Rating: 
Summary: Sherlock Holmes and the Adventrue of the Three Dragons
Review: A quaint mystery book that was a good quick read. However if one were looking to meet Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson in yet another adventure, you'd better look elsewhere. The author missed the essential Sherlock Holmes. For one, throughout the book both Holmes & Watson referred to Inspector Whittington as Charlie. While Watson may have occasionally lapsed into a first name basis, only on rare occasions would Holmes ever do so. Both their nature and the times would have required the more formal Inspector Whitington. Mrs. Hudson's home and Holmes and Watsons abode were altered from the orgiginal Conan Doyle descriptions of the 221B Baker Street residence. These are only two examples of where the author missed the essential Sherlock Holmes. Readers will no doubt find others as they read the book. It's a good little mystery book, but just not an essential Sherlock Holmes. Hopefully the aurthor will improve if he writes another Sherlock Holmes book.
Rating: 
Summary: A reader from Ohio.
Review: Although I am a Sherlock Holmes purist, I decided this book was very well written and displayed a wonderful imagination. The reading was fast, the plot very interesting. This book held my interest, even though it did take a different path from the original Holmes and Watson. Overall, I was very delighted and impressed with the writing style.
Rating: 
Summary: Nice try but. . .
Review: I doubt that Fullenkamp has ever actually read any one of the 57-odd Sherlock Holmes stories and novels by Conan Doyle. Fullenkamp's ignorance of late 19th Century British customs, culture, conversation and manners is almost total. [At one point Holmes refers to Queen Victoria, to her face, as "Queen Mother." And all the characters refer to one another by their first names throughout the novel.]The author also commits one of the most unforgivable sins of the beginning writer who is not a reader, the sin known to novelists as "said bookism." This is the avoidance of use of the word "said" at all costs. Characters never say anything, instead they remark, aver, inquire, grit, explode, answer, whisper... you get the idea. Ordinarily this defect in a novel is fatal, as bad as Chinese Water Torture... you forget what is going on and wait for the next awkward synonym with terror and disgust! But now to the good part, which actually makes the said bookism fairly harmless. Fullenkamp seems to be a born storyteller. The story moves briskly forward with no real letup. You keep reading despite all the problems with characters, dialogue, plot and overall concept. The motives and actions and plans of the stereotypical yellow-peril villain, Ming (who thankfully is never called "the Merciless") make no sense whatsoever from any standpoint. That Watson could consider Holmes a romantic rival for the affections of the lovely Miss Cantaville (yes, even the names of the characters are a problem) is preposterous. And so on. But you'll finish the book, no matter how horrified you may get at the author's almost total ignorance and almost pure ineptitude. Whenever anyone read any short story by the (fictitious) science fiction writer, Kilgore Trout, they were so overcome by the stunning originality of the ideas combined with the total incompetence of the fiction that they always burst out, "My God, if only you could write!!!!!" In Fullenkamp's case one is likely to exclaim, "My God, if only you could research!!!"
Rating: 
Summary: Inept, amateurish and... a good read!
Review: I doubt that Fullenkamp has ever actually read any one of the 57-odd Sherlock Holmes stories and novels by Conan Doyle. Fullenkamp's ignorance of late 19th Century British customs, culture, conversation and manners is almost total. [At one point Holmes refers to Queen Victoria, to her face, as "Queen Mother." And all the characters refer to one another by their first names throughout the novel.] The author also commits one of the most unforgivable sins of the beginning writer who is not a reader, the sin known to novelists as "said bookism." This is the avoidance of use of the word "said" at all costs. Characters never say anything, instead they remark, aver, inquire, grit, explode, answer, whisper... you get the idea. Ordinarily this defect in a novel is fatal, as bad as Chinese Water Torture... you forget what is going on and wait for the next awkward synonym with terror and disgust! But now to the good part, which actually makes the said bookism fairly harmless. Fullenkamp seems to be a born storyteller. The story moves briskly forward with no real letup. You keep reading despite all the problems with characters, dialogue, plot and overall concept. The motives and actions and plans of the stereotypical yellow-peril villain, Ming (who thankfully is never called "the Merciless") make no sense whatsoever from any standpoint. That Watson could consider Holmes a romantic rival for the affections of the lovely Miss Cantaville (yes, even the names of the characters are a problem) is preposterous. And so on. But you'll finish the book, no matter how horrified you may get at the author's almost total ignorance and almost pure ineptitude. Whenever anyone read any short story by the (fictitious) science fiction writer, Kilgore Trout, they were so overcome by the stunning originality of the ideas combined with the total incompetence of the fiction that they always burst out, "My God, if only you could write!!!!!" In Fullenkamp's case one is likely to exclaim, "My God, if only you could research!!!"
Rating:
Summary: Entertaining, predictable, NOT SHERLOCKIAN at all!
Review: I read the book in 2 days. It was entertaining, but predictable and I went thru the final struggle and last chapter in seconds, because I have read this kind of development many, many times. There was no tension, and at no time, the main character even reminds you of Holmes. Not one single deduction, or similars.
I never feared for the characters or London for that matter. By the way, H&W would never call somebody Charlie, especially a detective from Scotland Yard. The author tried to lead you to believe that some characters weren't what you thought they were, but then didn't deliver.
Also, trying to incorporate some characters from the past to give a degree of tension didn't work, and really you won't care who they are or what they are doing there. Or trying to justify an almost imposible action with "...power of self hypnosis, or the mind dominating the body". Cheap and easy.
