Sherlock Holmes and the Fall River Tragedy

In this novel,”Sherlock Holmes and the Fall River Tragedy,” Owen Haskell has set out on a challenging set of tasks: he must remain true to the well-known and complicated facts of the real-life Borden case, write a Sherlock Holmes who is worthy of Arthur Conan Doyle’s legendary creation, and–last but hardly least–engage the reader.

His knowledge of the Borden case appears beyond reproach; as is a fiction writer’s prerogative, he changes some of the facts to “lies” (false facts?) for the purposes of his story. He has also created a convincing Sherlock Holmes.

Has he written a good book? “Sherlock Holmes and the Fall River Tragedy” is often witty. Most importantly, as befits a mystery, Haskell comes up with a surprise villain and supports his choice with truths from the case. (He does not exonerate Lizzie but provides her with an accomplice whose part in the crime credibly explains the eternal mystery of the undiscovered hatchet and Lizzie’s post-slaughter cleanliness.)

Haskell reprints Lizzie Borden’s inquest testimony in full and much of Bridget Sullivan’s as well. This was not necessary for the story line since the points made by them could have been more entertainingly integrated into the tale. It looks like the testimony was quoted verbatim to puff Haskell’s work to book-length.

Though it is more authentically a short story than a novel, “Sherlock Holmes and the Fall River Tragedy” is a good read and should provide both Holmes fans and Borden buffs with an afternoon’s diversion.

Previously published in “The Lizzie Borden Quarterly”

This entry was posted on Tuesday, August 26th, 2008 at 11:37 pm and is filed under Book Review, Culture, Domestic Violence, Entertainment, Family, Fatherhood, Mayhem, Media, Society, Vox Populi. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. | 159 views | Trackback | Print this page |

| More from Denise Noe