Review: Moriarty - Anthony Horowitz *****

This crime novel dates back to 2014, but given the subject, it's timeless. Many people have attempted to continue Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes canon with mixed success. I think it's fair to say that Anthony Horowitz has been one of the most successful, by taking a distinctly tangential approach to the Holmes universe.

That's not to say that there isn't some pastiche here. As well as the main novel, the book contains two short stories. One is Conan Doyle's own The Final Problem - the one where Conan Doyle, fed up with his creation, killed Holmes off at the Reichenbach Falls in Switzerland - this is accompanied by an insightful introduction by Horowitz. The other is a 'new' Sherlock Holmes short story featuring the Scotland Yard detective who will play a major part in the novel, Athelney Jones (who also appeared in one of the original Holmes stories).

In the main novel, which is set shortly after Holmes and Moriarty apparently perish by plunging off the waterfall, we get a new pairing. There is Jones, who after being mocked by Dr Watson for his ineptitude in The Sign of the Four has set out to study and apply Holmes' methods, accompanied by his own version of Watson, an American Pinkerton detective called Frederick Chase, who is the first person narrator of the story. Spurred on by a letter found on Moriarty's body, they try to track down an American crime lord who is trying to take over Moriarty's criminal legacy in London.

It is all beautifully done - there is an excellent period feel, though Horowitz allows us considerably more nastiness in the violence (arguably are more accurate portrayal of Victorian London) than Conan Doyle ever did. The action carries us forward with a relentless pace. And the ending has one of the most impressive twists I've ever seen in a book like this. Remarkably (even though this was my second time reading it), I got to page 327 before noticing once more (when the narrator points it out) that there is a huge clue in plain sight from first picking up the book.

An essential for anyone with an interest in the world of Sherlock Holmes - but also an excellent standalone mystery in its own right.

See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here

You can buy Moriarty from Amazon.co.uk, Amazon.com and Bookshop.org.

Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you

Comments

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 recent 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 ex

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

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope

Search This Blog