On April 23rd, my cousin was going into Manhattan for a concert. Being only sixteen, my aunt obviously didn't want him to go alone, so I went in with him. (Seriously, there was virtually no point. We split up almost as soon as we left the train station, but oh, well.) Anyway, I had a mission. I wanted to go to The Mysterious Bookshop, because another Holmes author (probably more than one,) had gone there, and told how it had a full wall of Holmes books. I knew I had to check this out.
I went to Forbidden Planet first, (SO happy to find out they hadn't actually moved, though I was disappointed there was no upstairs to go to like there was the first time I was there,) and was geeking out at the Doctor Who stuff they had there. I ended up buying two Doctor Who shirts, getting a pic of the golden Dalek cutout they had, and spazzing about the Beatles stuff I wasn't able to buy. Must go back there soon . . .
Anyway. I ended up catching a cab down to Warren Street, where the Mysterious Bookshop is. I walked in, and the first thing I see is a Holmes silhouette on a messenger bag kinda thing. I walked around the store for a bit before going to the back wall, where what do I see, but Holmes books! I looked at them, reading blurbs, investigating covers, quietly exclaiming over seeing ones in my own collection, but that were different editions, or hardbounds where I had the paperback. I saw Darlene Cypser's The Crack in the Lens, among others that I own and recognized, and plenty that I'd never heard of, or only saw on Amazon. One such book was The Canary Trainer, by Nicholas Meyer. I've wanted to collect that one for awhile now, and seeing it right there in front of me, in hardbound, I decided this book was mine. I also got one, I believe called Revenge of the Hound. Then, I came across the majority of MX books, and imagine how surprised and pleased I was to see copies of my own standing right there, displayed on the shelves! :) I looked through them and saw The Detective and The Woman, by Amy Thomas. I'm in the process of reading both hers and Canary Trainer (because it's yet another Holmes/Phantom crossover that I've been curious about for awhile,) and when I'm done with both, I'll review them on here, hopefully with a follow up interview with Amy.
Until then, happy readings, writings, and other Holmesian endeavors!
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Reichenbach Fall Theory - Again!!!
I gotta come up with better titles for these things . . .
I decided to dig out my copy of Sherlock Season 2, and watch The Reichenbach Fall again, and something struck me while I was watching the scene where Moriarty comes to Baker Street just after the announcement of his acquittal. He mentions a problem to Sherlock. Their problem. The 'final problem.' When I initially watched this, I took it as meaning that Moriarty's final problem was how to best ruin Sherlock's reputation. But what if that's not it at all? I'm wondering now if his final problem was how to ruin Sherlock's reputation before committing suicide and therefore dying as a martyr.
I never noticed before . . . The Grimm Brothers Fairy Tales book that Sherlock looks at in the school after the kids are kidnapped is in the same kind of packaging that the bread crumbs outside Baker Street that John picked up were in.
Once again, I apologize, I'm writing this as I watch.
"All fairy tales need a good old fashioned villain."
I keep coming back to that. There's got to be something in one of those fairy tales that parallels this story!
Oh, my God . . . I just realized . . . The assassins that moved in within spitting distance of 221B Baker Street . . . I thought they were more of Moriarty's men, stationed there to close the web around Sherlock. What if the opposite's the truth? What if they went there of their own volition in order to protect Sherlock? I just passed the part where the one guy saved Sherlock from being hit by the car and then is killed when Sherlock shakes his hand. Sherlock comments on it, on them being there to keep him alive because he has something they want. But what if that's not entirely true?
Just reached the part where Sherlock and John escape, and where Sherlock says, "I'm doing what Moriarty wants. Becoming a fugitive. Run."
He knew what the game was. He knew Moriarty was like a spider, controlling thousands of strings of a web, knowing exactly what buttons to push to make whatever happen. And he knew that Moriarty was trying to destroy him inch by inch. He said that, minutes before in the episode.
