A different writer and narrator. Penelope Rawlins sounds like she is 14, didn't research the narrative - misprounouced Patron and Acela (it's long "O" on Patron, and A-cel-a, not Ace-la). Her male characterization are laughable. The writing is simply lame, again high schoolish, with long redundant descriptions that seems to be written towards word count only.
How didn't she. Never use her again, please.
It was cheap.
Do I need to?
Great concept of a time worn "good guy trapped in a prison"plot. Well thought out in terms of premise. Unforturnately the execution is horrible. First the authors tell us what will happen. Then they tell us what is happening. Then they tell us what just happened. And if we didn't get it the first three times, they come back and run through the series again! This book needed an editior badly, but then it would only be a third as long. It's a shame because you really care about the characters. It is just glacial....
Either the bar is very low or folks can't recognize hackneyed plot lines and "oh, no, don't go in there" cliched literary devices. Wished that this book was over many times during the narration and stayed in it only to see how the author wound up the book. What the author needed was a very good editor. Cut this book down from 15 plus hours to a solid 9 would do wonders for the story. And lose the danish accents - distracting at best and insulting at worse.
The narration - Derek Jacobi is very good, though his portrayal of Holmes was his weakest characterization. Very whiny.
No - Not very Holmesian. The characters are there, the setting is there but the heart of what makes Holmes is missing.
Ran some sections of the narration at triple speed - just too cheesy to listen to.
The book jumped the shark for me when Horowitz resorted to the lamest of plot devices: putting the protagonist out on the highest of tree limbs. He has Holmes set up for murder in the most unHolmesian way - the old "don't be an idiot and go in that door, Oh he went in that door" type of set up. Holmes would never go into that circumstance without utilizing all of his resources, having worked out plans B though F. Horowitz instead had Holmes acting as an B movie idiot. Very disappointing.
From the tedium of the writing to the plotting of the character arcs to the silly insipid contrivances to advance the plot. Writer lacks the basic imagination to go from plot point A to plot point B. Then the repetitive peachiness of the political situation at the time of Mandela and DeClerk. The Author ruined what could have been a first rate thriller..
No, only this author
Take some acting lessons.
Too numerous to mention. This work could have be done in 20 chapters.
There is no possible way this deviation from the norm could have been a 4-5 star book. From the boring, laborous extremely long set up to the cardboard cutout supporting characters, the author indeed, to use Holmes words in the being of this drivil, "conducted an experiment". It failed miserably. It got to the point where I was daydreaming, missed some plot, and DIDN'T CARE. Just wanted it to end.
And end it did, with a abysmal Hollywood wrapup, shallow and contrived. This was simply a "pay the mortgage" piece of work, done purely for revenue or to sastify a contractual obligation.
Not write it. That being said, Russell on her own is simply not a strong enough character to carry a plot for such an extended time. It is her interplay with Holmes, much like Nick and Nora, and other detective couples of note, that makes the work have legs. Too little Holmes and all the rest of the trappings sag into tedium. Russell's independence streak becomes annoying, the exigious on the historical milieu become irritating and the pacing become lumbering. Stay true to your original muse, Ms. King and you will create a portfolio to rival and yea, surpass Robert Parker. "Experiment" at your peril.
Holmes. But even he could not save this work.
A third of the first 2/3rds. But then it would have become a short story.
Report Inappropriate Content