the laws and Oscar Wilde and increasing danger - while remaining, despite everything, a quiet, unobtrusive love story. If you're looking for sex, or even any erotica descriptive beyond a single kiss, this is not the book for you. This is a book about longing, the ties of friendship and love in dangerous times, and even what happens when those things are not enough to sustain someone's inner life. For me, that's far more satisfying than an easy get-together, acrobatic sex, and a smooth tale unencumbered by the realities of Victorian sexual mores.
I love Watson here, and I ache for a Holmes who is as clever and cerebral as ever, in love and unable, due to the times and to his own nature, to accept or express it. These men drive the story, as they do in the originals.
The first story depicts the case of blackmail. The case itself is interesting and clever and unpredictable (unlike a certain other case I could talk about). My only real criticism of the book at all is that in this case, Dr. Watson is conveniently friends with a key player, and uses that friendship to chip away at the mystery. To me, that's a sloppy deus ex machina, forced and lazy and unnatural, beggaring belief. But, you know what? If that's the only problem I can find in this book, I am perfectly willing to overlook it.
Another small gripe is that this book has a small case of the "everyone is gay and some of them are indiscreet" syndrome, which for me is both unbelievable and tiresome. However, unlike in Kissing Sherlock Holmes, such a syndrome is integral to the case in the first story and the plot of the second story. While I can't describe this aspect of the stories as seamless or 100% believable, at least Piercy has woven it into the book with a completeness, gravity and importance that McKinney and Wylis can't possibly approach.
And, as a rebuttal to the Amazon review that states that Mycroft is horribly vilified: simply untrue. Firstly, he's not enough of a presence in the book to be demonized and bashed to the extent stated on Amazon. While he is, in some ways, the instrument of Watson and Holmes's long separation, I don't view this as vilification for at least two reasons. First: even though his manner is rather sour and unpleasant, and Watson's bitter descriptions of him are unflattering in the extreme, his actions are the actions of a man trying to protect his brother's life even if it means sacrificing a measure of his emotional wellbeing. Second: guess what? Not everyone is supportive of queer love, especially back then. I think it's perfectly justified and believable that Mycroft should express concern or distaste, and also warn Dr. Watson about the laws and his habitual indiscretion. In fact, I think the warning (veiled threat, some might call this) is a kindness others may not have extended. Basically, I think someone who says that this is a vilification is being blind to Mycroft's faults and blind to the realities of the so-called morality laws of the time. Ultimately, I find the depiction of Mycroft here realistic in a sad, bleak sort of way, and I cannot fault Piercy for it.
So - My Dearest Holmes was a good, satisfying read. The touch of realism really made this tragic and true for me. I think the ending could give us a little more, but we can't have everything.
Next up, when I find some more free time: A Study in Lavender.