Book Review: Castle Shade

Castle Shade

Laurie R. King

A Review by J. R. Stefanie

(Full Disclosure: I have been an active Sherlockian for more than sixty years, having published and reviewed pastiches and written critical articles for various journals and Sherlockian societies. This review, therefore, is written within that context.)

I came to read Castle Shade not without some trepidation. The premise that Sherlock Holmes would have taken on a fifteen year old girl while in his retirement and over the course of a decade (1) made him a partner in his ‘Agency’ and (2) made her his wife. If you accept, as I do, this series is not an attempt to embrace the Sherlockian world, but offered as an alternative Sherlockian universe, then it is a palatable offering, much like Sherlock Holmes in Space; not according to the Canon, but an experiment in fiction.

The publisher’s description of the book: “A queen, a castle, a dark and ageless threat—all await Mary Russell and Sherlock Holmes in this chilling new adventure” on completion of the book is found to be misleading. Holmes and Russell, after their sojourn in the Riviera, are found on a train heading for Roumania. Holmes had previously visited the country at the behest of Queen Marie who has requested his assistance in defining and thwarting a shadowy threat.

The location of the action, Castle Bran, is located on the border of Roumania and Transylvania, giving rise, at various points in the story, to allusions to vampires, witches, hexes, and all other manner of supernatural mischief. The shadowy threat involves the Queen’s daughter. The nature of the threat is undisclosed and the reason the young woman, Ileana, is under threat. It is the Holmes/Russell team that must sort this all out.

Again, from the publisher’s description:

“Shadowy figures, vague whispers, the fears of girls, dangers that may be only accidents. But this is a land of long memory and hidden corners, a land that had known Vlad the Impaler, a land from whose churchyards the shades creep.”

The general thrust of the full description is to raise the reader’s expectation of a horror mystery with an historical bent trading the familiarity and salability of vampirism in novels with the brand awareness of Sherlock Holmes.

Unfortunately, even as a story within the ‘alternative Sherlockian universe’, there are issues.

First, the Sherlock Holmes character is a cipher, that is a blank slate with so little personality that the reader can impress upon him their own values and ideals. Holmes drifts through the story as a shade, contributing little of substance (with a few more interesting moments nearing the end of the book) and therefore cast, in my mind, as a secondary character, as is the witch-like person who identifies hexes. Even in an alternative universe, Holmes should be more strongly portrayed. If it is assumed that readers of these (or other Holmes-centric fiction) do not need to have the character fully developed because ‘everybody knows who Sherlock Holmes is so no more need be said’ is a false assumption. The ‘historical’ or ‘our universe’ Sherlock Holmes was defined, in broad strokes, but Conan Doyle, leaving us with the opportunity to color within the lines and draw out an increasingly complex individual. This was not done in this case.

Second, the book is overly long. The core plot itself is thin; the number of interacting characters relatively few for a work of such length, and the important actions of the prime characters ‘clumped’ into sections of the book. One is not drawn along the investigation; one is dropped into points of it. The greater part of the story is actually a series of history lessons and vast descriptions of the countryside, the castle, and anything else that does not require thirty words to describe when two will do. While credit must be given for the depth of historical knowledge, most of it is erudition, not story telling. As S.S. VanDyne, in his 20 Rules for Writing Detective Stories quite properly writes (in Rule 16) “The detective "novel" must be just that, no side issues of "literary dallying" or "atmospheric preoccupations." These devices interfere with the purpose of detective fiction, "which is to state a problem, analyze it" and solve it.” I fully concur with the Rule as the detective novel is designed to drive a story forward with the reader engaged in the solution of a crime, or potential crime.

Third, there are two ‘voices’ in the book; Mary Russell is the narrator for most of the book, but there are three or so chapters where Holmes is off on a mission. These activities are seen through the eyes of an ‘off-screen narrator’. Since Mary Russell is, for all intents and purposes, the narrator of the story, the activities of Sherlock on his own are hidden from her. It is the author’s task to bring Holmes’ hidden activities into the narrative, by the narrator (Russell), without resorting to the off-screen (God) narrator.

Fourth, the language is not consistent with the mid-1920s. I had begun recording anachronisms, expressions, and writing styles which did not accord with the Roaring Twenties, but gave up as the number was legion. By mid-book, any effort at linguistically locating the characters in the 1920s was abandoned. At this point Mary Russell’s expressions and voice are little different from that of Kinsey Milhone.

Fifth, the VanDyne rule “The reader should have the same opportunity as the detective to solve the crime.” is violated. When we come to the resolution of the story (Chapter 46!), it isall laid out for us. From there on it is a chase scene.

If I were to rate this story, I would give it 2 and 1/2 stars, mostly for the historical depth, the extensive and excellent vocabulary, not for the plot or the structure of the novel. IMHO, the book’s editor (unless s/he were responsible for Diana Gabaldon’s Outlander series) would have urged paring its page count down, expanding the underlying driving narrative, and reducing literary flourishes to a minimum.

#CastleShade #NetGalley