What do you think?
Rate this book
The Further Adventures of Sherlock Holmes #10
The Angel of the Opera
The unforgettable place: Paris, 1890. The glittering scene: the labyrinthine Paris Opera. The irresistible premise: what if Sherlock Holmes, lured across the Channel by the beleaguered managers of the Opera House, unlocks the true secrets motivating the infamous Phantom? As the hunchbacked Quasimodo was the soul of Notre Dame, so is Erik - shadow ruler of the Opera's nether regions - the Opera's true soul. Living at the heights of passion, despising the concerns of ordinary men who are the acknowledged keepers of his domain in the eyes of the world, the Phantom - defiant and tormented genius that he is - poses a persistent threat to his unwilling landlords, lesser men who are not even certain they believe in his very existence. But, as is the case with all problems presented to the great Sherlock Holmes for solution, nothing is quite as it seems at first . . . as thrilling episode follows even more thrilling episode in a tempestuous drama, played out against a background of one of fiction's most romantically eerie settings. Sherlockians and the Phantom's fandom both will relish Sam Siciliano's sympathetic imagination and find themselves charmed by such reinvented characters as Christine Daae ("the angel") and her arrogant suitor, Raoul de Chagny. And every reader should welcome Holmes' engaging new comrade, Henry Vernier, M.D., his cousin, who joins him for this memorable adventure.
256 pages, Hardcover
First published June 1, 1994
29 people are currently reading
1336 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 86 reviews
October 3, 2013
Phantom of the Opera
Sherlock Holmes
When you look at the two, you think 'wow, it'd be so awesome if the two of them met!'
You take back that thought right now. Or just don't read this book because this was the worst meet up of the two literary characters. Ever. Period. Infinity and beyond. Fullstop.
(My whole review will have spoilers, so choose to read at your own risk.)
I swear to god, this book makes me rage. I read it because I thought it'd be a fun read... and it COULD HAVE BEEN a fun read. This book shouldn't have been published. It should have been free. The fact I spent money on it bothers me.
July 4, 2012
Okay, so, my first review of this book was that it was so terrible I had to put it down. I've finished it now and feel I can give it a better review. Saying that though, I will give it two reviews - one as a Sherlock Holmes story and one as its own detective story.
1. As a Sherlock Holmes story this book is awful. I am a huge Sherlock fan and this book changes his character, his motives, and his style - essentially everything that makes Sherlock such a lovely character. I would venture that while Sherlock fans are most definitely in love with Holmes himself, a lot of affection is also held for Watson. Siciliano chose to dismiss Watson - in fact, the narrator of this story [Sherlock's cousin Dr. Vernier] says openly that he dislikes Watson. He goes so far as to claim Holmes doesn't like Watson - or his stories. If you're expecting an even remotely decent Sherlock Holmes story you won't find it here. Siciliano changes Holmes' character too much and takes too much liberty with his character to make it even remotely him even remotely endearing.
2. As a detective book, just happening to have the same name as Sherlock the book is adequate. It's not particularly gripping, it's mildly entertaining, but there's nothing really to make me tell you that you HAVE to read this book. The combination between the Phantom story and a detective is tense, and predictable.
1. As a Sherlock Holmes story this book is awful. I am a huge Sherlock fan and this book changes his character, his motives, and his style - essentially everything that makes Sherlock such a lovely character. I would venture that while Sherlock fans are most definitely in love with Holmes himself, a lot of affection is also held for Watson. Siciliano chose to dismiss Watson - in fact, the narrator of this story [Sherlock's cousin Dr. Vernier] says openly that he dislikes Watson. He goes so far as to claim Holmes doesn't like Watson - or his stories. If you're expecting an even remotely decent Sherlock Holmes story you won't find it here. Siciliano changes Holmes' character too much and takes too much liberty with his character to make it even remotely him even remotely endearing.
2. As a detective book, just happening to have the same name as Sherlock the book is adequate. It's not particularly gripping, it's mildly entertaining, but there's nothing really to make me tell you that you HAVE to read this book. The combination between the Phantom story and a detective is tense, and predictable.
December 23, 2020
Does it count as reading the book when you read page one, see hateful Watson bashing, and close the book with a resounding THUMP and say:
? I'm just asking.
0 out of 10 stars
? I'm just asking.
0 out of 10 stars
July 13, 2013
I just finished this book, so I had to run right to Goodreads to post my review (and reaction to it). Just prior to finishing the last few pages I skimmed a few other reviews and was somewhat startled by how vehemently some readers hated this book. First, I have to admit I am a "new" Sherlock Holmes fan. I have only read one volume of a collection of Conan-Doyle's stories and two of the more famous longer works, including A Study in Scarlett and The Hound of the Baskervilles.
In other words, I don't have as much experience comparing the "real" Holmes to this author, Sam Sicilliano's new version. This lack of in-depth familiarity may be why I was not
as bothered by what others have deemed to be character inconsistencies.
In any case, I have long enjoyed Leroux's Phantom of the Opera and as Sicilliano's The Angel of the Opera is somewhat of a hybrid of what could be deemed "fan fiction," I have to say this is one of the better books I have encountered.
First, the language composition and the execution of plot elements is marvelous. (Without giving too much away, this is essentially a retelling of the Phantom of the Opera from the viewpoint of Sherlock Holmes and his assistant/cousin, Henry Vernier). It is by far one of the finest-written pieces of "fan fiction."
I loved the background explanation of the operas framing the events of the plot, the most important of course being Faust. I know a little about Gounoud's Faust but this book expanded on my understanding of it and extended my appreciation for how it fits into Phantom's story.
Second, I thought that Sicilliano does a great job of characterization.
Again (at least in regards to Phantom) he depicts Erik's character flawlessly, teasing out the details about him and his motivations with great subtlety. In this sense it is very true to Leroux's rendering. My one criticism is that we don't learn anything very new about Erik himself - he still remains the enigmatic, disfigured musical genius. Also, I am not sure I entirely accepted the explanation that he was disfigured by leprosy.
I will say, however, that I thought it was a superb allusion on Sicilliano's part to compare Erik to The Hunchback of Notre Dame's Quasimodo, specifically by stating that Erik is the "soul" of the Palais Garnier as Quasimodo is the soul of the Notre Dame cathedral.
Others have complained about the characterizations of the Persian and the Vicomte de Chagny. I have to disagree. Raoul, the Vicomte, is portrayed as effeminate and somewhat weak in the Leroux novel. He is often whiny as well, therefore Sicilliano really does not do anything radically different to this character - other than perhaps place a heavier emphasis on defects that are already known.
In fact, when he shoots and kills a character during a scene in the book (I won't say who), this is really expanding on a "trigger happy" aspect of Raoul's character that was introduced in the Leroux novel. (In the original Phantom, Raoul, in a panic, actually fires his pistol at a pair of yellow eyes he imagines to be watching him outside his bedroom window).
As for the Persian, we are given so little info about him in Leroux's book that I was not bothered by Sicilliano's departure from more refined interpretations of the Persian as generally benevolent and helpful. He is almost part villain in this book, but I didn't think this was far-fetched. We never really know much about him from Leroux, other than he was familiar with Erik during their days of association in the Shah's employ in Persia. He was a former police chief, or daroga, so it is feasible he might act more like a "Javert" for instance and stalk Erik. He certainly does have no qualms in Leroux's book about helping to lead Raoul to Erik's lair.
Lastly, in terms of characterizing Sherlock, I have to say
Sicilliano seems to get Sherlock's "voice" right and his physical description. In terms of his having attraction to women, but repressing this for the most part, I was not bothered by this idea. It's good to remember that Sherlock Holmes was written somewhat as a Victorian ideal - therefore it was only fitting for the time period that very little would be revealed about Holmes and that he did not necessarily enjoy the company of women. Conan-Doyle wrote him to confirm to the Victorian ideal of repressing sexual desire and so forth.
I view Sicilliano's revelation that Holmes is actually very like most men and struggles with his attraction to women as being more realistic.
This was very interesting to me and actually plays a key element in the plot itself.
Now, there are some flaws, undoubtedly, in this book. First of all, like many others, I was somewhat annoyed with the Watson-bashing that occurs early on in the prologue (and sets up the introduction of Holmes' companion and assistant for this adventure, Henry Vernier). Once I got past that for the sake of the plot and story, it was really not a big deal. Vernier is even mildly amusing, especially with his vertigo (which becomes problematic when chasing Erik in the upper reaches of the Palais Garnier) and his observations about Holmes' various disguises.
Other minor or major quibbles? Some scenes from Leroux's book that here include Holmes and Vernier seemed...well, forced. The most glaring example of this would be in the concluding lair scene.
First of all, it is wild enough that Erik has the Persian and Raoul already chasing him, only to stumble into Erik's torture chamber. But then again, this is what happened in Leroux.
BUT...to then have Holmes and Vernier also end up in the scene just seemed....not quite believable. Threes a crowd as they say, but SIX??? (Includes Christine and Erik).
Still, the scene where Christine kisses Erik while Holmes and Watson look on is quite well done and beautifully descriptive.
Another problem is the introduction of Victor, Erik's supposed mute "assistant." Sorry, doesn't work. Erik is truly alone and isolated below the opera - that is how Leroux wrote him and that is why he ultimately goes beserk and tries to have Christine. He has no companionship FROM ANYONE, not even a mute servant.
Lastly (and this is a minor issue), although I thought it was wonderful how Erik does get a happy ending in this book, I have to say I am bothered by the choice of a blind woman as a companion. This is not unlike a previous fan fiction book I read called Deception. Sorry, just have a real problem with this. Erik should NOT have to hide and blindness is just a poor physical substitute for another mask in my view.
In other words, I don't have as much experience comparing the "real" Holmes to this author, Sam Sicilliano's new version. This lack of in-depth familiarity may be why I was not
as bothered by what others have deemed to be character inconsistencies.
