web site hit counter The Angel of the Opera - Ebooks PDF Online
Hot Best Seller

The Angel of the Opera

Availability: Ready to download

The unforgettable place: Paris, 1890. The glittering scene: the labyrinthine Paris Opera. The irresistible premise: what if Sherlock Holmes, lured across the Channel by the beleaguered managers of the Opera House, unlocks the true secrets motivating the infamous Phantom? As the hunchbacked Quasimodo was the soul of Notre Dame, so is Erik - shadow ruler of the Opera's nethe The unforgettable place: Paris, 1890. The glittering scene: the labyrinthine Paris Opera. The irresistible premise: what if Sherlock Holmes, lured across the Channel by the beleaguered managers of the Opera House, unlocks the true secrets motivating the infamous Phantom? As the hunchbacked Quasimodo was the soul of Notre Dame, so is Erik - shadow ruler of the Opera's nether regions - the Opera's true soul. Living at the heights of passion, despising the concerns of ordinary men who are the acknowledged keepers of his domain in the eyes of the world, the Phantom - defiant and tormented genius that he is - poses a persistent threat to his unwilling landlords, lesser men who are not even certain they believe in his very existence. But, as is the case with all problems presented to the great Sherlock Holmes for solution, nothing is quite as it seems at first . . . as thrilling episode follows even more thrilling episode in a tempestuous drama, played out against a background of one of fiction's most romantically eerie settings. Sherlockians and the Phantom's fandom both will relish Sam Siciliano's sympathetic imagination and find themselves charmed by such reinvented characters as Christine Daae ("the angel") and her arrogant suitor, Raoul de Chagny. And every reader should welcome Holme's engaging new comrade, Henry Vernier, M.D., his cousin, who joins him for this memorable adventure.


Compare

The unforgettable place: Paris, 1890. The glittering scene: the labyrinthine Paris Opera. The irresistible premise: what if Sherlock Holmes, lured across the Channel by the beleaguered managers of the Opera House, unlocks the true secrets motivating the infamous Phantom? As the hunchbacked Quasimodo was the soul of Notre Dame, so is Erik - shadow ruler of the Opera's nethe The unforgettable place: Paris, 1890. The glittering scene: the labyrinthine Paris Opera. The irresistible premise: what if Sherlock Holmes, lured across the Channel by the beleaguered managers of the Opera House, unlocks the true secrets motivating the infamous Phantom? As the hunchbacked Quasimodo was the soul of Notre Dame, so is Erik - shadow ruler of the Opera's nether regions - the Opera's true soul. Living at the heights of passion, despising the concerns of ordinary men who are the acknowledged keepers of his domain in the eyes of the world, the Phantom - defiant and tormented genius that he is - poses a persistent threat to his unwilling landlords, lesser men who are not even certain they believe in his very existence. But, as is the case with all problems presented to the great Sherlock Holmes for solution, nothing is quite as it seems at first . . . as thrilling episode follows even more thrilling episode in a tempestuous drama, played out against a background of one of fiction's most romantically eerie settings. Sherlockians and the Phantom's fandom both will relish Sam Siciliano's sympathetic imagination and find themselves charmed by such reinvented characters as Christine Daae ("the angel") and her arrogant suitor, Raoul de Chagny. And every reader should welcome Holme's engaging new comrade, Henry Vernier, M.D., his cousin, who joins him for this memorable adventure.

30 review for The Angel of the Opera

  1. 4 out of 5

    Andi

    Phantom of the Opera Sherlock Holmes When you look at the two, you think 'wow, it'd be so awesome if the two of them met!' You take back that thought right now. Or just don't read this book because this was the worst meet up of the two literary characters. Ever. Period. Infinity and beyond. Fullstop. (My whole review will have spoilers, so choose to read at your own risk.) (view spoiler)[ I knew I was in for trouble in the 'preface' when we don't have Doctor Watson but Holmes sex obsessed cousin i Phantom of the Opera Sherlock Holmes When you look at the two, you think 'wow, it'd be so awesome if the two of them met!' You take back that thought right now. Or just don't read this book because this was the worst meet up of the two literary characters. Ever. Period. Infinity and beyond. Fullstop. (My whole review will have spoilers, so choose to read at your own risk.) (view spoiler)[ I knew I was in for trouble in the 'preface' when we don't have Doctor Watson but Holmes sex obsessed cousin instead (I'll get to that later why he's labeled such). As many other reviews said, yes, he (the author, the cousin) slags Watson, calls him stupid, and Holmes a completely different person than we know. Oh ho. This is also an excuse for the author to give us a completely different Holmes. When I mean different, I mean 'different'. In the prologue, he calls people names and he has to be 'restrained' from slapping someone. Does that sound like Holmes to you? Well, guess what, there is more. (And we haven't even reached the part with the Phantom!) Soon enough we find out Holmes has a crush on a woman, and the author gives us this blatant foreshadowing about the Phantom. (Not gonna spoil it, but you'll know when you get to it.) Now to the actual story. The author does a fair job on following Leroux's novel but there are some changes: Holmes decides to swindle the managers like the Phantom does. Yes, he charges 20,000 francs for his services. What is this money for, his heroin? His cousin even states that sometimes Holmes would take on cases for free. (Apparently vampires weren't proof enough of the supernatural.) But he gets it and bitches about it. Then, the Count (Phillipe De'Chagny, Raoul's brother) is a ladies man and tries to get Holmes to 'pick up' Christine buy offering him money because he does not want her associating with his family. To which Holmes responds--and I quote--"I am a consulting detective, not a pimp". THE HELL? Well, this puts the De'Chagny's in a bad light so Holmes hates them from this point out. When Raoul shows up, as I already stated, Holmes blacklists him and finds him unworthy of Christine's affections. ... Okay. He finds everything Raoul does irritating and actually starts pitying the Phantom. I don't mean, 'oh, poor soul', I mean 'wow, I want the Phantom to end up with Christine instead of this douf'. Really now? So when Holmes finally meets the Phantom, he kisses the guy's butt. And this is where the story goes straight off the deep end. Holmes decides to befriend the Phantom, humor him, applaud him, and share common likes with him. The Phantom in return starts taking a liking to Holmes but doesn't want to peruse a friendship because he is associating with Raoul and creating matters difficult. Oh? And the sex obsessed cousin (who is our stand in for Dr. Watson), he keeps bringing up his girlfriend back in London. Every time he sees a ballet girl, he's reminded how much he misses his gf. Every time Christine does something, he's reminded of his gf. I mean, a woman could be taking a crap and he'll be ~reminded of her~ all of a sudden. It got so annoying that I just labeled him 'obsessively horny'. We also meet the Persian, who is a THUG. YES. Holmes is being stalked by the Persian at one point, and the Persian attempts to get money off of Holmes in exchange for information on Erik (but Holmes is so smart, he doesn't need the Persian's information). So the Persian gets angry and tries to shoot him, which clearly doesn't work out. The ending is just so god damn hilarious that I couldn't believe what I was reading. Apparently, Holmes and the cousin go down to the cellars, discover Erik's lair, and are trapped with Christine (like in the book). Erik reveals he had an accomplice (so now the blood, the threats, the kidnapping is on this guy's hands) and the accomplice is told to shoot them if they try to stop them. Meanwhile the Persian and Raoul are in the torture chamber. The Phantom then plays some tunes on his organ and Holmes just sits back, relaxes and enjoys the performance (while everyone is freaking out around him). When it's done, he applauds the Phantom and starts supporting the Phantom in everything he has done and tries to make another attempt at ~befriending~ the Phantom. He slags Raoul a bit, tells him that Christine and he [the Phantom] are better off, but it's really Christine's choice on who she should be with. So when the Phantom lets the Persian and Raoul out of the torture chamber, Raoul shoots the accomplice thinking it's the Phantom! Holmes gets angry and aims a gun at Raoul because he's so ~irritated~ with him by this point that he'll just off the guy to save the Phantom the trouble. Christine ends up choosing Raoul, to which Holmes wasn't surprised about. The Phantom, like in the book, plans on blowing up the opera house after letting them all go. There is an epilogue, but since we know that the author is already favoring happy endings and a friendship, we know that the Phantom doesn't die. BUT WHAT HAPPENS I WILL NEVER TELL BECAUSE IT'S EVEN CRAZIER THAN THE SCENE THAT I JUST SUMMARIZED. (hide spoiler)] I swear to god, this book makes me rage. I read it because I thought it'd be a fun read... and it COULD HAVE BEEN a fun read. This book shouldn't have been published. It should have been free. The fact I spent money on it bothers me.

