This is the liveliest and most diverting of the Val Andrews patiche Holmes novels ,mainly I think because it is relatively traditional in approach and correspondingly feels slightly more authentic than most of the others.
Holmes and Watson go undercover as members of a secular monastic society in Sussex ,where two of the seven members have recently died following receipt of a letter from an unknown source.The prior is anxious to ensure the group is not further depleted.
The mystery proves linked to the theft some years earlier of a precious jewel and before the solution is revealed we get ersatz "ghostly"appearances from Roundheads and Cavaliers ,the wholesale slaughter of livestock and fish ,not to mention a guest appearance from Inspector Lestrade.

There is an explicit reference to The Hound of the Baskervilles in the text and the similarities are there ,although Andrews operates on a much lower level of competence and ambition .As with that novel Holmes is absent for much of the running time and there is a red herring in the form of a supernatural undertone ,which proves to be a cloak for the flesh and blood nature of the crime and the novel is set in a remote part of the British Isles.
Things get a little more philosophical than usual in the last 10 or so pages with Watson revealed as having qualms about capital punishment .These are slightly at odds with the rest of the book which is an enjoyable and lightweight read

For some reason I enjoyed this novel a bit more than the other Holmes pastiches produced by the prolific Val Andrews over the past couple of years. In fact, I read it in one sitting, not too difficult since it weighs in at only 123 pages.

Perhaps I like it because it is a bit more traditional in structure than the usual Andrews Holmes novel. The leader and founder of a non-religious monastic order inhabiting the old Grimstone Priory comes to Baker Street with a strange problem for Holmes. Two of the order's seven members have died shortly after receiving letters, and a third member has just received a similar letter. Holmes and Watson join the order as two replacements for the dead monks (the number of monks is maintained at precisely seven), and Holmes proceeds to investigate, soon deciding that the key to the murders lies in an unsolved jewel robbery which occurred at Grimstone years before, when it was the family home of the Grimstones.

There are a number of echoes of HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES, which is explicitly referred to, and (as all too often in Holmes pastiches) the approach adopted by the villain is preposterously roundabout and indirect, considering his goal as ultimately revealed. [He could have "harvested" the large perch and vanished at any time, without subjecting the monks, Holmes and Watson to 95 pages of ultimately irrelevant antics, but then, I guess, we should have had no novel!]

There are some nice characterizations, some good surprises, and a pleasant read in store for anyone who tries this particular Andrews novel.

The first half of this classic by Doyle The Tragedy of Birlstone is exciting mystery, Doyle at his absolute best. A wealthy man turns up dead, and Holmes must find his killer, or so everybody thinks. The mystery ends up taking a 180 degree twist, one I never would have predicted. It's absolutely thrilling.
The second half of this book The Scrowrers, I'm not even sure why Doyle bothered. It is supposed to be a "prequel" to the first half of the book, and it falls flat. Holmes and Watson play only a bit part at the end of the book. I will say this however, the action is fast paced. There is much more violence in this section of the book than I've found in other Holmes mysteries. It does explain some details found in the first half of the book, but in my mind it didn't need to have an entire 100 or so pages dedicated to this detail. You can read the first half of the book and skip the second without feeling like you're missing a thing.

At the year 1893, Doyle was sick of Holmes. Some people say he was jealous that the character he made up was more famous than he was, and he claimed that he wanted to concentrate on more "serious" writings.

By the year 1902, people have boycotted all the writings of Doyle, and they even quit going to his clinic for counsels. He was about to declare his bankruptcy. And he was trying to write a story about a myth of an enormous dog haunting the life of people in some area of Britain. He wrote the story with some new characters, but finally found that writing it with Holmes as the hero would make much better, and it would be easier than making up some new environment for the characters. People were happy, but the problem was that the story takes place in a time interval before his acclaimed death in the "Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes."

He, then, is forced to resurrect Sherlock Holmes in the "Return of Sherlock Holmes," at the year 1905, which is a collection of 10 short stories. He, then, stops writing Holmes's stories, without killing Holmes, which was a clever move. But then people were at a rage and wanted some Holmes's adventures, and Doyle had to write something, but this was not any earlier than 1914, in "The Valley of Fear," 9 years after his last appearance.

