This item stand out for not just juxtaposing an earlier and present date, but a modern Baker Street Irregular with some adventures of Doyle himself, The Irregular, named Harold White, is trying to solve his friends' murder, but also a missing Doyle diary, important because it represents the period during which Doyle decided to resurrect his famous detective. Harold does a fair job with Sherlock's methods in solving the murder of his fellow Sherlockian, but does not initially fare as well with finding the diary, but which he eventually does. Doyle just blunders his way through for his part. A satisfying read, even without a strong mystery. ( )

I'm always a bit wary when someone uses a real person and has them do things their ancestors might object to.
all in all, however, an enjoyable read ( )

Pretty disappointing, actually. (1.5 stars) I don't know quite what went wrong for me---most of the elements were sound. I guess I wasn't a fan of the main character, or the yawn-worthy hetero romance. Most of the characters had an aftertaste of cardboard/Gary Stu-dom, including Arthur Conan Doyle.

Super-duper-main-character-boy even has this whole monologue three-quarters of the way through the book about how he knows that him being a straight white male affects his love for the Victorian era in general and Sherlock canon in particular---but though I appreciated the thought, even that was annoying. ( )

I'm not a Sherlock Homes fan. I may have read "The Hound of Baskervilles" way back when, but I wouldn't bet my life on it. You'd think I would have looked into the stories since my older sister regularly said 'No shit, Sherlock' to me when we were kids, but when I tried the stories always seemed stuffy and condescending to my younger self. These days I'm more apt to give them another try. I did recently read my second Agatha Christie novel even though I once harbored similar sentiments toward her books.

We received an advance reader copy of The Sherlockian at the bookstore where I work and since I'm not a fan of Sherlock Homes what convinced me to take the book home and give it a whirl? Bram Stoker. Yes, Bram Stoker, the man who wrote Dracula, the book that turned me from an occasional reader into a daily reader back in middle school, has a co-starring role in this wonderful first novel by Graham Moore. The Sherlockian is the best historical mystery featuring dead literary icons that I've read since Matthew Pearl burst on the scene in 2003 with The Dante Club (which is a great read for 19th century American Literature enthusiasts).

I enjoyed the novel and it's a no-brainer to say it'll be an even richer read for Sherlock Holmes fans. There's probably much in this novel that went over my head since I'm unfamiliar with Doyle's life and writings. Moore's novel will no doubt be of great appeal to fans of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Hardcore fans have probably been awaiting the release of this novel and the casual fan will delight in stumbling upon it at their favorite bookstore.

Without giving away too much--but there are some small spoilers below--here's a bit about the content and plot:
This novel bounces back and forth between two sets of characters in two different time periods trying to solve different murders. First there's Arthur Conan Doyle and Bram Stoker, primarily between October-December 1900 (there are a couple chapters in 1893 and one in 1901). Then there's our contemporaries, Harold White, a Sherlockian, and Sarah Lindsay, a journalist, with their action taking place between January 5-17, 2010.

The novel opens on August 9, 1893 with Arthur Conan Doyle standing high in the Swiss Alps proclaiming that he's going to kill off Sherlock Holmes because he feels that his fictional creation is eclipsing not only his other literary efforts, but his own life as well. Fans don't want his autograph, they want him to sign Sherlock Holmes's name instead. On September 3, 1893 Doyle does it, he writes a story killing off Holmes and thinks he's done with it, free of the character that had become his ball and chain.

When we next see Doyle on December 18, 1893, he's accosted on the streets of London for having 'murdered' Sherlock Holmes, the newspapers run headlines about the fictional character's death, and people are even wearing black arm bands to publicly proclaim their mourning. The insanity of it all drives Doyle into the Lyceum Theatre to see his friend, Bram Stoker. After that meeting the historical portion of the novel jumps to October 18, 1900 where the action for Doyle's part of the novel takes off.

The contemporary part of the novel starts on January 5, 2010 at the Algonquin Hotel in New York City with the annual meeting of The Baker Street Irregulars, an exclusive group of Sherlockians. They are, in fact, the preeminent organization for the study of Sherlock Holmes and membership is by invitation only. Enter our hero, Harold White, who, at 29, is invited not only to their annual celebration, but is also made a member.

The big buzz at this year's meeting of the Irregulars is that Alex Cale, a prominent Sherlockian, had announced months ago that he'd finally discovered a long lost diary of Arthur Conan Doyle's. Cale's life-long quest had been to find this diary and he is going to present the diary to the group, only he's late for his presentation. During the wait Harold starts chatting with Sarah Lindsay, a woman who shouldn't be there because she's a journalist. Alex Cale never shows up for his presentation and his dead body is discovered in his hotel room. Soon Harold and Sarah find themselves jetting off to England to track down the now stolen diary.

