Leonard Goldberg (2) (1936–)

The Abduction of Pretty Penny had me (metaphorically) on the edge of my seat. Whom do we associate with murders in Whitecastle? Yes, you are no doubt thinking of Jack the Ripper. But this is 1917. Has Jack returned? Is this a copycat?

Pretty Penny, an attractive, aspiring actress, has been abducted. But can Joanna Blalock and John Watson solve the kidnapping and recent deaths before Bad Things Happen? The author plays fair with the reader, so the question is, can it be discovered along with show more Joanna, or do we stumble along with her faithful chronicler?

I thoroughly enjoyed the book and would recommend the series to fans of historical mysteries or Sherlock Holmes. show less

Joanna Blalock is the consummate "plod"; she even has a magnifying glass with her at all times. The contrast between her and ordinary coppers, as personified by Lestrade and the oaf from ONI, is almost painfully manifest in this enjoyable Sherlockian pastiche. She has two Watsons to support her and has even resurrected the "irregulars" as she seeks to find the missing Treaty. An old estate, hidden rooms, and a mysterious stranger all keep the pot boiling; though, one might wonder how the show more stranger afforded his hotel lair. show less

I hope Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is resting in peace; should he ever read this novel, he would be aghast. There are so many Holmes’ retellings and adaptations and some of them have merit; this is not one of them.

In 1910, seven years after the death of Sherlock Holmes, Dr. Watson and his son, Dr. John Watson, end up joining Joanna Blalock (Holmes’ daughter with Irene Adler) to investigate the death of Charles Harrelston. His family disputes the ruling of his death as a suicide. As the trio show more investigates, more deaths occur, all linked to Christopher Moran, whose father was Sherlock Holmes’ enemy.

The majority of characters are the children of the original cast. Besides the three already mentioned, Miss Hudson and Inspector Lestrade are the children of Mrs. Hudson and the Scotland Yard inspector respectively. Even a dog has connections to a dog in The Sign of Four?! A grandchild has the same birthmark as his grandfather? And each of the children has exactly the same role as the parent?! Obviously, there are no kudos to the author for originality.

Joanna is supposed to be very observant and intelligent but any astute reader will find the clues obvious and her deductions predictable. The only time the reader cannot make identical deductions is if information is withheld. This woman is unfamiliar with the Star of David (127)? This woman, a nurse who has attended autopsies, doesn’t know about petechiae?

She is not the only character who doesn’t always know what would be expected. Dr. Watson is so dense that he seems to have learned nothing from his time with Sherlock. For example, he keeps being shocked at the fact that murderers come from all walks of life: “’A doctor and a fusilier, and he turns out to be a cold-blooded murderer!’” (61) and “’A distinguished doctor with aristocratic bearing, and he commits blatant murder’” (119). Neither he nor his son, both medical doctors, wouldn’t immediately recognize a tourniquet (120)? Dr. Watson, a pathologist, doesn’t know that a walking stick with a rounded top would cause a round fracture until he is given a demonstration (84)?

Furthermore, some of their actions make no logical sense. When they find an intruder, they attack him and could easily subdue him but they just let him go (219)? The trio approach an expert to help them decode a message, but don’t show him the actual message until the expert says, “’Perhaps if I examined the message I might be able to give more assistance’” (183)? Joanna has to come out of hiding to examine an object when Dr. Watson could have easily done that (163) and not risked exposure? Then in another pivotal scene, the person charged with watching the criminal’s every move isn’t the one who has the revolver (279)? They place a patient who has undergone a serious, life-threatening procedure in a side room full of medical equipment and supplies (266) “where he could be carefully monitored” (286)?

There are other things that make no sense. A tourniquet used by a criminal “’must have slipped beneath the cushion [of a chair] where [he] could not find it’” (120)? Dr. Watson is given four sutures for an incision “barely deep enough to break the skin” and must be told to watch for infection (219)? The trio is almost run down by a horse and carriage on a foggy night and they assume it is a deliberate act perpetrated by the mastermind criminal even though he would have no way of knowing they would be out (271-272)?

Of course, everyone else is even more incompetent. Inspector Lestrade knows nothing about carrying out an investigation since he doesn’t even examine the scene of a death. The pathologist who examines the body of the first victim likewise makes assumptions. Joanna and the Watsons seem astute only because everyone else is totally inept.

What is especially irritating is that the author thinks the reader is stupid too. There is so much mansplaining. The reader is told all about the Rosetta Stone (178) and given the astonishing information that the letter e is the most commonly used letter in the English language (179-180). Nearsightedness is explained as though the word itself isn’t self-explanatory (35). Does anyone not know that if a person chokes on his own vomit, there would be evidence of it in and about his lips and mouth (103)?

Dialogue is stilted and unnatural. Dr. Watson resides at 221b Baker Street and during a conversation there says, “’Some years later there was a knock on the door to [Sherlock’s] rooms at 221b Baker Street’” (66)? A child, speaking to his mother about his dog, says, “’I have noticed this [behaviour] on numerous occasions with our golden retriever, Oliver’” (170). The mother wouldn’t know the breed of the dog in her home?

Though the book may be intended as a form of homage, it is a very amateurish attempt to copy Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. I certainly would not recommend it to a Sherlockian.

Note: Please check out my reader's blog (https://schatjesshelves.blogspot.com/) and follow me on Twitter (@DCYakabuski). show less

Tense and diverting!

A thoroughly mezmerizing chase that piles fact upon fact with Sherlock Holme's daughter Joanne smoking Turkish cigarettes and deducing information from both what is present and what is not.
The aside factor of her son Johnny coming home from Eton declaring that he only needs a home tutor is something Joanne handles beautifully. And of course there are tentacles attached to the current case that see Johnny coming home.
It's November 1915. An awfully clever, high ranking show more codebreaker, has gone missing and as Joanne, her now husband John Watson, and her father-in-law, Dr. Watson go on the hunt the bodies pile up. Joanne deduces that Alistair Ainsworth, "was not taken prisoner in his workplace, but somewhere outside the agency, preferably in a secluded location where no one could see the capture or hear his cry."
The logical development around clues and the pursuit of the these by Joanne is a thing of beauty, as the mystery builds towards resolution. As Joanne points out clues, "will not be handed down to you on a platter ... they must be sought and placed in order." She does this with breathtaking accuracy.
Roles of the Holmsian characters have switched somewhat adding a certain piquancy to the work. Quite an invigorating read and another excellent series that joins the many Holmsian spinoffs.

A St. Martin's Press ARC via NetGalley show less