In this book, he uses almost exactly the same method of writing he used in his first book, "A Study in Scarlet." That is, he cut the story into two parts, the first one featuring Holmes, and the second one does not mention Holmes at all accept at the very end of it. People did not like that because Holmes only appears at half of the story.

And let me tell you, that the first half, which features Holmes, was not all that insightful. It was not all that clever. It was the second part that appealed to me. It was a very nice plot. And, as a matter of fact, it explained the story of the villain in the first part. There was a twist at the end, and I am sure that Mme. Christie had used it in one of her detective, Poirot's, major mysteries. I am not going to mention it, since it is going to spoil the plot of both mysteries. If you really need to know it, send and email at karitaru at hotmail.com.

And after all the book is a nice read, and is much better than its predecessor, "The Hound of Baskervilles," and I really recommend it.

Although it includes most of the information I found in Fodor's, it wasn't as detailed. It's as if the writer assumes the reader knows his way around Hanoi or other larger cities. Top sights to visit are blurred together. Maps were difficult to read.

While the Insight Guides do not provide the best info as far as hotels and restaurants, they give excellent background info and tourist info. A great resource.

I am reading the Mary Russell books in order so I, obviously, don't have a problem with the premise of Mary and Sherlock working together. My problem with "The Moor" is that Mary is reduced to a mere plot device in the first half of the book. The only reason she is there is to give author King an excuse to write a Sherlock Holmes mystery. When Mary finally gets going in the second half, her role is much more diminished than in previous adventures. The second half of the book does make it all worthwhile, though. While not outstanding, "The Moor" is a decent read for fans of the Mary Russell series. If you haven't read any before, though, for heaven's sake don't start here. Go back to "The Beekeeper's Apprentice" and welcome aboard.

"The Moor" is the fourth in the series of Mary Russell novels by acclaimed mystery author Laurie R King. For those who haven't kept up to date on the plot developments of the series - Russell is a young woman in her mid-20s and happens to be married to Sherlock Holmes (who is in his 50s or so). In their 1920s world, this partnership investigate a series of mysteries together.

"The Moor" takes place in Devonshire, more specifically around Dartmoor. As any Holmes fan can tell you, Dartmoor is the site of Baskerville Hall and thus the site of "The Hound Of The Baskervilles" - arguably Holmes' most famous case. Holmes is staying with his elderly friend, the Reverend Sabine Baring-Gould, and invites Russell to join him (she is engrossed in theological research).

It soon becomes apparent that the folktales of the Moor have come to life again. A ghostly carriage has been seen racing through the Moor, a large dog has made some appearances...and a local tin-hunter has died. Holmes, as a favour to Baring-Gould, has agreed to investigate.

What follows is pure Holmes. The smallest thing (in this case, a hedgehog) provides a major breakthrough in the case and a host of shady characters appear to be up to no good. In typical King fashion, Mycroft makes an appearance - this time by requiring Holmes to check on the progress of a top-secret military vehicle stored at the army base on the Moor. Holmes' comment to Russell when she queries the need for such a vehicle following "the war to end all wars" is a cynical one, based around the idea that war is inevitable. As we all know, Holmes was right.

The setting of this novel in Devonshire has enabled King to have a considerable amount of licence with the local dialect. Devonshire men don't drink beer, they drink "zyder" (cider) and so on. Perhaps most charming is the nickname Holmes was given during the time of "Hound", "Znoop Zherlock". Russell acquires one of her own, although much to her feminist chagrin it is "Zherlock Mary".

Another feature of the setting is that King again plays travel writer, much as she did in "A Monstrous Regiment Of Women" (the second part of the series). Where King's descriptions of the Middle East left a little to be desired, her evocation of Dartmoor - a place which Russell grows to love - is significantly better. The reader can almost feel themselves at the top of the Tor looking out on the bleak expanse.