And yet, he plays into Moriarty's hand there, doing what Moriarty wanted him to do. Why? Why would he play into his hands like that? Why run from the police, making things worse for himself (and John) instead of just dealing with whatever questions, and probably being released the next day? Cuz if Sherlock is intelligent enough to solve the crimes, he's intelligent enough to figure out how to prove that no, he wasn't involved. Why didn't he do that, instead of playing into Moriarty's hands?
"There's only one thing he needs to do to complete his game and that's to--"
I think I'm right. Moriarty knew there would be a final confrontation between him and Sherlock and he knew he was going to die. And if he died when Sherlock's reputation was in tatters, he'd die a martyr. He'd die as someone revered, because he'd die as Richard Brook, the 'actor Holmes hired.'
I still don't buy everyone's explanation for why he needed Molly. I'm still not convinced that she was in on helping him fake his death. That kind of deception, especially that big of one for that long-term just doesn't fit her character. I don't think she'd be able to keep up the illusion. I still think she was asked to help restore his reputation, or something of that nature.
I think the gunmen could hear him. I think part of the last step of things was Sherlock's own voice telling someone he was a fraud, and that, along with seeing him go off the rooftop, was what stopped the snipers.
This episode confuses the Hell out of me, to be honest. I don't know what to make of it. I come up with a new thought, and it contradicts something else I thought I'd figured out.
God, I can't wait for Season 3!
I decided to dig out my copy of Sherlock Season 2, and watch The Reichenbach Fall again, and something struck me while I was watching the scene where Moriarty comes to Baker Street just after the announcement of his acquittal. He mentions a problem to Sherlock. Their problem. The 'final problem.' When I initially watched this, I took it as meaning that Moriarty's final problem was how to best ruin Sherlock's reputation. But what if that's not it at all? I'm wondering now if his final problem was how to ruin Sherlock's reputation before committing suicide and therefore dying as a martyr.
I never noticed before . . . The Grimm Brothers Fairy Tales book that Sherlock looks at in the school after the kids are kidnapped is in the same kind of packaging that the bread crumbs outside Baker Street that John picked up were in.
Once again, I apologize, I'm writing this as I watch.
"All fairy tales need a good old fashioned villain."
I keep coming back to that. There's got to be something in one of those fairy tales that parallels this story!
Oh, my God . . . I just realized . . . The assassins that moved in within spitting distance of 221B Baker Street . . . I thought they were more of Moriarty's men, stationed there to close the web around Sherlock. What if the opposite's the truth? What if they went there of their own volition in order to protect Sherlock? I just passed the part where the one guy saved Sherlock from being hit by the car and then is killed when Sherlock shakes his hand. Sherlock comments on it, on them being there to keep him alive because he has something they want. But what if that's not entirely true?
Just reached the part where Sherlock and John escape, and where Sherlock says, "I'm doing what Moriarty wants. Becoming a fugitive. Run."
He knew what the game was. He knew Moriarty was like a spider, controlling thousands of strings of a web, knowing exactly what buttons to push to make whatever happen. And he knew that Moriarty was trying to destroy him inch by inch. He said that, minutes before in the episode.
And yet, he plays into Moriarty's hand there, doing what Moriarty wanted him to do. Why? Why would he play into his hands like that? Why run from the police, making things worse for himself (and John) instead of just dealing with whatever questions, and probably being released the next day? Cuz if Sherlock is intelligent enough to solve the crimes, he's intelligent enough to figure out how to prove that no, he wasn't involved. Why didn't he do that, instead of playing into Moriarty's hands?
"There's only one thing he needs to do to complete his game and that's to--"
I think I'm right. Moriarty knew there would be a final confrontation between him and Sherlock and he knew he was going to die. And if he died when Sherlock's reputation was in tatters, he'd die a martyr. He'd die as someone revered, because he'd die as Richard Brook, the 'actor Holmes hired.'
I still don't buy everyone's explanation for why he needed Molly. I'm still not convinced that she was in on helping him fake his death. That kind of deception, especially that big of one for that long-term just doesn't fit her character. I don't think she'd be able to keep up the illusion. I still think she was asked to help restore his reputation, or something of that nature.