In any case, I have long enjoyed Leroux's Phantom of the Opera and as Sicilliano's The Angel of the Opera is somewhat of a hybrid of what could be deemed "fan fiction," I have to say this is one of the better books I have encountered.
First, the language composition and the execution of plot elements is marvelous. (Without giving too much away, this is essentially a retelling of the Phantom of the Opera from the viewpoint of Sherlock Holmes and his assistant/cousin, Henry Vernier). It is by far one of the finest-written pieces of "fan fiction."
I loved the background explanation of the operas framing the events of the plot, the most important of course being Faust. I know a little about Gounoud's Faust but this book expanded on my understanding of it and extended my appreciation for how it fits into Phantom's story.
Second, I thought that Sicilliano does a great job of characterization.
Again (at least in regards to Phantom) he depicts Erik's character flawlessly, teasing out the details about him and his motivations with great subtlety. In this sense it is very true to Leroux's rendering. My one criticism is that we don't learn anything very new about Erik himself - he still remains the enigmatic, disfigured musical genius. Also, I am not sure I entirely accepted the explanation that he was disfigured by leprosy.
I will say, however, that I thought it was a superb allusion on Sicilliano's part to compare Erik to The Hunchback of Notre Dame's Quasimodo, specifically by stating that Erik is the "soul" of the Palais Garnier as Quasimodo is the soul of the Notre Dame cathedral.
Others have complained about the characterizations of the Persian and the Vicomte de Chagny. I have to disagree. Raoul, the Vicomte, is portrayed as effeminate and somewhat weak in the Leroux novel. He is often whiny as well, therefore Sicilliano really does not do anything radically different to this character - other than perhaps place a heavier emphasis on defects that are already known.
In fact, when he shoots and kills a character during a scene in the book (I won't say who), this is really expanding on a "trigger happy" aspect of Raoul's character that was introduced in the Leroux novel. (In the original Phantom, Raoul, in a panic, actually fires his pistol at a pair of yellow eyes he imagines to be watching him outside his bedroom window).
As for the Persian, we are given so little info about him in Leroux's book that I was not bothered by Sicilliano's departure from more refined interpretations of the Persian as generally benevolent and helpful. He is almost part villain in this book, but I didn't think this was far-fetched. We never really know much about him from Leroux, other than he was familiar with Erik during their days of association in the Shah's employ in Persia. He was a former police chief, or daroga, so it is feasible he might act more like a "Javert" for instance and stalk Erik. He certainly does have no qualms in Leroux's book about helping to lead Raoul to Erik's lair.
Lastly, in terms of characterizing Sherlock, I have to say
Sicilliano seems to get Sherlock's "voice" right and his physical description. In terms of his having attraction to women, but repressing this for the most part, I was not bothered by this idea. It's good to remember that Sherlock Holmes was written somewhat as a Victorian ideal - therefore it was only fitting for the time period that very little would be revealed about Holmes and that he did not necessarily enjoy the company of women. Conan-Doyle wrote him to confirm to the Victorian ideal of repressing sexual desire and so forth.
I view Sicilliano's revelation that Holmes is actually very like most men and struggles with his attraction to women as being more realistic.
This was very interesting to me and actually plays a key element in the plot itself.
Now, there are some flaws, undoubtedly, in this book. First of all, like many others, I was somewhat annoyed with the Watson-bashing that occurs early on in the prologue (and sets up the introduction of Holmes' companion and assistant for this adventure, Henry Vernier). Once I got past that for the sake of the plot and story, it was really not a big deal. Vernier is even mildly amusing, especially with his vertigo (which becomes problematic when chasing Erik in the upper reaches of the Palais Garnier) and his observations about Holmes' various disguises.
Other minor or major quibbles? Some scenes from Leroux's book that here include Holmes and Vernier seemed...well, forced. The most glaring example of this would be in the concluding lair scene.
First of all, it is wild enough that Erik has the Persian and Raoul already chasing him, only to stumble into Erik's torture chamber. But then again, this is what happened in Leroux.
BUT...to then have Holmes and Vernier also end up in the scene just seemed....not quite believable. Threes a crowd as they say, but SIX??? (Includes Christine and Erik).
Still, the scene where Christine kisses Erik while Holmes and Watson look on is quite well done and beautifully descriptive.
Another problem is the introduction of Victor, Erik's supposed mute "assistant." Sorry, doesn't work. Erik is truly alone and isolated below the opera - that is how Leroux wrote him and that is why he ultimately goes beserk and tries to have Christine. He has no companionship FROM ANYONE, not even a mute servant.
Lastly (and this is a minor issue), although I thought it was wonderful how Erik does get a happy ending in this book, I have to say I am bothered by the choice of a blind woman as a companion. This is not unlike a previous fan fiction book I read called Deception. Sorry, just have a real problem with this. Erik should NOT have to hide and blindness is just a poor physical substitute for another mask in my view.
November 11, 2023
Quite a good book, I will give it 3 1/2 if I could. I found the ending worth reading the book for.
May 13, 2009
This book set up an interesting plot: What if Sherlock Holmes was hired to ferret out the Phantom? He is originally hired by the managers, but then Count Phillipe attempts to procure his services to prevent Raoul and Christine from marrying and Raoul attempts to procure his services to end the Phantoms's reign. There is much to enjoy here in this book. I think the author did very well with the characters from two different worlds. The Sherlock Holmes here resembles what I know of the character (which, admittedly is drawn from random TV references and the show featuring Jeremy Brett). Watson (who is really rather disparaged in this book) is discarded in favor of Sherlock's cousin, Henry Vernier, and the two set off to Paris in search of the infamous Phantom of the Opera. The character of Erik (the Phantom) is done rather well, as are Raoul and Christine.
There are some minor plot alterations to fit in Holmes and Vernier, but none that really detract from the original Phantom of the Opera story.
The major beefs I had with this book, and here starts some of the spoilers:
1. The character of the Persian. I always got the impression, from the original Leroux and then Kay's extrapolation from that, that the Daroga was a fine, upstanding citizen and someone who genuinely liked Erik even though he was not willing to discard his morals in order to let Erik get away with his murders and kidnapping of Christine. In this book he's depicted as a leering monster, the head of the Persian "secret" police and someone just as willing to kill as Erik is. I felt the characterization was far off when it came to the Persian and it always left me with a sour taste in my mouth.
2. The book begins with a piano concert by a young woman. She is, of course, a brilliant musician, everything Erik could ever want in a woman. And she also happens to be blind. This if often a plot device that authors use. No seeing woman would be able to stand Erik's face; they would of course turn away in horror. So let's make this wonderful amazing smart musical woman blind. It irritates me to no end, as does the need to pair Erik up with someone other than Christine.
Other than those two elements I did enjoy this book.
There are some minor plot alterations to fit in Holmes and Vernier, but none that really detract from the original Phantom of the Opera story.
The major beefs I had with this book, and here starts some of the spoilers:
1. The character of the Persian. I always got the impression, from the original Leroux and then Kay's extrapolation from that, that the Daroga was a fine, upstanding citizen and someone who genuinely liked Erik even though he was not willing to discard his morals in order to let Erik get away with his murders and kidnapping of Christine. In this book he's depicted as a leering monster, the head of the Persian "secret" police and someone just as willing to kill as Erik is. I felt the characterization was far off when it came to the Persian and it always left me with a sour taste in my mouth.
2. The book begins with a piano concert by a young woman. She is, of course, a brilliant musician, everything Erik could ever want in a woman. And she also happens to be blind. This if often a plot device that authors use. No seeing woman would be able to stand Erik's face; they would of course turn away in horror. So let's make this wonderful amazing smart musical woman blind. It irritates me to no end, as does the need to pair Erik up with someone other than Christine.
Other than those two elements I did enjoy this book.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
September 24, 2012
I could have rated this book higher if not by the annoying replacement of Dr. Watson as the default narrator. Instead of Watson we get a "Dr. Vernier", a supposed French cousin of Holmes.
Yes, he is a Doctor as Watson and … that’s it. Dr. Vernier thrashes Watson’s narrations saying these are full of inaccuracies and false notes and that actually Holmes and Watson broke their friendship and as a result Watson invented his friend’s death.
I would happily accept this “deviation” from the canon if Dr. Vernier actually had a purpose of being but not. His inclusion is pointless and verging on dull. And when he constantly babbles about “Michelle” his narration really looses interest.
Apart from the “narrator problem” the story itself is very good. Holmes is in character and the Phantom of the Opera thread is well handled.
In summary: I recommend reading it but I wouldn’t buy another book featuring Dr. Vernier as first voice.
Yes, he is a Doctor as Watson and … that’s it. Dr. Vernier thrashes Watson’s narrations saying these are full of inaccuracies and false notes and that actually Holmes and Watson broke their friendship and as a result Watson invented his friend’s death.
I would happily accept this “deviation” from the canon if Dr. Vernier actually had a purpose of being but not. His inclusion is pointless and verging on dull. And when he constantly babbles about “Michelle” his narration really looses interest.
Apart from the “narrator problem” the story itself is very good. Holmes is in character and the Phantom of the Opera thread is well handled.
In summary: I recommend reading it but I wouldn’t buy another book featuring Dr. Vernier as first voice.
January 23, 2012
Kinda fun to read a crossover fanfic of Sherlock Holmes/Phantom of the Opera in pro format . I liked this story more than I thought I would after reading the prologue (where the current narrator states his dislike and disrespect for John Watson). Now, dissing Dr. Watson is not the way to get you on my side, but I put it aside for reading the story (go me ).
This is basically a retelling of Phantom of the Opera from the perspective of Sherlock Holmes and companion, his cousin Dr. Vernier. The action plays out as you would expect, but the fun comes from Holmes interaction with the characters (most of whom, do not fare well.)
Recommended for Baker Street Fans as a way of passing a night, but to be avoided by Watson fanatics.
