The Angel of the Opera Review

This is the second Sherlock Holmes review, this one for Sam Siciliano’s “Sherlock Holmes and the Angel of the Opera.” I had a lot of fun with Siciliano’s “The White Worm” already and definitely also enjoyed Angel of the Opera a lot. So much, in fact, that I stayed up late to finish the novel. The end may be foreshadowed a little too much in the beginning, but that doesn’t hurt the story at all.

Crossover stories are a lot of fun to write or read and so it’s only logical to combine Sherlock Holmes with whatever other characters of renown have been written or placed around the same time as him. While ‘Sherlock Holmes and Jack the Ripper’ suffers from Holmes being too good a detective not to find the Ripper before the fifth death, Dracula is not that good a topic, because Sherlock Holmes doesn’t work too well with the occult (although “A Betrayal in Blood” does a very good job, but only by making the count human). Angel of the Opera doesn’t use Dracula - it uses the Phantom of the Opera instead. A good choice, since Erik, no matter his moniker of ‘opera ghost,’ is purely human.

There are other reasons why the Phantom makes for a good crossover character: Leroux, the author of Phantom, composed the story as a mystery for the first half; Erik is a genius second to none, which puts him on an equal tier with Sherlock Holmes; both have a thing for disguises (although Erik has little choice, what with his disfigured face); and both have a musical inclination, Erik as a composer, Holmes as a violinist and overall music lover. There has been one other novel on that topic I remember, but Angel of the Opera does a much better job in my opinion. Siciliano keeps Erik’s origin intact, which is great, because it hurts the story to change it - Erik is disfigured from birth and has been shunned because of his face all his life, which makes a great difference to the regular ‘he’s disfigured as an adult, often within the story in question’ versions.

Instead of Watson, Henry Vernier, Holmes’ cousin from his mother’s side and Watson’s successor with the practice, takes over the job of chronicler (as with all of Siciliano’s Sherlock Holmes novels, although Vernier as Holmes’ cousin is canon). Vernier has a deeper understanding of his cousin and knows him on a more personal level than Watson does - and there seems to be a certain enmity between him and Watson as well. He also has a different approach to many things, which changes the dynamics between chronicler and hero in this case. Being part French, Vernier speaks the language fluently and, as Holmes says, without British accent. This is one reason why he makes a much better companion for Holmes in this case - both speak French and are at home in Paris where, of course, the story takes place. Watson would be very much out of his element.

The foreshadowing in the first chapter is a little heavy-handed for me, but nevertheless only served to make me wonder how things would come together in the end (who’d make a better companion for a disfigured musician than a blind one?).

Once things get really going and the story moves from Wales to Paris, it tightens a lot and includes not only mystery (of course, most readers will be aware of the opera ghost’s identity from the beginning), but also a lot of action.

Like other crossovers, the story recasts some characters, making them a little less positive in many cases (Carlotta, the prima donna, might actually get off best, but then, she was unlikeable in the original already). This serves not only to cast Erik in a better light (without denying he did horrible things in his life), but also to pull the story out of its pulp origins and give it a little more depth. Raul is no unblemished hero (not that he is in the original novel, the movies mostly cast him as a such), Christine a little less of the innocent ingénue, the Persian more sinister. Oh, and bloodhound Toby turns out to be a she, but that’s just an aside.

The novel does a great job merging a Sherlock Holmes story with The Phantom of the Opera as Leroux wrote it. Holmes works around the known characters and meets with them, but he doesn’t drive the story of the love triangle Erik-Christine-Raul. He has been hired to find the opera ghost who is blackmailing the managers (who is also Erik), Raul’s older brother tries to hire him to make sure there’s no wedding bells for Raul and Christine (a nobleman and a singer? inconceivable!), Raul himself wants Holmes to find out why Christine doesn’t want to see him. Like this, Holmes and, as an extension, Vernier are pulled into the thick of it, they’re at the opera when the chandelier falls (killing only one person), they’re around when the Red Death walks through the masquerade, they’re there when Christine vanishes from the stage during the last scene of Faust.

