Reviews

I adore Enola Holmes. She's quirky, smart, and the definition of a strong female character. This book doesn't disappoint. If you've read other Enola books, you are sure to like this one as well.

Thanks to Netgalley for a copy of this book in exchange for my honest opinions

cardaisy's review against another edition

Go to review page

adventurous funny lighthearted mysterious medium-paced

Plot- or character-driven? Plot
Strong character development? No
Loveable characters? Yes
Diverse cast of characters? No
Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated

3.25

I had to get out my laptop to properly write and format this review so strap in. Slight spoilers for some plot points, but nothing super specific

I was very excited to get caught up with this before the new book comes out on Tuesday, but I actually feel a bit conflicted about this one, mainly for two very specific reasons

Cecily is very clearly written as having dissociative identity disorder (I'm trying to recall if this is retconned from the previous books or if it's actually alluded at in them, because previously the "left-handed"/right-handed" thing seemed more metaphorical but I'd have to give them a re-read). I feel like there was a real attempt from Nancy Springer to try and represent DID accurately (or at least not in the typical over sensationalized way), and it did feel refreshing for the person with DID to be a friend of the main character and not portrayed in an evil way, but there's definitely an undercurrent of "her right-handed side is worse and it's unfortunate when that's who she is". I've seen reviews saying that her having DID because of her left-handedness isn't plausible, but actually, from what I understand, DID is typically caused by early childhood trauma, and I think Nancy Springer was focusing in on the abuse she would've experienced because of her left-handedness, along with the general abuse her father likely put her through.

But I don't know, I feel like maybe minimal research was done? Like just enough to be used as a plot point, but not enough for genuine representation. It also felt very swept over, like it was solidly a plot point, but not a great amount of detail was put into it beyond that and it was vague in a lot of ways. I'd be really curious to see what someone with more knowledge on DID thought, but I haven't been able to find any reviews like that. I was also trying to find if Nancy Springer addressed it at all, but couldn't find anything. I actually think it would've been ideal if she had elaborated a bit in either a foreword/afterword, especially since this is a children's book and kids would likely have questions about Cecily. Even just reading through other reviews it seems clear that people are a bit confused and could've used some kind of author's note

Onto my second gripe, which is regarding a couple of characterization decisions that were made for Holmes. Don't get me wrong, I am willing to overlook a lot of things, especially since the sibling interactions are literally my favourite parts of these books (when he first showed up at "Dr Ragustin's" I fully had a Moment), BUT, I (not so) humbly disagree with a couple of specific things. I understand Springer's desire to stick to canon (or at least that’s my take on this choice), but I would argue that within the interpretation of the canon, Holmes still would've decided to support Enola more in her solution to Cecily’s problem. I re-read the Charles Augustus Milverton case (which I imagine heavily influenced his "The one thing I cannot abide by is blackmail" talk) and I stand by this. Like. It's not SOLELY the blackmail that makes Holmes describe Milverton as "the worst man in London", it's more to do with the way he manipulates people (particularly women) and ruins their lives. Like I'm sorry, this line could almost be about Eustace Alastair, but noooo Holmes couldn't possibly help to stop him: "(...) I would ask you how could one compare the ruffian, who in hot blood bludgeons his mate, with this man who methodically and at his leisure tortures the soul and wring the nerves in order to add to his already swollen money-bags?" Holmes would HATE Eustace and I feel would support Enola in her plan and you absolutely CANNOT change my mind.

Also, part of his refusal to help is along the lines of him being like "Enola, it's the LAW", and I also call bullshit, because if Holmes has shown anything, it's that he's sympathetic to a shitty situation. Like. You're going to tell me that Mr. "I have never loved, Watson, but if I did and if the woman I loved had met such an end, I might act even as our lawless lion-hunter has done", is going to look at a girl whose situation is so close to his own sister's and infinitely sympathetic and be like "nah, I can't help. It's against the law." Going back to the Milverton case, this is his final decision on the matter after debating what to do over a couple of days:

“ ‘My dear fellow, I have given it every consideration. I am never precipitate in my actions, nor would I adopt so energetic and, indeed, so dangerous a course, if any other were possible. Let us look at the matter clearly and fairly. I suppose that you will admit that the action is morally justifiable, though technically criminal. To burgle his house is no more than to forcibly take his pocketbook - an action in which you were prepared to aid me.’

I turned it over in my mind,

‘Yes,’ I said, ‘it is morally justifiable so long as our object is to take no articles save those which are used for an illegal purpose.’

‘Exactly. Since it is justifiable, I have only to consider the question of personal risk. Surely a gentleman should not lay much stress upon this, when a lady is in most desperate need of his help.’ “ (emphasis angrily added)

Oh what’s that? This illegal thing is morally justifiable and the only action, and putting himself at risk is worth helping out a woman who desperately needs his help? GAH. Not even to mention the other instances in which Holmes himself has broken the law (albeit mostly much more trivial, but STILL, if your morals were so sound, man, then you wouldn't be committing casual B&Es). Gosh. And I mean, he does still help Enola in other ways, but I don't understand his refusal for specific things like backing her up and lending her additional help. It would make more sense to me if he had refused by telling her that his involvement wasn't needed because she had things under control or something like that.

(also entirely off topic, but I need to share this small bit from CHAS because Watson was so ready to throw down and I love him so much: “[Milverton] stepped forward, took up his coat, laid his hand on his revolver, and turned to the door. I picked up a chair, but Holmes shook his head, and I laid it down again.” This whole story is great actually, everyone should go read/re-read it, it’s also the one with some hand holding, who doesn’t love that?)

Anyway. Thank you for coming to my TEDTalk

On a couple of smaller notes, the cyphers still do not translate well to audio format but that’s fair enough, and I really missed Holmes being the narrator of the prologue and epilogue, but it makes sense why it was Cecily instead. Also, it was very slight, but Enola, I will not abide by this Watson slander, stay in your lane

Anyway, this seems like mostly complaint, but it was still pretty enjoyable, though nowhere near first on my list of re-listen/re-reads. It did make me want to re-read the Peculiar Pink Fan and the Black Barouche though (for the Peak sibling content). I am so hoping the Mark of the Mongoose is better, it seems promising!

Content Warnings

bibliophil_leah's review

Go to review page

4.0

I really enjoy the Enola Holmes books. They are witty and interesting. I love Sherlock Holmes so this this perfect.

ina_loves_books's review

Go to review page

adventurous funny hopeful medium-paced

3.75

gunilla_reads's review against another edition

Go to review page

adventurous lighthearted mysterious relaxing medium-paced

Plot- or character-driven? Plot
Strong character development? N/A
Loveable characters? Yes
Diverse cast of characters? N/A
Flaws of characters a main focus? N/A

3.25

More...