King's humour is also more prevalent here. Upon being asked "What is it, Holmes?", Holmes responds with the wonderful, "What is what, Russell? I do wish you wouldn't ask me questions with no grammatical antecedent". Holmes' additions to Russell's list of important events are also slyly humorous.
It is not only Holmes' wit on show here. The Devonshire locals all exhibit a dry sense of humour which alternately exasperates and charms both detectives.
A particularly well-written scene deals with Russell's first-person account of riding a horse across the Moor. Without ever having taken this action, I found myself laughing out loud at the sardonic humour with which Russell gets used to the foibles of her mount.

As well as playing "guide to Devonshire", King also provides some interesting information about English folksongs - a passion of Baring-Gould. These insights in themselves, along with the scene of the "singing battle" between the Moor men and the villagers, are worth the read.

Of course, Holmes could hardly appear on Dartmoor without some sort of "Baskervilles" reference. In this case, the old Hall has been purchased by an American who made his money in Alaska. At dinner at Baskerville Hall, the man's secretary proves himself an avid Conan Doyle fan. Even Holmes himself suggests to Russell that she read Conan Doyle's work again to pick up what proves to be a relatively irrelevant clue - but a recurrent theme of King's work is the difference between the reality of Holmes' work and the version of it portrayed by Doyle.

In the event, the solution to the mystery appears almost to come from thin air. In this case, there is a section during which the reader is presented with all the clues to see what they can do with them - although there is not much of a chance that the average reader will come to the same conclusion Holmes and Russell do.

Where "The Moor" suffers is by its references - on a regular basis - to "Baskervilles". While King has done a good job of returning someone else's literary creation to the scene of one of his great triumphs without simply retelling the story, there is certainly something to be gained by reading "The Moor" with a copy of "Baskervilles" nearby. This is not a major problem, but King does become heavy-handed in her references at times.

Overall, this book should be taken as the fourth in the series and should be read after the first three. This is to ensure that the reader does not miss anything in the dynamic between the two partners. As a mystery novel, "The Moor" holds up quite well and can be recommended - although more to those who are already familiar with Russell.

While "The Moor" is not up to "Beekeeper's Apprentice"'s promise, I still pity Ms. King. It's the crowning irony of her career that when an author writes a book this good, she will inevitably not please everyone. Fans of the Holmes-Russell detecting duo will cry foul over this mystery's lukewarm punch. Fans of the emotionally satisfying Holmes-Russell courtship and marriage will sift "The Moor" for bodice-ripping scenes--in vain. And fans of the Sherlock Holmes Canon will yell automatically, but we who love her books them anyway.

Still, it's one of her best, and for the same reasons all her Mary Russell books--even the weak ones--are good. Dartmoor unfolds before us as a kind of moral proving ground, a Presence. We are introduced to Sabine Baring-Gould in the winter of his prolific life, and to his house, which is another Presence--ramshackle, book-lined, with the smell of dinner wafting through to the dusty library. Ms. King knows what she likes, and delivers: innumerable fires in the grate, banked up against the storm outside, and chairs drawn up to the fire-irons, and the tea-things close to hand. She knows Holmes looks must fetching slumped in a fireside chair at 2 a.m., his fingers steepled as he ruminates a difficult case with Mary.

And she knows that what her fans really want is not merely a cold-blooded mystery nor an incongruous bodice-ripper, but for her characters to be true to the real adult people they so obviously are, and to love each other. Which they do, in spades. Holmes' unspoken devotion to Baring-Gould was nicely understated. And King's most romantic scene in the Beekeeper books occurs as Mary, in slightly over her head while sleuthing, paces the floor for Holmes' return. A deftly written moment, and one that makes me wonder how some readers could have so completely misunderstood what Laurie King was trying to say about the integrity of erotic love and emotional bonds.

Alas, "The Moor" was over too soon, and I was left immersed in an atmosphere of old books, old hymns, the power of the moor, and the passing of something grand and beautiful. Not bad, for a historical mystery.