  2. 5 out of 5

    Elizabeth

    Okay, so, my first review of this book was that it was so terrible I had to put it down. I've finished it now and feel I can give it a better review. Saying that though, I will give it two reviews - one as a Sherlock Holmes story and one as its own detective story. 1. As a Sherlock Holmes story this book is awful. I am a huge Sherlock fan and this book changes his character, his motives, and his style - essentially everything that makes Sherlock such a lovely character. I would venture that while Okay, so, my first review of this book was that it was so terrible I had to put it down. I've finished it now and feel I can give it a better review. Saying that though, I will give it two reviews - one as a Sherlock Holmes story and one as its own detective story. 1. As a Sherlock Holmes story this book is awful. I am a huge Sherlock fan and this book changes his character, his motives, and his style - essentially everything that makes Sherlock such a lovely character. I would venture that while Sherlock fans are most definitely in love with Holmes himself, a lot of affection is also held for Watson. Siciliano chose to dismiss Watson - in fact, the narrator of this story [Sherlock's cousin Dr. Vernier] says openly that he dislikes Watson. He goes so far as to claim Holmes doesn't like Watson - or his stories. If you're expecting an even remotely decent Sherlock Holmes story you won't find it here. Siciliano changes Holmes' character too much and takes too much liberty with his character to make it even remotely him even remotely endearing. 2. As a detective book, just happening to have the same name as Sherlock the book is adequate. It's not particularly gripping, it's mildly entertaining, but there's nothing really to make me tell you that you HAVE to read this book. The combination between the Phantom story and a detective is tense, and predictable.

  3. 4 out of 5

    Hannah

    I love Sherlock Holmes and I love the Phantom of the Opera. So you can imagine my interest when I found that someone had written a Sherlock Holmes/Phantom of the Opera crossover book in which Sherlock and Erik go head-to-head. Instantly I knew I had to check this book out. Even though a friend warned me that this book was actually really bad and that I shouldn't read it unless I wanted a really good laugh I carried on and read the thing anyway. My friend was right. 'Angel of the Oper'a IS a bad I love Sherlock Holmes and I love the Phantom of the Opera. So you can imagine my interest when I found that someone had written a Sherlock Holmes/Phantom of the Opera crossover book in which Sherlock and Erik go head-to-head. Instantly I knew I had to check this book out. Even though a friend warned me that this book was actually really bad and that I shouldn't read it unless I wanted a really good laugh I carried on and read the thing anyway. My friend was right. 'Angel of the Oper'a IS a bad book. Wait, no, it isn't. It's an awful book. It didn't even make me laugh and I hated it more than I hated Susan Kay's Phantom! This particular book made me very angry indeed and my reasons for hating it so much are many. And now I'll try to explain why in a way that hopefully won't be incoherent and rambling! Now the major issue that most Sherlock Holmes fans tend to have with this book is that John Watson, the loyal sidekick/best friend/faithful chronicler of Sherlock Holmes, isn't even in it. Instead the book is narrated by Dr Henry Vernier, Sherlock Holmes's half-French cousin. Now before I carry on with this review, I will give this book's author, Sam Siciliano, some credit. He obviously did some research before he wrote this book because Vernier is actually a legitimate Sherlock Holmes character. In one of the Arthur Conan Doyle stories there's a reference to Watson selling his medical practice to a man called Verner, who later turns out to be a cousin of Sherlock's. I suppose Siciliano changed the name from "Verner" to "Vernier" in order to make the name sound more French. Sherlock Holmes is part-French after all and changing "Verner" to "Vernier" isn't too much of a stretch. Siciliano also seems to have read Gaston Leroux's Phantom as well because the Persian and Raoul's brother Philippe are both in this story. These characters don't often feature in Phantom of the Opera adaptations. However, despite the fact that Siciliano has obviously done some research he messes so much stuff up! Now as most authors would surely realise it is NOT a good idea to anger your target audience right from the first page but that's precisely what Siciliano does when he disses Watson on the very first paragraph! Why would you do that?! After all, who would be likely to read this book? Sherlock Holmes fans of course. Didn't Siciliano think that slagging off Watson, the much-loved narrator of the Sherlock Holmes stories, might not be such a good move?! Did he not think that he might annoy a few people by doing that?! But that's exactly what he does. Siciliano's narrator Henry Vernier claims that Watson's writings are "foolish" and inaccurate. Watson himself is depicted as being petty and stupid. Here's a direct quote: "Watson had little imagination and was extremely conventional in the stuffiest British sense...I cannot forgive him for parading so distorted, so petty a rendering of my cousin before the public for all these years. Since I, too, was trained in medicine, I can state that his failings as a physician were even greater than those as a writer. I encountered several examples of his incompetence firsthand!" I swiftly realised just why exactly Siciliano (through his narrator) had chosen to portray Watson in this way though. It was so he could go completely against the Sherlock Holmes that is depicted in the Arthur Conan Doyle stories, so he could create his own Sherlock Holmes by changing aspects of the character's personality. I did NOT care for these changes at all. The first change that Siciliano makes is that now Sherlock is capable of romantically loving women and isn't asexual. This was really annoying. The second change that Siciliano makes is when he has Vernier state that all of the quotes and incidences from the Conan Doyle stories which suggest that Sherlock believes in God were just an invention of Watson's and that Sherlock is actually a firm agnostic. This was another really annoying change that I didn't care for. Sherlock being an agnostic has no relevance WHATSOEVER to Angel of the Opera and I suspect that Siciliano only put this in because it happens to be his own personal belief. The third change that Siciliano makes is that Sherlock now has material greed. He demands an enormous amount of money from the managers for his services. Yet again this was a really annoying change because it makes Sherlock seem greedy and selfish. Sherlock Holmes doesn't solve crimes for money in the Conan Doyle stories! He solves crimes simply because he loves solving crimes! Siciliano then attempts to justify his decision to have Sherlock demand such an outrageous sum of money by claiming that the only reason why Sherlock is asking for such a huge amount of cash is because he's never had a client as wealthy and illustrious as the Opera Garnier before. What?! What a load of rubbish!!! Anyone who's read the story A Scandal in Bohemia will know that's not true! You don't get much more wealthy and illustrious than ROYALTY do you?! I was not happy with the changes that Siciliano made to Sherlock Holmes's character! Siciliano also makes Sherlock Holmes sickly-sweet and touch-feely in this story. He's always banging on and on about his feelings and his emotions. This got old very quickly! Yet another issue that I had with this book was with Siciliano's narrator. You'd hope that if an author is going to assassinate a character as well-beloved as Dr John Watson that the author would then provide a likeable narrator in his place. But Henry Vernier is not a likeable narrator. At all. In fact he's extremely irritating. He badmouths Watson. He's extremely biased and declares his opinions on practically every single character in the story whether we want to know what he thinks or not. Believe me, I didn't! It really has you longing for Watson's more subtle narration. Vernier also keeps banging on and on about some woman called Michelle who he's in love with back in Britain. I did not care about this Michelle chick! Stop going off-topic! Vernier also comes across as a complete Gary-Stu which didn't exactly improve my opinion of him. Up until now I've only mentioned how Siciliano ruins Watson and Sherlock's characters but if you think the characters from Leroux's book fare any better then think again. Philippe is sleazy, arrogant and callous. Raoul is turned into a whiny, snivelling, cowardly villain. In fact Siciliano even invents a completely new character just so he can have Raoul kill him and make him look like even more of a villain! Siciliano also depicts Christine as being a shallow, pouting Barbie doll who rejects Erik solely because of his looks. This isn't true! In Leroux's book Christine was afraid of the Phantom from the moment she actually met him face-to-face. She went through the mirror of her dressing room expecting to find her Angel of Music only to find a lonely, older, slightly creepy, mask-wearing MAN. Rejecting Erik doesn't make her shallow! I'd be put off by him too! Another character who is changed is The Persian. In Leroux's book - and even in Susan Kay's novel - the Persian is depicted as a noble, decent, dignified sort of bloke. He's horrified by Erik's murders and his kidnapping of Christine and is determined to stop him. But at the same time he has genuine pity for Erik and he doesn't want to kill him unless he has too. The final scene between them in the book is really moving. But in this book he's depicted as an evil, lecherous dude who leers at the ballerina girls and wants Erik dead! Siciliano also misspells Erik's name as "Eric" a couple of times and gets the Grasshopper and the Scorpion mixed up in the torture chamber scenes. Again, he messes so much stuff up! Now it's my understanding that some Sherlock Holmes/Phantom of the Opera fans have been able to forgive Siciliano's book for its MANY faults simply because they found the conversations between Sherlock and Erik entertaining. Well, I can't. Erik and Sherlock's conversations and interactions were too contrived to be entertaining. Basically Sherlock takes an immediate liking to Erik simply because he's so impressed with how he plays the violin. He then completely ignores the fact that Erik is mentally ill, the fact that Erik is a murderer, the fact that he's terrorising and extorting an opera house, even the fact that he's deformed. Yeah! When Sherlock and Vernier see Erik's face they don't seem all that affected by Erik's deformity. Vernier even thinks to himself that Erik's face isn't too bad and that he's seen worse. No, no, no! Erik's face isn't tolerable, Erik's face isn't slightly ugly. Erik's face is terrible to look at, he is REPULSIVE, he is HIDEOUS. He even smells like death. If Erik's face isn't too bad then why has be been forced to hide himself away from the world? If his face isn't too bad then what's the entire point of his character? And the ending of this book, my word, the ending! I won't give it away but it's completely stupid because it gives Erik a happy ending. Oh my word, I hated this book so much!