I think the gunmen could hear him. I think part of the last step of things was Sherlock's own voice telling someone he was a fraud, and that, along with seeing him go off the rooftop, was what stopped the snipers.
This episode confuses the Hell out of me, to be honest. I don't know what to make of it. I come up with a new thought, and it contradicts something else I thought I'd figured out.
God, I can't wait for Season 3!
Friday, February 8, 2013
The Reichenbach Fall
Okay, so I've recently been watching some hilarious song related YouTube things of Sherlock, and found a couple tonight that talk about how he faked his death. The one I'm currently watching mentions the black ball that he's bouncing against the wall before he goes to the roof to meet Moriarty. People have said that Sherlock would have no noticeable pulse if he stuck that ball under his arm and held it there. Except, watch the ending of that episode. Watch him up on the roof with Moriarty, and then when he's standing there, after dropping the phone. There's no way that with all that movement, that the ball idea would still be a valid one.
I'm ready to dig out the episode again. For one thing, I wanna see if I can get a good look at the biker. Someone suggested that that was actually Sherlock, but I'm doubting it. However, someone else mentioned an original Holmes story, the Priory School? Something like that, that has a plot similar to the kidnapped children in this episode.
I must speculate further . . .
God, I can't wait till season 3. I swear, I don't care if I can only play them on my computer, I'm gonna buy the next season off amazon UK when it comes out so I don't have to wait five months before the episodes come to America.
I'm ready to dig out the episode again. For one thing, I wanna see if I can get a good look at the biker. Someone suggested that that was actually Sherlock, but I'm doubting it. However, someone else mentioned an original Holmes story, the Priory School? Something like that, that has a plot similar to the kidnapped children in this episode.
I must speculate further . . .
God, I can't wait till season 3. I swear, I don't care if I can only play them on my computer, I'm gonna buy the next season off amazon UK when it comes out so I don't have to wait five months before the episodes come to America.
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
More on Jack of All Trades
I really should make it a point to write on here more often. I've been busy lately, with the last few weeks of the fall semester in December, then my day job, babysitting for a friend of mine's daughter to try and make things easier for her after their house was damaged in the hurricane, and all in all, I just felt completely uninspired to write.
But then, several weeks ago, I started drawing stuff, including some pictures for co-workers of mine (which came out really cool, if I do say so myself,) and I knew it was only a matter of time before creative writing juices started flowing again.
They haven't, completely. I haven't really written anything new to further complete Jack of All Trades, but I started typing it up. Once I have that done, I'll have familiarized myself with the novel enough again that I'll be able to continue the handwritten version and finish it. Then comes the editing process, which I hope won't take more than a month to complete. Then, it'll finally be published. I'm not sure what kind of timeline it'll take me to finish typing and then finish the handwritten version, so I hesitate to give a month when the book'll actually be out, but it is coming.
But then, several weeks ago, I started drawing stuff, including some pictures for co-workers of mine (which came out really cool, if I do say so myself,) and I knew it was only a matter of time before creative writing juices started flowing again.
They haven't, completely. I haven't really written anything new to further complete Jack of All Trades, but I started typing it up. Once I have that done, I'll have familiarized myself with the novel enough again that I'll be able to continue the handwritten version and finish it. Then comes the editing process, which I hope won't take more than a month to complete. Then, it'll finally be published. I'm not sure what kind of timeline it'll take me to finish typing and then finish the handwritten version, so I hesitate to give a month when the book'll actually be out, but it is coming.
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Jack of All Trades, Once Again!
"I'm happy you're making progress on your next book. I continue to wish
you good luck with it. Can't wait to see the final result!" ~ B.L.
This is a quote from B.L., one of the readers of my blog, a reviewer on Amazon, and the one behind Shadows and Sleuths, a two part video review of my book, which, to be honest, I love. I wish she'd review the other Phantom/Holmes crossovers, cuz I'd love to hear what she has to say. Oh, and B.L., if you read this, there is another Phantom/Holmes crossover. You can buy it on Amazon here. I definitely want to read it at some point, because it has not only the Phantom story in it, but also Holmes facing off against Jekyll and Hyde. It should be an interesting, if short (only 106 pages,) read, but hopefully worth it. I've yet to pick up Canary Trainer . . .