There are twists and turns along the way. While this wasn't a book that kept me up reading late into the night, it is one that I looked forward to picking up when it was time to read. The plot is fantastic. The historical setting is enjoyable and I thought very well done. I liked the theme of light--electric lights versus gas lights--that runs throughout the book and what the change signifies in terms of loss and gain.

If there is one criticism it would be that the contemporary characters weren't painted all that vividly. Let me clarify that these characters do not seem wooden or anything of the sort. The dialog feels realistic and swiftly moves the story along. I just didn't have much of a picture of these characters in my mind. Maybe that's my own issue or maybe its because Moore did such a great job with Doyle, Stoker, and other historical characters.

Moore gives the reader an idea of how unsettling it must have been to be a white man of a certain class at the turn of the last century when social attitudes towards women, non-whites, class, and even gays were starting to change, when electric lights were being installed along London's streets.

Doyle is presented as a conservative man, an anti-suffragist, who is in his early forties, I believe, at the start the novel. He seems to have both feet firmly planted in the nineteenth century, the London of gas lights. As the novel unfolds and he tries to discover who is killing a group of young women, he also comes face to face with a violent misogyny that seems to shake his own complacent attitude toward women and the way things "should" be. Along the way women are called 'cunts' several times and 'cunnies' as well as a few other choice slang terms from the period. Doyle doesn't come around and champion the cause of women by any means, but the reader gets the sense that he might be learning, that he might start to understand that anti-suffragist sympathies like his own are steps away from, and may even help to fuel, violent misogynist tendencies.

There's also a more subtle nod toward the cost of homophobia with the inclusion of Oscar Wilde, not as a character, but first in the thoughts of Doyle and later in discussion between Doyle and Stoker after they learn of their friend Wilde's death. Stoker is presented as the more liberal of the two friends, the more modern man (he has a wider diversity of acquaintances and experiences, installs electric lights in the theatre and his home), and it is he who points out to Doyle that they abandoned Wilde after his trial and prison term. Talking of the changing times Arthur says, "what saddens me is not the passing of time but the curious sensation of being aware of it as it happens. . . . I don't know how any man could feel his eyes burn in the electric light and not also feel the sudden palpability of history" (281).

I won't hesitate to recommend The Sherlockian to readers of historical mysteries/thrillers and fans of late 19th/early 20th century British Literature and history. It would also be a good selection for anyone who likes an intellectual but fun romp of a book.

I hope Graham Moore is busy writing his second novel. ( )

This book and I had problems. Well, half this book and I had problems. The other half was amusing if completely unrealistic.

The Sherlockian is a story told in two timelines: one that begins in 1893, when Conan Doyle makes the fateful decision to kill off Sherlock Holmes, and covers then events that happen though 1901; the other timeline takes place in the 'present', which is 2010, in this case.

The Holy Grail of Sherlockians has always been what happened to a cache of Conan Doyle's papers that were missing after his death, including one of his journals, so the present day timeline is the search for that journal and the answers to who killed the Sherlockian who claimed to have found it, while the Conan Doyle timeline follows events that would have been recorded in the missing journal.

As I mentioned above, I found the present day timeline amusing in a mad-cap caper kind of way - the kind that requires a complete suspension of disbelief, as well as operating on the pretence that law enforcement no longer exist. This story line is entirely about the thrill of the puzzle, the hunt, the process.

But here's my beef, and it's about the other timeline; the historical one. This is a work of historical fiction, and the author is quick to point out at the end that all the events are fabricated. Fine. I read that type of historical fiction frequently - real people in fictional settings. But usually the author has a greater respect for the real-life people he uses in his fictional story lines. There's a certain respect for adhering to a character's basic ... character.

That categorically did not happen here. Moore obviously did not care a wit for maintaining the integrity of Conan Doyle because most of the historical timeline had him doing things so completely out of character as to drive me to yelling at the book.

If I knew nothing about Conan Doyle, I'd have found him and Bram Stoker dressing up as women as crashing a suffragette meeting mildly amusing, but I do know something about Conan Doyle. Enough to know that it beggars belief to think of him doing anything of the sort. If an author is going to write a fictional story using real historical people doing fictional things, those historical persons should do those fictional things the same way they'd did the factual things - otherwise, it's not the same person and the author would have been better served using a fictional character instead of maligning the real one. ("Malign" does not refer to Conan Doyle dressing as a woman, but to a different event that would be a massive spoiler.)

So. Half the book was amusing. The other half ... ok, the other half might have been amusing for someone who doesn't know, or hold in such high regard, the real life people used for fictional purposes, against their basic characters. If you know nothing about Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and are in the mood for a bit of madcap mystery, go for it. If you do know and admire ACD, you've been warned. ( )