  4. 4 out of 5

    Ann

    I just finished this book, so I had to run right to Goodreads to post my review (and reaction to it). Just prior to finishing the last few pages I skimmed a few other reviews and was somewhat startled by how vehemently some readers hated this book. First, I have to admit I am a "new" Sherlock Holmes fan. I have only read one volume of a collection of Conan-Doyle's stories and two of the more famous longer works, including A Study in Scarlett and The Hound of the Baskervilles. In other words, I do I just finished this book, so I had to run right to Goodreads to post my review (and reaction to it). Just prior to finishing the last few pages I skimmed a few other reviews and was somewhat startled by how vehemently some readers hated this book. First, I have to admit I am a "new" Sherlock Holmes fan. I have only read one volume of a collection of Conan-Doyle's stories and two of the more famous longer works, including A Study in Scarlett and The Hound of the Baskervilles. In other words, I don't have as much experience comparing the "real" Holmes to this author, Sam Sicilliano's new version. This lack of in-depth familiarity may be why I was not as bothered by what others have deemed to be character inconsistencies. In any case, I have long enjoyed Leroux's Phantom of the Opera and as Sicilliano's The Angel of the Opera is somewhat of a hybrid of what could be deemed "fan fiction," I have to say this is one of the better books I have encountered. First, the language composition and the execution of plot elements is marvelous. (Without giving too much away, this is essentially a retelling of the Phantom of the Opera from the viewpoint of Sherlock Holmes and his assistant/cousin, Henry Vernier). It is by far one of the finest-written pieces of "fan fiction." I loved the background explanation of the operas framing the events of the plot, the most important of course being Faust. I know a little about Gounoud's Faust but this book expanded on my understanding of it and extended my appreciation for how it fits into Phantom's story. Second, I thought that Sicilliano does a great job of characterization. Again (at least in regards to Phantom) he depicts Erik's character flawlessly, teasing out the details about him and his motivations with great subtlety. In this sense it is very true to Leroux's rendering. My one criticism is that we don't learn anything very new about Erik himself - he still remains the enigmatic, disfigured musical genius. Also, I am not sure I entirely accepted the explanation that he was disfigured by leprosy. I will say, however, that I thought it was a superb allusion on Sicilliano's part to compare Erik to The Hunchback of Notre Dame's Quasimodo, specifically by stating that Erik is the "soul" of the Palais Garnier as Quasimodo is the soul of the Notre Dame cathedral. Others have complained about the characterizations of the Persian and the Vicomte de Chagny. I have to disagree. Raoul, the Vicomte, is portrayed as effeminate and somewhat weak in the Leroux novel. He is often whiny as well, therefore Sicilliano really does not do anything radically different to this character - other than perhaps place a heavier emphasis on defects that are already known. In fact, when he shoots and kills a character during a scene in the book (I won't say who), this is really expanding on a "trigger happy" aspect of Raoul's character that was introduced in the Leroux novel. (In the original Phantom, Raoul, in a panic, actually fires his pistol at a pair of yellow eyes he imagines to be watching him outside his bedroom window). As for the Persian, we are given so little info about him in Leroux's book that I was not bothered by Sicilliano's departure from more refined interpretations of the Persian as generally benevolent and helpful. He is almost part villain in this book, but I didn't think this was far-fetched. We never really know much about him from Leroux, other than he was familiar with Erik during their days of association in the Shah's employ in Persia. He was a former police chief, or daroga, so it is feasible he might act more like a "Javert" for instance and stalk Erik. He certainly does have no qualms in Leroux's book about helping to lead Raoul to Erik's lair. Lastly, in terms of characterizing Sherlock, I have to say Sicilliano seems to get Sherlock's "voice" right and his physical description. In terms of his having attraction to women, but repressing this for the most part, I was not bothered by this idea. It's good to remember that Sherlock Holmes was written somewhat as a Victorian ideal - therefore it was only fitting for the time period that very little would be revealed about Holmes and that he did not necessarily enjoy the company of women. Conan-Doyle wrote him to confirm to the Victorian ideal of repressing sexual desire and so forth. I view Sicilliano's revelation that Holmes is actually very like most men and struggles with his attraction to women as being more realistic. This was very interesting to me and actually plays a key element in the plot itself. Now, there are some flaws, undoubtedly, in this book. First of all, like many others, I was somewhat annoyed with the Watson-bashing that occurs early on in the prologue (and sets up the introduction of Holmes' companion and assistant for this adventure, Henry Vernier). Once I got past that for the sake of the plot and story, it was really not a big deal. Vernier is even mildly amusing, especially with his vertigo (which becomes problematic when chasing Erik in the upper reaches of the Palais Garnier) and his observations about Holmes' various disguises. Other minor or major quibbles? Some scenes from Leroux's book that here include Holmes and Vernier seemed...well, forced. The most glaring example of this would be in the concluding lair scene. First of all, it is wild enough that Erik has the Persian and Raoul already chasing him, only to stumble into Erik's torture chamber. But then again, this is what happened in Leroux. BUT...to then have Holmes and Vernier also end up in the scene just seemed....not quite believable. Threes a crowd as they say, but SIX??? (Includes Christine and Erik). Still, the scene where Christine kisses Erik while Holmes and Watson look on is quite well done and beautifully descriptive. Another problem is the introduction of Victor, Erik's supposed mute "assistant." Sorry, doesn't work. Erik is truly alone and isolated below the opera - that is how Leroux wrote him and that is why he ultimately goes beserk and tries to have Christine. He has no companionship FROM ANYONE, not even a mute servant. Lastly (and this is a minor issue), although I thought it was wonderful how Erik does get a happy ending in this book, I have to say I am bothered by the choice of a blind woman as a companion. This is not unlike a previous fan fiction book I read called Deception. Sorry, just have a real problem with this. Erik should NOT have to hide and blindness is just a poor physical substitute for another mask in my view.

