Reggie Heath is a QC in modern-day London, and he’s just
gotten a lease on some office space in Baker Street. The terms, at least from a
financial point of view, couldn’t be better. But there is one small hitch. The address which Reggie has leased is 221B Baker
Street, and it seems that hundreds of letters arrive addressed to Mr. Sherlock
Holmes! Part of the lease involves an agreement in which the occupant of the
office agrees to answer the letters with a standard form letter.
Reggie delegates this task to younger brother Nigel, who is waiting
to be reinstated as a solicitor; he is about to have a hearing with the Law
Society after he performed some well-meaning actions that were misinterpreted.
(I’ll leave it to the author to explain; it’s really too delightful to detail here.) And Nigel notices something odd
about a few of the latest letters. It seems that one of the letter-writers has
written to Sherlock Holmes before, 20 years ago, when she was eight years old!
And she is writing once again asking about her previous letter. But something
about the tone of the new letters seems suspicious – such as the fact that the
signature is identical to the one from 20 years ago… yet what adult retains
their childhood signature? Factor in a murder and a disappearance or two, followed by a few more corpses just to keep things interesting, and it seems like the letter was a sinister one indeed...

First of all, let me get this straight: This is a fun, pleasant read. There’s a lot of charm to this series, and the characters are plenty of fun. I enjoyed following their antics and misadventures, and the culture clash that results when the English characters fly to Los Angeles to pursue the investigation. The prose is infused with a delightful sense of humour, and the author seems to be trying to entertain you throughout.
That being said, this is a first mystery, and like many
first mysteries, it is flawed. Most obviously, it is flawed in terms of plot. It’s
very, very obvious where the plot is
headed and the most painful parts of the book are the Die Hard 2 maneouvres, in which the heroes blindly put their trust
in the Obvious Twist Villain only to be shocked when they find out that the
person is the villain.

Enjoyed your review! I did not particularly care for this first one, but found the second delightful. The first bogged down in all the brotherly angst, while the second one was funnier and more relaxed. #3 was good as well; I look forward to #4! (I reviewed some of these for our bookblog-- I think I did one and two. Can't remember exactly.)
ReplyDeleteThanks for dropping by and sharing your opinion. I'm glad to hear this series improves, because I do want to read more of it. There was, as you say, quite a bit of brotherly angst in this one, but it was done at long enough intervals that it never seemed to slow down the plot.
DeleteHi, Patrick. Nice review, and (I think) right on target. This is one of my favorite current series (which obviously does not mean the books are flawless), and I'm looking forward to the next.
ReplyDeleteDon Coffin
Don, this series has the potential to become one of my favourites, especially if the plotting improves. Currently, my favourite series are probably Max Allan Collins' Nate Heller and Bill Pronzini's Nameless Detective novels. I don't read *that* much current stuff, so I'm getting a limited portrait of the modern-day crime scene, but those two series struck an instant chord with me and this book did something very similar.
DeleteThis was a bit too innocuous for me. I barely made it through to the end. Not interested in seeing how it develops at all. The idea was a good one, the plot left a lot to be desired. Ruth Rendell deals with subways a lot more interestingly than Robertson did. Interesting that the first commentor didn't like the first book but went on to read the other two! Braver than I am -- or perhaps has more time to kill.
ReplyDeleteI would largely agree with you in terms of plot, but I did like the characters and the humour enough to want to read more. It's one of those debuts that I would call flawed, but promising.
Delete