A quaint mystery book that was a good quick read. However if one were looking to meet Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson in yet another adventure, you'd better look elsewhere. The author missed the essential Sherlock Holmes. For one, throughout the book both Holmes & Watson referred to Inspector Whittington as Charlie. While Watson may have occasionally lapsed into a first name basis, only on rare occasions would Holmes ever do so. Both their nature and the times would have required the more formal Inspector Whitington. Mrs. Hudson's home and Holmes and Watsons abode were altered from the orgiginal Conan Doyle descriptions of the 221B Baker Street residence. These are only two examples of where the author missed the essential Sherlock Holmes. Readers will no doubt find others as they read the book. It's a good little mystery book, but just not an essential Sherlock Holmes. Hopefully the aurthor will improve if he writes another Sherlock Holmes book.

Not your typical Sherlock Holmes mystery, but rather, an excellent suspense filled book from a first time author. The descriptions used painted a perfect picture. I could feel the dampness in the sewers of Paris and could hear the softness of Miss Cantaville's voice. The writer made me feel like I was actually there with Holmes and Watson doing my part to solve this latest mystery. I commend the author for venturing outside the box and bringing us a whole new side of Holmes and Watson that we've not seen before. I certainly hope Mr. Fullenkamp has another book to follow this one. This is one reader who wants to read more from this author.

Often when someone attempts to write a story using an established literary character, there is a danger of not capturing the original author's believability. However, in this story, Mr Fullenkamp does a marvelous job of recreating the characters of Holmes and Watson. The story is very exciting along with being a fun read. I look forward to the next book from this new author.

This book is a good starting point for the newly revised Windows 95 (70-064) exam. I just took it and scored 857 (minimum passing score is 632). The book goes into detail on topics that are heavily covered on the exam (networking with NT and NetWare, printing, system policies), and this makes it a great place to start studying. However, the 95 exam is full of nitpicky questions that are NOT covered in this book; you need additional sources to be completely prepared. In addition to buying this book, I'd recommend downloading the Win95 Resource Kit from Microsoft's Web site and spending some time going through it, especially troubleshooting. Also search the web for "70-064" to turn up helpful links. This is one of the hardest exams in the MCSE sequence, but if you use these sources you should be in good shape.

The 70-64 Windows 95 exam is tricky, but this book provides a very good foundation for the success. It does cover much more than is actually on the exam, and as such serves as a reference for the OS. I do think you will need to supplement study with the Windows 95 resource kit, but all the objectives on the exam are covered in the book. While the sample questions are sometimes lame (and really do not mimic the exam) there is an appendix which provides GREAT last minute study tips. The section on troubleshooting is fantastic, written by a person who obviously has spent time in the field wrestling with the same kind of problems administrators see every day. All in all, it is well worth the money I spent.

.... to pass the Win95 exam. This book is like all others in this series: Each test objective is examined in a seperate section while numerous fairly difficult questions test your knowledge. In addition, there are hands on exercises to reinforce the material. There are no pretty pictures here but this obviously helps keep the price at a very reasonable $25.00. The other recommended references would be the win95 resource kit and your hands on experience. A highly recommended book.

I have read all of Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories as well as a number of other short stories by the same (author). I have also read a number of other Holmes stories by various authors, I would recommend John T. Lescroart if you can get your hands on any of his out of print books.

The Monster of St. Marylebone was an enjoyable read, perhaps some minor disappointments. At one point in the book a word is uttered for which Holmes is unaware of it's meaning. It's extremely unlikely Doyle's Holmes would have been unaware of the meaning.

However all in all I would recommend this book to any fan of Sherlock Holmes. The plot moves along at a good clip and I am looking forward to other books on Holmes by this author.

Wayne Worcester's compelling portrayal of Holmes and Watson will appeal longtime Sherlock fans as well any reader who enjoys a complex, well developed mystery. This book will challenge the reader to rethink the relationship between Holmes and Watson. In his development of the protagonist, the author adds a dimension to the character not often evident in this genre. The settings were extraordinarily well depicted. This fascinating book kept me enthralled to the end and I look forward to more in this series.