Also silly was that prior to the first episode, there was a kind of introduction talking about a "mysterious woman... but who is she really?" and similar, and then you know within 2 pages since she first appears. Or "... an evil so horrible, Holmes doesn't even dare to call it by its name..." and so he calls him "Memphistopheles"?Come on, it that was intended for me to buy the next book, until he catches the big evil, I didn't care, mainly because that character doesn't do anything for the book. Do you remember how Moriarty used to send that chill all over your body just reading his name? Forget it. It was allright, but I can not reccomend it to anybody. Maybe if the main characters were called Johnnie Doo and Dr. Frederick. But then again, who was going to buy the book?
Rating: 
Summary: Written by Luke Fullenkamp.
Review: I'd like to commend Mr. Fullenkamp a very good first book. I'd first like to remind many ambitious book reviewers that this book was written by Luke Fullenkamp. He obviously did not intend it to be a history book, which simply regergitated Doyle to a T. While I did find Holmes and Watson's lack etiquite at times somewhat unbelievable, I found that Fullenkamp gave them more personality than I have memery of Doyle ever doing. I can understand that the Holme's purists of today might very well despise this book because of it's fork off of the "Doyle" beaten path. I believe that is what will make thousands more love it. It's a Holmes and Watson who people can relate to, and believe existed! I give Fullenkamp a five star rating alone on his giving of life to Sherlock Holmes. Holmes has gone from a living calculator to an actual human with emotions and an ocasional humor to him. I find it painful to hear how those purists dismissed this clever novel because of a change in structure of the main character's home. To them I suggest to stop reading, because they will never enjoy another book if they can't let the writer use his imagination. Congradulations to Mr. Luke Fullenkamp. I look forward to reading any other books he may write in the future, and I pray he changes little and keeps his wonderful imaginative intelect on the path it is going.
Rating:
Summary: Written by Luke Fullenkamp.
Review: I'd like to commend Mr. Fullenkamp a very good first book. I'd first like to remind many ambitious book reviewers that this book was written by Luke Fullenkamp. He obviously did not intend it to be a history book, which simply regergitated Doyle to a T. While I did find Holmes and Watson's lack etiquite at times somewhat unbelievable, I found that Fullenkamp gave them more personality than I have memery of Doyle ever doing. I can understand that the Holme's purists of today might very well despise this book because of it's fork off of the "Doyle" beaten path. I believe that is what will make thousands more love it. It's a Holmes and Watson who people can relate to, and believe existed! I give Fullenkamp a five star rating alone on his giving of life to Sherlock Holmes. Holmes has gone from a living calculator to an actual human with emotions and an ocasional humor to him. I find it painful to hear how those purists dismissed this clever novel because of a change in structure of the main character's home. To them I suggest to stop reading, because they will never enjoy another book if they can't let the writer use his imagination. Congradulations to Mr. Luke Fullenkamp. I look forward to reading any other books he may write in the future, and I pray he changes little and keeps his wonderful imaginative intelect on the path it is going.
Rating:
Summary: Worst Holmes pastiche I've ever read
Review: I've read hundreds of Sherlock Holmes pastiche stories and this has got to be the worst. Calling this a Sherlock Holmes story is like calling Andre Brut "Champagne." The stilted dialog is rendered in a combination of British-isms from bad WWII movies and modern American English. The plot resembles a cross between the aforementioned bad WWII movies (the ones where Allies storm a German castle to rescue some Important Person) and a Fu Manchu story, and the characters are as paper-thin as Holmes' deductions. Plot developments are predictable cliches at every turn; the only real surprise is that "Mephistopheles" does *not* turn out to be Professor Moriarty (or did I just give away the ending of the sequel?). Logic and plausibility make only occasional guest appearances. I read this one all the way through because its badness rapidly crossed the border from annoying to amusing. I pine for the days when the Conan Doyle Estate had to approve the use of the Holmes character in pastiches - it served as quality control.
Rating:
Summary: Worst Holmes pastiche I've ever read
Review: I've read hundreds of Sherlock Holmes pastiche stories and this has got to be the worst. Calling this a Sherlock Holmes story is like calling Andre Brut "Champagne." The stilted dialog is rendered in a combination of British-isms from bad WWII movies and modern American English. The plot resembles a cross between the aforementioned bad WWII movies (the ones where Allies storm a German castle to rescue some Important Person) and a Fu Manchu story, and the characters are as paper-thin as Holmes' deductions. Plot developments are predictable cliches at every turn; the only real surprise is that "Mephistopheles" does *not* turn out to be Professor Moriarty (or did I just give away the ending of the sequel?). Logic and plausibility make only occasional guest appearances. I read this one all the way through because its badness rapidly crossed the border from annoying to amusing. I pine for the days when the Conan Doyle Estate had to approve the use of the Holmes character in pastiches - it served as quality control.
Rating:
Summary: Worst Holmes pastiche I've ever read
Review: I've read hundreds of Sherlock Holmes pastiche stories and this has got to be the worst. Calling this a Sherlock Holmes story is like calling Andre Brut "Champagne." The stilted dialog is rendered in a combination of British-isms from bad WWII movies and modern American English. The plot resembles a cross between the aforementioned bad WWII movies (the ones where Allies storm a German castle to rescue some Important Person) and a Fu Manchu story, and the characters are as paper-thin as Holmes' deductions. Plot developments are predictable cliches at every turn; the only real surprise is that "Mephistopheles" does *not* turn out to be Professor Moriarty (or did I just give away the ending of the sequel?). Logic and plausibility make only occasional guest appearances. I read this one all the way through because its badness rapidly crossed the border from annoying to amusing. I pine for the days when the Conan Doyle Estate had to approve the use of the Holmes character in pastiches - it served as quality control.
|