  5. 4 out of 5

    Rachel

    Does it count as reading the book when you read page one, see hateful Watson bashing, and close the book with a resounding THUMP and say: ? I'm just asking. 0 out of 10 stars Does it count as reading the book when you read page one, see hateful Watson bashing, and close the book with a resounding THUMP and say: ? I'm just asking. 0 out of 10 stars

  6. 5 out of 5

    Michelle

    This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here. This book set up an interesting plot: What if Sherlock Holmes was hired to ferret out the Phantom? He is originally hired by the managers, but then Count Phillipe attempts to procure his services to prevent Raoul and Christine from marrying and Raoul attempts to procure his services to end the Phantoms's reign. There is much to enjoy here in this book. I think the author did very well with the characters from two different worlds. The Sherlock Holmes here resembles what I know of the character ( This book set up an interesting plot: What if Sherlock Holmes was hired to ferret out the Phantom? He is originally hired by the managers, but then Count Phillipe attempts to procure his services to prevent Raoul and Christine from marrying and Raoul attempts to procure his services to end the Phantoms's reign. There is much to enjoy here in this book. I think the author did very well with the characters from two different worlds. The Sherlock Holmes here resembles what I know of the character (which, admittedly is drawn from random TV references and the show featuring Jeremy Brett). Watson (who is really rather disparaged in this book) is discarded in favor of Sherlock's cousin, Henry Vernier, and the two set off to Paris in search of the infamous Phantom of the Opera. The character of Erik (the Phantom) is done rather well, as are Raoul and Christine. There are some minor plot alterations to fit in Holmes and Vernier, but none that really detract from the original Phantom of the Opera story. The major beefs I had with this book, and here starts some of the spoilers: 1. The character of the Persian. I always got the impression, from the original Leroux and then Kay's extrapolation from that, that the Daroga was a fine, upstanding citizen and someone who genuinely liked Erik even though he was not willing to discard his morals in order to let Erik get away with his murders and kidnapping of Christine. In this book he's depicted as a leering monster, the head of the Persian "secret" police and someone just as willing to kill as Erik is. I felt the characterization was far off when it came to the Persian and it always left me with a sour taste in my mouth. 2. The book begins with a piano concert by a young woman. She is, of course, a brilliant musician, everything Erik could ever want in a woman. And she also happens to be blind. This if often a plot device that authors use. No seeing woman would be able to stand Erik's face; they would of course turn away in horror. So let's make this wonderful amazing smart musical woman blind. It irritates me to no end, as does the need to pair Erik up with someone other than Christine. Other than those two elements I did enjoy this book.

  7. 5 out of 5

    Monica

    I could have rated this book higher if not by the annoying replacement of Dr. Watson as the default narrator. Instead of Watson we get a "Dr. Vernier", a supposed French cousin of Holmes. Yes, he is a Doctor as Watson and … that’s it. Dr. Vernier thrashes Watson’s narrations saying these are full of inaccuracies and false notes and that actually Holmes and Watson broke their friendship and as a result Watson invented his friend’s death. I would happily accept this “deviation” from the canon if Dr. I could have rated this book higher if not by the annoying replacement of Dr. Watson as the default narrator. Instead of Watson we get a "Dr. Vernier", a supposed French cousin of Holmes. Yes, he is a Doctor as Watson and … that’s it. Dr. Vernier thrashes Watson’s narrations saying these are full of inaccuracies and false notes and that actually Holmes and Watson broke their friendship and as a result Watson invented his friend’s death. I would happily accept this “deviation” from the canon if Dr. Vernier actually had a purpose of being but not. His inclusion is pointless and verging on dull. And when he constantly babbles about “Michelle” his narration really looses interest. Apart from the “narrator problem” the story itself is very good. Holmes is in character and the Phantom of the Opera thread is well handled. In summary: I recommend reading it but I wouldn’t buy another book featuring Dr. Vernier as first voice.

  8. 5 out of 5

    Kat

    Kinda fun to read a crossover fanfic of Sherlock Holmes/Phantom of the Opera in pro format . I liked this story more than I thought I would after reading the prologue (where the current narrator states his dislike and disrespect for John Watson). Now, dissing Dr. Watson is not the way to get you on my side, but I put it aside for reading the story (go me ). This is basically a retelling of Phantom of the Opera from the perspective of Sherlock Holmes and companion, his cousin Dr. Vernier. The acti Kinda fun to read a crossover fanfic of Sherlock Holmes/Phantom of the Opera in pro format . I liked this story more than I thought I would after reading the prologue (where the current narrator states his dislike and disrespect for John Watson). Now, dissing Dr. Watson is not the way to get you on my side, but I put it aside for reading the story (go me ). This is basically a retelling of Phantom of the Opera from the perspective of Sherlock Holmes and companion, his cousin Dr. Vernier. The action plays out as you would expect, but the fun comes from Holmes interaction with the characters (most of whom, do not fare well.) Recommended for Baker Street Fans as a way of passing a night, but to be avoided by Watson fanatics.

  9. 4 out of 5

    Iris

    When I heard of this book I wondered what would happen if Sherlock was given the case of the phantom of the opera. These are two great geniuses and its like superman and batman, you don't know who is going to win and you can't pick. This book is a little different though because Holmes is not with Watson but instead with his cousin. I like how the author was able to compare Holmes to Eric and read the epilogue. When I heard of this book I wondered what would happen if Sherlock was given the case of the phantom of the opera. These are two great geniuses and its like superman and batman, you don't know who is going to win and you can't pick. This book is a little different though because Holmes is not with Watson but instead with his cousin. I like how the author was able to compare Holmes to Eric and read the epilogue.

  10. 5 out of 5

    Traci

    Nope. It gets 2 stars because I finished it and that's about it. I wouldn't recommend this for a Sherlock fan or a Phantom fan. The characterization was off for both and it was just a difficult attempt to bring the two together. Nope. It gets 2 stars because I finished it and that's about it. I wouldn't recommend this for a Sherlock fan or a Phantom fan. The characterization was off for both and it was just a difficult attempt to bring the two together.

  11. 5 out of 5

    Kieran McAndrew

    A threat to the prima donna at the Palais Garnier in Paris leads Sherlock Holmes into investing the mysterious Phantom of the Opera. The mystery is not that mysterious, sadly, and there is a disjointed feel to Siciliano's novel, with a resolution that is all but telegraphed from the opening chapter. However, it is interesting to see Holmes outside Watson's filter and a different take on the Great Detective. A threat to the prima donna at the Palais Garnier in Paris leads Sherlock Holmes into investing the mysterious Phantom of the Opera. The mystery is not that mysterious, sadly, and there is a disjointed feel to Siciliano's novel, with a resolution that is all but telegraphed from the opening chapter. However, it is interesting to see Holmes outside Watson's filter and a different take on the Great Detective.

  12. 4 out of 5

    Dave Higgins

    As with the other novels in the Further Adventures of Sherlock Holmes series this fuses Sherlock Holmes with a classic of horror, science fiction, or fantasy. In this instance the Phantom of the Opera. The novel opens with an explanation that it is written by Doctor Henry Vernier, Holmes’ cousin, and not Watson. This seems a sensible method of justifying the different style needed for the more gothic and romantic elements; however, instead of merely freeing himself from Watson’s voice, Siciliano As with the other novels in the Further Adventures of Sherlock Holmes series this fuses Sherlock Holmes with a classic of horror, science fiction, or fantasy. In this instance the Phantom of the Opera. The novel opens with an explanation that it is written by Doctor Henry Vernier, Holmes’ cousin, and not Watson. This seems a sensible method of justifying the different style needed for the more gothic and romantic elements; however, instead of merely freeing himself from Watson’s voice, Siciliano has his narrator criticise Watson for actively misrepresenting Holmes’ real personality and beliefs. This leads to some scenes that – while they fit in the context of the story – do not unfold in the way the reader expects Holmes to act. The overarching plot of a mysterious being haunting the Opera and mentoring a young soprano remains the same; with a Holmes made less a figure only of cold reason and some changes in sub-plots, the story was fresh enough that I was still uncertain whether the Phantom is supernatural even knowing the original. Viewed as gothic detective fiction rather than a Sherlock Holmes story, the novel is well written. The mirroring and contrasting of both the Phantom’s genius and his passion with Holmes and Vernier respectively is particularly notable. Overall I enjoyed this novel and would recommend it, and the rest of the series to people looking for cerebral detection or a new spin on a tale. However, of the Further Adventures I have read, it is the least authentically Holmesian, so would probably irritate those who consider Conan Doyle’s’ voice a large part of their enjoyment of Holmes stories.

  13. 5 out of 5

    Katie Y.

