What do you think?
Rate this book
The Further Adventures of Sherlock Holmes: The Whitechapel Horrors
Grotesque murders are being committed on the streets of Whitechapel. Sherlock Holmes comes to believe they are the skilful work of one man, a man who earns the gruesome epithet of Jack the Ripper. As the investigation proceeds, Holmes realizes that the true identity of the Ripper puts much more at stake than just catching a killer…
471 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1992
47 people are currently reading
1734 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 110 reviews
March 18, 2024
(B) 75% | More than Satisfactory
Notes: A Holmes reunion special. The Ripper crimes matter only as vehicle for a postmodernist exploration of Sherlockiana.
Notes: A Holmes reunion special. The Ripper crimes matter only as vehicle for a postmodernist exploration of Sherlockiana.
June 12, 2015
One of the most crucial elements in the original Sherlock Holmes stories is the narration. Having Watson present, witnessing events and then capturing the quicksilver genius of Holmes in his sharp and unfussy prose, is of course massively important to the success of the tales. (As proof of this, see those later stories which Conan-Doyle had Holmes narrate. They are amongst the weakest.) The good Doctor is of course a reader substitute, there to have these wonderful deductions explained to him and make everything clear. Without Watson we’d be lost.
It’s therefore curious that Edward B. Hanna – clearly something of an expert on Holmes/Watson – opts for a third person narration for his ‘Sherlock Holmes vs. Jack the Ripper’ tale. This decision unbalances the book right from the start. The narration floats around the action and characters, to the extent that at points we’re given access to Sherlock Holmes’ own thoughts and feelings – and that has the odd effect of making him a somewhat more real, but much smaller character. Yes, we get to know more of his habits and about his weariness at the end of the day, but seeing these private corners of the man is a bit like a magician showing the mechanics of his tricks. Anyone’s thoughts are mundane if you spend enough with them, and one thing that Sherlock Holmes isn’t normally is mundane. What’s more, Hanna opts for a very Nigel Bruce-esque slow and stupid Watson (who also harbours some fairly reactionary political views). At one point Watson thinks his assistance to Holmes is of “minimal, perhaps even questionable, value”. If that’s so, why would Holmes keep him around? Yes, the Conan-Doyle version does lack Sherlock’s genius, but he is a qualified doctor (therefore not totally stupid) and a decent man, and as such does lend a lot of help to Sherlock. They are a team after all.
The book wears its knowledge heavily, weaving Holmes’s investigation into the Jack the Ripper timeline and around the existing canon of tales. (Hanna clearly liked to play The Game, whereby Holmes fans treat these adventures as real and date them to the Victorian calendar.) There are extensive notes at the end of the book, reminiscent of a Flashman novel, which show how much research the novelist has gone into. Unfortunately, what emerges the other side is some awfully pedestrian prose and some clunking expository dialogue, all leading up to a disappointingly weak ending. Given their closeness in proximity, Jack the Ripper and Sherlock Holmes are natural rivals, I just wish someone would produce a sharper telling of the tale.
It’s therefore curious that Edward B. Hanna – clearly something of an expert on Holmes/Watson – opts for a third person narration for his ‘Sherlock Holmes vs. Jack the Ripper’ tale. This decision unbalances the book right from the start. The narration floats around the action and characters, to the extent that at points we’re given access to Sherlock Holmes’ own thoughts and feelings – and that has the odd effect of making him a somewhat more real, but much smaller character. Yes, we get to know more of his habits and about his weariness at the end of the day, but seeing these private corners of the man is a bit like a magician showing the mechanics of his tricks. Anyone’s thoughts are mundane if you spend enough with them, and one thing that Sherlock Holmes isn’t normally is mundane. What’s more, Hanna opts for a very Nigel Bruce-esque slow and stupid Watson (who also harbours some fairly reactionary political views). At one point Watson thinks his assistance to Holmes is of “minimal, perhaps even questionable, value”. If that’s so, why would Holmes keep him around? Yes, the Conan-Doyle version does lack Sherlock’s genius, but he is a qualified doctor (therefore not totally stupid) and a decent man, and as such does lend a lot of help to Sherlock. They are a team after all.
The book wears its knowledge heavily, weaving Holmes’s investigation into the Jack the Ripper timeline and around the existing canon of tales. (Hanna clearly liked to play The Game, whereby Holmes fans treat these adventures as real and date them to the Victorian calendar.) There are extensive notes at the end of the book, reminiscent of a Flashman novel, which show how much research the novelist has gone into. Unfortunately, what emerges the other side is some awfully pedestrian prose and some clunking expository dialogue, all leading up to a disappointingly weak ending. Given their closeness in proximity, Jack the Ripper and Sherlock Holmes are natural rivals, I just wish someone would produce a sharper telling of the tale.
