Last
summer I finally decided to read this novel, a pastiche by noted
British author Anthony Horowitz, one of my very favorite authors when I
was young. Back then, AH wrote mostly Dickensian tales of orphans up
against supernatural forces--sort of like a cross between Dickens
himself and H. P. Lovecraft. The Power of Five series is of note here,
and I refer to
original 80's series, (which few have probably heard of these days)not the 2000s reboot, which frankly, I just couldn't get into.
Anyway, A H has been writing for British TV almost as long as he's been writing, for series like
Poiret.
It's not surprising to learn he's a huge Sherlock Holmes fan, or that,
given his his background in the genre, his two Holmes pastiche novels
are critically acclaimed, and even "endorsed" (whatever that means) by the
Conan Doyle estate. Does that mean, I've wondered, that these stories
are part of the Holmes canon? I doubt that, since a pastiche is still a
pastiche, but the Holmes estate approves the work, and that's a huge
thing for a pastiche writer.
A H"s first Holmes novel,
House of Silk,
was a rousing adventure, with incredible twists and turns, and a cameo
my Holme's's arch-villain, Moriarty, who is (I won't give away how),
introduced to John Watson
prior to the events in "The Final Problem." The author had to manipulate things a bit to do this, but it still works.
Moriarty, however, though it's sort of a followup to
House of Silk, is
not a straight Holmes pastiche; in fact, it's difficult to determine
exactly what it is. As its title indicates (as does the tiny scene on the
cover, framed against a lurid red background), the book focuses on the
apparent death of the Napoleon of Crime, after he and Holmes apparently
plunged to their deaths at Richenbach Falls in Switzerland. Holmes fans
are familiar with the fact that Holmes was later revealed to have
survived--thanks to constant clamoring of Doyle's fans. The fate of
Holmes's arch-nemesis, however, remains unrevealed in the canon. We may
assume his death, as Doyle never wrote otherwise. However, it's far from
a closed case. It's something I've often wondered about, and what AH
has used as a springboard for this enthralling novel.
I'm not
exaggerating when I say this grabs the reader, pulls him/her in and
never and lets go till the final page, almost literally. It's one of the
most suspenseful tales AH has written for a while, and he'd an
accomplished suspense writer. The story first concentrates on the
apparent death of Moriarty at Riechenbach, then shifts in pursuit of a
shadowy person who is believed to have inherited the mastermind's
criminal empire, a dreaded American crime baron named Clarence
Devereux, whom none has ever seen. Our protagonists are Fred Chase, a New York detective on Devereux's trail, and Athelney Jones from Scotland Yard, a genuine canonical character. While on the case, these two strike up a friendship that closely parallels that of Watson and Holmes, with Chase clearly the Watson analogue, even serving as the narrator. Early on, I half-suspected Inspector Jones of being Holmes in disguise, but this suspicion was discounted after they appear at Scotland Yard, and the parallel between Holmes/Watson and Chase/Jones became just too strikingly obvious. We learn later that Jones has immersed himself in inductive reasoning, and trained himself to think like Holmes does. At one point, they even consider settling down at Baker Street, and filling the shoes left vacant by the former crime-solving duo. As the Holmes is presumed deceased during the time of the events in
Moriarty, neither the real Holmes nor the real Watson make an appearance, even as a cameo. Jones and Chase, however, fill their respective roles so effectively that it almost can be read as a genuine Holmes mystery after all.
However, as the mystery deepens, and plot threads become ever more tangled (there are references and connections to other tales from the canon, such as "The Red-headed League"), it seems more and more about Devereux, and less and less about Moriarty. Indeed, I began to wonder if the author had forgotten the title of the book. Rest assured, however, that the Napoleon of Crime definitely
does play a part in all of this, and probably not what you might expect. There is, indeed, an incredible twist at the end which I definitely did not expect, and which forces one to see most of the events in the Devoruex case in a different light.
Moriarty is a tale that should more than satisfy Holmes fans, especially those speculating just what became of Holmes's nemesis after that presumably fatal plunge.
Two things of note here: 1) AH's porptrayal of Moriarty himself, both in this novle and
House of Silk appear more or less that of an
aberrant character. I am using the term "aberrant" here in the manner that the Palladium roleplaying game uses the term--to describe a character alignment as "evil, but honorable." Such characters are farily rare but they exist throughout fiction. Daniel Day Lewis's Bill the Butcher in
Gangs of New York qualifies.The actual bad guys in
House of Silk are such a despicable lot that even Moriarty detests and seeks to aide Holmes in bringing them to justice. An abarent character seeks to achieve his goals through (sometimes deadly) force, but refrains from harming chilren and other innocents. Since contact with Moriarty himself in the canon is sparse at best, it is impossible to say just how canonical AH's take on Moriarty actually is, but it's certainly intrigueing.
2) POSSIBLE SPOILERS HERE> DO NOT READ FURTHER IF YOU PLAN ON READEING THE BOOK.
The big twist in Moriarty has to do with the identity of the narrator. I suspected that Jones might turn out to be someone else entirely, but not the narrator. Actually the twist is old one, though not that frequently used. This kind of thing has been done before: I've read "Yours Truly, Jack the Ripper," by Robert Bloch, and "Satan Claus" by David Gerald, both horor stories. But somehow, I didn't see it here--maybe because I got a mental picture early on that resembled the rotund versions of Watson, which wouldn't fit his actual appearance at all. In fact, one real question I have about the narrator is: wouldn't his appearance have given him away to Jones and the other characters? He'd have to be six feet tall or more. AND he's have to resemble a certain stiff found early on. That's kind of an elephant standing in the living room. You couldn't make a film version of
Moriarty without the big twist being revealed to most of the audience early on. Since Doyle depicted Jones as something of a bumbler, perhaps that's why he couldn't see what was in front of his face the entire time!