This is basically a retelling of Phantom of the Opera from the perspective of Sherlock Holmes and companion, his cousin Dr. Vernier. The action plays out as you would expect, but the fun comes from Holmes interaction with the characters (most of whom, do not fare well.)
Recommended for Baker Street Fans as a way of passing a night, but to be avoided by Watson fanatics.
May 2, 2008
When I heard of this book I wondered what would happen if Sherlock was given the case of the phantom of the opera. These are two great geniuses and its like superman and batman, you don't know who is going to win and you can't pick. This book is a little different though because Holmes is not with Watson but instead with his cousin. I like how the author was able to compare Holmes to Eric and read the epilogue.
May 21, 2020
A threat to the prima donna at the Palais Garnier in Paris leads Sherlock Holmes into investing the mysterious Phantom of the Opera.
The mystery is not that mysterious, sadly, and there is a disjointed feel to Siciliano's novel, with a resolution that is all but telegraphed from the opening chapter. However, it is interesting to see Holmes outside Watson's filter and a different take on the Great Detective.
The mystery is not that mysterious, sadly, and there is a disjointed feel to Siciliano's novel, with a resolution that is all but telegraphed from the opening chapter. However, it is interesting to see Holmes outside Watson's filter and a different take on the Great Detective.
April 27, 2019
An enjoyable mashup
September 26, 2012
As with the other novels in the Further Adventures of Sherlock Holmes series this fuses Sherlock Holmes with a classic of horror, science fiction, or fantasy. In this instance the Phantom of the Opera.
The novel opens with an explanation that it is written by Doctor Henry Vernier, Holmes’ cousin, and not Watson. This seems a sensible method of justifying the different style needed for the more gothic and romantic elements; however, instead of merely freeing himself from Watson’s voice, Siciliano has his narrator criticise Watson for actively misrepresenting Holmes’ real personality and beliefs. This leads to some scenes that – while they fit in the context of the story – do not unfold in the way the reader expects Holmes to act.
The overarching plot of a mysterious being haunting the Opera and mentoring a young soprano remains the same; with a Holmes made less a figure only of cold reason and some changes in sub-plots, the story was fresh enough that I was still uncertain whether the Phantom is supernatural even knowing the original.
Viewed as gothic detective fiction rather than a Sherlock Holmes story, the novel is well written. The mirroring and contrasting of both the Phantom’s genius and his passion with Holmes and Vernier respectively is particularly notable.
Overall I enjoyed this novel and would recommend it, and the rest of the series to people looking for cerebral detection or a new spin on a tale. However, of the Further Adventures I have read, it is the least authentically Holmesian, so would probably irritate those who consider Conan Doyle’s’ voice a large part of their enjoyment of Holmes stories.
The novel opens with an explanation that it is written by Doctor Henry Vernier, Holmes’ cousin, and not Watson. This seems a sensible method of justifying the different style needed for the more gothic and romantic elements; however, instead of merely freeing himself from Watson’s voice, Siciliano has his narrator criticise Watson for actively misrepresenting Holmes’ real personality and beliefs. This leads to some scenes that – while they fit in the context of the story – do not unfold in the way the reader expects Holmes to act.
The overarching plot of a mysterious being haunting the Opera and mentoring a young soprano remains the same; with a Holmes made less a figure only of cold reason and some changes in sub-plots, the story was fresh enough that I was still uncertain whether the Phantom is supernatural even knowing the original.
Viewed as gothic detective fiction rather than a Sherlock Holmes story, the novel is well written. The mirroring and contrasting of both the Phantom’s genius and his passion with Holmes and Vernier respectively is particularly notable.
Overall I enjoyed this novel and would recommend it, and the rest of the series to people looking for cerebral detection or a new spin on a tale. However, of the Further Adventures I have read, it is the least authentically Holmesian, so would probably irritate those who consider Conan Doyle’s’ voice a large part of their enjoyment of Holmes stories.
May 31, 2016
I may be in the minority here, however I did not really enjoy this novel. This is shocking for me as well since the Phantom of the Opera and Sherlock are two of my most favourite things.
I went in with high expectations, but not knowing what to expect: that was my first and greatest mistake. What else did I want from a book that mixes two classic things together? When I realised it's just a retelling of PoTO through the eyes of Sherlock's slightly-smarter-than-Watson-cousin Henry. Christine Daae was mocked as being too light-headed and cringe-inducingly romantic. Viscount de Chagny was also deserving of lots of hate. So what's there left to like? Sherlock then goes into a sulking period when he finds out the Phantom is smarter than him, etc., etc.
It just keeps getting worse and worse until I reached page 200 and couldn't stand another 100 pages so I raced through it on my Kobo ereader. Thank goodness I didn't purchase the hardcopy.
There is no originality contained within these pages. Unless you haven't read POTO or want to waste some time going into a world that's barely Sherlock-esque, then this is the book for you.
I'm shocked that this is what I end up giving the novel. But Siciliano just mashed my two favourite things together without even saying, 'Excuse me.'
I went in with high expectations, but not knowing what to expect: that was my first and greatest mistake. What else did I want from a book that mixes two classic things together? When I realised it's just a retelling of PoTO through the eyes of Sherlock's slightly-smarter-than-Watson-cousin Henry. Christine Daae was mocked as being too light-headed and cringe-inducingly romantic. Viscount de Chagny was also deserving of lots of hate. So what's there left to like? Sherlock then goes into a sulking period when he finds out the Phantom is smarter than him, etc., etc.
It just keeps getting worse and worse until I reached page 200 and couldn't stand another 100 pages so I raced through it on my Kobo ereader. Thank goodness I didn't purchase the hardcopy.
There is no originality contained within these pages. Unless you haven't read POTO or want to waste some time going into a world that's barely Sherlock-esque, then this is the book for you.
I'm shocked that this is what I end up giving the novel. But Siciliano just mashed my two favourite things together without even saying, 'Excuse me.'
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 11, 2016
A highly enjoyable read. Although it did take me a little while to get into it initially. This is mostly because of the narrator, an original character by the name of Henry, who is supposedly a cousin of Sherlock Holmes. It is made quite clear that Henry does not have a particularly high opinion of Watson (an inconceivable notion to me) and his constant slights in regard to Holmes' usual companion frustrated me.
That slight annoyance aside, I'm glad I stuck with this book. Once the action got going and Erik came into it, I couldn't put this book down! The characterizations of the PotO characters was especially enjoyable. Christine had that backbone she is often lacking (which, if I remember correctly, she has initially in Leroux's novel, but which seems to vanish as the novel progresses). The interactions between Sherlock and Erik were particularly sublime. I need to read more Holmes stories before I can reach an accurate conclusion as to how in character this version was, but overall I would say it was pretty good.
This book was much better than I expected it would be. Might have to read it again in fact!
That slight annoyance aside, I'm glad I stuck with this book. Once the action got going and Erik came into it, I couldn't put this book down! The characterizations of the PotO characters was especially enjoyable. Christine had that backbone she is often lacking (which, if I remember correctly, she has initially in Leroux's novel, but which seems to vanish as the novel progresses). The interactions between Sherlock and Erik were particularly sublime. I need to read more Holmes stories before I can reach an accurate conclusion as to how in character this version was, but overall I would say it was pretty good.
This book was much better than I expected it would be. Might have to read it again in fact!
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
July 19, 2012
I did enjoy this book, probably more than I anticipated. But I have always enjoyed reading Sherlock Holmes and his many adventures. Even though in this novel, Holmes isn't accompanied by Dr. Watson, his cousin Henry almost makes a proper substitute. But I think the reason why I enjoyed this book so much is because Sam Siciliano, the author stayed close to the original plot of The Phantom of the Opera, and kept the characters the same. It was honestly reading The Phantom of the Opera all over again, but of course in a new character's perceptive.
I did enjoy that the author seem to keep Sherlock Holmes' certain persona in this book, like Arthur Doyle did in his stories and I did enjoy how he was mostly on Erik's (the phantom) side more than Raoul's. I certainly could imagine Robert Downey Jr. walking around the Paris opera house trying to get into the mind of the phantom.
All in all, I did enjoy this book, except I wasn't too happy about how it ended. But it's definitely worth checking it out. If of course you loved Gaston Leroux's Phantom, and you can't get enough of Erik. ;)
I did enjoy that the author seem to keep Sherlock Holmes' certain persona in this book, like Arthur Doyle did in his stories and I did enjoy how he was mostly on Erik's (the phantom) side more than Raoul's. I certainly could imagine Robert Downey Jr. walking around the Paris opera house trying to get into the mind of the phantom.
All in all, I did enjoy this book, except I wasn't too happy about how it ended. But it's definitely worth checking it out. If of course you loved Gaston Leroux's Phantom, and you can't get enough of Erik. ;)
May 21, 2016
Um....I said I have read this. And I have... but had to put it down. I will try to reread this for reading's sake... but not even three chapters in had Sherlock Holmes' character been butchered. I love the Phantom of the Opera, book, musical, movie, anything but the rat version... anyway and I was excited to find out that my other love Sherlock Holmes was about to take on the case of the Phantom of the Opera.
I am sad.
So sad.
Please.
Send help.
I understand that this is during the missing years, but.... I miss Watson. Sherlock and John don't hate each other. They have the best bromance in literary history. Sherlock doesn't charge a boat load of cash for his cases. Mr. "I should never marry" Holmes doesn't openly crush on women.
I hope to update this review later on after I read it again... and really actually finish it.
I am sad.
So sad.
Please.
Send help.
I understand that this is during the missing years, but.... I miss Watson. Sherlock and John don't hate each other. They have the best bromance in literary history. Sherlock doesn't charge a boat load of cash for his cases. Mr. "I should never marry" Holmes doesn't openly crush on women.
I hope to update this review later on after I read it again... and really actually finish it.
December 20, 2015
By far, this is still one of my all-time favorite books. Combining both Sherlock Holmes and the Phantom of the Opera is a creative and thrilling idea, and one which makes for a fast-paced, exciting, emotional book.