Anyway. I'm still chugging away on Jack of All Trades. I've gotten past the reveal, I need to go back and finish writing about a segment with Erik that opens a can of worms for him, Watson and Abberline have done something of a team-up, because Watson is now feeling like Erik has replaced him, and none of the officials, (the policemen and such,) are any closer to finding the Ripper after the night of the double murder.
Sounds exciting, right? I hope it does. All I'm feeling now, though, is disorganized. There are definite ways to go about writing a novel like this, and I can't help feeling that I'm falling short of where it should be. I Will Find the Answer was definitely a step up from Rendezvous, and I want to continue on that up and up. I'm just not sure how to accomplish that with such a historically based writing.
Plus . . . I've gotta admit, I'm going through a rather crap-tacular period in my personal life. Usually, I want to keep my personal life out of this blog, because who wants to hear an author whining? The readers want to know about the books, right? But I want to rant a bit about this somewhere.
Long story short, part of the reason I want to rewrite Rendezvous is because, honestly, I can write it better. But more importantly, I finally truly understand the kind of Hell Christine was going through. I actually had something of a Phantom-Christine-Raoul triangle happen to me. Except neither of them stayed. And now, neither of them wants anything to do with me, despite both claiming to love me at whatever points in the past. Yet, oddly enough, it was the Phantom-ish character in the situation who was generous enough to give me a last conversation so I could attempt to get some closure on things. With him, at least. The Raoul-ish one . . . refuses to grant me that. Who knew, right? Who knew the bad-tempered one that all of my friends hated would give me something that the one all my friends like and say is such a great guy would refuse to?
Honestly, the situation's killing me, and it makes it hard to go back and write about Holmes, and especially Erik, because I'm dealing with a situation in here that reminds me of the entire mess of my personal life. I do try very hard to separate it, but then, when that kind of pain is my inspiration of some things, it doesn't really work.
And it's only gonna be worse, potentially, when I get to the next novel, because the next novel is my Holmes and Dracula take. And where did I come up with that one? Flat-out, I didn't. Back in 2008, right around Halloween, I'd written a short story for a class I was taking that starred Holmes investigating the case of Jekyll and Hyde. I'd just become obsessed with the musical at that point, and since I was still working on editing Rendezvous, a combo of the two seemed inevitable to spring forward in my head. Well, I talked to my real life Phantom-ish guy about doing up a full novel of Holmes/Jekyll and Hyde, and he said, "Nah, forget that. What you should do, if you're gonna write a Holmes novel, is have him face off with Van Helsing against Dracula."
We didn't get the chance to talk about it much that night, but I went home and wrote out a few ideas for it, because I seriously liked the idea. So, the next day, I went in to work and told him what I'd been thinking for a possible plot and whatnot. He basically looked at me and said, "No, not like that. This is what you have happen . . ." And while I followed him around the store with a notebook and pen, he outlined the entire novel for me.
I'm adding in and fleshing out a Hell of a lot to the plot he gave me. I'm bringing in some info that C.C.Humphreys wrote about in his book, Vlad: The Last Confession, which talks more about the man Dracula is based on, rather than just vampire legends and such. But all in all, the novel is still his, and it's a brilliant idea. (As I'm hoping the future readers will agree.)
The other thing stressing me now is school. I'm in four classes this semester, to finally finish off my AA in not only Creative Writing, but Psychology. I'm hoping I pass them. I mean, the one class for the Creative Writing degree, I'm confident I will, but the three for Psych . . . I'm not so confident about one of them. I hope I'll pull it together somehow.