Wayne Worcester does a magnificent job in his first book out, not only creating a chilling mystery but also making the characters of Watson and especially Holmes more human and vulnerable. For sure, this isn't Grandad's Sherlock but I found the Great Detective remains true to his character, even through trauma and a bit of romance. Watson is not just a note taker in this either; he is an intelligent man of action with hints of more depth than we've seen in long time. Nice period setting with a lot of Victorian England touches. The book is a thrill of minute and I could not put it down. I'm eagerly awaiting the second volume in the series.

I enjoyed "The Red Demon;" I enjoyed "The Ice Palace Murders" much less. I didn't enjoy "The Secret Alliance." I'm a Sherlock Holmes fan, not Shadwell Rafferty, and Millett seems to have become infatuated with his own character to the detriment of involving Holmes. If one is going to write Sherlock Holmes stories, then he needs to write Holmes stories, not give him a secondary role to one's own creation. Millett also seems to be increasingly enamoured with his own knowledge of Twin Cities history, and this sometimes gets in the way. We want Holmes, Mr. Millett, not Rafferty, and if you are going to give a leading role to your own creation, then don't try to allure a readership with mostly false claims about a Sherlock Holmes mystery.

How Sherlock Holmes' name can be used in the title with good faith is outside my understanding. I've read all of Millett's "Holmes" books, and this story is not only the most tedious, the most uninspiring and the least exciting, it is also the most non-Holmes mystery. We really only experience his presence toward the end of the novel, and then it is still only a shell of the Holmes we've seen from Millett in the past.
Shadwell Rafferty is a respectable character, but he is no Holmes. Please, next time just give us a real title like "Shadwell Rafferty and the Englishmen." At least that would be fair warning.

Unlike the first three books of the series, Holmes and Watson are secondary characters here with Shadwell Rafferty taking center stage, which means this book will be a disappointment to all but those readers who've developed as much of an attachment to Rafferty as to Holmes.

In fact, you'll need to go through more than 1/3 of the book before the Baker Street duo actually arrives in Minnesota, and even then, you'll never be reading the Watsonian-style chronicle you're accustomed to. Instead, Watson's contribution is presented in the form of hastily written journal entries, which are full of abbreviations parenthetically explained by Millett in his role as "editor." The other parts of the story are filled in with standard prose---more or less from Rafferty's point of view---but not written in his voice.

This creates a somewhat disjointed narrative, and worse, an irritating rhythm, the brief, fast-paced journal material always being followed by the longer, plodding prose.

It seems rather obvious that Millett used this book to shift his focus from Holmes/Watson to Rafferty and his partner, G. W. Thomas (Thomas is shown in a way that unmistakably parallels Watson), and I wouldn't be the least surprised if Millett evolves the series into one of Rafferty's own.

I'd be sorry to see a decently written Holmes series end, but I do like Rafferty, and think Millett deserves some praise for his creation and development of the character. I've also grown to admire Millett's ability to weave fictional characters and elements of mystery into his state's history (If you've been reading this series, but skipping his historical notes, you've actually missed a bit).

Ultimately, I rate the book only three stars because it doesn't have enough Sherlock to appeal strongly to a Sherlockian, and because if it is indeed a transitional volume between a Holmes series and a Rafferty series, it feels like an awkward transition.

I've been a lifelong fan of Holmes and Watson, and you'd have to have been living under a rock not to have heard tall tales about "the horrid, ghastly, nightmare of a story that would make Sir Conan Doyle spin in his grave". Naturally, I became intrigued to find it.

Let me warn you right off, Dibdin pulls ZERO punches. In his descriptions of setting, and in his portrayals of the characters. Holmes, at least in the beginning, is completely priceless. His reactions to ACD's mangling of "A Study In Scarlet", are worth stomaching the rest of the more gruesome aspects of this story if you bookmark that page and then go back to it when you need to laugh your head off in agreement. That drivel ACD put in the middle was so damn boring, I akways skipped over it when re-reading Study. But anyway. Back to this Dibdin account.