If you consider yourself fit to be a Baker Street Irregular, or are a dedicated member of the Phantom's Phandom, then I cannot recommend this book more highly. As a Phantom Phan myself, I introduced this delightful piece of literature to my brother, a Sherlockian, who promptly fell down the rabbit hole into a wonderful adventurous read. We both rank it within our top ten favorite books, and I cannot recommend it highly enough!
If you consider yourself fit to be a Baker Street Irregular, or are a dedicated member of the Phantom's Phandom, then I cannot recommend this book more highly. As a Phantom Phan myself, I introduced this delightful piece of literature to my brother, a Sherlockian, who promptly fell down the rabbit hole into a wonderful adventurous read. We both rank it within our top ten favorite books, and I cannot recommend it highly enough!
October 18, 2021
The Angel of the Opera
By Sam Siciliano
Reviewed March 3, 2007
I was given the book for my birthday back in 1995, and it has long been one of my favorites. In The Angel of the Opera we have an Erik who is much to my liking – not a monster, but a lonely, anguished man who has been shunned by society and who sees in Christine Daaé his last chance at love. Towards the end of the book, Erik puts it quite well when he says,
“There are men who can live alone without the society, the intimacy, of women, but I am not such a man. Knowing Christine has made it far worse. I thought, I truly thought, that she might love me. I can bear my dreadful solitude no longer.”
How can you not feel for the man?
This story follows Leroux’s original with some necessary changes made to include Holmes and his cousin, Henry Vernier. No, there’s no Watson in this one. Mr. Siciliano wanted to give us a more human Holmes than the thinking machine created by Doyle. To do that, he needed to change narrators. He did this by giving us Dr. Henry Vernier, who tells us the Watson’s portrayal of Holmes was not quite accurate and that the detective and the doctor did not always exist on the best of terms. In fact, the reason it is Vernier who accompanies Holmes to Paris is that his cousin and Watson have had a falling out at this time. There may be some readers who consider this “Watson bashing,” but I don’t. To me, bashing is unreasonably insulting a person or a character. What we have here is what I think of as reinterpreting of a character. Sometimes that reinterpretation can devolve into bashing, but in this case, I don’t think so. However, back to the story.
The author is well versed in both Holmes and Phantom, and his research shows up in the careful details he has included in his story. One of the first clues that Siciliano knows his Holmes is when he calls a relative Violet Sherrinford. Students of The Great Detective will recognize the name of Sherrinford as that purported to be the name of Holmes’s father. And, of course, Violet is a common name throughout the Doyle stories.
As for the world of PotO, his detailed descriptions of the opera house and its workings are in depth and necessary for understanding events as they later unfold. He also has knowledge of Brittany, and his inclusion of standing stones near Perros is not something just thrown in for the heck of it. In my own research of Perros and Brittany, I learned that there are many remnants of the regions Celtic past including standing stones.
Essentially, the story involves Holmes being called to Paris by the management of the Paris Opera. While there, Holmes makes the acquaintance of PotO’s characters. Christine Daaé is a confused young woman who not all that long ago believed in the korrigans (pixie-like people). Raoul de Chagny is a sometime arrogant young man who can be rather full of himself. Count Philippe is always arrogant.
The others are all there, too – Meg Giry, Mme Giry, the Persian (who is portrayed in a less than stellar light), and other minor characters. There is another character we meet only at the end of the book, but who is alluded to throughout the story – the love of the narrator’s (Vernier’s) life, a woman named Michelle. Vernier’s observances of the behavior of Christine and Raoul serves as an interesting counterpoint to his own feelings for Michelle, like in a piece of music where two different themes are played at the same time yet compliment each other rather than detract.
Holmes and Erik have several excellent conversations. My favorite is at the masked ball. You know, Red Death and all that stuff. Holmes attends, dressed as Quasimodo. (The parallels between Quasimodo’s presence in the Notre Dame Cathedral and Erik’s in the Paris Opera is brought out several times.) Here is a sample from that exchange:
The Red Death smiled, an expression that made him look even more ghastly. “You are amusing, Quasimodo, most amusing, but I do not believe you. Your face is mostly putty.”
“Your own face blinds you. It is no more real than mine. No faces are real; they are all illusion, constantly changing, all masks. It is foolish to envy another his mask. A mask has no more permanence or reality than anything else in this life.”
The Red Death stared at Holmes, his eyes aflame. “You would not find that so easy to say if you were to trade places with me, if you had a face even a mother would cringe before.” A strange, pained smile pulled at his mouth.
“I know that. However, although it is something of a cliché, that which lies under the mask is what counts. Too many fools and villains have the visage of Jove or Adonis.”
“All the more reason to hate this life, this face, which Fate has bestowed upon me.”
I could go on, but you get the picture.
As for the framing story. In the beginning of the book, we find Holmes and Vernier finishing up a case in Wales, in the home of Major Lowell and his daughter, Susan. Lowell spent many years in India, and married an Indian woman. Susan is the product of that union, and is shunned by society because of her half-caste status. She also suffers from trachoma, which she contracted in India and which has left her mostly blind.
You may be able to see where this is leading, and while some readers have suggested that the ending of this book is clichéd, I found it satisfying nonetheless. Clichés would not exist if there were no universal truth behind them. Besides, like all of us, I wanted Erik to find some happiness.
By Sam Siciliano
Reviewed March 3, 2007
I was given the book for my birthday back in 1995, and it has long been one of my favorites. In The Angel of the Opera we have an Erik who is much to my liking – not a monster, but a lonely, anguished man who has been shunned by society and who sees in Christine Daaé his last chance at love. Towards the end of the book, Erik puts it quite well when he says,
“There are men who can live alone without the society, the intimacy, of women, but I am not such a man. Knowing Christine has made it far worse. I thought, I truly thought, that she might love me. I can bear my dreadful solitude no longer.”
How can you not feel for the man?
This story follows Leroux’s original with some necessary changes made to include Holmes and his cousin, Henry Vernier. No, there’s no Watson in this one. Mr. Siciliano wanted to give us a more human Holmes than the thinking machine created by Doyle. To do that, he needed to change narrators. He did this by giving us Dr. Henry Vernier, who tells us the Watson’s portrayal of Holmes was not quite accurate and that the detective and the doctor did not always exist on the best of terms. In fact, the reason it is Vernier who accompanies Holmes to Paris is that his cousin and Watson have had a falling out at this time. There may be some readers who consider this “Watson bashing,” but I don’t. To me, bashing is unreasonably insulting a person or a character. What we have here is what I think of as reinterpreting of a character. Sometimes that reinterpretation can devolve into bashing, but in this case, I don’t think so. However, back to the story.
The author is well versed in both Holmes and Phantom, and his research shows up in the careful details he has included in his story. One of the first clues that Siciliano knows his Holmes is when he calls a relative Violet Sherrinford. Students of The Great Detective will recognize the name of Sherrinford as that purported to be the name of Holmes’s father. And, of course, Violet is a common name throughout the Doyle stories.
As for the world of PotO, his detailed descriptions of the opera house and its workings are in depth and necessary for understanding events as they later unfold. He also has knowledge of Brittany, and his inclusion of standing stones near Perros is not something just thrown in for the heck of it. In my own research of Perros and Brittany, I learned that there are many remnants of the regions Celtic past including standing stones.
Essentially, the story involves Holmes being called to Paris by the management of the Paris Opera. While there, Holmes makes the acquaintance of PotO’s characters. Christine Daaé is a confused young woman who not all that long ago believed in the korrigans (pixie-like people). Raoul de Chagny is a sometime arrogant young man who can be rather full of himself. Count Philippe is always arrogant.
The others are all there, too – Meg Giry, Mme Giry, the Persian (who is portrayed in a less than stellar light), and other minor characters. There is another character we meet only at the end of the book, but who is alluded to throughout the story – the love of the narrator’s (Vernier’s) life, a woman named Michelle. Vernier’s observances of the behavior of Christine and Raoul serves as an interesting counterpoint to his own feelings for Michelle, like in a piece of music where two different themes are played at the same time yet compliment each other rather than detract.
Holmes and Erik have several excellent conversations. My favorite is at the masked ball. You know, Red Death and all that stuff. Holmes attends, dressed as Quasimodo. (The parallels between Quasimodo’s presence in the Notre Dame Cathedral and Erik’s in the Paris Opera is brought out several times.) Here is a sample from that exchange:
The Red Death smiled, an expression that made him look even more ghastly. “You are amusing, Quasimodo, most amusing, but I do not believe you. Your face is mostly putty.”
“Your own face blinds you. It is no more real than mine. No faces are real; they are all illusion, constantly changing, all masks. It is foolish to envy another his mask. A mask has no more permanence or reality than anything else in this life.”
The Red Death stared at Holmes, his eyes aflame. “You would not find that so easy to say if you were to trade places with me, if you had a face even a mother would cringe before.” A strange, pained smile pulled at his mouth.
“I know that. However, although it is something of a cliché, that which lies under the mask is what counts. Too many fools and villains have the visage of Jove or Adonis.”
“All the more reason to hate this life, this face, which Fate has bestowed upon me.”
I could go on, but you get the picture.
As for the framing story. In the beginning of the book, we find Holmes and Vernier finishing up a case in Wales, in the home of Major Lowell and his daughter, Susan. Lowell spent many years in India, and married an Indian woman. Susan is the product of that union, and is shunned by society because of her half-caste status. She also suffers from trachoma, which she contracted in India and which has left her mostly blind.
You may be able to see where this is leading, and while some readers have suggested that the ending of this book is clichéd, I found it satisfying nonetheless. Clichés would not exist if there were no universal truth behind them. Besides, like all of us, I wanted Erik to find some happiness.