    This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here. I may be in the minority here, however I did not really enjoy this novel. This is shocking for me as well since the Phantom of the Opera and Sherlock are two of my most favourite things. I went in with high expectations, but not knowing what to expect: that was my first and greatest mistake. What else did I want from a book that mixes two classic things together? When I realised it's just a retelling of PoTO through the eyes of Sherlock's slightly-smarter-than-Watson-cousin Henry. Christine Daae I may be in the minority here, however I did not really enjoy this novel. This is shocking for me as well since the Phantom of the Opera and Sherlock are two of my most favourite things. I went in with high expectations, but not knowing what to expect: that was my first and greatest mistake. What else did I want from a book that mixes two classic things together? When I realised it's just a retelling of PoTO through the eyes of Sherlock's slightly-smarter-than-Watson-cousin Henry. Christine Daae was mocked as being too light-headed and cringe-inducingly romantic. Viscount de Chagny was also deserving of lots of hate. So what's there left to like? Sherlock then goes into a sulking period when he finds out the Phantom is smarter than him, etc., etc. It just keeps getting worse and worse until I reached page 200 and couldn't stand another 100 pages so I raced through it on my Kobo ereader. Thank goodness I didn't purchase the hardcopy. There is no originality contained within these pages. Unless you haven't read POTO or want to waste some time going into a world that's barely Sherlock-esque, then this is the book for you. I'm shocked that this is what I end up giving the novel. But Siciliano just mashed my two favourite things together without even saying, 'Excuse me.'

  14. 4 out of 5

    Cen

    This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here. A highly enjoyable read. Although it did take me a little while to get into it initially. This is mostly because of the narrator, an original character by the name of Henry, who is supposedly a cousin of Sherlock Holmes. It is made quite clear that Henry does not have a particularly high opinion of Watson (an inconceivable notion to me) and his constant slights in regard to Holmes' usual companion frustrated me. That slight annoyance aside, I'm glad I stuck with this book. Once the action got go A highly enjoyable read. Although it did take me a little while to get into it initially. This is mostly because of the narrator, an original character by the name of Henry, who is supposedly a cousin of Sherlock Holmes. It is made quite clear that Henry does not have a particularly high opinion of Watson (an inconceivable notion to me) and his constant slights in regard to Holmes' usual companion frustrated me. That slight annoyance aside, I'm glad I stuck with this book. Once the action got going and Erik came into it, I couldn't put this book down! The characterizations of the PotO characters was especially enjoyable. Christine had that backbone she is often lacking (which, if I remember correctly, she has initially in Leroux's novel, but which seems to vanish as the novel progresses). The interactions between Sherlock and Erik were particularly sublime. I need to read more Holmes stories before I can reach an accurate conclusion as to how in character this version was, but overall I would say it was pretty good. This book was much better than I expected it would be. Might have to read it again in fact!

  15. 4 out of 5

    Rachael Cecere

    I did enjoy this book, probably more than I anticipated. But I have always enjoyed reading Sherlock Holmes and his many adventures. Even though in this novel, Holmes isn't accompanied by Dr. Watson, his cousin Henry almost makes a proper substitute. But I think the reason why I enjoyed this book so much is because Sam Siciliano, the author stayed close to the original plot of The Phantom of the Opera, and kept the characters the same. It was honestly reading The Phantom of the Opera all over aga I did enjoy this book, probably more than I anticipated. But I have always enjoyed reading Sherlock Holmes and his many adventures. Even though in this novel, Holmes isn't accompanied by Dr. Watson, his cousin Henry almost makes a proper substitute. But I think the reason why I enjoyed this book so much is because Sam Siciliano, the author stayed close to the original plot of The Phantom of the Opera, and kept the characters the same. It was honestly reading The Phantom of the Opera all over again, but of course in a new character's perceptive. I did enjoy that the author seem to keep Sherlock Holmes' certain persona in this book, like Arthur Doyle did in his stories and I did enjoy how he was mostly on Erik's (the phantom) side more than Raoul's. I certainly could imagine Robert Downey Jr. walking around the Paris opera house trying to get into the mind of the phantom. All in all, I did enjoy this book, except I wasn't too happy about how it ended. But it's definitely worth checking it out. If of course you loved Gaston Leroux's Phantom, and you can't get enough of Erik. ;)

  16. 4 out of 5

    Kaity

    Um....I said I have read this. And I have... but had to put it down. I will try to reread this for reading's sake... but not even three chapters in had Sherlock Holmes' character been butchered. I love the Phantom of the Opera, book, musical, movie, anything but the rat version... anyway and I was excited to find out that my other love Sherlock Holmes was about to take on the case of the Phantom of the Opera. I am sad. So sad. Please. Send help. I understand that this is during the missing years, bu Um....I said I have read this. And I have... but had to put it down. I will try to reread this for reading's sake... but not even three chapters in had Sherlock Holmes' character been butchered. I love the Phantom of the Opera, book, musical, movie, anything but the rat version... anyway and I was excited to find out that my other love Sherlock Holmes was about to take on the case of the Phantom of the Opera. I am sad. So sad. Please. Send help. I understand that this is during the missing years, but.... I miss Watson. Sherlock and John don't hate each other. They have the best bromance in literary history. Sherlock doesn't charge a boat load of cash for his cases. Mr. "I should never marry" Holmes doesn't openly crush on women. I hope to update this review later on after I read it again... and really actually finish it.

  17. 5 out of 5

    Emmy

    By far, this is still one of my all-time favorite books. Combining both Sherlock Holmes and the Phantom of the Opera is a creative and thrilling idea, and one which makes for a fast-paced, exciting, emotional book. If you consider yourself fit to be a Baker Street Irregular, or are a dedicated member of the Phantom's Phandom, then I cannot recommend this book more highly. As a Phantom Phan myself, I introduced this delightful piece of literature to my brother, a Sherlockian, who promptly fell dow By far, this is still one of my all-time favorite books. Combining both Sherlock Holmes and the Phantom of the Opera is a creative and thrilling idea, and one which makes for a fast-paced, exciting, emotional book. If you consider yourself fit to be a Baker Street Irregular, or are a dedicated member of the Phantom's Phandom, then I cannot recommend this book more highly. As a Phantom Phan myself, I introduced this delightful piece of literature to my brother, a Sherlockian, who promptly fell down the rabbit hole into a wonderful adventurous read. We both rank it within our top ten favorite books, and I cannot recommend it highly enough!

  18. 4 out of 5

    Dominique Lamssies

    I can't say this book is good in a conventional sense. The writing is average, and it's competent as a Holmes story. But this book is an enjoyable, easy read (I'm reviewing it now after a fourth reading) that is a fun pulp mash up. Don't read it expecting a masterpieces and you'll be fine. I can't say this book is good in a conventional sense. The writing is average, and it's competent as a Holmes story. But this book is an enjoyable, easy read (I'm reviewing it now after a fourth reading) that is a fun pulp mash up. Don't read it expecting a masterpieces and you'll be fine.

  19. 5 out of 5

    cobwebbing

    I found this book entertaining, if heavily flawed. It felt like a more modern, streamlined version of Leroux's novel in places, sometimes down to direct quotes. Everything is mercifully chronological and, strange to say considering Holmes' presence, the mystery element isn't as heavily explored. I could actually imagine this being made into a film with some slight alterations. I can't speak at length about how Holmes and his wannabe Watson cousin were characterized as I don't have a lot of famili I found this book entertaining, if heavily flawed. It felt like a more modern, streamlined version of Leroux's novel in places, sometimes down to direct quotes. Everything is mercifully chronological and, strange to say considering Holmes' presence, the mystery element isn't as heavily explored. I could actually imagine this being made into a film with some slight alterations. I can't speak at length about how Holmes and his wannabe Watson cousin were characterized as I don't have a lot of familiarity with that portion of the crossover. Indeed, I was repulsed from reading this for a while because I don't much like Sherlock Holmes. I can't stand sassy, smug, intellectuals as main characters, as I myself am a sassy, smug intellectual. You need not remind me of my flaws, Mr. Holmes. Still, I didn't strongly dislike him, I dare even say I liked him outright sometimes in this story, which is more than I can say for every other brush I've had with this character. The doctor cousin is... fine? I don't know, I didn't really care about him much, nor his internal conflict about his wife. It felt annoying to be tied to him as the point of view character, but I liked Siciliano's writing style and descriptions enough that it didn't really matter. On that note, I really enjoyed the blend of dialogue from Leroux's work and the new dialogue unique to this book. Now, on to characters I am far more familiar with-- The characterization of Christine and the Phantom felt the most appropriate to me, if not a hundred percent faithful to the source material at all times. I got a strong impression that Siciliano really adored these characters, even with all their flaws, and for good reason. Their relationship is the underpinning of the entire story. Christine is clearly torn about the situation and moved to anger multiple times throughout the story, which I liked a lot. Erik came off as at once piteous, gifted, and terrifying, as he ought to be. There are some choices that are somewhat understandable, if a little dramatic, like putting the de Chagnys in an unflattering light. I especially understand disapproval of Phillipe; from what little is said about him in Leroux's work, it's easy to imagine him not being a great guy. As someone who is mildly annoyed/exasperated with Raoul at worst, though, I was horrified at how he was presented as abusive, selfish, and childish to the point of absurdity. It's hard to understand why Christine has any interest in him at all. Their childhood friendship is only barely touched on. Other choices were downright bizarre, like villainizing the Persian, arguably the most morally good character from the original novel, and (view spoiler)[giving Erik a mute Persian servant who dies in a spectacularly disturbing way by Raoul's hand (hide spoiler)] . I thought at first that daroga was being presented in a "villainous" light for the ultimate reveal that the initial perception was wrong, but... nope! He's just really, really morally bankrupt for some reason. It didn't add anything to the story beyond a moment where he pulls a gun on Sherlock. I kind of want to talk about that ending...(view spoiler)[ I feel silly for not having seen it coming. At the beginning, Sherlock solves a case that involves a blind pianist. I thought that having a blind woman mentioned in the intro would merely be thematic, but... nope, the woman is Erik's consolation girlfriend at the end. "Are you kidding me? We're doing that trope?" and "Aw, that's sweet, they're both into music and have real chemistry," were my conflicted reactions. It's funny that Sherlock played matchmaker. By The Phantom of the Opera standards especially, this is a really happy ending. (hide spoiler)] Again, even though it has major issues that I can see putting some readers off of it altogether, I enjoyed this overall.

