Sherlock Holmes and the Rune Stone Mystery

Rating:
Summary: Just Plain Wrong (and I'm forgiving the setting)
Review: -a short list of errors-

1. Sherlock is dumb: The real Sherlock would have wrapped up this entire lame mystery without leaving Baker Street, as he did with many minor cases hardly worth mentioning by Watson. The reader often figures things out far in advance. As a previous reviewer stated, he was surprised by things that were in no way surprising! This is supposed to be the same fellow who correctly anticipated a bank robbery given a report about redheaded men copying the dictionary?

2. Sherlock, besides being dumb, is apparently new to detective work: Upon Watson and Holmes discovering a fresh murder there is a painful lack of Holmesian technique. The real Sherlock would have been down on all fours sniffing the carpet, inspecting the doorknob, fishing through the fireplace, and of course scooping up cigar ash. (Our author, in this vital moment, seems completely unaware that Sherlock Holmes is in fact a preexisting character--much less ever having read about him.) Before leaving the scene, Holmes should have rattled off numerous astounding conclusions to Watson for his notes. Instead, Holmes wonders away in a clueless fog--even saying something stupid to the effect of, 'I guess we'll never know'. (This is the point where I lost all hope, I kept reading only because the book was a gift--and it didn't take any brain power to read.)

3. Rafferty, the local contact, is not only way too competent, he's so smart that he emphasizes the Minnesota-Holmes's stupidity: This Rafferty genius could have easily solved this without Holmes and Watson getting in his way. Compare this to the likes of Lestrade and Gregson, who around those of normal intellect would appear quite bright, but around Holmes their conclusions are simple-minded. Rafferty though, is nearly infallible! I really don't know what the author was thinking in devising this character. Does he know the rules of character development taught in Creative Writing 101?

4. as stated by a previous reviewer...Coincidence?!: Not only does the author rely upon blind chance, he points it out for us before the book ever begins! Thanks Larry, for identifying yourself as a hack from the get-go! This is no longer just a bad pastiche, or a bad mystery, it's an example of very bad writing!

I'm sure I'll think of more later, after posting.


Rating:
Summary: Depends on reader's style....
Review: I agree with the previous reviewer, and would have assigned this book a negative rating if it were allowed. If you are a true devotee of Sherlock Holmes, this is NOT the book for you. Millett may have knowledge of Canonical lore, but he has no understanding of the characters Sherlock Holmes or Dr. Watson, nor does Millett exhibit any understanding of the Victorian morals and principles that these two men would have been steeped in.
As for me: after reading only 6 chapters of this book, I gleefully used it as tinder in my fireplace. That should speak for itself.

Rating:
Summary: Not for a Sherlockian or a Holmesian
Review: I agree with the previous reviewer, and would have assigned this book a negative rating if it were allowed. If you are a true devotee of Sherlock Holmes, this is NOT the book for you. Millett may have knowledge of Canonical lore, but he has no understanding of the characters Sherlock Holmes or Dr. Watson, nor does Millett exhibit any understanding of the Victorian morals and principles that these two men would have been steeped in.
As for me: after reading only 6 chapters of this book, I gleefully used it as tinder in my fireplace. That should speak for itself.

Rating:
Summary: A mystery to be sure, but not a Sherlock Holmes mystery
Review: I have to say I was quite disappointed with this book. I have been an avid Sherlockian for several years now, and having exhausted the original Conan Doyle stories many times over, I decided about a month ago to pick up this book. I didn't expect too much, but seeing as I had heard so many wonderful things about Larry Millett, I decided to give it a try.