August 8, 2014
I can't say this book is good in a conventional sense. The writing is average, and it's competent as a Holmes story. But this book is an enjoyable, easy read (I'm reviewing it now after a fourth reading) that is a fun pulp mash up. Don't read it expecting a masterpieces and you'll be fine.
June 21, 2020
I found this book entertaining, if heavily flawed. It felt like a more modern, streamlined version of Leroux's novel in places, sometimes down to direct quotes. Everything is mercifully chronological and, strange to say considering Holmes' presence, the mystery element isn't as heavily explored. I could actually imagine this being made into a film with some slight alterations.
I can't speak at length about how Holmes and his wannabe Watson cousin were characterized as I don't have a lot of familiarity with that portion of the crossover. Indeed, I was repulsed from reading this for a while because I don't much like Sherlock Holmes. I can't stand sassy, smug, intellectuals as main characters, as I myself am a sassy, smug intellectual. You need not remind me of my flaws, Mr. Holmes. Still, I didn't strongly dislike him, I dare even say I liked him outright sometimes in this story, which is more than I can say for every other brush I've had with this character. The doctor cousin is... fine? I don't know, I didn't really care about him much, nor his internal conflict about his wife. It felt annoying to be tied to him as the point of view character, but I liked Siciliano's writing style and descriptions enough that it didn't really matter. On that note, I really enjoyed the blend of dialogue from Leroux's work and the new dialogue unique to this book.
Now, on to characters I am far more familiar with--
The characterization of Christine and the Phantom felt the most appropriate to me, if not a hundred percent faithful to the source material at all times. I got a strong impression that Siciliano really adored these characters, even with all their flaws, and for good reason. Their relationship is the underpinning of the entire story. Christine is clearly torn about the situation and moved to anger multiple times throughout the story, which I liked a lot. Erik came off as at once piteous, gifted, and terrifying, as he ought to be.
There are some choices that are somewhat understandable, if a little dramatic, like putting the de Chagnys in an unflattering light. I especially understand disapproval of Phillipe; from what little is said about him in Leroux's work, it's easy to imagine him not being a great guy. As someone who is mildly annoyed/exasperated with Raoul at worst, though, I was horrified at how he was presented as abusive, selfish, and childish to the point of absurdity. It's hard to understand why Christine has any interest in him at all. Their childhood friendship is only barely touched on.
Other choices were downright bizarre, like villainizing the Persian, arguably the most morally good character from the original novel, and . I thought at first that daroga was being presented in a "villainous" light for the ultimate reveal that the initial perception was wrong, but... nope! He's just really, really morally bankrupt for some reason. It didn't add anything to the story beyond a moment where he pulls a gun on Sherlock.
I kind of want to talk about that ending...
Again, even though it has major issues that I can see putting some readers off of it altogether, I enjoyed this overall.
I can't speak at length about how Holmes and his wannabe Watson cousin were characterized as I don't have a lot of familiarity with that portion of the crossover. Indeed, I was repulsed from reading this for a while because I don't much like Sherlock Holmes. I can't stand sassy, smug, intellectuals as main characters, as I myself am a sassy, smug intellectual. You need not remind me of my flaws, Mr. Holmes. Still, I didn't strongly dislike him, I dare even say I liked him outright sometimes in this story, which is more than I can say for every other brush I've had with this character. The doctor cousin is... fine? I don't know, I didn't really care about him much, nor his internal conflict about his wife. It felt annoying to be tied to him as the point of view character, but I liked Siciliano's writing style and descriptions enough that it didn't really matter. On that note, I really enjoyed the blend of dialogue from Leroux's work and the new dialogue unique to this book.
Now, on to characters I am far more familiar with--
The characterization of Christine and the Phantom felt the most appropriate to me, if not a hundred percent faithful to the source material at all times. I got a strong impression that Siciliano really adored these characters, even with all their flaws, and for good reason. Their relationship is the underpinning of the entire story. Christine is clearly torn about the situation and moved to anger multiple times throughout the story, which I liked a lot. Erik came off as at once piteous, gifted, and terrifying, as he ought to be.
There are some choices that are somewhat understandable, if a little dramatic, like putting the de Chagnys in an unflattering light. I especially understand disapproval of Phillipe; from what little is said about him in Leroux's work, it's easy to imagine him not being a great guy. As someone who is mildly annoyed/exasperated with Raoul at worst, though, I was horrified at how he was presented as abusive, selfish, and childish to the point of absurdity. It's hard to understand why Christine has any interest in him at all. Their childhood friendship is only barely touched on.
Other choices were downright bizarre, like villainizing the Persian, arguably the most morally good character from the original novel, and . I thought at first that daroga was being presented in a "villainous" light for the ultimate reveal that the initial perception was wrong, but... nope! He's just really, really morally bankrupt for some reason. It didn't add anything to the story beyond a moment where he pulls a gun on Sherlock.
I kind of want to talk about that ending...
Again, even though it has major issues that I can see putting some readers off of it altogether, I enjoyed this overall.
October 10, 2017
I enjoyed reading this, though I should frame this review with a disclaimer that I've never read a single original Sherlock Holmes story. I would say that I mostly enjoyed this because I love The Phantom of the Opera (practically all versions except for the silent movie, which I've never seen in its entirety). I found this particulary unique to see "actual", more human versions of the characters I'm familiar with—Christine, Raoul, Madame Giry, even the Phantom himself. As this is the first book in the "further adventures of Sherlock Holmes" series, and the first time I've ever read anything by this author, I wasn't sure what the dislike for Dr. Watson was, or if it was simply a plot device, since Holmes' cousin Henry accompanies Holmes on this Paris adventure, rather than Watson. At first I thought I might not like the "OC" (if Henry is in fact an OC), but then I found that he actually complements Holmes in a decent way—whereas Holmes can be very cold, calculating, and even cruel, Henry is always if nothing incredibly human—he's terrified of rats, he hates going into the deep, dank cellars of the Paris Opera house, and he's so lovelorn that he can't get his potential suitor Michelle out of his thoughts.
I think I especially loved that Holmes had extreme disdain for everyone except the most repulsive characters—the Phantom, Erik and Madame Giry, though he did show tenderness and concern for Christine Daae, in the beginning and middle, at least. Holmes is entranced by the Phantom's beautiful violin playing, and is enchanted by the rather large, unfasionable and gruff Madame Giry. He also silences and scolds the young, entitled and abrasive Raoul several times while he and Henry are sneaking around with the Viscount, while following Christine. Needless to say, Raoul is never happy being "put in his place", but Holmes doesn't care. Holmes does the same thing which the Opera House's new managers, which neither appreciate.
The thing that I might criticize about this novel was the lack of action in some places. Sometimes it felt like Holmes and Henry were nothing more than interloppers in the Phantom of the Opera story, breaking off to do their own investigations, or following or interracting with the original characters. The Phantom threatens Holmes with notes but he never makes a move to hurt or endanger Holmes or Henry (probably which reinforces Holmes' theory that Erik is not the real enemy). Though, I suppose there was danger in the final chapters that definitely echoed the original book's climax.
The happy ending. I enjoyed it, maybe because Erik is treated as an even more sympathetic character in this novel than in any of the other versions. Yes, we are made to feel for him at the end, of course—a genius with a beautiful voice, a beautiful soul with the ugly face that's kept him from "the joys of the flesh", as the musical puts it. But with this novel, we are made to feel for him throughout because Holmes cares about him, enough to choose him over all others, enough to want to help him escape though everyone else, including Erik himself (except Christine) wishes his death. Enough to convince him that there's a beautiful blind woman nearly his equal in musical genius and kindness who, because of her mixed heritage in Victorian England, has also never known "the joys of the flesh". It was kind of a very lovely ending.
Also, I had all of the songs from the musical in my head the whole time while reading this.
I think I especially loved that Holmes had extreme disdain for everyone except the most repulsive characters—the Phantom, Erik and Madame Giry, though he did show tenderness and concern for Christine Daae, in the beginning and middle, at least. Holmes is entranced by the Phantom's beautiful violin playing, and is enchanted by the rather large, unfasionable and gruff Madame Giry. He also silences and scolds the young, entitled and abrasive Raoul several times while he and Henry are sneaking around with the Viscount, while following Christine. Needless to say, Raoul is never happy being "put in his place", but Holmes doesn't care. Holmes does the same thing which the Opera House's new managers, which neither appreciate.
The thing that I might criticize about this novel was the lack of action in some places. Sometimes it felt like Holmes and Henry were nothing more than interloppers in the Phantom of the Opera story, breaking off to do their own investigations, or following or interracting with the original characters. The Phantom threatens Holmes with notes but he never makes a move to hurt or endanger Holmes or Henry (probably which reinforces Holmes' theory that Erik is not the real enemy). Though, I suppose there was danger in the final chapters that definitely echoed the original book's climax.
The happy ending. I enjoyed it, maybe because Erik is treated as an even more sympathetic character in this novel than in any of the other versions. Yes, we are made to feel for him at the end, of course—a genius with a beautiful voice, a beautiful soul with the ugly face that's kept him from "the joys of the flesh", as the musical puts it. But with this novel, we are made to feel for him throughout because Holmes cares about him, enough to choose him over all others, enough to want to help him escape though everyone else, including Erik himself (except Christine) wishes his death. Enough to convince him that there's a beautiful blind woman nearly his equal in musical genius and kindness who, because of her mixed heritage in Victorian England, has also never known "the joys of the flesh". It was kind of a very lovely ending.
Also, I had all of the songs from the musical in my head the whole time while reading this.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 8, 2015
I admit at first I was a little turned off by this novel. As I have seen one reviewer quite passionately derail, I also did not quite like the way the narrator (Dr. Henry Vernier) trashed Dr. Watson. I also didn't like the stipulation that Watson and Holmes had never been quite close. If they had not been close, why on earth would Watson write the stories and follow him around? He could have easily been his flat-mate and kept well away from him; I know if I did not have quite a good relationship with the person that I lived with, I wouldn't decide to traipse about the continent and risk life and limb to aid them!