  20. 5 out of 5

    Tracy

    This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here. I enjoyed reading this, though I should frame this review with a disclaimer that I've never read a single original Sherlock Holmes story. I would say that I mostly enjoyed this because I love The Phantom of the Opera (practically all versions except for the silent movie, which I've never seen in its entirety). I found this particulary unique to see "actual", more human versions of the characters I'm familiar with—Christine, Raoul, Madame Giry, even the Phantom himself. As this is the first book I enjoyed reading this, though I should frame this review with a disclaimer that I've never read a single original Sherlock Holmes story. I would say that I mostly enjoyed this because I love The Phantom of the Opera (practically all versions except for the silent movie, which I've never seen in its entirety). I found this particulary unique to see "actual", more human versions of the characters I'm familiar with—Christine, Raoul, Madame Giry, even the Phantom himself. As this is the first book in the "further adventures of Sherlock Holmes" series, and the first time I've ever read anything by this author, I wasn't sure what the dislike for Dr. Watson was, or if it was simply a plot device, since Holmes' cousin Henry accompanies Holmes on this Paris adventure, rather than Watson. At first I thought I might not like the "OC" (if Henry is in fact an OC), but then I found that he actually complements Holmes in a decent way—whereas Holmes can be very cold, calculating, and even cruel, Henry is always if nothing incredibly human—he's terrified of rats, he hates going into the deep, dank cellars of the Paris Opera house, and he's so lovelorn that he can't get his potential suitor Michelle out of his thoughts. I think I especially loved that Holmes had extreme disdain for everyone except the most repulsive characters—the Phantom, Erik and Madame Giry, though he did show tenderness and concern for Christine Daae, in the beginning and middle, at least. Holmes is entranced by the Phantom's beautiful violin playing, and is enchanted by the rather large, unfasionable and gruff Madame Giry. He also silences and scolds the young, entitled and abrasive Raoul several times while he and Henry are sneaking around with the Viscount, while following Christine. Needless to say, Raoul is never happy being "put in his place", but Holmes doesn't care. Holmes does the same thing which the Opera House's new managers, which neither appreciate. The thing that I might criticize about this novel was the lack of action in some places. Sometimes it felt like Holmes and Henry were nothing more than interloppers in the Phantom of the Opera story, breaking off to do their own investigations, or following or interracting with the original characters. The Phantom threatens Holmes with notes but he never makes a move to hurt or endanger Holmes or Henry (probably which reinforces Holmes' theory that Erik is not the real enemy). Though, I suppose there was danger in the final chapters that definitely echoed the original book's climax. The happy ending. I enjoyed it, maybe because Erik is treated as an even more sympathetic character in this novel than in any of the other versions. Yes, we are made to feel for him at the end, of course—a genius with a beautiful voice, a beautiful soul with the ugly face that's kept him from "the joys of the flesh", as the musical puts it. But with this novel, we are made to feel for him throughout because Holmes cares about him, enough to choose him over all others, enough to want to help him escape though everyone else, including Erik himself (except Christine) wishes his death. Enough to convince him that there's a beautiful blind woman nearly his equal in musical genius and kindness who, because of her mixed heritage in Victorian England, has also never known "the joys of the flesh". It was kind of a very lovely ending. Also, I had all of the songs from the musical in my head the whole time while reading this.

