Trying hard to be fair here. I don't want to ding this book just because I don't happen to care for the idea of Moriarty as a misunderstood Robin Hood ... though I will willingly take on anyone who says this version of Moriarty is somehow more interesting, because (I would argue) the world is already full of Robin Hoods but has only ever had – will only ever have - one Master Consulting Criminal. Moreover, there are many things about this book to like, including the authentic period detail and competent writing.

But I think there needs to be a rule among authors who take up the character of Sherlock Holmes that, do with him what you may, you may not actually make him stupid. And this Sherlock Holmes is resoundingly stupid, failing over and over again to make the obvious series of deductions that would reveal the link connecting the locked-room murders of a series of English gentlemen. Into the gap steps Moriarty, but not really, because when Moriarty investigates the crime we get no cool forensic investigation or dazzling conclusions - merely a pedestrian sort of inquiry heavy on pre-existing knowledge and lucky guesses, and what fun is that?

Some other beefs I had with this tale:

* I get that this is a genre novel with certain accepted tropes (ex: plot trumps personalities), but if your "hook" is that you're offering more interesting and complex main characters, then shouldn't your main characters be more interesting and complex?. Kurland *tells* us all the reasons why his Moriarty & Barnett should fascinate, but then depicts them acting in ways so inauthentic, glib, and passionless that it becomes increasingly difficult to believe in (or care about) either of them. If you want your characters to seem three-dimensional, then you need to deliver more than one dimension.

* This thing is so much longer than it needs to be! I love period detail as much as anyone, and time spent on character development is never wasted, but that's not what slogs this down - it's too much unnecessary dialog, too many long scenes that could have just as effectively been communicated in a sentence or two, and way too many narrative diversions depicting Moriarty indulging in scientific pursuits or tricking Sherlock Holmes into looking like a fool. Someone should have edited this a lot more critically.

* Finally, I'm grateful that Kurland seems to possess an intimate familiarity with the Doyle canon, but it's one thing to use the info to add depth to the story, another to shower readers with so many references taken out of context that the novelty wears off long before the novel ends.

Don't get me wrong: in a world full of Holmes pastiches, this probably falls in the upper quartile of offerings. Kurland's descriptions of 1800s London are evocative, his bit characters have an O. Henry-esque charm, and there's enough plot to keep you reading on. But am not sure I’m willing to forgive the absence of so many qualities – an intriguing crime, puzzling clues, clever deductions, a satisfyingly dramatic reveal – that make me seek out Holmes pastiches in the first place. Moreover, I simply don't see the sense in adding layers of moral ambiguity to Moriarty, for all intents and purposes creating a character that merely duplicates Sherlock Holmes rather than adding new layers of complexity or depth to either character. ( )