November 24, 2012
I really really wanted to like this book but unfortunately it failed in every possible way a Holmes-pastiche can fail, in every way a fictional re-telling of Jack the Ripper's crimes can fail and in most ways a (historical) crime novel can fail.
First of all: The story is not told by Watson but by a third person-narrator with insight in the minds of Holmes and Watson. So the we don't only read about Watson being amazed by Holmes deductions, we also see Holmes being desperate, having no idea what to do next and so on. Holmes being human in that way doesn't work for me. I need the mystery. Besides we are still kept in the dark about many of his deductions. Holmes finds a vital clue quite early on in the book but refuses to tell Watson about it and even when we're accompanying Holmes we don't learn anything about it until Holmes tells Watson over 100 pages later (that happens a couple of times though later with less pages in between). Why bother with that that kind of narration when you still won't let your readers know everything?
As an added mystery the author still went for the “We found this old manuscript in a safe”-introduction. I hate them because by now it is quite widely known that Holmes was not real so there is absolutely no need to pretend he was. And if you do it at least keep it short. Hannah goes on for pages about one person getting it from another and about orders not to open it before a certain date. Yawn.
Then there are the footnotes. On 430 pages of story and another 10 postscript by the author there are 120 footnotes. Let me say that again: 120 footnotes. I really only accept Terry Pratchett's excessive use of footnotes in fiction but even if he had that amount in a novel I'd complain (also: this edition, at least, doesn't have the footnotes at the bottom of the page but at the end of the book, so you'll have to leaf to the back of the book 120 times). And the footnotes aren't even interesting (but I'm that kind of person that just has to check them anyway) and could mostly be summed up with 'Oh look how clever I am! Look how much research I did!!!'.
Some footnotes just refer to the Holmes-canon, e.g. if he used a quote from one of the stories or a person that also appeared in another story appears, the footnote tells which story that was. You can argue about how necessary those are. Personally I think that the Holmes-nerd will know that anyway and the other won't care that much (in fact I think that not even Holmes-nerds will care that much about how many dressing-gowns he had, which colours they were and which he wore most but Hanna still explains it in a footnote). The same goes for the footnotes explaining more about Victorian society or giving more information about the real people that appear in this story. Then there are the second-worst kind of footnotes which explain in-jokes. e.g. at one point Holmes meets George Bernhard Shaw and talks to him about the Cockney accent and London flower-girls. The footnote then informs us about Pygmalion. See above: Nerds will know it and others won't care. However, the absolutely worst are those in which the author points out his own mistakes. Honestly. People refer to places or quotes from books/plays etc. and then we are informed in the footnote that they didn't exist/weren't yet written at that time. I am not making this up. It's always accompanied by phrases like “For some inexplicable reason” or some babbling about how Watson often had issues with the exact chronology in his writings etc. Sorry but on what level of insanity is this author operating? Does he actually believe that this was an old manuscript? I do not understand.
Besides all this I didn't think that Hannah managed to capture Holmes terribly well. Partly that's certainly because of the unusual narration-perspective but he also fell in the trap that lots of Holmes-pastiche writers fall into: Holmes is too much of a jerk and Watson too much of an idiot. This is of course a very fine line and others might see it differently but Watson seems barely able to string coherent thoughts together and Holmes insults him constantly so I really began wondering why those two still stuck together at all. I never felt the genuine friendship from the original stories. Holmes mostly mocks Watson and keeps much more from him than usually.
Lastly there is the small issue of Jack the Ripper who seems to be missing from large parts of this book. Sometimes he's barely mentioned at all in the chapters and instead we learn all kinds of things about the Victorian age and its famous people. That's another fine line. On the one hand I do want information on the time a historic novel is set in, on the other if I am terribly interested I can read non-fiction. However, here the author wasn't a bit over the line, he was miles away. I ended up skipping whole paragraphs because I simply did not care enough. (Often I also skipped whole paragraphs because the author loved introducing new characters or places with half a page of adjectives...honestly you'd think he got paid per adjective).
I'd really love to say anything positive about this book but I simply can't. In fact I have already focused on all the major annoyances and left out the minor things because this review is already long enough.
My quest for a good Holmes meets the Ripper-story continues.
First of all: The story is not told by Watson but by a third person-narrator with insight in the minds of Holmes and Watson. So the we don't only read about Watson being amazed by Holmes deductions, we also see Holmes being desperate, having no idea what to do next and so on. Holmes being human in that way doesn't work for me. I need the mystery. Besides we are still kept in the dark about many of his deductions. Holmes finds a vital clue quite early on in the book but refuses to tell Watson about it and even when we're accompanying Holmes we don't learn anything about it until Holmes tells Watson over 100 pages later (that happens a couple of times though later with less pages in between). Why bother with that that kind of narration when you still won't let your readers know everything?