I could sort of see why he would write it out as such in order to let him expound on the mentioned-in-canon VERNER but still it took some getting used to. (And beggared the question of how on earth Holmes managed to convince a man who openly detested/loathed Watson to the point of refusing to read the doctor's written material twisting his cousin's character into buying his practice FROM Watson? And again raises the question why on earth Holmes would wish for Watson to return to him and live at Baker Street again, pulling out all the stops to entice him back if neither person liked the other so much as they pretended to for the public? Ah well.)
Another quibble I had was with how they transformed Holmes's character. It is, sadly, an argument I have all-too-frequently with pastiches and little stories/adaptations of the Holmes canon. Inevitably a woman is introduced for Holmes to pine after or vice-versa (but often with reciprocated feelings) and if she is not conjured out of thin air then they use the time-honoured IRENE ADLER. Please, let WELL enough alone. I feel that there are millions, perhaps even TRILLIONS of characters in all the novels and books out there who lust and love--can Holmes alone just be left well enough alone?
It is on that point that I was annoyed because he was introduced to a Miss Lowell, and immediately his cousin would poke and prod and bring up the not-very-subtle suggestions that perhaps Holmes ought to settle down with her. Holmes would tell him that he should drop the subject and he would only to pick it up again when anyone talked of loneliness/love/women and so forth. I get that she's a musician--and a good one--but I feel there ought to be something more there than WOW CAN SHE PLAY THE PIANO LET'S GET MARRIED. It's Holmes, for Christ's sake! It's going to take a little more than THAT to interest him. Especially given his mostly-negative views toward women (people now declare an argument both for and against this but HONESTLY read the canon), which the author duly tries to erase and blame on Watson.
So with all of this in mind, the story got off to a rather rocky start. For me, at any rate, but I persevered and wished to see how Leroux's characters were rendered.
This is amusing, for I have again seen an impassioned reader complaining about how Siciliano modelled them in his book and claimed he changed them utterly. I quite beg to differ. In regards to Raoul being a simpering, whiny, forceful cad: is there any difference? If we recall back to Leroux's story, he FREQUENTLY bursts into tears, crying far more often than does Christine. In regards to being forceful, he promises Christine he will take her from the Opera House--and he means TAKE. If she resists in any fashion, he will drag her away. In regards to being a cad, how often did he scream at her that she had ruined her virtue with another, with this mysterious man he heard her talking to? In the story he also mentioned how he didn't know what to do given his lineage, I believe; do you think he might succumb to temptation and ruin her virtue? I believe so--and so did Siciliano. Often he would vacillate, apologising and begging forgiveness before shrieking at her again the moment she mentioned her angel of music. How has Siciliano differed from this character?!? HE HASN'T, and I'm GLAD. Furthermore, I'm pleased that both Holmes and his cousin share a spirited dislike for the boy (for he is a boy at twenty) and often voice such disapproval. I have never liked Raoul, and I never understand how people can say that he is a sainted character. He has many flaws--flaws that are almost mirrored by the phantom but worse for Raoul because he has NO REASON to act in such a fasion!
In regards to Christine, said reviewer/reader complained that she was shown as only being repulsed by the Phantom's face. IS THIS NOT ALSO TRUE? She was content with her angel of music, and they (pardon this here) made sweet music together until she was tempted and removed his mask. Suddenly she could have nothing to do with him! She was horrified! Oh, if you could only see his face! His horrible face! ERIK never ripped his mask off. ERIK never thrust his face in hers (at least not at first) and made her shrink away. He HID himself, as he had done at an early age, and SHE chose to do that. SHE brought it on herself. One must think if he wears a mask it would be for a good reason, and I liken her actions to taking a false leg from someone and then pointing out they're missing their leg. I understand curiosity but to then wail about it night and day--it's terrible.
Not only that but it is remarked OFTEN in the story that the phantom had such a deep love but had to stay in the cellars and how he could have been one of the most famous/greatest people whom the world had ever seen but had to hide his face because of its grotesque characteristics. Seems to me, then, that the problem DOES, in FACT, reside with his appearance.
But returning more to Siciliano's novel, once I got over the beginning uneasiness I found that I quite liked it. I never cared for Raoul or Christine either one because they were children and prone to the likes and dislikes OF children. More Raoul than Christine, but Christine was markedly shallow. To Siciliano's credit, I actually held a great deal more sympathy for Christine and felt more of her actual plight in his story than I did in Leroux's. In Leroux's, it always seemed to me that she was hardly so torn; she was terrified by the phantom's appearance and that largely led her to Raoul. She debated, briefly, but then was resolute. With Siciliano, she did seem truly at an impasse, and even when she went with Raoul it was clear that she rued her choice. Still, the ever present shallowness remained.
I was especially touched with how Holmes seemed to reach Erik on a deeper level and to soothe some of the hurt done to the man over the years. Erik had only really wanted some compassion, sympathy--some true human feelings apart from repulsion, I feel, even above love itself. Holmes showed him no revulsion; in fact, he showed contempt for the enemies of Erik and I think that part truly pleased me in the story.
Some people complain about Erik having a "happy" ending. Why on earth is that such a dismal thing? It's a simple pastiche--no one is saying that it alters the original book in anyway. It's like an Alternate Universe--a What Might Have Been. To me, it is nice to see Erik united with Miss Lowell. Whether love blossoms or doesn't blossom hardly matters. She is blind; she will never turn in fear from his visage. Sight will not render her any shallow emotions. To her, Erik is the brilliant violinist. The beautiful singer. The enchanting composer. It is nice, and it is also a very literal nod to "Love is Blind".
I quite enjoyed that little bit, and I also liked at the very end when Henry's wife, Michelle, kissed Holmes in the same fashion that Christine did Erik. At first I was uncertain, but now the more that I think on it I quite liked the parallel. It doesn't have to be sexual at all--and isn't, in my mind. It hearkens back more to Leroux's novel than this Siciliano one. Christine kisses Erik and then leaves and he dies, alone. Michelle makes Holmes promise not to wall himself off, and he does, but the reader can always make their own decisions and I choose to feel that Holmes does precisely that, keeping himself at a distance from society as he always does.
I would definitely recommend this to other people, especially those who might have strong (negative!) feelings about the de Chagny family and Christine, haha! (Although you might find some sympathy for Christine as I did...)!
I could sort of see why he would write it out as such in order to let him expound on the mentioned-in-canon VERNER but still it took some getting used to. (And beggared the question of how on earth Holmes managed to convince a man who openly detested/loathed Watson to the point of refusing to read the doctor's written material twisting his cousin's character into buying his practice FROM Watson? And again raises the question why on earth Holmes would wish for Watson to return to him and live at Baker Street again, pulling out all the stops to entice him back if neither person liked the other so much as they pretended to for the public? Ah well.)
Another quibble I had was with how they transformed Holmes's character. It is, sadly, an argument I have all-too-frequently with pastiches and little stories/adaptations of the Holmes canon. Inevitably a woman is introduced for Holmes to pine after or vice-versa (but often with reciprocated feelings) and if she is not conjured out of thin air then they use the time-honoured IRENE ADLER. Please, let WELL enough alone. I feel that there are millions, perhaps even TRILLIONS of characters in all the novels and books out there who lust and love--can Holmes alone just be left well enough alone?
It is on that point that I was annoyed because he was introduced to a Miss Lowell, and immediately his cousin would poke and prod and bring up the not-very-subtle suggestions that perhaps Holmes ought to settle down with her. Holmes would tell him that he should drop the subject and he would only to pick it up again when anyone talked of loneliness/love/women and so forth. I get that she's a musician--and a good one--but I feel there ought to be something more there than WOW CAN SHE PLAY THE PIANO LET'S GET MARRIED. It's Holmes, for Christ's sake! It's going to take a little more than THAT to interest him. Especially given his mostly-negative views toward women (people now declare an argument both for and against this but HONESTLY read the canon), which the author duly tries to erase and blame on Watson.
So with all of this in mind, the story got off to a rather rocky start. For me, at any rate, but I persevered and wished to see how Leroux's characters were rendered.
This is amusing, for I have again seen an impassioned reader complaining about how Siciliano modelled them in his book and claimed he changed them utterly. I quite beg to differ. In regards to Raoul being a simpering, whiny, forceful cad: is there any difference? If we recall back to Leroux's story, he FREQUENTLY bursts into tears, crying far more often than does Christine. In regards to being forceful, he promises Christine he will take her from the Opera House--and he means TAKE. If she resists in any fashion, he will drag her away. In regards to being a cad, how often did he scream at her that she had ruined her virtue with another, with this mysterious man he heard her talking to? In the story he also mentioned how he didn't know what to do given his lineage, I believe; do you think he might succumb to temptation and ruin her virtue? I believe so--and so did Siciliano. Often he would vacillate, apologising and begging forgiveness before shrieking at her again the moment she mentioned her angel of music. How has Siciliano differed from this character?!? HE HASN'T, and I'm GLAD. Furthermore, I'm pleased that both Holmes and his cousin share a spirited dislike for the boy (for he is a boy at twenty) and often voice such disapproval. I have never liked Raoul, and I never understand how people can say that he is a sainted character. He has many flaws--flaws that are almost mirrored by the phantom but worse for Raoul because he has NO REASON to act in such a fasion!
In regards to Christine, said reviewer/reader complained that she was shown as only being repulsed by the Phantom's face. IS THIS NOT ALSO TRUE? She was content with her angel of music, and they (pardon this here) made sweet music together until she was tempted and removed his mask. Suddenly she could have nothing to do with him! She was horrified! Oh, if you could only see his face! His horrible face! ERIK never ripped his mask off. ERIK never thrust his face in hers (at least not at first) and made her shrink away. He HID himself, as he had done at an early age, and SHE chose to do that. SHE brought it on herself. One must think if he wears a mask it would be for a good reason, and I liken her actions to taking a false leg from someone and then pointing out they're missing their leg. I understand curiosity but to then wail about it night and day--it's terrible.
