A Scandalous Affair - Leonard Goldberg ****

This is Sherlock Holmes, the next generation - with Holmes' daughter Joanna centre stage. Despite the cover, where she appears about 12, presumably to appeal to Enola Holmes fans, she is now Mrs Watson, married to John Watson's son who narrates the story. As this is her second marriage and has a 17-year-old son we can assume Joanna is at least in her late 30s.

Watson senior is still around, if elderly (Sherlock being long gone), while Mr & Mrs Watson live at 221B Baker Street, looked after by one Miss Hudson... and there's even a son-of-Lestrade at Scotland Yard.

The plot centres on an increasingly dubious blackmail featuring the scandalous behaviour of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's granddaughter, which Joanna solves with rather more equanimity than her father, if exhibiting many of his traits. Along the way we are plunged into opium dens, a break-in to a suspect's mansion, theatrical goings on, scientific experiments and more. Leonard Goldberg is a doctor and gives us more medical content that was the case with the original - indeed appropriate, given Watson junior like his father is a doctor (but in his case, a pathologist).

It's a nice idea and an enjoyable light read. Goldberg is American, but puts across a good Sherlockian London vibe. The only slight problem with this is that the setting is now 1918, not Victorian England. The mode of speech feels too Victorian for the period - by 1918, it would have been rather closer to P. G. Wodehouse than Doyle. Wodehouse's Bertie Wooster was in the habit of popping over to Le Touquet to play the casino, which highlights one of a few anachronisms - early on, for example, we hear that they've checked all the major casinos [in London] - that would have been all zero of them, as they weren't legalised in the UK until the 1960s.

Another example of the Victorian theme lingering into the future is that we're told there are many opium dens in London, where actually they had gone by the end of the nineteenth century. Goldberg brings in a Doyle character in opium den owner Ah Sing - he was a real person, but had died, along with his trade, well before 1900. Although Goldberg largely gives us reasonable usage of the period, some Americanisms creep in: for example, calling a barman a barkeep, a fire engine a fire truck, referring to the ground floor as the first floor and calling a bowler hat a derby. Most bizarrely ‘stoker’ is employed as the word for a poker - a usage not in the OED. Though occasionally a trifle disconcerting, these aren't too much of an issue.

The book was compared in a write-up to Anthony Horowitz's Holmes novel House of Silk, which also features opium dens. Horowitz is a slicker writer with an appropriate Victorian setting - I might have preferred his book as a clever piece of writing, but this is lighter, more fast paced and certainly readable.

You can buy A Scandalous Affair from Amazon.co.uk and Amazon.com

Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you

These articles will always be free - but if you'd like to support my online work, consider buying a virtual coffee or taking out a membership:

Review by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense...

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...

Search This Blog