First of all, this is NOT a Sherlock Holmes mystery. You can approach it in any way you like, but it will never be a Sherlock Holmes mystery. It is simply a mystery with Sherlock Holmes in it. And this Sherlock Holmes is certainly not the one I know. He is constantly and repeatedly surprised by evidence and information supplied to him by one Shadwell Rafferty, and Irish-American with an annoying habit of saying "'tis" and "'twould" in every sentence possible. Let me repeat that: Sherlock Holmes is SURPRISED. He is effectly put off his guard. As many Sherlock fans will note, this is a virtual impossibility. Sherlock Holmes is always ready for everything, and, more importantly, always suspects everything. He is never surprised. I immediately began to re-evaluate this story when I had found this out and here's what I decided:

This book is a mystery, and a rather good one at that. But you should not buy it if you are looking for Sherlock Holmes. Not only is the great detective fairly scarce throughout the book but he is greviously mis-represented. It is even suggested that he is in love! The absurdity is truly odd. However, if you give Sherlock Holmes any other name -- say, Terrance Jones, or John Smith, or Timothy Hillington, or just about any other name on the face of the Earth -- the mystery becomes quite interesting, sinister and highly entertaining.

Whether Larry Millett is using Sherlock Holmes's name to sell books, or whether he truly believes this book is a good representation of the detective, only Millett himself can say. But, from what I have read, Millett is devestatingly unfamiliar with Holmes's character, methods, and incredible genious, making this book less than so-so for Sherlock fans.

Also, although after a few chapters I was used to Minnesota being mentioned so often, at the beginning of reading this book, I chuckled to myself every time Millett wrote "Minnesota," "St. Paul," "Minneapolis," or "Fargo-Moorhead" which rather deteriorated the sinister feel of the mystery.

For those of you who are just looking for a good mystery, are unfamiliar with Sherlock Holmes, or are willing to disregard the fact that the English detective protrayed in this book is supposed to be Sherlock Holmes, than this book may be the one for it. It is very well written and quite interesting and deserves at least some merit for that...

Rating:
Summary: Disappointing
Review: I liked Larry Millet's first two Sherlock Holmes mysteries and looked forward to this one. The subject matter seemed perfect for mystery and Minnesota history. Too bad. The book reads as though written in haste. Rafferty is superfluous and gets in the way. Mary Comstock's appearance on the scene is awkward, confusing, and difficult to believe. There is never any doubt about what Holmes will conclude as to the rune stone's authenticity, and the solution is far less interesting/mysterious than the real-life rune stone story. The murderer's identity is not a big deal and is not really solved by deduction. The historical details, which ordinarily are Millet's strong suit, are weaker here. Despite all that, it wasn't a bad read. The point is that Larry Millett has done and should do better.

Rating:
Summary: Very Disappointing
Review: I've been a Sherlock Holmes fan all my life. I have read all four of the Conan Doyle novels and most of the short stories. I've read numerous Holmes stories and novels by other writers and seen every Holmes film that I have come across. I was predisposed to like "Sherlock Holmes and the Rune Stone Mystery". However, all I can say is that it was a major disappointment.

First of all, let's be clear. Millett can call his main character Sherlock Holmes just as I can call myself the King of France, but saying, or writing, it doesn't make it so. Instead, we have some English imposter who doesn't even have the courage to use the Holmes name most of the time, let alone the Holmes intellect or his flair for observation and deduction. Millett would have been better off to have centered the novel around his own detective creation, Shadwell Rafferty, at least he seems to be who he says he is. Better yet, he should have built the book around his only interesting character, (alleged) villainous, Mary Comstock.

This is a story built, according to its narrator, the Pseudo-Dr. Watson, on coincidences. We all know what coincidences are. They are the last refuge of hack writers. If you don't know how to resolve a problem, have the solution fall conveniently into someone's lap. It's a lot easier than being creative.

Then there is the location of the book. We are asked to believe that Holmes would travel all the way to Minnesota by boat and train on some trivial mission for the King of Sweden. Since the King already has an agent there, this seems far-fetched. Now, I have nothing against stories set in Minnesota being a fan of John Sandford's Prey novels, but this is the third time that Millett has had Holmes make that trek. It just isn't reasonable to believe that Sherlock couldn't find something better to do in London, or Paris, or even beautiful downtown Burbank.

If you are a Holmes fan, I suggest curling up with Conan Doyle or Nicholas Meyer, or, better yet, one of Laurie King's Mary Russell novels. Just don't waste your time with this bit of fluff.