As an added mystery the author still went for the “We found this old manuscript in a safe”-introduction. I hate them because by now it is quite widely known that Holmes was not real so there is absolutely no need to pretend he was. And if you do it at least keep it short. Hannah goes on for pages about one person getting it from another and about orders not to open it before a certain date. Yawn.
Then there are the footnotes. On 430 pages of story and another 10 postscript by the author there are 120 footnotes. Let me say that again: 120 footnotes. I really only accept Terry Pratchett's excessive use of footnotes in fiction but even if he had that amount in a novel I'd complain (also: this edition, at least, doesn't have the footnotes at the bottom of the page but at the end of the book, so you'll have to leaf to the back of the book 120 times). And the footnotes aren't even interesting (but I'm that kind of person that just has to check them anyway) and could mostly be summed up with 'Oh look how clever I am! Look how much research I did!!!'.
Some footnotes just refer to the Holmes-canon, e.g. if he used a quote from one of the stories or a person that also appeared in another story appears, the footnote tells which story that was. You can argue about how necessary those are. Personally I think that the Holmes-nerd will know that anyway and the other won't care that much (in fact I think that not even Holmes-nerds will care that much about how many dressing-gowns he had, which colours they were and which he wore most but Hanna still explains it in a footnote). The same goes for the footnotes explaining more about Victorian society or giving more information about the real people that appear in this story. Then there are the second-worst kind of footnotes which explain in-jokes. e.g. at one point Holmes meets George Bernhard Shaw and talks to him about the Cockney accent and London flower-girls. The footnote then informs us about Pygmalion. See above: Nerds will know it and others won't care. However, the absolutely worst are those in which the author points out his own mistakes. Honestly. People refer to places or quotes from books/plays etc. and then we are informed in the footnote that they didn't exist/weren't yet written at that time. I am not making this up. It's always accompanied by phrases like “For some inexplicable reason” or some babbling about how Watson often had issues with the exact chronology in his writings etc. Sorry but on what level of insanity is this author operating? Does he actually believe that this was an old manuscript? I do not understand.
Besides all this I didn't think that Hannah managed to capture Holmes terribly well. Partly that's certainly because of the unusual narration-perspective but he also fell in the trap that lots of Holmes-pastiche writers fall into: Holmes is too much of a jerk and Watson too much of an idiot. This is of course a very fine line and others might see it differently but Watson seems barely able to string coherent thoughts together and Holmes insults him constantly so I really began wondering why those two still stuck together at all. I never felt the genuine friendship from the original stories. Holmes mostly mocks Watson and keeps much more from him than usually.
Lastly there is the small issue of Jack the Ripper who seems to be missing from large parts of this book. Sometimes he's barely mentioned at all in the chapters and instead we learn all kinds of things about the Victorian age and its famous people. That's another fine line. On the one hand I do want information on the time a historic novel is set in, on the other if I am terribly interested I can read non-fiction. However, here the author wasn't a bit over the line, he was miles away. I ended up skipping whole paragraphs because I simply did not care enough. (Often I also skipped whole paragraphs because the author loved introducing new characters or places with half a page of adjectives...honestly you'd think he got paid per adjective).
I'd really love to say anything positive about this book but I simply can't. In fact I have already focused on all the major annoyances and left out the minor things because this review is already long enough.
My quest for a good Holmes meets the Ripper-story continues.
May 5, 2012
The Further Adventures of Sherlock Holmes: The Whitechapel Horrors by Edward B. Hanna plays at "What If?" What if Sherlock Holmes were a real person? (Gasp! Who could doubt it?) And what if he had investigated the horrible murders committed by Jack the Ripper? For surely, the Great Detective would have been called in on such a notorious case.
There is no doubt that Hanna knew his Holmes. He was a long-time Holmes buff and a member of the Baker Street Irregulars. And he most definitely had done his research in Ripper lore. Though a work of fiction, the novel is meticulously footnoted. Those who are well-acquainted with the Holmes canon may say, too much footnoting--he chooses to footnote material that anyone who knows the least bit about Holmes and Watson should know--but better too much than not enough. Hanna has used the Holmes canon and the facts of the terrible murders in 1888 and blended them into a dandy little tale. And it is very interesting to follow Holmes on the track of one of the most notorious killers of all time.
Almost 300 pages long, the book flies by (I finished it in a little over the day) and I didn't want to put it down until I got to the end. Hanna gets almost everything right. Almost. I quibble with bits of his portrayal of Watson--I maintain that the doctor is too good-hearted to espouse some of the derogatory comments and prejudicial beliefs Hanna attributes to him. Yes, some of the comments about the poor and certain races living in London were true of the day--but surely Hanna could have presented those details without putting them in the mouth of the good doctor. Watson does in a lot of ways represent the stalwart British man of his time, but not in all ways.
My other quibble is the ending--or rather the lack thereof. It is very disquieting to follow Holmes throughout the story and be left hanging at the end. We aren't told who the Great Detective believes Jack the Ripper to be and we are supposed to believe that at the end of the day Holmes doesn't even know. That Holmes is no more enlightened than the police. That is not the Holmes we know.