Not only that but it is remarked OFTEN in the story that the phantom had such a deep love but had to stay in the cellars and how he could have been one of the most famous/greatest people whom the world had ever seen but had to hide his face because of its grotesque characteristics. Seems to me, then, that the problem DOES, in FACT, reside with his appearance.
But returning more to Siciliano's novel, once I got over the beginning uneasiness I found that I quite liked it. I never cared for Raoul or Christine either one because they were children and prone to the likes and dislikes OF children. More Raoul than Christine, but Christine was markedly shallow. To Siciliano's credit, I actually held a great deal more sympathy for Christine and felt more of her actual plight in his story than I did in Leroux's. In Leroux's, it always seemed to me that she was hardly so torn; she was terrified by the phantom's appearance and that largely led her to Raoul. She debated, briefly, but then was resolute. With Siciliano, she did seem truly at an impasse, and even when she went with Raoul it was clear that she rued her choice. Still, the ever present shallowness remained.
I was especially touched with how Holmes seemed to reach Erik on a deeper level and to soothe some of the hurt done to the man over the years. Erik had only really wanted some compassion, sympathy--some true human feelings apart from repulsion, I feel, even above love itself. Holmes showed him no revulsion; in fact, he showed contempt for the enemies of Erik and I think that part truly pleased me in the story.
Some people complain about Erik having a "happy" ending. Why on earth is that such a dismal thing? It's a simple pastiche--no one is saying that it alters the original book in anyway. It's like an Alternate Universe--a What Might Have Been. To me, it is nice to see Erik united with Miss Lowell. Whether love blossoms or doesn't blossom hardly matters. She is blind; she will never turn in fear from his visage. Sight will not render her any shallow emotions. To her, Erik is the brilliant violinist. The beautiful singer. The enchanting composer. It is nice, and it is also a very literal nod to "Love is Blind".
I quite enjoyed that little bit, and I also liked at the very end when Henry's wife, Michelle, kissed Holmes in the same fashion that Christine did Erik. At first I was uncertain, but now the more that I think on it I quite liked the parallel. It doesn't have to be sexual at all--and isn't, in my mind. It hearkens back more to Leroux's novel than this Siciliano one. Christine kisses Erik and then leaves and he dies, alone. Michelle makes Holmes promise not to wall himself off, and he does, but the reader can always make their own decisions and I choose to feel that Holmes does precisely that, keeping himself at a distance from society as he always does.
I would definitely recommend this to other people, especially those who might have strong (negative!) feelings about the de Chagny family and Christine, haha! (Although you might find some sympathy for Christine as I did...)!
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
January 28, 2018
The Further Adventures of Sherlock Holmes: The Angel of the Opera is another potentially promising cross-over between two classic works of fiction. And having read a number of the original Sherlock Holmes novels and The Phantom of the Opera, I was intrigued to see how this stacked up. Despite being published back in 2011, The Angel of the Opera is very on trend as fiction cross-overs are gaining in popularity at the moment, particularly with TV series such as Penny Dreadful. I would definitely recommend this to people who like the idea of cross over fiction, but who aren't going to judge them purely on the merit of the originals or by how closely the author sticks to them, as there are always going to be subtle differences.
The Angel of the Opera started strongly, with Holmes and his cousin Doctor Henry Vernier (no Doctor Watson this time) finishing up an unrelated case in Wales. I enjoyed the snippets of this case and would be intrigued to read more about it, if it happens to be in another work, if not, I would consider petitioning Sam Siciliano to write it! As The Angel of the Opera progressed, I could see a potential link between the two cases and wondered if any of the characters from this initial case would be re-introduced throughout the course of the novel. This would have been the obvious choice in true Conon Doyle style, so I was eagerly awaiting the return of Susan Lowell.
I was unsure of the timing of The Angel of the Opera as I couldn't tell if it was set during the same period as the original or after. Some hints suggested during, but there were some plot points mentioned which I didn't recall from the original, such as Madame Giry being fired, or the Viscount de Chagny having an older brother. I did really enjoy the details about the Viscount's extended family and their feelings about his relationship with Christine Daae. This was a very interesting addition which added to the plot between the two in the original, where it was just the two of them in isolation with their romance. Of course, thinking logically, there would be ramifications for some of a relationship between a Viscount and an orphaned Opera singer! Sam Siciliano added depth to many of the other characters including Madame Giry and her daughter Meg as well as the behind the scenes characters from the opera house; I felt this was a clever way of making the plot "his", as the original Phantom of the Opera (and the film) seemed to focus mainly on Christine, the Phantom and the Viscount de Chagny.
One of the only negatives I have to mention are the inconsistencies in spelling. Sherlock's cousin was called Henry half of the time but then Henri the rest. This could have been attributed to the accent of the character saying his name, but I did find this incredibly irritating.
I have now read three of the Further Adventures of Sherlock Holmes - Sherlock Holves Vs Dracula, The Titanic Tragedy and The Angel of the Opera, and this one is definitely the best of the three. I have never read anything by Sam Siciliano before, but after reading this would actively seek out his other novels.
The Angel of the Opera started strongly, with Holmes and his cousin Doctor Henry Vernier (no Doctor Watson this time) finishing up an unrelated case in Wales. I enjoyed the snippets of this case and would be intrigued to read more about it, if it happens to be in another work, if not, I would consider petitioning Sam Siciliano to write it! As The Angel of the Opera progressed, I could see a potential link between the two cases and wondered if any of the characters from this initial case would be re-introduced throughout the course of the novel. This would have been the obvious choice in true Conon Doyle style, so I was eagerly awaiting the return of Susan Lowell.
I was unsure of the timing of The Angel of the Opera as I couldn't tell if it was set during the same period as the original or after. Some hints suggested during, but there were some plot points mentioned which I didn't recall from the original, such as Madame Giry being fired, or the Viscount de Chagny having an older brother. I did really enjoy the details about the Viscount's extended family and their feelings about his relationship with Christine Daae. This was a very interesting addition which added to the plot between the two in the original, where it was just the two of them in isolation with their romance. Of course, thinking logically, there would be ramifications for some of a relationship between a Viscount and an orphaned Opera singer! Sam Siciliano added depth to many of the other characters including Madame Giry and her daughter Meg as well as the behind the scenes characters from the opera house; I felt this was a clever way of making the plot "his", as the original Phantom of the Opera (and the film) seemed to focus mainly on Christine, the Phantom and the Viscount de Chagny.
One of the only negatives I have to mention are the inconsistencies in spelling. Sherlock's cousin was called Henry half of the time but then Henri the rest. This could have been attributed to the accent of the character saying his name, but I did find this incredibly irritating.
I have now read three of the Further Adventures of Sherlock Holmes - Sherlock Holves Vs Dracula, The Titanic Tragedy and The Angel of the Opera, and this one is definitely the best of the three. I have never read anything by Sam Siciliano before, but after reading this would actively seek out his other novels.
April 19, 2018
OK, so it wasn't bad . . . once I got past the fact that not only was there no Watson in this, but that his replacement hated him to no end and tried to impart some of that hate on Sherlock's opinions of Watson (seriously? Where did you get the idea that Sherlock was a misogynist? I only took that he was asexual/aromantic at best when it came to women).
Then came the Phantom's side of things. I had my copy of The Phantom of the Opera on standby to compare the two and, well, its starts to read more like the Broadway musical rather than the book itself (despite the fact this book gets Erik's deformity right). Raoul may not have been passionate about the arts, but he was certainly a passionate supporter of it. The Daroga was not antagonistic towards Erik at all, Erik considered him his only friend (and was the last person to see him alive)!! The Daroga would not have helped the Viscount for money, he was doing it because he understood that Erik was wrong to try and force Christine to love him. At least the author didn't downplay Christine's intelligence, though he made it seem like it was a hard choice for Christine between Erik and Raoul (she never felt romantically inclined towards Erik, not once . . . which left me to ship him with someone else, but that's just me. ;P).
All in all, it was a pretty decent fanfic. Would have much preferred Watson as Holmes' friend and sidekick (and they brought in Toby!) and no thrown-in love interest for Erik (is he just doomed to fall for women who like music only? How about an artist, or a seamstress? Or a fantastic story-teller? Not a blind Christine just so she can't see his face . . . despite the fact she can feel it and probably has a decent enough of an imagination that she can visualize it).
Will I keep this? Yeah, might as well. I'll nitpick through it another time, this time with the Hound of the Baskervilles to help Erik. ;) Then I'll write a fanfic based off of this to get Erik into the services of Hades. ;P I'm sure he'll be much happier, and Hades will probably (what am I saying, most likely) prefer him to Apollo any day. Persephone might even agree. XD I am just grateful I have both Hound and Phantom in my library that I can reread them to get my mind off the inconsistencies.
Then came the Phantom's side of things. I had my copy of The Phantom of the Opera on standby to compare the two and, well, its starts to read more like the Broadway musical rather than the book itself (despite the fact this book gets Erik's deformity right). Raoul may not have been passionate about the arts, but he was certainly a passionate supporter of it. The Daroga was not antagonistic towards Erik at all, Erik considered him his only friend (and was the last person to see him alive)!! The Daroga would not have helped the Viscount for money, he was doing it because he understood that Erik was wrong to try and force Christine to love him. At least the author didn't downplay Christine's intelligence, though he made it seem like it was a hard choice for Christine between Erik and Raoul (she never felt romantically inclined towards Erik, not once . . . which left me to ship him with someone else, but that's just me. ;P).
All in all, it was a pretty decent fanfic. Would have much preferred Watson as Holmes' friend and sidekick (and they brought in Toby!) and no thrown-in love interest for Erik (is he just doomed to fall for women who like music only? How about an artist, or a seamstress? Or a fantastic story-teller? Not a blind Christine just so she can't see his face . . . despite the fact she can feel it and probably has a decent enough of an imagination that she can visualize it).
