Art in the Blood

2.5/5. This started off pretty decent and an enjoyable Sherlock Holmes spin-off by a contemporary modern author but as the book progressed, I found it becoming weirder and weirder. At the end, I don't know if I could recommend it at all.

For one, Sherlock Holmes in this one seems oddly more intense than he really is in the canon. He also makes a lot more mistakes, which cost the lives of at least 2 characters, and only arrives at the solution apparently just before the final reveal. He even gets himself caught by the villainous magistrate just because he was so absorbed or engrossed by his examination of a body? It just seems so uncharacteristically careless.

A lot of things also seemed to come together too conveniently and unrealistically. When Holmes loses a lot of blood after being actually tortured by the said villainous magistrate, Watson arrives in the nick of time to save him. Imagine if Watson had actually done as what both Holmes and Mycroft had told him to do and stayed in London! Holmes apparently is so much on the verge of death that Watson agrees to do an untested and unscientific method of blood transfusion directly from person to person, using himself as a donor. Despite how dangerous this method is (which Watson acknowledges as much to underline how critical Holmes's condition wad and that they were at last resorts), absolutely nothing happens to either Watson or Holmes after this procedure in terms of side effects. In fact, Holmes is quite literally almost immediately better and he sets off with his usual energy to continue on the case within 15 minutes, with some help from cocaine.

And that's my other issue with this book. The book draws a lot of attention to Holmes's cocaine habit. While this is canon, I didn't like how it seemed to be used almost like a device to “dramatize” the book in a way. It was even stranger still when Holmes used cocaine in the above instance almost like it was some magic substance that gave him superhuman powers. Watson talks about how it exacted a cost on Holmes but we never really quite see how ugly it can get, so the net effect was that the narrative almost felt like it was glamourizing cocaine use a bit.

Right at the end, we find out that Holmes has somehow managed to kick his cocaine habit by... mindfulness. I am myself a proponent of mindfulness but I'm really not sure how much it would help if used as the sole method by which someone tried to get over a cocaine addiction. It almost felt like it was trivializing the problem and struggles of drug addiction in a way. Plus, did mindfulness as a concept even exist back in the Victorian/Edwardian era? It was just such a bizarre way to wrap things up.

So after Holmes gets tortured within an inch of his life, gets miraculously revived back to normal with a questionable blood transfusion and cocaine, he goes on to reveal the villains of the piece and immediately after gets unnecessarily squashed by a falling statue which breaks his leg. After all this, he still somehow survives relatively unscathed after a period of rest and relaxation, and of course mindfulness. It's just so bizarre how many accidents and misfortunes befall Holmes in this story.

This whole story kept me going because it almost felt like a train wreck. It wasn't hideously bad but there were just so many bizarre incidents, overcontrived or convenient plot devices, and anachronisms that I was almost mesmerized.

Not cozy. I know it's Sherlock Holmes and therefore you might not think “cozy” in the first place, but a lot of my friends are cozy readers, so I just wanted to be clear. ;)

As a pastiche–a new Sherlock novel written like it's a long-lost old one–it is very careful and clearly thoughtfully-crafted. I must admit personally it wasn't my favorite pastiche, but it does treat the characters with a lot of sympathetic depth!

The mystery itself was more suspense than puzzle; much of the actual information-gathering happens behind the scenes, in part because Mycroft is involved. There are serious elements that heighten the tension, including child endangerment, abuse, torture, and lawlessness/”the bad guys have bought the law” situations. Oh, and a French associate with dubious motives. He was frustrating at first, but was soon the least of Holmes' and Watson's problems!

I am a soft heart and I prefer my cozies these days, though I have an enduring love for Sherlock and will inevitably read any pastiche I come across. If you're like me, you'll probably be interested by the author's twists and additions, and appreciate this very human presentation of both Watson and Holmes. Just know you may be skimming several pages near the end!

I am a huge fan of detective fiction and have read all of Doyle's Sherlock Holmes canon. I usually look at reviews before choosing a book, but this one jumped out at me at the library and I wanted something casual for over the holidays, so I read it.

Overall, Art in the Blood was okay. The author writes for TV, which is apparent, especially in the first half of the book. The writing is fast-paced and choppy. She gives you some details, but not necessarily the details you want. The emphasis on the nature of artists seems unnecessary and the breakdown into eight parts is excessive. However, in the second half, the book becomes more enjoyable and drawn out.

The thing that irked me the most was that it read like Sherlock fan fiction. I love the show, don't get me wrong. But It has its own thing going. I was hoping to get something different from this. There were very few references to the original stories and what seemed like several references and characterizations from Sherlock. For example, I seem to remember that in the original stories Sherlock believes in God, but in Sherlock he is an adamant Atheist. In Art in the Blood, he too is an atheist. The characters all seem to have modern views on trauma, women, drug addiction, labor laws, etc.

Also, a quote on the back calls the book “meticulously researched” but I doubted it on several occasions. For example, Holmes suggests that a traumatized boy see “a counselor”. But in 1888, talk therapy (indeed, psychology as a study) was in its infancy. Unless he meant “hypnotist”, I can't imagine what kind of counselor he was referring to or for what purpose.

I might read the second one. Or find a better adaptation. There are several.