Scan barcode
A review by stucifer_
House of Silk by Anthony Horowitz
3.0
I want to rate this higher, because the plot and structure of the two seemingly disparate mysteries, one set into motion by the investigation of the other, is quite lovely. And Horowitz captures Doyle’s narrative voice for Watson really beautifully. He interweaves aspects of canon stories throughout, some more deftly than others (loved how he included Holmes’ ability to disguise himself, but the inclusion of Moriarty fell a bit flat for me).
However, I have two criticisms. One is my personal taste : I did not like that Horowitz gave Watson children and grandchildren. His canonical connections outside of Holmes were nebulous, at best; he got married, or was about to be married, or his wife was in the country, or whatnot is all Doyle ever gave us, and that was right. Holmes and Watson were the center of each other’s world, and achingly codependent. To give Watson a bustling family life, while Holmes very clearly would not have anything or anyone other than Watson, not only to me takes away how important Holmes was to Watson, but also takes away the most important thing to Holmes, as Watson as a father would of course not have as much time for Holmes. It makes me mourn for the detective, to be left alone in that way.
My second point is not specific to Sherlock Holmes, and it’s less about my personal taste than about a criticism of culture. This book uses, with no warning to the reader, the sexual assault and abuse of children as a plot twist, as a shock of depravity. It uses trauma for shock value. This is cheap and lazy writing, and is a cruel thing to do to your readers without warning. This should not have been published without an acknowledgement in the blurb that the plot contained CSA; that is too awful a thing to come upon reading by surprise. Publishing needs to get in the habit of content warnings. Furthermore, writers should stop using sexual assault and child abuse as narrative fodder for shocking twists. That’s not to say I think it shouldn’t be written about, but it should be done so with the sensitivity it deserves, and not as a plot device, as done here. Unfortunate and upsetting.
However, I have two criticisms. One is my personal taste : I did not like that Horowitz gave Watson children and grandchildren. His canonical connections outside of Holmes were nebulous, at best; he got married, or was about to be married, or his wife was in the country, or whatnot is all Doyle ever gave us, and that was right. Holmes and Watson were the center of each other’s world, and achingly codependent. To give Watson a bustling family life, while Holmes very clearly would not have anything or anyone other than Watson, not only to me takes away how important Holmes was to Watson, but also takes away the most important thing to Holmes, as Watson as a father would of course not have as much time for Holmes. It makes me mourn for the detective, to be left alone in that way.
My second point is not specific to Sherlock Holmes, and it’s less about my personal taste than about a criticism of culture. This book uses, with no warning to the reader, the sexual assault and abuse of children as a plot twist, as a shock of depravity. It uses trauma for shock value. This is cheap and lazy writing, and is a cruel thing to do to your readers without warning. This should not have been published without an acknowledgement in the blurb that the plot contained CSA; that is too awful a thing to come upon reading by surprise. Publishing needs to get in the habit of content warnings. Furthermore, writers should stop using sexual assault and child abuse as narrative fodder for shocking twists. That’s not to say I think it shouldn’t be written about, but it should be done so with the sensitivity it deserves, and not as a plot device, as done here. Unfortunate and upsetting.