Yet, the story of the Phantom as we know it plays out without Sherlock Holmes and Henry Vernier. They are not among those who hunt Erik after Christine’s disappearance, even though they are there when Christine must make her choice. Holmes, of course, has seen the choice coming far ahead, he just knows how such things play out (as if flittering, little Christine would choose a man of talent and experience over a pretty nobleman). Yet, the very end is changed without being changed for the public. For the public, Erik dies under the opera. In reality? That would be a spoiler, but see the heavy foreshadowing.

Within Siciliano’s canon, The Angel of the Opera marks a turning point for Vernier - as a result of the things happening in Paris, he finally decides do ask his love Michelle for her hand, brushing aside that she is, in fact, not an innocent maiden. Since they’re a very happy couple in latter novels, his choice surely wasn’t wrong.

My little grief with the novel is that it can’t abstain from throwing in a few French sentences (despite the fact that my remains of French learned in school enabled me to understand them perfectly). Since it’s established early on that both Holmes and Vernier speak French well and since the story takes place mostly in France, it’s easy to assume that they will be speaking French with the people they meet in Paris and Brittany. There’s no need to drop several French sentences in. However, this is one of my pet peeves - authors using different languages in the same book or writing out accents and dialects - and doesn’t really hurt the novel as a such.

“Sherlock Holmes and the Angel of the Opera” is a great crossover between Sherlock Holmes and the Phantom of the Opera, doing justice to both characters and offering a large amount of action for the reader (but then, it’s hardly a mystery who the opera ghost is). The story is well-written and entertaining and Siciliano keeps close to Leroux’s novel, which is great for a reader like me, who would wish for more versions which keep Erik’s origin intact. Curl up with the book and enjoy the story, it’s a great way to spend a few hours.

The Red Tower Review

This is the first of two Sherlock Holmes reviews, this one about “The Red Tower” by Mark A. Latham. I have to admit it took me two tries to finish the novel, but the first time, that might have been more due to me reading a lot of Sherlock Holmes novels and just being a little tired of the subject. The second time, I found the book interesting and good to read, so it hasn’t been the fault of “The Red Tower.”

“The Red Tower” is a classic locked-room mystery - even literally, since the murder happens in a room locked from the inside with the only existing key. It’s also a very well-written mystery story which presents enough suspects and motives to keep the reader guessing. Not having Sherlock Holmes on scene until after the fact (although Watson as the viewpoint character is present) makes things harder for the great detective, which is always good. It’s no fun if Holmes appears, looks at the crime scene for a moment, and says ‘X did it.’

In addition to the murder as a such, there’s also the topic of spiritualism, which is fitting, given that Doyle himself was rather interested in it towards the end of his life. By putting the novel at a point of the canon where Watson had just lost his first wife Mary and was considering to move back to Baker Street, the author makes him a little vulnerable when it comes to talking to the dead. Holmes, of course, would never believe a medium could contact the dead, but after losing his beloved wife, Watson isn’t quite so immune to the medium in question.

The novel starts off with Watson being invited to the countryside by an old friend who, too, hasn’t recovered from the loss of a loved one (his mother in this case) and has fallen for the medium Madam Farr. From the beginning, Watson finds her and her entourage suspicious and her various tries to reel him in only make him more suspicious of her. It’s only natural that, after his friend’s sister dies, he would suspect Madam Farr and her entourage - Esther, the dead woman, was very suspicious of them and set on proving they were frauds.

Holmes is a little more rational about it, but due to the situation comes in far after the murder and thus doesn’t have as much information at his fingertips as he surely would like to have. Therefore, he and Watson have to go on a hunt, digging up information, interviewing suspects and possible witnesses, finding out who lied to them and why - classic mystery work.

The solution of the mystery is unexpected as well. It makes sense, looking back on the story, but it’s not what you would expect, picking up the novel and reading it up to the actual murder.