Overall, a good tale. Hanna makes it very believable that Holmes could have investigated this case. And the blend of fact and fiction is very good. An enjoyable read worth three stars.
{This review is mine and was first posted on my blog at http://myreadersblock.blogspot.com/20.... Please request permission to repost any portion. Thanks.}
February 22, 2025
Author wrote one book and my God did he write it well.
December 31, 2017
In his dedication to detail concerning the Ripper murders, I'm afraid Hanna allows the pace to dawdle far too much. I thought the choice of a third person narrator a bit odd, especially as the conceit is that it is all based on lost notes by Watson. The ending is unforgivable, I won't say more than that.
February 10, 2016
A rousing good tail that sputtered at the end. You can't go wrong with Jack the Ripper and Sherlock Holmes so all in all it was a pleasant read
June 14, 2011
Edward B. Hanna definitely did his research, both about the Holmesian canon and the Whitechapel murders. (The 100+ endnotes are fascinating, and quite possibly my favorite part of the novel.) I particularly enjoyed the sense of historical context and the glimpses into Mycroft Holmes and his relationship to various figures of the time (Prime Minister Lord Salisbury, Lord Randolph Churchill, Albert Edward, Prince of Wales, etc.) as well as his own brother. Hanna manages to make the tired Royal Conspiracy theory of Jack the Ripper fresh and compelling, as well (helped by a somewhat ambiguous ending).
There were some truly breathtaking scenes, including an almost-silent showdown (staredown?) between Mycroft and Sherlock at the Diogenes Club and a game of billiards between Watson and the Prince of Wales. That said, it's not a perfect work; because it's written in the third person rather than from John Watson's point of view - a necessity, since the Hound of the Baskervilles case falls in the midst of the Whitechapel murders, and Watson therefore is away from London - the reader loses much of the warmth and humanity of his perspective, and always feels a step removed from the characters.
I would recommend this to anyone interested in Sherlock Holmes's take on Jack the Ripper (although my favorite of these pastiches to date remains Dust and Shadow by Lyndsay Faye). It's quite a satisfying read, especially for its sense of setting, both in terms of place and time.
There were some truly breathtaking scenes, including an almost-silent showdown (staredown?) between Mycroft and Sherlock at the Diogenes Club and a game of billiards between Watson and the Prince of Wales. That said, it's not a perfect work; because it's written in the third person rather than from John Watson's point of view - a necessity, since the Hound of the Baskervilles case falls in the midst of the Whitechapel murders, and Watson therefore is away from London - the reader loses much of the warmth and humanity of his perspective, and always feels a step removed from the characters.
I would recommend this to anyone interested in Sherlock Holmes's take on Jack the Ripper (although my favorite of these pastiches to date remains Dust and Shadow by Lyndsay Faye). It's quite a satisfying read, especially for its sense of setting, both in terms of place and time.
June 27, 2020
A very enjoyable book to read, that is thoroughly researched and footnoted by the author, but the ultimate solution kept me from giving this a five star rating. Hanna has written a book that entertwines classic Holmes' adventures with the horrors of the Jack the Ripper murders very well, and I couldn't put it down. Watson and Holmes' voices were true to their characters as were the other "notables" that appear. I just wish the solution for Jack's identity had been better...
April 27, 2020
A monster is stalking the streets of Whitechapel, killing five women and frustrating not only the police service but also the esteemed Sherlock Holmes.
It is quite refreshing to see a failure in the 'Further Adventures' series, but the novel feels off because of the third person narration.
It is quite refreshing to see a failure in the 'Further Adventures' series, but the novel feels off because of the third person narration.
January 25, 2010
not *my* watson. read it for the jtr lore if you want, but this is not the watson from canon, and i read sh adventures because i love watson. don't make him a naive bigot!
January 4, 2025
This is one of the best S.H. pastiches I have ever read. Quite detailed and prety close to the S.H. timeline, Hanna pays a homege to Arthur Conan Doyle by writing this breathtaking tangled horror novel. Both Sherlock and Watson are depicted pretty close to the original work and the novel is penned carefully so as to fit in the S.H. timeline. Quite enjoyable this one, even though its lenghty for S.H. standards.
February 20, 2020
Another Sherlock Holmes vs Jack the Ripper. Not a bad book but in my opinion not a very good one either.
The author made Watson very unlikeable with his xenophobic, homophobic, fanatical English attitudes and his overall inability to accept events without preaching them over and over. He was also presented as a bit dumber than usual for non-Conan Doyle writers.
Holmes was presented as uninterested in many scientific concepts of criminal investigations which he was in favor of under Conan Doyle's writings. We also have long passages and even whole chapters of how Holmes felt about his actions while on stake-out or in pursuit of suspects that are very contrary to how he is presented by Doyle.