Rating:
Summary: Very Disappointing
Review: I've been a Sherlock Holmes fan all my life. I have read all four of the Conan Doyle novels and most of the short stories. I've read numerous Holmes stories and novels by other writers and seen every Holmes film that I have come across. I was predisposed to like "Sherlock Holmes and the Rune Stone Mystery". However, all I can say is that it was a major disappointment.

First of all, let's be clear. Millett can call his main character Sherlock Holmes just as I can call myself the King of France, but saying, or writing, it doesn't make it so. Instead, we have some English imposter who doesn't even have the courage to use the Holmes name most of the time, let alone the Holmes intellect or his flair for observation and deduction. Millett would have been better off to have centered the novel around his own detective creation, Shadwell Rafferty, at least he seems to be who he says he is. Better yet, he should have built the book around his only interesting character, (alleged) villainous, Mary Comstock.

This is a story built, according to its narrator, the Pseudo-Dr. Watson, on coincidences. We all know what coincidences are. They are the last refuge of hack writers. If you don't know how to resolve a problem, have the solution fall conveniently into someone's lap. It's a lot easier than being creative.

Then there is the location of the book. We are asked to believe that Holmes would travel all the way to Minnesota by boat and train on some trivial mission for the King of Sweden. Since the King already has an agent there, this seems far-fetched. Now, I have nothing against stories set in Minnesota being a fan of John Sandford's Prey novels, but this is the third time that Millett has had Holmes make that trek. It just isn't reasonable to believe that Sherlock couldn't find something better to do in London, or Paris, or even beautiful downtown Burbank.

If you are a Holmes fan, I suggest curling up with Conan Doyle or Nicholas Meyer, or, better yet, one of Laurie King's Mary Russell novels. Just don't waste your time with this bit of fluff.

Rating:
Summary: Favourite of Milletts 3 Holmes so far
Review: I've read all three of Milletts Sherlock in Minnesota and this one was my favourite so far. I enjoy the interface of the refined Victorian detective with the quarks and characters of Minnesota. His stories have become progressively more fun to read. I really enjoy the addition of Rafferty to our crime fighting team.

Rating:
Summary: Favourite of Milletts 3 Holmes so far
Review: I've read all three of Milletts Sherlock in Minnesota and this one was my favourite so far. I enjoy the interface of the refined Victorian detective with the quarks and characters of Minnesota. His stories have become progressively more fun to read. I really enjoy the addition of Rafferty to our crime fighting team.

Rating:
Summary: A winner that Holmes fans will want to buy
Review: In 1899, a bored Sherlock Holmes reads in the London Times that a Minnesota farmer discovered an alleged fourteenth century Viking rune stone on his farm. That same day, renowned rune stone expert Professor Ohman visits Holmes with a proposition from King Oskar II of Sweden. The monarch wants to confirm that the rune stone is genuine before he spends his nation's money on attaining it. Holmes, who studied rune stone language during a trip to Sweden, agrees to travel to America to ascertain whether the rune stone is a fake or proof that Columbus was not first.

In Minnesota, Holmes and Watson learn that someone murdered Olaf Wahlgen, the farmer who found the rune stone and that his artifact is missing. As the two sleuths begin their inquiries, saloonkeeper and discreet investigator Shadwell Rafferty join the team. Also on the scene is an old foe Mary Robinson Comstack. Her arrival leads Holmes suspecting that she has some nefarious involvement in the rune stone mystery. Still, the trio searches a maze of misconception and lies to try to uncover the truth behind the stone and the murder.

SHERLOCK HOLMES AND THE RUNE STONE MYSTERY, the third Minnesota mystery, is a delightful blending of Holmes and Watson in a genuine piece of history. The fast-paced story line moves quickly yet never loses sight of Doyle's characterizations. Mary and Shadwell add depth, a feeling of homecoming, and the return of two memorable players in the brave new Sherlockian world. Larry Millet pays homage to Mr. Doyle with a novel and a series that is more than just another Holmes-light as this story tastes great.

Harriet Klausner