Latham spins a very good story, giving the audience a lot of people who had a lot of reasons to commit a murder, putting suspicion not only on the medium, but also on the fiancé, the cousin, the parish priest, and even the brother. The process of elimination then makes up most of the rest of the novel after Esther is found in the Red Tower on the premises, seemingly having died of fear. Since this is very much Sherlock Holmes’ creed of ‘if you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left, no matter how improbable, must be the answer’ in a nutshell, this makes for a very good Sherlock Holmes novel.

Like with “The Hound of the Baskervilles,” there is that little pinch of the supernatural, not only in the spiritualist, but also in the mysterious Red Lady who is said to haunt the tower and who is seen as an omen of death by the family. When she turns up in a corridor leading to the tower on the night on which Esther will die in the very room in which her ancestor killed her husband, there is superstition in the mix as well. Of course, Holmes doesn’t hold with that - but Watson is not fully immune to superstition and rather glad to leave the tower behind in the end, even though the Red Lady had no hand in the death in question.

I do have a weak spot for locked-room mysteries myself, because they invite a lot of speculation as to how it was done. There just are so many varieties up by now and there still might be new ones an author can come up with. As said at the beginning, I did need two tries to get through the book, but it wasn’t because of the writing. As a matter of fact, Latham does a very good job writing Watson, keeping it in the same style as Doyle himself.

He dives into the canon, using the time between Watson losing his first wife and the time he moved in with Holmes again as a natural source of tension - Watson is torn between staying with his practice and in the house he shared with Mary (for which he has a buyer) and returning to Holmes and putting a little distance between himself and the painful memories. The medium makes use of this tension, suggesting that it would be bad for Watson to go back to Holmes and that Mary doesn’t want him to do so, because Holmes already took time from them when she was alive - something which resounds with Watson’s regrets of not having spent more time with his wife, a common feeling after a loved one dies. Yet, towards the end, Watson himself remembers how much Mary supported him in this aspect of his life and that she never did begrudge him his friendship with Holmes, so she would hardly say the opposite after her death. On the whole, Madam Farr fails, because she’s pushing it too much, because she’s too set on gaining influence over Watson as well.

Needless to say, although this might count as a mild spoiler, that the medium proves to be a fraud - Sherlock Holmes stories are rational, spirits have no part in them.

“The Red Tower” is a very good Sherlock Holmes novel and surely a good way to spend a couple of hours. Especially now that the daylight hours are getting fewer again and a few cold and rainy days may be coming, it’s a great book to curl up on your couch or in your bed with.

What Makes Characters Strong?

I’ve already written a post about what makes a strong female character, but let’s be honest: there are a lot of not-that-strong male characters as well (not to mention non-binary ones). So let’s take a step back and think about what makes characters strong in general.

A lot of what I’ve written in that post also goes for characters in general, not just for female characters. While there has always been a misunderstanding about what makes a ‘strong woman’ in a story, there’s also other characters who would profit from being really strong and not just muscled and armed.

Yes, your former soldier/mercenary who has turned into a vigilante/hero-for-hire will, most likely, be physically fit and capable of handling most regular weapons in the military they served in. They are strong in a physical sense and chances are their story will be full of fights, dangerous situations, explosions, and other regular action yarn.

What about your young, idealistic politician who learns how to spin intrigues to finally bring down the corrupt politicians on top and bring about a better life for all through the laws they get signed? They aren’t necessarily a physically strong character, but they’ll have charisma, deviousness, and a huge network of contacts. Their story will be full of intrigues, meetings, speeches, and information being traded in secret.

What about the new teen in town who finds out that there is something weird going on at the local church and gathers a group of misfits to confront the old evil sleeping under the cemetery and being worshipped by most of the old and important families in town? They probably won’t be heavily armed and strong as Arnold Schwarzenegger during his best times, but they’ll have friends and unexpected allies and they’ll pull through with perseverance and pluck.

All three of those characters can be strong characters, but not through their physical means alone.

It’s horribly easy to hear the expression ‘strong woman’ and come up with a badass warrior without equal in the world. “Xena the Warrior Princess” proved that that can actually work very well - but Xena and Gabrielle had other things going for them than pure physical strength alone. It’s also horribly easy, though, to think that all a hero needs to be is a strong  fighter with strong morals. While that can be part of your hero’s job description, it’s not all.