The book is about 125 pages too long as so much is already covered about the Ripper crimes and London city and society of this time that rehashing them page after page gets boring. Too much filler is created with new characters and their interactions with Holmes and trying to present some as possible Rippers.
There are hundreds of footnotes which often appear to be the authors attempts to justify his meddling with characters, events and situations rather than being needed to clear up a point presented. Many would have added more filler but even presenting them at the end adds more pages of material than required.
The author is a broadcast journalist who either chose not to be brief and concise as most radio/television presentations are due to time constraints to present his version of this overly often covered story or he is reacting against those constrictions and just decided to write on and on to get his full efforts out. Either way his format did not add to the readability and enjoyment of this book.
The author made Watson very unlikeable with his xenophobic, homophobic, fanatical English attitudes and his overall inability to accept events without preaching them over and over. He was also presented as a bit dumber than usual for non-Conan Doyle writers.
Holmes was presented as uninterested in many scientific concepts of criminal investigations which he was in favor of under Conan Doyle's writings. We also have long passages and even whole chapters of how Holmes felt about his actions while on stake-out or in pursuit of suspects that are very contrary to how he is presented by Doyle.
The book is about 125 pages too long as so much is already covered about the Ripper crimes and London city and society of this time that rehashing them page after page gets boring. Too much filler is created with new characters and their interactions with Holmes and trying to present some as possible Rippers.
There are hundreds of footnotes which often appear to be the authors attempts to justify his meddling with characters, events and situations rather than being needed to clear up a point presented. Many would have added more filler but even presenting them at the end adds more pages of material than required.
The author is a broadcast journalist who either chose not to be brief and concise as most radio/television presentations are due to time constraints to present his version of this overly often covered story or he is reacting against those constrictions and just decided to write on and on to get his full efforts out. Either way his format did not add to the readability and enjoyment of this book.
June 22, 2011
Fusion of truth and fiction is fascinating for several reasons, foremost among them being the efforts on part of the author(s) to resolve the inconsistencies related to dates and events. Edward B Hanna's "The Whitechapel Horrors" is doubly fascinating because it brings together two of Victorian England's iconic figures: the beloved Sherlock Holmes and the hated Jack the Ripper! Although this particular brand of fusion has been attempted at in several previous works, beginning with Ellery Queen's "A Study in Terror" and reaching an astounding pinnacle (or nadir, since opinions do differ in such cases) in Michael Dibdin's "The Last Sherlock Holmes Story", this work amazed me due to several reasons:
1. The amount of research put into it would astonish several Ripperologists, while earning admiration from the followers of "The Game"(assuming that both Sherlock Holmes and John H. Watson were real persons) propounded by late William S. Baring-Gould.
2. Inconsistencies in the chronolgy deduced from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's works have been neatly fit into the calendar of Ripper-murders.
3. The story is eminently readable, despite the author's steadfast attachment to the Royal conspiracy theory.
My only grievance is that Mr. Hanna could have given the work some sort of finality, rather than trying to be too tactical and keeping Watson as well as us in animated suspension (Holmes KNEW!). It is for this last minute shifting of thrust towards the truth of Ripper remaining elusive that I am taking one star away from my ratings. Otherwise, it is a very-very good novel. Recommended.
1. The amount of research put into it would astonish several Ripperologists, while earning admiration from the followers of "The Game"(assuming that both Sherlock Holmes and John H. Watson were real persons) propounded by late William S. Baring-Gould.
2. Inconsistencies in the chronolgy deduced from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's works have been neatly fit into the calendar of Ripper-murders.
3. The story is eminently readable, despite the author's steadfast attachment to the Royal conspiracy theory.
My only grievance is that Mr. Hanna could have given the work some sort of finality, rather than trying to be too tactical and keeping Watson as well as us in animated suspension (Holmes KNEW!). It is for this last minute shifting of thrust towards the truth of Ripper remaining elusive that I am taking one star away from my ratings. Otherwise, it is a very-very good novel. Recommended.
May 20, 2012
Well written (although not in the traditional Watsonian narrative), well researched and compelling reading, but a little disappointing in the ending, although understandable and oddly appropriate. The author even explanins the disappointing ending as necessary and realistic. While I'm not an expert on Holmes or the Ripper, I go greatly respect the author's apparent knowledge of both.
December 19, 2011
The author has obviously done extensive research into Arthur Conan Doyle's writings about Sherlock Holmes. I thought the book was very interesting.
July 25, 2018
While I very much enjoyed another Sherlock story in this series, I didn't give enough thought to the fact that this series is essentially re-packaging a scattering of Sherlock stories by various authors, so there is no consistency of style or story, and just because you liked one doesn't mean you'll like the others.