  21. 5 out of 5

    Devon

    This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here. I admit at first I was a little turned off by this novel. As I have seen one reviewer quite passionately derail, I also did not quite like the way the narrator (Dr. Henry Vernier) trashed Dr. Watson. I also didn't like the stipulation that Watson and Holmes had never been quite close. If they had not been close, why on earth would Watson write the stories and follow him around? He could have easily been his flat-mate and kept well away from him; I know if I did not have quite a good relationship I admit at first I was a little turned off by this novel. As I have seen one reviewer quite passionately derail, I also did not quite like the way the narrator (Dr. Henry Vernier) trashed Dr. Watson. I also didn't like the stipulation that Watson and Holmes had never been quite close. If they had not been close, why on earth would Watson write the stories and follow him around? He could have easily been his flat-mate and kept well away from him; I know if I did not have quite a good relationship with the person that I lived with, I wouldn't decide to traipse about the continent and risk life and limb to aid them! I could sort of see why he would write it out as such in order to let him expound on the mentioned-in-canon VERNER but still it took some getting used to. (And beggared the question of how on earth Holmes managed to convince a man who openly detested/loathed Watson to the point of refusing to read the doctor's written material twisting his cousin's character into buying his practice FROM Watson? And again raises the question why on earth Holmes would wish for Watson to return to him and live at Baker Street again, pulling out all the stops to entice him back if neither person liked the other so much as they pretended to for the public? Ah well.) Another quibble I had was with how they transformed Holmes's character. It is, sadly, an argument I have all-too-frequently with pastiches and little stories/adaptations of the Holmes canon. Inevitably a woman is introduced for Holmes to pine after or vice-versa (but often with reciprocated feelings) and if she is not conjured out of thin air then they use the time-honoured IRENE ADLER. Please, let WELL enough alone. I feel that there are millions, perhaps even TRILLIONS of characters in all the novels and books out there who lust and love--can Holmes alone just be left well enough alone? It is on that point that I was annoyed because he was introduced to a Miss Lowell, and immediately his cousin would poke and prod and bring up the not-very-subtle suggestions that perhaps Holmes ought to settle down with her. Holmes would tell him that he should drop the subject and he would only to pick it up again when anyone talked of loneliness/love/women and so forth. I get that she's a musician--and a good one--but I feel there ought to be something more there than WOW CAN SHE PLAY THE PIANO LET'S GET MARRIED. It's Holmes, for Christ's sake! It's going to take a little more than THAT to interest him. Especially given his mostly-negative views toward women (people now declare an argument both for and against this but HONESTLY read the canon), which the author duly tries to erase and blame on Watson. So with all of this in mind, the story got off to a rather rocky start. For me, at any rate, but I persevered and wished to see how Leroux's characters were rendered. This is amusing, for I have again seen an impassioned reader complaining about how Siciliano modelled them in his book and claimed he changed them utterly. I quite beg to differ. In regards to Raoul being a simpering, whiny, forceful cad: is there any difference? If we recall back to Leroux's story, he FREQUENTLY bursts into tears, crying far more often than does Christine. In regards to being forceful, he promises Christine he will take her from the Opera House--and he means TAKE. If she resists in any fashion, he will drag her away. In regards to being a cad, how often did he scream at her that she had ruined her virtue with another, with this mysterious man he heard her talking to? In the story he also mentioned how he didn't know what to do given his lineage, I believe; do you think he might succumb to temptation and ruin her virtue? I believe so--and so did Siciliano. Often he would vacillate, apologising and begging forgiveness before shrieking at her again the moment she mentioned her angel of music. How has Siciliano differed from this character?!? HE HASN'T, and I'm GLAD. Furthermore, I'm pleased that both Holmes and his cousin share a spirited dislike for the boy (for he is a boy at twenty) and often voice such disapproval. I have never liked Raoul, and I never understand how people can say that he is a sainted character. He has many flaws--flaws that are almost mirrored by the phantom but worse for Raoul because he has NO REASON to act in such a fasion! In regards to Christine, said reviewer/reader complained that she was shown as only being repulsed by the Phantom's face. IS THIS NOT ALSO TRUE? She was content with her angel of music, and they (pardon this here) made sweet music together until she was tempted and removed his mask. Suddenly she could have nothing to do with him! She was horrified! Oh, if you could only see his face! His horrible face! ERIK never ripped his mask off. ERIK never thrust his face in hers (at least not at first) and made her shrink away. He HID himself, as he had done at an early age, and SHE chose to do that. SHE brought it on herself. One must think if he wears a mask it would be for a good reason, and I liken her actions to taking a false leg from someone and then pointing out they're missing their leg. I understand curiosity but to then wail about it night and day--it's terrible. Not only that but it is remarked OFTEN in the story that the phantom had such a deep love but had to stay in the cellars and how he could have been one of the most famous/greatest people whom the world had ever seen but had to hide his face because of its grotesque characteristics. Seems to me, then, that the problem DOES, in FACT, reside with his appearance. But returning more to Siciliano's novel, once I got over the beginning uneasiness I found that I quite liked it. I never cared for Raoul or Christine either one because they were children and prone to the likes and dislikes OF children. More Raoul than Christine, but Christine was markedly shallow. To Siciliano's credit, I actually held a great deal more sympathy for Christine and felt more of her actual plight in his story than I did in Leroux's. In Leroux's, it always seemed to me that she was hardly so torn; she was terrified by the phantom's appearance and that largely led her to Raoul. She debated, briefly, but then was resolute. With Siciliano, she did seem truly at an impasse, and even when she went with Raoul it was clear that she rued her choice. Still, the ever present shallowness remained. I was especially touched with how Holmes seemed to reach Erik on a deeper level and to soothe some of the hurt done to the man over the years. Erik had only really wanted some compassion, sympathy--some true human feelings apart from repulsion, I feel, even above love itself. Holmes showed him no revulsion; in fact, he showed contempt for the enemies of Erik and I think that part truly pleased me in the story. Some people complain about Erik having a "happy" ending. Why on earth is that such a dismal thing? It's a simple pastiche--no one is saying that it alters the original book in anyway. It's like an Alternate Universe--a What Might Have Been. To me, it is nice to see Erik united with Miss Lowell. Whether love blossoms or doesn't blossom hardly matters. She is blind; she will never turn in fear from his visage. Sight will not render her any shallow emotions. To her, Erik is the brilliant violinist. The beautiful singer. The enchanting composer. It is nice, and it is also a very literal nod to "Love is Blind". I quite enjoyed that little bit, and I also liked at the very end when Henry's wife, Michelle, kissed Holmes in the same fashion that Christine did Erik. At first I was uncertain, but now the more that I think on it I quite liked the parallel. It doesn't have to be sexual at all--and isn't, in my mind. It hearkens back more to Leroux's novel than this Siciliano one. Christine kisses Erik and then leaves and he dies, alone. Michelle makes Holmes promise not to wall himself off, and he does, but the reader can always make their own decisions and I choose to feel that Holmes does precisely that, keeping himself at a distance from society as he always does. I would definitely recommend this to other people, especially those who might have strong (negative!) feelings about the de Chagny family and Christine, haha! (Although you might find some sympathy for Christine as I did...)!

  22. 4 out of 5

    Mel

    The Further Adventures of Sherlock Holmes: The Angel of the Opera is another potentially promising cross-over between two classic works of fiction. And having read a number of the original Sherlock Holmes novels and The Phantom of the Opera, I was intrigued to see how this stacked up. Despite being published back in 2011, The Angel of the Opera is very on trend as fiction cross-overs are gaining in popularity at the moment, particularly with TV series such as Penny Dreadful. I would definitely r The Further Adventures of Sherlock Holmes: The Angel of the Opera is another potentially promising cross-over between two classic works of fiction. And having read a number of the original Sherlock Holmes novels and The Phantom of the Opera, I was intrigued to see how this stacked up. Despite being published back in 2011, The Angel of the Opera is very on trend as fiction cross-overs are gaining in popularity at the moment, particularly with TV series such as Penny Dreadful. I would definitely recommend this to people who like the idea of cross over fiction, but who aren't going to judge them purely on the merit of the originals or by how closely the author sticks to them, as there are always going to be subtle differences. The Angel of the Opera started strongly, with Holmes and his cousin Doctor Henry Vernier (no Doctor Watson this time) finishing up an unrelated case in Wales. I enjoyed the snippets of this case and would be intrigued to read more about it, if it happens to be in another work, if not, I would consider petitioning Sam Siciliano to write it! As The Angel of the Opera progressed, I could see a potential link between the two cases and wondered if any of the characters from this initial case would be re-introduced throughout the course of the novel. This would have been the obvious choice in true Conon Doyle style, so I was eagerly awaiting the return of Susan Lowell. I was unsure of the timing of The Angel of the Opera as I couldn't tell if it was set during the same period as the original or after. Some hints suggested during, but there were some plot points mentioned which I didn't recall from the original, such as Madame Giry being fired, or the Viscount de Chagny having an older brother. I did really enjoy the details about the Viscount's extended family and their feelings about his relationship with Christine Daae. This was a very interesting addition which added to the plot between the two in the original, where it was just the two of them in isolation with their romance. Of course, thinking logically, there would be ramifications for some of a relationship between a Viscount and an orphaned Opera singer! Sam Siciliano added depth to many of the other characters including Madame Giry and her daughter Meg as well as the behind the scenes characters from the opera house; I felt this was a clever way of making the plot "his", as the original Phantom of the Opera (and the film) seemed to focus mainly on Christine, the Phantom and the Viscount de Chagny. One of the only negatives I have to mention are the inconsistencies in spelling. Sherlock's cousin was called Henry half of the time but then Henri the rest. This could have been attributed to the accent of the character saying his name, but I did find this incredibly irritating. I have now read three of the Further Adventures of Sherlock Holmes - Sherlock Holves Vs Dracula, The Titanic Tragedy and The Angel of the Opera, and this one is definitely the best of the three. I have never read anything by Sam Siciliano before, but after reading this would actively seek out his other novels.

  23. 5 out of 5

    Aurora

    OK, so it wasn't bad . . . once I got past the fact that not only was there no Watson in this, but that his replacement hated him to no end and tried to impart some of that hate on Sherlock's opinions of Watson (seriously? Where did you get the idea that Sherlock was a misogynist? I only took that he was asexual/aromantic at best when it came to women). Then came the Phantom's side of things. I had my copy of The Phantom of the Opera on standby to compare the two and, well, its starts to read mo OK, so it wasn't bad . . . once I got past the fact that not only was there no Watson in this, but that his replacement hated him to no end and tried to impart some of that hate on Sherlock's opinions of Watson (seriously? Where did you get the idea that Sherlock was a misogynist? I only took that he was asexual/aromantic at best when it came to women). Then came the Phantom's side of things. I had my copy of The Phantom of the Opera on standby to compare the two and, well, its starts to read more like the Broadway musical rather than the book itself (despite the fact this book gets Erik's deformity right). Raoul may not have been passionate about the arts, but he was certainly a passionate supporter of it. The Daroga was not antagonistic towards Erik at all, Erik considered him his only friend (and was the last person to see him alive)!! The Daroga would not have helped the Viscount for money, he was doing it because he understood that Erik was wrong to try and force Christine to love him. At least the author didn't downplay Christine's intelligence, though he made it seem like it was a hard choice for Christine between Erik and Raoul (she never felt romantically inclined towards Erik, not once . . . which left me to ship him with someone else, but that's just me. ;P). All in all, it was a pretty decent fanfic. Would have much preferred Watson as Holmes' friend and sidekick (and they brought in Toby!) and no thrown-in love interest for Erik (is he just doomed to fall for women who like music only? How about an artist, or a seamstress? Or a fantastic story-teller? Not a blind Christine just so she can't see his face . . . despite the fact she can feel it and probably has a decent enough of an imagination that she can visualize it). Will I keep this? Yeah, might as well. I'll nitpick through it another time, this time with the Hound of the Baskervilles to help Erik. ;) Then I'll write a fanfic based off of this to get Erik into the services of Hades. ;P I'm sure he'll be much happier, and Hades will probably (what am I saying, most likely) prefer him to Apollo any day. Persephone might even agree. XD I am just grateful I have both Hound and Phantom in my library that I can reread them to get my mind off the inconsistencies.

