CW: murder, attempted murder, off-page rape, discussion of sexual assault, drug use/addiction, poisoning

I’m not and have never been a Sherlock Holmes fan in any way. I don’t see myself ever becoming a Sherlock Holmes fan. Books, shows, movies — none of it is for me. However, I picked this up because it sounded interesting and fun, and not to difficult for someone new to grasp. There’s been a fair amount of hype surrounding this book and its sequels, so I was expecting to enjoy it; I did, but it was also rather average.

I did like the mystery. I found it intriguing and it kept me on my toes. I had suspicions, some of which were correct in the end, but I would say it was well written and well plotted. Nothing was glaringly obvious or overly predictable. It was complicated enough to keep mystery fans one step behind, at least in my experience, without being unnecessarily complex, if that makes sense.

I also liked our protagonists, Charlotte and Jamie. I thought they were interesting and likable enough; however, they didn’t seem entirely original. They felt like a handful of tropes in a trench coat and a hat, tweaked enough to seem new but not actually anything I hadn’t seen before. I’m not sure if that comparison makes sense, but whatever.

My biggest complaint is that, like so many other mystery novels, this suffered from the clichéd antagonist monologue. I’m not sure how this started or whose idea it was, but I think most readers are tired of it. I know I am. In my opinion, if the story is written well enough, the antagonist’s motives and methods should be clear by the end of the book, sans monologue. I was a bit disappointed to see it again.

Another minor complaint is how suggestive the end of the novel was. Charlotte and Jamie grew to be good friends, with a relationship full of banter and butting heads that was purely, 100% platonic. I would’ve loved if it stayed that way, but no. I won’t give specific details, but the end does elude to them becoming more in future books. Of course, I have no way of knowing if this is true or not. I just wish more books would leave platonic relationships as they are. Friends can be friends without becoming romantically involved.

The last thing I want to bring up is a minute detail I noticed and found puzzling that was never explained: throughout the story, Arthur Conan Doyle is said to be the author of the Sherlock Holmes novels, yet Sherlock and Watson were real people with very real descendants. So which one is it? Am I missing something here?

I enjoyed this novel, though unfortunately not as much as I’d hoped. I plan to read at least the second one because I’m curious, but it’s not a priority. I do hope I like it more.