I slogged it to 50% of the book before finally calling it quits for a few reasons. First, it's clear the author loves the Sherlock canon; the whole book is steeped in nods to both Conan Doyle's work and other contemporary authors of the day. This is a plus. However, this begins to feel like reference for reference's sake, as a large portion of the "winks" add little to the story. It began to feel like the author's goal was to prove how much he knows about Sherlock literature rather than engage me with a story. Also, I found myself skimming past pages of background information that really should have been left out. A reader need not be reminded how terrible the living conditions are in Whitechapel and Spitalfields so repeatedly. The author clearly conducted years of research, but unfortunately, the volumes of research inserted got in the way of the story so much that I lost all interest and momentum.
The dialogue felt like I was listening to a one-trick impression of an English accent. Each character said something, then repeated it, and tagged it with a dialect tag. [say something] [repeat shortened version, indeed]: "It was horrible. Horrible, indeed. Wasn't it?" "He's a fine lad. Very fine, indeed, eh?" Ever watch the US version of The Office? Think of Andy doing his British accent. That's what this felt like. And this is just the pattern without the author trying to introduce Cockney accent, which grinds the dialogue to a snail's pace. "Oy, guvnah, 'e lykes a 'ole to do, but me button 'ole frount, innit?" (*These are not actual quotes, but they may as well be.)
Finally, about the place where I left off, the introduction of Oscar Wilde came off reeking of homophobia and played to comedic effect that fell flat. That's when I said, "Eenuffs eenuf, innit?" There are too many other good books out there to read.
I slogged it to 50% of the book before finally calling it quits for a few reasons. First, it's clear the author loves the Sherlock canon; the whole book is steeped in nods to both Conan Doyle's work and other contemporary authors of the day. This is a plus. However, this begins to feel like reference for reference's sake, as a large portion of the "winks" add little to the story. It began to feel like the author's goal was to prove how much he knows about Sherlock literature rather than engage me with a story. Also, I found myself skimming past pages of background information that really should have been left out. A reader need not be reminded how terrible the living conditions are in Whitechapel and Spitalfields so repeatedly. The author clearly conducted years of research, but unfortunately, the volumes of research inserted got in the way of the story so much that I lost all interest and momentum.
The dialogue felt like I was listening to a one-trick impression of an English accent. Each character said something, then repeated it, and tagged it with a dialect tag. [say something] [repeat shortened version, indeed]: "It was horrible. Horrible, indeed. Wasn't it?" "He's a fine lad. Very fine, indeed, eh?" Ever watch the US version of The Office? Think of Andy doing his British accent. That's what this felt like. And this is just the pattern without the author trying to introduce Cockney accent, which grinds the dialogue to a snail's pace. "Oy, guvnah, 'e lykes a 'ole to do, but me button 'ole frount, innit?" (*These are not actual quotes, but they may as well be.)
Finally, about the place where I left off, the introduction of Oscar Wilde came off reeking of homophobia and played to comedic effect that fell flat. That's when I said, "Eenuffs eenuf, innit?" There are too many other good books out there to read.
June 22, 2025
The Whitechapel Horrors by Edward B. Hanna—a pastiche that dares to place Sherlock Holmes in the heart of Victorian London’s darkest true crime: the Jack the Ripper murders. A crossover of myth and mystery that should have struck gold. But alas, even fog can get too thick to see clearly.
The Whitechapel Horrors sets up a premise too delicious to ignore: Sherlock Holmes versus Jack the Ripper. The ultimate intellect chasing the ultimate phantom. Edward B. Hanna plunges Holmes deep into the grime, terror, and twisted psychology of 1888 East London.
The detail is exhaustive—the kind of research that sweats through the prose. Hanna clearly loves both the mythos of Holmes and the historical gravity of the Ripper case. But somewhere between the fog and the footnotes, something slips.
The pacing stumbles. The tone wavers. Holmes feels distant at times, weighed down by exposition and over-literal plotting. And Watson, usually our emotional ballast, fades into the background. There's reverence here, yes—but not quite resonance.
I read this book expecting chills, twists, that crackle of Holmes snapping the mask off evil. But by the end, I felt more fatigued than thrilled. The Ripper is a hard antagonist to fictionalize—too real, too horrific—and perhaps Holmes, even with his brilliance, doesn’t quite belong in that nightmare. The pastiches have taken him across continents and dimensions… but not every shadow needs a magnifying glass.
The Whitechapel Horrors sets up a premise too delicious to ignore: Sherlock Holmes versus Jack the Ripper. The ultimate intellect chasing the ultimate phantom. Edward B. Hanna plunges Holmes deep into the grime, terror, and twisted psychology of 1888 East London.
The detail is exhaustive—the kind of research that sweats through the prose. Hanna clearly loves both the mythos of Holmes and the historical gravity of the Ripper case. But somewhere between the fog and the footnotes, something slips.