Depending on your story, physical fitness might be a necessity - I’m not saying ‘never use a physically strong main character again.’ It is not what makes the character strong, though, there’s other things they need for that.

Characters need one thing above everything else and it isn’t muscles, it’s an agenda. They need a goal they are working towards. Heroes and villains of a tale have that agenda, that goal. Usually, they have conflicting goals, but that’s part of another post. All main characters, all characters who feature strongly in at least one plot arc (if not more of them) should have an agenda and that agenda should be the reason why they feature in a plot arc or more.

That, of course, bears the question ‘What is an agenda?’ An agenda is a goal, a goal which is so important to a character that they will do whatever it takes and invest all of their skills, time, and resources into reaching it. Cinderella’s agenda is to go to the ball - something she has a right to, which her stepmother and stepsisters deny her. She has help with her agenda, but it’s her own wish which starts her on that path, it’s keeping true to her goal and not giving in which in the end brings her to the ball. It’s her prince’s agenda to find the woman he danced with and fell in love with again and, because he’s not giving up and using all the resources being the prince affords him, he finds Cinderella and they both get their Happily Ever After. Little Red Riding Hood’s agenda is to bring the basket with food and drink to her grandmother. The Big Bad Wolf’s agenda is to find something to eat (of course the whole tale does have some sublime sexual context, but we’re not going there). Red travelling through the forest makes her a prime bit of food for the wolf.

Agendas need to be part of the plot arcs of your story, though. There’s no use in having the hero’s love interest wanting to be a great violinist, unless the violin will play a role in a plot later on. There’s no use in having the hero strive for a high post in the army when the plot is all about a quarrel in the family.

In addition to agendas, characters need balance. A character with too many positive attributes, be they skills, traits, or social attributes, will not work out well, because they will have it too easy. A character with too many negative attributes, be they skills, traits, or social attributes, will not work out well, either, because they will come across as contrived (nobody is that much of an underdog). It’s dangerously easy to turn an underdog into a whiny character nobody wants to see succeed - and heroes should succeed. A whiny villain, on the other hand, gives the impression that they’re not really competent, which is also bad for them. A whiny love interest begs the question of why the hero is interested in them in the first place.

A balanced character has good and bad attributes, but they balance each other out. A villain is allowed a few more bad attributes, but too many make them seem like some kind of old-fashioned melodrama or comic book villain and that’s usually not good at all. A hero should have more good attributes, so they will be likeable for the audience. Other characters should be balanced, but are allowed more good or bad attributes depending on which side they’re on.

A strong character is a character with an agenda and with a balance in their attributes. They’re not one-dimensional, they’re no paper cut-outs, and they are not just focused on the hero, no matter whether in a good (supportive) or a bad (hindering) way. They will go along with what the hero or the villain want, but for their very own reasons.

Nursery Crimes Review

Believe it or not, but this is the second version of this post - I was going to write a review on the ‘Nursery Crimes’ series already, but then I got back to the second ‘Thursday Next’ book and at the end realized that there is a connection between the two series, as the third one explains how the many nursery characters come to Reading in the first place.

In the third ‘Thursday Next’ novel, “The Well of Lost Plots,” Thursday spends time in the BookWorld™ in order to keep a low profile and go through her pregnancy peacefully (no such luck) and fills in for, then, DS Mary Jones in a book called Caversham Heights (while Mary is doing some college courses). This means she has most time to herself and only has to stand in for Mary when the chapters demand it (book characters have a lot of spare time while they’re not in a chapter - unless you happen to be a viewpoint character in a first-person book, sucks to be you in that case, because you never have a private moment). The low-quality detective novel with its cliché mafia plot is deteriorating - it will probably never leave the well, the place where books hover until they’re published. By the end of the story, the book has become a refuge for nursery rhyme characters and the plot has severely changed - it’s now the plot of the first novel of the ‘Nursery Crimes’ series - “The Big Over Easy.”