Either you will love this book, or you shall hate it worse than Holmes hated A Study in Scarlet. There is really no middle ground, to reading this book. I digested it in two days. It left me with mixed feelings, to be honest. On the one hand, there were a couple plot twists that were left hanging... ....

The ending was however, in a word, intolerable. .... Dibdin's use of Mycroft Holmes is if anything, tacit at best. One mention, from Holmes himself stating that the two brothers had been working on the case together. In the end, the book leaves me with one fact and one fact alone: on the issue of drugs, JUST SAY NO. Though there are some more vehement critics, who might well say the same for reading this book.

All I can tell you is, come at it with your own perceptions, not other people's. And perhaps, Mr. Dibdin may have improved his writing skills since that... curious attempt at a Holmes fiction, in the late 70's. To those who think the story good... glad you liked it. To those who think it's horrid and ghastly.... blame the 70's, ........

Let me say this first: this is not a novel for the squeamish. The Last Sherlock Holmes story is a visceral retelling of the events surrounding the Jack the Ripper murders with the fanciful addition of Holmes as chief investigator. Though the novel abounds with the trappings of classic Holmes stories -- the narration of Watson, the scalpel-sharp intellect of Holmes, even the pipe and Persian slipper -- the comparison ends there. Dibdin's Holmes is a man of deep complications, as is his Watson. The classic characters are given rich humanity, with sometimes frightening results. Though purists of the Holmes genre might quibble, this is a powerful and convincing novel, made all the more plausible by its inclusion of accurate details from the Ripper murders. How convincing is it? After I put the book down, the numb shock didn't wear off for at least two days. Read this book!

Brash, audacious, or perhaps blasphemous, are all expressions that the devotees of Arthur Conan Doyle could exclaim upon hearing that the final tale of Sherlock Holmes was to be re-written. There is literary precedent for this; at least two completed novels of Dickens were subjected to sequels by Authors who were not, and theories for solving the mystery of "The Mystery Of Edwin Drood", also by Mr. Dickens are vast in number. The latter exercise is not inappropriate as "Edwin Drood" stops in mid thought, as the Author left it for his dinner, and then a rest he was not to recover from. More recently "Gone With The Wind" was either the subject or the victim of a sequel as well. Why the fuss? The Bible is the most reproduced book in History, and if counted, might also take the crown for being offered in more variations than any other work as well. The revision here is to one story only, albeit the final one, but a challenge nonetheless.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is on record as not taking issue with others placing his creation in circumstances other than those he originally created. An example of his feelings is at the beginning of this work, but I leave that for the reader. The difference here is that the final story tells of the death of Mr. Holmes and his nemesis Moriarty at Reichenbach Falls.

The first diversion that makes this tale unique is the inclusion of the Whitechapel Murders. These acts were not fictional, but rather the results of the still infamous Jack The Ripper. The primary players remain the same, Holmes, Moriarty, and Dr. Watson. Dr. Watson relates the tale as he wrote it, and per this story had it locked away for 50 years after his death, when it then could be opened.

So the summer of 1976 is the setting Michael Dibdin begins his tale, and a very good one it is. It takes a great sensitivity to emulate writing that is so well known, to take the creations of another's pen and make them credible without being little more than a plagiarist. The more devoted of Mr. Doyle's readers may well refuse this read, but to do so would be to miss a great contemporary writer of the genre pay homage to, rather than besmirch the memory of Sir Doyle.

Much of what you read is familiar, the fundamentals of course are not. If you choose to spend the time you will have a wonderful read, even if you are the strongest of advocates for the original Author's work.

Apparently there is a whole narrow genre of Sherlock Holmes pastiches known to its fans as "Sherlockian Romances," in which the Great Detective is (against all the Canon) matched with some supposedly appropriate female. ...Well, in the present book we have Holmes saddled with a young woman who is (we are told on just about every page) so incredibly beautiful and so impossibly unsocial that she is irresistable to Holmes, who against all reason takes her off with him when escaping from the Reichenbach Falls and Moriarty's two henchmen. After three years of wandering the world, during which absolutely nothing of interest happens, Holmes returns to Baker Street and installs Elizabeth Sigerson as "Mrs. Sigerson," his personal secretary! The plot jumps abruptly to 1903 and some totally preposterous antics involving Col. Sebastian Moran. We are told that Watson, Lestrade, etc., never mention Elizabeth during all the post-Reichenbach pre-retirement period lest someone should try to distract Holmes by kidnapping or threatening Elizabeth. Why they couldn't do the same by attacking or kidnapping Watson, Mrs. Hudson, Billy, Wiggins, etc.... well, don't ask!