The pacing stumbles. The tone wavers. Holmes feels distant at times, weighed down by exposition and over-literal plotting. And Watson, usually our emotional ballast, fades into the background. There's reverence here, yes—but not quite resonance.
I read this book expecting chills, twists, that crackle of Holmes snapping the mask off evil. But by the end, I felt more fatigued than thrilled. The Ripper is a hard antagonist to fictionalize—too real, too horrific—and perhaps Holmes, even with his brilliance, doesn’t quite belong in that nightmare. The pastiches have taken him across continents and dimensions… but not every shadow needs a magnifying glass.
February 4, 2024
As a Sherlock Holmes fan since my teens, I’ve read more than a fair number of pastiches over the years. Some have been fantastic, others have been okay, and a few have been underwhelming. None of them has disappointed or infuriated me as The Whitechapel Horrors did. This would appear to be the late author’s only novel, which explains why it makes all the classic first novel mistakes and combines them with every mistake you can make writing a Holmes pastiche. From the “found manuscript” cliché to the narrative being told in the third person instead of the first, this is a novel bogged down by the author showing off their Holmes knowledge and historical research (not to mention over ONE HUNDRED footnotes), reading the novel was a chore. Even worse is the attempt to portray Cockney accents on the page which borders on the unreadable whenever such a character appears. Most damning, given that this is a Holmes and Jack the Ripper story, is that the solution for them goes from an absurd conspiracy theory to an utter cop-out of an ending after the narrative irritatingly moves forward a few years for the final couple of chapters.
Hands down, The Whitechapel Horror is the worst Sherlock Holmes pastiche I’ve ever read. And you should avoid it. For there are far better efforts out there for fans of Holmes and Watson wanting new adventures for the pair.
Hands down, The Whitechapel Horror is the worst Sherlock Holmes pastiche I’ve ever read. And you should avoid it. For there are far better efforts out there for fans of Holmes and Watson wanting new adventures for the pair.
May 17, 2020
It’s always a pleasure to read Sherlock, canon or pastiche. This novel was quite atmospheric & evocative, with multiple scenes both at 221B & in London’s damp, dreary, & foul East End. There is copious historical relevance & instruction, with over 100 footnotes detailing the actual Ripper murders & political contexts & players in 1888 Victorian England. Therefore this is a worthy read for true crime & English history aficionados. However, the mystery itself is overlong with a humdrum ending which will interest absolutely no one. Too much time spent on much-trodden psychological exposition of the great detective, & enough loose ends to trip over. There are several engrossing appearances of actual princes, diplomats, etc., & some worthwhile education on sociological matters regarding London’s poor.
For additional instruction on Jack the Ripper & for video tours of Whitechapel & Spitalfields which are wonderfully helpful to geography buffs, I found a comprehensive single website I kept open for the duration of the novel: jack-the-ripper.org
For additional instruction on Jack the Ripper & for video tours of Whitechapel & Spitalfields which are wonderfully helpful to geography buffs, I found a comprehensive single website I kept open for the duration of the novel: jack-the-ripper.org
March 3, 2023
Disclaimer: I am fascinated with the events of the notorious serial killer known as Jack the Ripper. I have also been a fan of the stories about the great detective, Sherlock Holmes, for even more years.
All that being said, when I saw the title of this book, I was greatly intrigued. I have read other stories where the two characters involved under the same title, but never as plausible as they were presented in this book. Admittedly, I did find the book hard to read, but only because the print was so small. Considering the closed text measures over an inch-thick, to have the print any larger would probably double its size.
The language is classic late 19th century and presented in a manner similar to that of a J.A. Michener novel with intense scene descriptions so as the reader had no doubt as to where and how the characters were represented. This book most definitely was the magnum opus for the author, and I wish he were still alive to read all these positive reviews.
All that being said, when I saw the title of this book, I was greatly intrigued. I have read other stories where the two characters involved under the same title, but never as plausible as they were presented in this book. Admittedly, I did find the book hard to read, but only because the print was so small. Considering the closed text measures over an inch-thick, to have the print any larger would probably double its size.
The language is classic late 19th century and presented in a manner similar to that of a J.A. Michener novel with intense scene descriptions so as the reader had no doubt as to where and how the characters were represented. This book most definitely was the magnum opus for the author, and I wish he were still alive to read all these positive reviews.
December 26, 2020
Read some reviews on Kindle about this .... I was about half way through. One reminded me why I don't lke reviews! This book is well written and in the style of Doyle.When you read a book to be fair read it from cover to cover. If the author puts a note at the front of the book, they are hoping you will take the time to read what it says, If you like STORIES about Jack the Ripper, Sherlock Holmes and life in London in 1888, this is the book for you. If you want to split hairs about dates and other details feel free to read a history book. This book is there to entertain and it does big time. Hanna did not get a message from above affter over 100 years and hundreds of books being written that solves who was Jack! If you really need that answer this book is NOT for you. I enjoyed every page of this and will go back and re read it again with pleasure!
