Art in the Blood

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.