Will I keep this? Yeah, might as well. I'll nitpick through it another time, this time with the Hound of the Baskervilles to help Erik. ;) Then I'll write a fanfic based off of this to get Erik into the services of Hades. ;P I'm sure he'll be much happier, and Hades will probably (what am I saying, most likely) prefer him to Apollo any day. Persephone might even agree. XD I am just grateful I have both Hound and Phantom in my library that I can reread them to get my mind off the inconsistencies.
May 13, 2019
Re-Read.
This book should have and could have been epic...and yet...it was an opera house fire. The book starts off with the introduction of Henry, Sherlock's cousin and new assistant. Henry hates Watson and discredits his tales as false and completely untrue to Sherlock's character. So that's the authors excuse for butchering the world's most famous detective. Sherlock is violent and has these weird views about females. After almost beating a man in the prologue he later decides to just shoot the guy to take him out of his misery. The duo take a case in Paris to rid the infamous Opera House of its pesky ghost; of course Sherlock doesn't think anything paranormal is afoot. Phillip, the Count, and his brother Raoul also try to employ the detective both to spy on Christine but for different reasons. Phillip wants his brother to fall out of love with her and Raoul keeps thinking she's either being unfaithful or being brainwashed and wants to save her. Sherlock keeps wandering the Opera House and observing things but never actually puts anything together. When he does finally meet the Phantom he's more awed by him than anything The ending was a bit of a cop out and utterly ridiculous cause why would Sherlock really be so invested in the Phantom's love life?
The thin that bothered me the most was the author's indecision. He followed the events of the novel exactly, which is fine. But he played with characterization...which would also be fine...until he tried to force his newly fleshed out characters to act as they did in the novel. When you change their motivation and characteristics you must then change their actions to match. Raoul gets violent and calls Christine a whore and a harlot on many occasion...but then he is sobbing and wondering why she is pushing him away the next page. Christine had more of a backbone in this one and logic would be that she'd choose neither man at the end or the Phantom the way she was portrayed instead of sticking with Raoul who stalked her the entire novel...and hired a man to also stalk her. So this was a disappointing mess and butchering of two classics.
This book should have and could have been epic...and yet...it was an opera house fire. The book starts off with the introduction of Henry, Sherlock's cousin and new assistant. Henry hates Watson and discredits his tales as false and completely untrue to Sherlock's character. So that's the authors excuse for butchering the world's most famous detective. Sherlock is violent and has these weird views about females. After almost beating a man in the prologue he later decides to just shoot the guy to take him out of his misery. The duo take a case in Paris to rid the infamous Opera House of its pesky ghost; of course Sherlock doesn't think anything paranormal is afoot. Phillip, the Count, and his brother Raoul also try to employ the detective both to spy on Christine but for different reasons. Phillip wants his brother to fall out of love with her and Raoul keeps thinking she's either being unfaithful or being brainwashed and wants to save her. Sherlock keeps wandering the Opera House and observing things but never actually puts anything together. When he does finally meet the Phantom he's more awed by him than anything The ending was a bit of a cop out and utterly ridiculous cause why would Sherlock really be so invested in the Phantom's love life?
The thin that bothered me the most was the author's indecision. He followed the events of the novel exactly, which is fine. But he played with characterization...which would also be fine...until he tried to force his newly fleshed out characters to act as they did in the novel. When you change their motivation and characteristics you must then change their actions to match. Raoul gets violent and calls Christine a whore and a harlot on many occasion...but then he is sobbing and wondering why she is pushing him away the next page. Christine had more of a backbone in this one and logic would be that she'd choose neither man at the end or the Phantom the way she was portrayed instead of sticking with Raoul who stalked her the entire novel...and hired a man to also stalk her. So this was a disappointing mess and butchering of two classics.
February 11, 2023
A magnificent read! My two favourite characters collide! I'm so glad that Mr. Siciliano wrote the story in such a way that Sherlock was on the side of the Phantom, I couldn't imagine it going any other way. And I particularly liked the ending that there was redemption for the Phantom. I did not like Henry; I would have much preferred Sherlock's trusty Watson. There were several instances where I felt that Watson would have been far more intelligent than Henry. But above all, Raoul is the worst. If I had disliked him in the original story and in the musical / movie, his character is far worse in this book — immature, annoying and dishonourable. Christine appears to only look at appearances and cannot seem to get used to the Phantom's appearance even after seeing him again and again. I struggled a bit with the side of Sherlock that was more emotional — he certainly laughed a lot in this book, and appears to have romantic feelings for the fairer sex. I understand though that this was necessary in order to highlight his sacrifice in introducing his love interest the Phantom. All in all, an enjoyable read. I dare say it is much more descriptive and exciting than the original.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
November 14, 2025
If you like the stories of Sherlock Holmes and/or The Phantom of the Opera, but don't particularly care for any of the characters, this may be the adaptation for you.
Watson gets the worst of the character assassinations, being branded an outright liar in the opening pages. (One wonders what the author liked about the original Holmes stories, if he apparently thinks Watson's characterization of Holmes was so inaccurate.) Standing in for Watson is what I can only assume to be the author's egregious self-insert character, Sherlock's French cousin, who spends the bulk of the narrative being clueless and misogynistic.
Raoul is reduced to a sniveling whiner, Christine an unapologetic gold digger, and the Persian a sneaky, sinister foreigner. Sherlock and The Phantom suffer some blatant bowdlerization, but are otherwise spared.
I should have DNFed, but I felt I had a duty to finish this book, so that I could warn others about it. It was a hate read through and through, and I wish I had checked out a hard copy rather than the ebook, so I could hurl it back into my library's return slot with a proper level of disdain. Emphatically deleting it from my kindle will have to do.
Watson gets the worst of the character assassinations, being branded an outright liar in the opening pages. (One wonders what the author liked about the original Holmes stories, if he apparently thinks Watson's characterization of Holmes was so inaccurate.) Standing in for Watson is what I can only assume to be the author's egregious self-insert character, Sherlock's French cousin, who spends the bulk of the narrative being clueless and misogynistic.
Raoul is reduced to a sniveling whiner, Christine an unapologetic gold digger, and the Persian a sneaky, sinister foreigner. Sherlock and The Phantom suffer some blatant bowdlerization, but are otherwise spared.
I should have DNFed, but I felt I had a duty to finish this book, so that I could warn others about it. It was a hate read through and through, and I wish I had checked out a hard copy rather than the ebook, so I could hurl it back into my library's return slot with a proper level of disdain. Emphatically deleting it from my kindle will have to do.
July 23, 2017
Wer den Film "Das Phantom der Oper" gesehen hat, kennt im Grunde schon die grobe Handlung in diesem Buch. Natürlich war es aber ganz spannend die Sache aus der Sicht von Sherlock Holmes und seinem Cousin Henry zu sehen.
Abgerundet wurde diese Geschichte dann aber durch die Einleitung mithilfe eines anderen Falls und der wieder zusammenführung der beiden Fälle ganz zum Schluss. Natürlich war dieses Ende nichts, was ich nicht schon gute 150 vor Schluss vorhersehen konnte. Tortzdem war es ein sehr befriedigendes, wenn schon nicht überraschendes Ende!
Kleine Punktabzüge gab es von mir nur, weil Watson hier doch häufiger schlecht-geredet wird und man es vielleicht hier und da ein klein wenig hätte kürzen können.
Abgerundet wurde diese Geschichte dann aber durch die Einleitung mithilfe eines anderen Falls und der wieder zusammenführung der beiden Fälle ganz zum Schluss. Natürlich war dieses Ende nichts, was ich nicht schon gute 150 vor Schluss vorhersehen konnte. Tortzdem war es ein sehr befriedigendes, wenn schon nicht überraschendes Ende!
Kleine Punktabzüge gab es von mir nur, weil Watson hier doch häufiger schlecht-geredet wird und man es vielleicht hier und da ein klein wenig hätte kürzen können.
June 23, 2019
This is by far the best entry of the series. Sherlock has always been my favorite fictional character and this is the best representation of him outside of the originals by Arthur Conan Doyle. It shows a side of Sherlock generally left out of other incarnations, shown best in his interactions with the Phantom, their understandingly each other is what makes the book all the more intriguing. I also enjoyed having his cousin, Dr Henry Vernier, as the narrator and substitute for Watson. It was the second book I have read with the character and I do enjoy the different perspective or the narrative.
I have always felt a kinship to Sherlock, I feel that kinship more in this book than any others I have read (again, not including the originals).
I have always felt a kinship to Sherlock, I feel that kinship more in this book than any others I have read (again, not including the originals).
October 6, 2021
Brilliant!
My father introduced me to Sherlock Holmes when I was a pre-teen via the Basil Rathbone movies. When I learned the movies were based on books, I devoured them. Over the 50+ years since then, I have read others who tried to continue and/or add to the legend that is Sherlock Holmes. Some were adequate, others fairly good, but none lived up to the standard set by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. This one comes the closest. I think having someone besides Dr Watson narrate the story helps make up for any differences in style. But beyond that, this is a well told, well plotted blending of two legends: Sherlock Holmes and the Phantom of the Opera. And the conclusion is very imaginative yet logical and most satisfactory.
My father introduced me to Sherlock Holmes when I was a pre-teen via the Basil Rathbone movies. When I learned the movies were based on books, I devoured them. Over the 50+ years since then, I have read others who tried to continue and/or add to the legend that is Sherlock Holmes. Some were adequate, others fairly good, but none lived up to the standard set by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. This one comes the closest. I think having someone besides Dr Watson narrate the story helps make up for any differences in style. But beyond that, this is a well told, well plotted blending of two legends: Sherlock Holmes and the Phantom of the Opera. And the conclusion is very imaginative yet logical and most satisfactory.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 86 reviews