December 7, 2019
I will say that I did a bit of research before I dove into this book. I love all things Sherlock so it wasn't hard to buy in, but I wanted to read a good Jack the Ripper story and it was just good sport that these two things crossed paths in this book. This book is fantastic from both Holmes and Ripper perspectives because of the way they intertwine. The story that I know of Saucy Jack lined up well with the life and times of Holmes during the same period. Watson stitches together a web of stories that is "accurate" for both sides of the story while giving each it's own special place in the story. I was intrigued with the connections between these two iconic characters and I would recommend this story to anyone that enjoys a good 1800's British murder story.
May 8, 2025
This Holmes seems oddly more solicitous of the feelings of others than the Holmes in the Conan Doyle stories, and actually approves of a couple of the Scotland Yard Investigators.
In this meticulously researched novel (copious footnotes included!), Holmes attempts to uncover the mystery of Jack the Ripper, but the author can't quite allow him to solve a mystery that has never been solved, so the book finishes rather inconclusively.
It's a well-written tale, but much darker than one Conan Doyle would have written, dealing with male and female prostitution, pedophilia, and venereal disease, as well as the expected mutilations performed by Jack the Ripper. The mutilations are graphically described, but the prostitution and pedophilia are not.
In this meticulously researched novel (copious footnotes included!), Holmes attempts to uncover the mystery of Jack the Ripper, but the author can't quite allow him to solve a mystery that has never been solved, so the book finishes rather inconclusively.
It's a well-written tale, but much darker than one Conan Doyle would have written, dealing with male and female prostitution, pedophilia, and venereal disease, as well as the expected mutilations performed by Jack the Ripper. The mutilations are graphically described, but the prostitution and pedophilia are not.
December 23, 2018
Received as a gift, I was hesitant to read what I had imagined was going to be a dark story that was a wild re-write to a highly publicized series of events.
I was wrong.
Without giving any spoilers, one of the most interesting aspects of this book, is that it's not written as a Dr Watson narrative. It's presented by an anonymous third party "writer" that provides a unique perspective that tells of actions and reactions from both Sherlock and Watson as seen from afar.
There was no attempt to re-write the events, and I felt it was handled well.
Highly recommended, especially to those that may have the same reservations that I had.
I was wrong.
Without giving any spoilers, one of the most interesting aspects of this book, is that it's not written as a Dr Watson narrative. It's presented by an anonymous third party "writer" that provides a unique perspective that tells of actions and reactions from both Sherlock and Watson as seen from afar.
There was no attempt to re-write the events, and I felt it was handled well.
Highly recommended, especially to those that may have the same reservations that I had.
March 24, 2022
I haven’t read the original Sherlock Holmes so I cannot say if the modeling after his style is good or not. I will say I wasn’t bored of the book, though it was not as fast paced as I would like. Minus one star for too much graphic description, which can be a good thing, of course, but as this is my opinion I’d prefer not to read in such great detail of how a murder was committed. It was even more horrifying when I found out that Jack the Ripper was a real person! What the heck. I probably sound stupid but now I will surely have nightmares for the next week.
May 18, 2022
So, I had never read any Sherlock Holmes books, but I have a Jack the Ripper fascination, so I thought I would give it a try. This was not written by Arthur Conan Doyle, but by Edward B Hanna (who has written several of these books). Very well written and mostly kept my attention, However, I was horribly disappointed in the ending. It's a work of fiction and I think there should be a resolution, but there wasn't. It was also ponderous and took me a long time (for me) to read. I checked out a book of Sherlock Holmes stories from the library to see if I like them or not.
October 6, 2021
Conan-Doyle never had Sherlock Holmes engage in the search for Jack The Ripper [the 1890s equivalent of "too soon", I suppose], but plenty of other writers did. Edward Hanna's story is as good as any I have read. He does his best to stay accurate to both history and the Canon; it is extremely well foot-noted. Unfortunately Mr Hanna passed away in 2008, so no more will be forthcoming.
December 25, 2021
This book was quite good.
I really liked the Sherlock bbc series so I already went into the novel with high hopes, and, they were fulfilled.
Only negative note is that the Victorian language used was a little annoying at times.
The ending was mediocre but the build up to it and everything else earns this books 4 stars.
I really liked the Sherlock bbc series so I already went into the novel with high hopes, and, they were fulfilled.
Only negative note is that the Victorian language used was a little annoying at times.
The ending was mediocre but the build up to it and everything else earns this books 4 stars.
May 7, 2022
Interesting twist on a well known story. Sherlock Holmes investigating history's most intriguing unsolved crime is a surprising plot. The dialogue of some of the characters took me out of the story a little. It was written in a way that mimicked accents and regional dialects that left me feeling as if I had to translate instead of be immersed in the story. But still was a great read!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 110 reviews