On the upside, I do have a friend from where I'm working now who said that he'll read the initial type-out of Jack of All Trades and give me his opinion on it. He was an English major before switching over to culinary. (I know, ???, right?) But the fact is, he's still very good with words, he's intelligent, and he's another set of eyes to read over things and catch typos before it's published. Plus, with any luck, he and I can actually sit down together and go over plot points, work on segments that need work, and figure out how I can get away from such a disorganized feeling about this one. Cuz, if I'm feeling that, there's no way readers won't pick up on it.
Well, another writing spazz has come to an end for now. Here's hoping I get some more writing done before work today.
This is a quote from B.L., one of the readers of my blog, a reviewer on Amazon, and the one behind Shadows and Sleuths, a two part video review of my book, which, to be honest, I love. I wish she'd review the other Phantom/Holmes crossovers, cuz I'd love to hear what she has to say. Oh, and B.L., if you read this, there is another Phantom/Holmes crossover. You can buy it on Amazon here. I definitely want to read it at some point, because it has not only the Phantom story in it, but also Holmes facing off against Jekyll and Hyde. It should be an interesting, if short (only 106 pages,) read, but hopefully worth it. I've yet to pick up Canary Trainer . . .
Anyway. I'm still chugging away on Jack of All Trades. I've gotten past the reveal, I need to go back and finish writing about a segment with Erik that opens a can of worms for him, Watson and Abberline have done something of a team-up, because Watson is now feeling like Erik has replaced him, and none of the officials, (the policemen and such,) are any closer to finding the Ripper after the night of the double murder.
Sounds exciting, right? I hope it does. All I'm feeling now, though, is disorganized. There are definite ways to go about writing a novel like this, and I can't help feeling that I'm falling short of where it should be. I Will Find the Answer was definitely a step up from Rendezvous, and I want to continue on that up and up. I'm just not sure how to accomplish that with such a historically based writing.
Plus . . . I've gotta admit, I'm going through a rather crap-tacular period in my personal life. Usually, I want to keep my personal life out of this blog, because who wants to hear an author whining? The readers want to know about the books, right? But I want to rant a bit about this somewhere.
Long story short, part of the reason I want to rewrite Rendezvous is because, honestly, I can write it better. But more importantly, I finally truly understand the kind of Hell Christine was going through. I actually had something of a Phantom-Christine-Raoul triangle happen to me. Except neither of them stayed. And now, neither of them wants anything to do with me, despite both claiming to love me at whatever points in the past. Yet, oddly enough, it was the Phantom-ish character in the situation who was generous enough to give me a last conversation so I could attempt to get some closure on things. With him, at least. The Raoul-ish one . . . refuses to grant me that. Who knew, right? Who knew the bad-tempered one that all of my friends hated would give me something that the one all my friends like and say is such a great guy would refuse to?
Honestly, the situation's killing me, and it makes it hard to go back and write about Holmes, and especially Erik, because I'm dealing with a situation in here that reminds me of the entire mess of my personal life. I do try very hard to separate it, but then, when that kind of pain is my inspiration of some things, it doesn't really work.
And it's only gonna be worse, potentially, when I get to the next novel, because the next novel is my Holmes and Dracula take. And where did I come up with that one? Flat-out, I didn't. Back in 2008, right around Halloween, I'd written a short story for a class I was taking that starred Holmes investigating the case of Jekyll and Hyde. I'd just become obsessed with the musical at that point, and since I was still working on editing Rendezvous, a combo of the two seemed inevitable to spring forward in my head. Well, I talked to my real life Phantom-ish guy about doing up a full novel of Holmes/Jekyll and Hyde, and he said, "Nah, forget that. What you should do, if you're gonna write a Holmes novel, is have him face off with Van Helsing against Dracula."
We didn't get the chance to talk about it much that night, but I went home and wrote out a few ideas for it, because I seriously liked the idea. So, the next day, I went in to work and told him what I'd been thinking for a possible plot and whatnot. He basically looked at me and said, "No, not like that. This is what you have happen . . ." And while I followed him around the store with a notebook and pen, he outlined the entire novel for me.