This is a review on the two ‘Nursery Crimes’ novels out so far - “The Big Over Easy” and “The Fourth Bear.” They are set more or less in the same reality as ‘Thursday Next,’ but a good deal later than the first stories - “The Eyre Affair” (Thursday Next 1) is set in 1985, “The Big Over Easy” in 2004.

The series is made up of police procedurals which make a lot of fun of police procedurals while keeping to the basics of the genre. Main characters are Jack Spratt (DI in the first book, DCI in the second) and Mary Mary (DS, yes, the second ‘Mary’ is on purpose, her last name is changed from Jones to Mary, because that suggests she might be part of a nursery rhyme herself as ‘Mary Mary quite contrary’).

The first novel introduces not only the heroes, but also a few weird premises - in the world of Reading with the NCD, there’s also the Detective Guild and detectives are measured by how many published cases (generally written down by their sergeants) they have to their name. Jack doesn’t hold with that, even though his wife tries to get him into the guild in the first book. He simply wants to solve crimes correctly and get the real culprit behind bars - which does rarely work, because judges don’t take nursery crimes seriously. The second novel continues the weird-premise trend, but then, weird is right down the alley of author Jasper Fforde.

Fforde has a lot of strengths as a writer - I can hardly put any of his books down, pulled a few late-night reads to finish some of his stories. He writes excellent, if weird characters. He creates wonderful alternate realities, of the 1980s as well as of the 2000s. He definitely knows his literature and can thus make full use of that inside the pages of his books. After all, Jack and Mary try their best to help all nursery rhyme character who need help - and put those who are dangerous behind bars, if not with as much success as they would like to have. Even minor characters get enough space to be recognizable and it’s fun to spot them again later in the books.

But what Fforde does extremely well is foreshadowing. A successful foreshadowing means not only to hint at something throughout the story, but to do it without becoming too obvious or not obvious enough. Fforde balances that out to perfection, his hints are on point and come regularly enough to keep them in the back of the reader’s mind, but they’re not too obvious or come too often. He puts his hints in the background, displaying them well enough to be seen, but not wildly pointing at them - and that’s one thing which is so addictive about his books.

While the ‘Thursday Next’ series has a lot more and a lot weirder action, the ‘Nursery Crimes’ books are definitely more ‘detective novel’ than Thursday’s adventures. They are procedurals and excel at showing how much the ‘rules and regulations’ can hinder a detective in their line of work (especially if others want to hinder them). Jack and Mary regularly aren’t only up against the murderers they are looking for (Humpty Dumpty is the victim in the first, Goldilocks the victim in the second book - at least initially), but also against superiors who only think of their budget and don’t like the NCD much, other detectives trying to take over the case (looking at you, DCI Friedland Chymes!), influential suspects using their influence against them, and all the other twists and turns you’d expect from a police procedural, where to the ‘whodunit’ there also comes the book by which you have to do things.

Twists and turns are plentiful in both novels and both drift into thriller territory towards the end (when it’s no longer just the murder, but a crime much bigger and much more devastating). And despite their basis in nursery rhymes and other stories (Prometheus of ‘fire stealing’ fame is a regular in both novels, since he’s getting married to Jack’s daughter Pandora - no relations to the first Pandora), the stories manage to be grounded in reality. It’s a weird reality where your publication is more important than catching the killer and your DS might live two ships from Captain Nemo himself (he’s turned the Nautilus into a houseboat after it got shipwrecked), but it’s still a reality in which the dead stay dead and a threat to life and limb is a threat to life and limb.

Both “The Big Over Easy” and “The Fourth Bear” are very well-told stories with a great cast and a lot of interesting plot arcs. They’re addictive and fun to read and offer a lot besides pure murder and mayhem. Look into the series, if you like, and give them a go. They’re a great read for any season (I’ve read them in the middle of summer) and might keep you up longer than expected (I actually stayed up over two hours after bedtime, just to finish “The Fourth Bear”). Two big thumbs up from me!