  24. 4 out of 5

    Chelsea Gouin

    Re-Read. This book should have and could have been epic...and yet...it was an opera house fire. The book starts off with the introduction of Henry, Sherlock's cousin and new assistant. Henry hates Watson and discredits his tales as false and completely untrue to Sherlock's character. So that's the authors excuse for butchering the world's most famous detective. Sherlock is violent and has these weird views about females. After almost beating a man in the prologue he later decides to just shoot th Re-Read. This book should have and could have been epic...and yet...it was an opera house fire. The book starts off with the introduction of Henry, Sherlock's cousin and new assistant. Henry hates Watson and discredits his tales as false and completely untrue to Sherlock's character. So that's the authors excuse for butchering the world's most famous detective. Sherlock is violent and has these weird views about females. After almost beating a man in the prologue he later decides to just shoot the guy to take him out of his misery. The duo take a case in Paris to rid the infamous Opera House of its pesky ghost; of course Sherlock doesn't think anything paranormal is afoot. Phillip, the Count, and his brother Raoul also try to employ the detective both to spy on Christine but for different reasons. Phillip wants his brother to fall out of love with her and Raoul keeps thinking she's either being unfaithful or being brainwashed and wants to save her. Sherlock keeps wandering the Opera House and observing things but never actually puts anything together. When he does finally meet the Phantom he's more awed by him than anything The ending was a bit of a cop out and utterly ridiculous cause why would Sherlock really be so invested in the Phantom's love life? The thin that bothered me the most was the author's indecision. He followed the events of the novel exactly, which is fine. But he played with characterization...which would also be fine...until he tried to force his newly fleshed out characters to act as they did in the novel. When you change their motivation and characteristics you must then change their actions to match. Raoul gets violent and calls Christine a whore and a harlot on many occasion...but then he is sobbing and wondering why she is pushing him away the next page. Christine had more of a backbone in this one and logic would be that she'd choose neither man at the end or the Phantom the way she was portrayed instead of sticking with Raoul who stalked her the entire novel...and hired a man to also stalk her. So this was a disappointing mess and butchering of two classics.

  25. 4 out of 5

    hallie bertling

    I read this one because I'm doing alllll the research I can for the newest faerie tale feet painting inspired by, you guessed it, The Phantom of the Opera! So here's why I appreciated this title (although there will be a lot more pontificating when my painting process/story research blog is up): The author had obviously done as much research as I have into both the Phantom and Sherlock Holmes (see my painting, "the game is afoot" with ooooodles of story clues hidden in the background pattern paint I read this one because I'm doing alllll the research I can for the newest faerie tale feet painting inspired by, you guessed it, The Phantom of the Opera! So here's why I appreciated this title (although there will be a lot more pontificating when my painting process/story research blog is up): The author had obviously done as much research as I have into both the Phantom and Sherlock Holmes (see my painting, "the game is afoot" with ooooodles of story clues hidden in the background pattern painting!!) So it's always fun to see worlds and stories collide. (Although, please Disney, never ever cross the Avengers with Star Wars. I shall not be able to handle it. Thank you.) ;D Written in Doyle's style, the author let's us "re-read" Leroux's Le Fantome de l'Opera from the sidelines as Sherlock and his cousin observe Christine and Raoul's courtship and the mysterious events plaguing the Palais Garnier. Siciliano makes some reference to the other deformed literary monster of Paris, Quasimodo of Notre Dame, and gives us an even larger tour of Paris than Leroux does in his Opera-centric classic. There are some quips you'd swear Sherlock made himself withinin Doyle's original works, as well as those relevant science-y deductions and observations so ubiquitous of Britain's most famous consulting detective. This work integrates the author's research: giving us a little more cultural context for life in that era (the unlikelyhood of a Vicomte marrying a ballet dancer, although an affair like his older brother was having wouldn't be frowned upon; or the fact that if Christine got married she'd have to quit singing. Yikes.) So it was rational explanations (would Sherlock settle for anyting less) for all of the Phantom's tricks, as expected. So I'd still love to read an account that gives some supernatural credit. It seems like such a waste (to me) that such an eerie, gothic novel with "The Angel of Music" at its core has merely a man to point the finger at. But that's why our imaginations get to play while we read and paint. :)

  26. 5 out of 5

    Scott

    This is by far the best entry of the series. Sherlock has always been my favorite fictional character and this is the best representation of him outside of the originals by Arthur Conan Doyle. It shows a side of Sherlock generally left out of other incarnations, shown best in his interactions with the Phantom, their understandingly each other is what makes the book all the more intriguing. I also enjoyed having his cousin, Dr Henry Vernier, as the narrator and substitute for Watson. It was the s This is by far the best entry of the series. Sherlock has always been my favorite fictional character and this is the best representation of him outside of the originals by Arthur Conan Doyle. It shows a side of Sherlock generally left out of other incarnations, shown best in his interactions with the Phantom, their understandingly each other is what makes the book all the more intriguing. I also enjoyed having his cousin, Dr Henry Vernier, as the narrator and substitute for Watson. It was the second book I have read with the character and I do enjoy the different perspective or the narrative. I have always felt a kinship to Sherlock, I feel that kinship more in this book than any others I have read (again, not including the originals).

  27. 5 out of 5

    Jessica Pitingolo

    I enjoyed this crossover though I thought the characters were a bit two dimensional and presented as too likable, using some pure Deus Ex Machina nonsense to make actions that classically were tied to main characters instead redeemable by having... nevermind, spoilers. However, reading it solely for pleasure I definitely fell into the Mary Sue happy ending since I am secretly (or not so secretly) a sap. Not wholly related, but I liked the tie ins to the Hindu goddess Kali. Worth reading. Especia I enjoyed this crossover though I thought the characters were a bit two dimensional and presented as too likable, using some pure Deus Ex Machina nonsense to make actions that classically were tied to main characters instead redeemable by having... nevermind, spoilers. However, reading it solely for pleasure I definitely fell into the Mary Sue happy ending since I am secretly (or not so secretly) a sap. Not wholly related, but I liked the tie ins to the Hindu goddess Kali. Worth reading. Especially if open to E/OC.

  28. 5 out of 5

    Chelsea

    i have no idea when i read this one, but it was one of the first sh pastiches i ever read and i Loved It. i checked it out from the library at least three times and i remember it fondly. could i tell you what the plot was? something something sherlock holmes something something dr veneer something something phantom of the opera idk not really 😂 but if you're looking to dip your toe into sherlock holmes books not written by conan doyle this might be a good start! i have no idea when i read this one, but it was one of the first sh pastiches i ever read and i Loved It. i checked it out from the library at least three times and i remember it fondly. could i tell you what the plot was? something something sherlock holmes something something dr veneer something something phantom of the opera idk not really 😂 but if you're looking to dip your toe into sherlock holmes books not written by conan doyle this might be a good start!

  29. 4 out of 5

    Mike Glaser

    When one takes on a character that the original author made iconic over a century ago, there are ways to make the character your own without damaging the character as conceived by the original author. This book is an example of the opposite of doing it correctly which is too bad as almost all of the other authors in this series have done it the right way.

  30. 4 out of 5

    Patricia

    Perhaps because it's been a while since I've read either Sherlock Holmes or Phantom of the Opera, I found this to be a cute "what if" scenario that was fun to read. I didn't feel that it disrespected either of the characters. Yes, it's a different take on the characters, but still a good read. Perhaps because it's been a while since I've read either Sherlock Holmes or Phantom of the Opera, I found this to be a cute "what if" scenario that was fun to read. I didn't feel that it disrespected either of the characters. Yes, it's a different take on the characters, but still a good read.

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading...
We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.