I'm adding in and fleshing out a Hell of a lot to the plot he gave me. I'm bringing in some info that C.C.Humphreys wrote about in his book, Vlad: The Last Confession, which talks more about the man Dracula is based on, rather than just vampire legends and such. But all in all, the novel is still his, and it's a brilliant idea. (As I'm hoping the future readers will agree.)
The other thing stressing me now is school. I'm in four classes this semester, to finally finish off my AA in not only Creative Writing, but Psychology. I'm hoping I pass them. I mean, the one class for the Creative Writing degree, I'm confident I will, but the three for Psych . . . I'm not so confident about one of them. I hope I'll pull it together somehow.
On the upside, I do have a friend from where I'm working now who said that he'll read the initial type-out of Jack of All Trades and give me his opinion on it. He was an English major before switching over to culinary. (I know, ???, right?) But the fact is, he's still very good with words, he's intelligent, and he's another set of eyes to read over things and catch typos before it's published. Plus, with any luck, he and I can actually sit down together and go over plot points, work on segments that need work, and figure out how I can get away from such a disorganized feeling about this one. Cuz, if I'm feeling that, there's no way readers won't pick up on it.
Well, another writing spazz has come to an end for now. Here's hoping I get some more writing done before work today.
Friday, October 19, 2012
Thinking About Reviews and Reviewers
I've been thinking lately about the people who review works on Amazon and other places. Of course, you have the die hard fans of whatever/whoever, and when you're writing something like Sherlock Holmes novels, these people can be the hardest to please because they're the purists. The ones who can name every story, in order of publication, that Conan Doyle released about Sherlock Holmes. The ones who can quote passages, and will know what deduction came from which story, or when Holmes used someone's thumb print to be able to find the culprit.
These are the people who I feel can be most unforgiving in newer Holmes stories where the character strays (a little or a lot) from what he was in the original stories. I had a taste of that myself from none other than Alistair Duncan. On reviewing my first novel, he made mention that I had used 'pants' instead of 'trousers,' and said how Watson would never have done that, it was an unforgivable mistake. I felt 'unforgivable' was a bit of an overstatement, but in thinking about it later, I can see where he's coming from. I myself am something of a perfectionist in other areas. (Ask me how I felt about the 2004 movie of Phantom of the Opera. Or better yet, don't, unless you want me to go on, literally, a half hour or more rant about everything they changed/screwed up in that movie. You want a MUCH better adaptation? Go to Amazon and buy this. It is SO much better. Amazing, amazing job.)
Anyway. Then there are the people who aren't going to like the work because it's not Conan Doyle. But of course, since they love Holmes, they'll "give this a chance," and inevitably hate it for the author 'trying to do something clearly out of their realm of ability,' or some such line like that.
Then there are the ones who genuinely find something to enjoy about it, even if it's not Conan Doyle style, or even if it's not the kind of situation Holmes would've been placed in within the realm of the Canon.
Fourth, there are the ones who are familiar with the author, and therefore, even if the book is terrible, will not give it anything less than five stars and talk about how wonderful of a book it is and how excellent the writing was, and how they can't wait for the next one, etc., etc.
I won't name it here, but there is one such Holmes-ish book that embodies the last category's qualities. I regret to say I haven't even been able to finish the book, so bad were the grammatical, spelling, and POV errors. It truly seemed like it had a very interesting premise. It seems like a very interesting case, the characters seem engaging (though not entirely adult or well thought out,) and the blurb makes it sound like a very intriguing book.
Yet, I can't help being reminded of another book. Hope is the story of a girl with schizophrenia and how she overcomes the obstacles in her life, including hallucinations, being in a mental institution, and losing a baby after she is married to a man she met while in the institution. Intriguing premise, right? Well, Hope is one of the most God-awfully written books ever self-published. There are misspellings, grammatical errors, and sentence structure problems. It feels like the entire story takes place over a few months, perhaps less, because there is no real sense of time passing. In reality, the author has the story span about a decade.
Yet, with Hope, and with the other book I'm referring to, there are only good things said about it. (Okay, Hope has one 1 star review.) I understand that especially when a person knows the author, or is connected to them by something like Facebook or Twitter, they're not going to be as willing to put an honest review out there because they don't want to hurt the author's feelings. But at the same time, it doesn't help the author at all to be heaped with praise for a book that truly doesn't deserve it.