In the whole novel there is not a single character (including Holmes) who comes to life even for an instant. There is no plot, and all the characters, including Holmes, behave in a way both inexplicable and imbecilic. [For example, although we are told on every page that Elizabeth is so impossibly beautiful, etc., see above, that no man or woman can take his eyes off her, Holmes and Elizabeth waddle mindlessly and undisguised through Europe, always amazed when Moriarty's men track them down or trap them.]

The author's imagination runs pretty much on empty as far as having Holmes be away from Baker Street for three years, so for two of them Holmes and Elizabeth do nothing but tend goats and have wild, crazy nightly sex in an isolated Tibetan village. Holmes hikes to Lhasa, looks in at Mecca, and fiddles with coal-tar derivatives in France only because these are markers from the Canon, not because this novel's character would be motivated to do such.

Despite all the problems, I must say that Ms. Cooper-Posey is a competent writer. I kept turning the pages despite the lack of intellectual stimulation, lack of character development, and lack of any plot whatsoever. However, at the end, I must say that the total sum of enjoyment I experienced was quite small, and that the total burden of mild outrage at the way my time and interest had been taken advantage of was noticable.

As a reader who cut her teeth on the canon of the Sherlock Holmes books by Conan Doyle, as well as being a fan of the Mary Russell books by Laurie R. King, I found "Chronicles of the Lost Years" to be an entertaining addition to the list of Sherlock Holmes pastiches. Cooper-Posey manages to create a tale that is faithful to Conan Doyle. She's also created a new character and a relationship that casts the cold, mysogenistic Holmes in a role that has not been seen since "A Scandal in Bohemia." Narrated by Watson, with an ear faithfully attuned to Victorian dialogue, the atmosphere of the book is true to that of the originals. There are familiar villains and new characters, twists of plot and feats of deductive logic -- as well as an intriguingly ambiguous ending that cries out for a sequel. Fans of the genre will enjoy this book.

Fans have speculated for years about Sherlock Holmes' absence from Baker Street, a time refereed to as The Great Hiatus. Speculate no more! Tracy Cooper-Posey has soundly answered the call to fill in the missing gaps, and the result is a carefully crafted, gleefully created novel guaranteed to satisfy the most ardent mystery lover. Tracy offers a touch of romance in the character of Elizabeth Sigerson. Elizabeth is a daring heroine, able to shoot, wear men's clothing, and fight her way through life with her wits, intelligence, and grace. Because Elizabeth's presence must be kept secret, so evil characters like Moriarty have less ammunition with which to harm Holmes, she is the perfect excuse for the inconsistencies and mysteries found in Holmes stories. Holmes equal, Elizabeth holds heart for thirteen years, before Holmes' worst fear for her safety come true. In Chronicles Of The Lost Years, Watson records the events immediately following the death of Moriarty, when both Holmes and Elizabeth disappear for three years, and are presumed dead by the world. But Moran, Moriarty's head henchman, saw Holmes and Elizabeth escape cross country, and pursues them as they cross Europe on foot. They venture into Constantinople, Persia, and Tibet in search of answers and wisdom. They discovered the joys and simplicity of the nomadic life. But their return to London brings about a very turn of adventure. And while no one knows about Elizabeth, to keep her association with Holmes from making her a target, silence promotes its own kind of danger. This is not the typical steamy love story. Rather, it is a powerful adventure with a touch of heart. Tracy Cooper-Posey is a remarkable voice, whatever genre she chooses to indulge. Graceful, detailed, and original, her prose sings.

Cindy Penn Reviewer