Have I given five star reviews? Heck, yeah. Darlene Cypser's books, for instance. Specifically, The Crack in the Lens, and the Consulting Detective Trilogy, Book One. Yes, I heap praise on her for those books, because truly, they are amazing. However, there are things about them that drive me up the wall, such as her constantly using the characters' names in sentences, instead of other descriptive terms. But that's merely a difference in writing style between us, and while it bugs me to no end, it's also something I'll endure for the simple fact that the stories are masterful.
The same cannot be said of this other Holmes-ish book. The mistakes grammatically, the odd POV switches, and the lackluster characters overpowered any sense I had to finish the book because the plot truly didn't hold my interest. I just found myself truly not caring, because the main character would go off into these complete non sequiturs about a potential love interest, or what a relative of theirs would have done, or some such like that.
True, I hate the fact that I've gotten 1 and 2 star reviews, especially since I gather that in at least one case, the person didn't even read the book, but at the same time, I'm proud of them. Those reviews are coming from a place of honesty. Someplace that I don't feel all the reviews for this other book have come from.
One day, I will have to sit down and force myself through the middle and end of the book. Perhaps it'll improve after page sixty-odd.
These are the people who I feel can be most unforgiving in newer Holmes stories where the character strays (a little or a lot) from what he was in the original stories. I had a taste of that myself from none other than Alistair Duncan. On reviewing my first novel, he made mention that I had used 'pants' instead of 'trousers,' and said how Watson would never have done that, it was an unforgivable mistake. I felt 'unforgivable' was a bit of an overstatement, but in thinking about it later, I can see where he's coming from. I myself am something of a perfectionist in other areas. (Ask me how I felt about the 2004 movie of Phantom of the Opera. Or better yet, don't, unless you want me to go on, literally, a half hour or more rant about everything they changed/screwed up in that movie. You want a MUCH better adaptation? Go to Amazon and buy this. It is SO much better. Amazing, amazing job.)
Anyway. Then there are the people who aren't going to like the work because it's not Conan Doyle. But of course, since they love Holmes, they'll "give this a chance," and inevitably hate it for the author 'trying to do something clearly out of their realm of ability,' or some such line like that.
Then there are the ones who genuinely find something to enjoy about it, even if it's not Conan Doyle style, or even if it's not the kind of situation Holmes would've been placed in within the realm of the Canon.
Fourth, there are the ones who are familiar with the author, and therefore, even if the book is terrible, will not give it anything less than five stars and talk about how wonderful of a book it is and how excellent the writing was, and how they can't wait for the next one, etc., etc.
I won't name it here, but there is one such Holmes-ish book that embodies the last category's qualities. I regret to say I haven't even been able to finish the book, so bad were the grammatical, spelling, and POV errors. It truly seemed like it had a very interesting premise. It seems like a very interesting case, the characters seem engaging (though not entirely adult or well thought out,) and the blurb makes it sound like a very intriguing book.
Yet, I can't help being reminded of another book. Hope is the story of a girl with schizophrenia and how she overcomes the obstacles in her life, including hallucinations, being in a mental institution, and losing a baby after she is married to a man she met while in the institution. Intriguing premise, right? Well, Hope is one of the most God-awfully written books ever self-published. There are misspellings, grammatical errors, and sentence structure problems. It feels like the entire story takes place over a few months, perhaps less, because there is no real sense of time passing. In reality, the author has the story span about a decade.
Yet, with Hope, and with the other book I'm referring to, there are only good things said about it. (Okay, Hope has one 1 star review.) I understand that especially when a person knows the author, or is connected to them by something like Facebook or Twitter, they're not going to be as willing to put an honest review out there because they don't want to hurt the author's feelings. But at the same time, it doesn't help the author at all to be heaped with praise for a book that truly doesn't deserve it.
Have I given five star reviews? Heck, yeah. Darlene Cypser's books, for instance. Specifically, The Crack in the Lens, and the Consulting Detective Trilogy, Book One. Yes, I heap praise on her for those books, because truly, they are amazing. However, there are things about them that drive me up the wall, such as her constantly using the characters' names in sentences, instead of other descriptive terms. But that's merely a difference in writing style between us, and while it bugs me to no end, it's also something I'll endure for the simple fact that the stories are masterful.
The same cannot be said of this other Holmes-ish book. The mistakes grammatically, the odd POV switches, and the lackluster characters overpowered any sense I had to finish the book because the plot truly didn't hold my interest. I just found myself truly not caring, because the main character would go off into these complete non sequiturs about a potential love interest, or what a relative of theirs would have done, or some such like that.
True, I hate the fact that I've gotten 1 and 2 star reviews, especially since I gather that in at least one case, the person didn't even read the book, but at the same time, I'm proud of them. Those reviews are coming from a place of honesty. Someplace that I don't feel all the reviews for this other book have come from.
One day, I will have to sit down and force myself through the middle and end of the book. Perhaps it'll improve after page sixty-odd.
Friday, October 5, 2012
Elementary, My Dear Thoughts
So, I watched Elementary starring Johnny Lee Miller and Lucy Liu as Sherlock Holmes and Joan Watson. I went into this honestly not expecting much. I mean, after the BBC's Sherlock, how could anything compare?
I was actually pleasantly surprised, however. And I wonder how many other people caught the reference to the Mary Russell novel, BeeKeeper's Apprentice. Or, the alternate title, Upon the Segregation of the Queen. Which is something 'Holmes' paraphrases after Joan finds the bee hive at his place.
The fact that the characters are named Holmes and Watson is something that throws me, honestly. BBC's Sherlock puts Holmes and Watson in modern times, but the way it's done works. It has an old-fashioned feel, but definitely updates the characters enough so that they seem somewhat Victorian, yet fit in with the modern day conveniences like cell phones, texting, and computers.
Elementary . . . The characters just don't seem to fit with the setting. And I especially didn't like how 'Holmes' seems to, when he's making the deduction to the one guy about how the murder was pulled off, practically beg the guy to admit that 'Holmes' is right. Holmes doesn't beg. Holmes doesn't apologize. Holmes doesn't guess. And yet he does all of these things in Elementary.
I think low expectations were a good bet with this one. I knew it wasn't going to be anywhere near the caliber of Sherlock, and I was right. But on the same token, it'll provide what I hoped for. It's good enough distraction until the next season of Sherlock comes out.
All in all, I give the first episode of Elementary 3 1/2 out of five stars. Not wonderful, but a passable enough rendition of Holmes that I'll like watching.
I was actually pleasantly surprised, however. And I wonder how many other people caught the reference to the Mary Russell novel, BeeKeeper's Apprentice. Or, the alternate title, Upon the Segregation of the Queen. Which is something 'Holmes' paraphrases after Joan finds the bee hive at his place.
The fact that the characters are named Holmes and Watson is something that throws me, honestly. BBC's Sherlock puts Holmes and Watson in modern times, but the way it's done works. It has an old-fashioned feel, but definitely updates the characters enough so that they seem somewhat Victorian, yet fit in with the modern day conveniences like cell phones, texting, and computers.
Elementary . . . The characters just don't seem to fit with the setting. And I especially didn't like how 'Holmes' seems to, when he's making the deduction to the one guy about how the murder was pulled off, practically beg the guy to admit that 'Holmes' is right. Holmes doesn't beg. Holmes doesn't apologize. Holmes doesn't guess. And yet he does all of these things in Elementary.
I think low expectations were a good bet with this one. I knew it wasn't going to be anywhere near the caliber of Sherlock, and I was right. But on the same token, it'll provide what I hoped for. It's good enough distraction until the next season of Sherlock comes out.
All in all, I give the first episode of Elementary 3 1/2 out of five stars. Not wonderful, but a passable enough rendition of Holmes that I'll like watching.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)