Sherlock Holmes Investigates: A Quintet of Singular Mysteries

I’m writing a premature review after just the first story of five. I had high hopes for this author and this book, and in some ways I still do. But almost from the beginning of the first story (“The Adventure of the Locked Room”) I found myself constantly tripping over proofreading errors, such as “ascent” for “assent”, ”adverse” for “averse”, “past” for “passed”, “faithful” for “fateful”, etc. The run-on sentences are abundant, and the author is frugal with use of commas where they would render his meaning clear. In one question Holmes uses “their” to refer to a person of undetermined gender; a modern abuse of the language. Several sentences contained structural errors which a competent editor should have caught - and which a good writer should not have made in the first place. There are also misused phrases, such as, “...by means of farewell,” where it should have been, “...by way of farewell.” All these things are symptomatic of an editor using a spell checker in place of genuine proofreading. These are compounded by some technical errors - for example, the first story is set in 1881, and they speak of a defective streetlight that kept going on and off. In 1881 it would have been a gaslight, not electric, and once a gaslight goes off it stays off until it is relit by a lamplighter. Only electric lights go on and off like that. In another technical/historical error, Holmes attributes the odor of sulphur to the foul, polluted air found in the Underground (between 1868, when it opened, and 1890, when the trains went electric). Historically, foul and sulphurous air was endemic to London. The famous “London particular” fogs were in fact a form of smog created when the natural fog from the Thames River combined with the omnipresent pollution caused by the universal burning of low-quality (sulphur-rich) coal for heating. (I remember my Master Blacksmith at the Renaissance Faire burning such coal, and telling everyone not to breathe the yellow smoke formed as the sulphur burned off.) At one point we are treated to a staggering breach of protocol, as a family butler, without inquiring as to Holmes’ business in the house (which Watson pointed out in the narrative), proceeds to spill family secrets to them and then invites them to look all through the house - unattended and unsupervised - without even asking their names! No butler anywhere would do that!!! Another technical error reveals sloppy research: Watson mentions them “proceeding to the lifts leading down to the [Underground] train platform.” Hardly - the first lifts - elevators, to Americans - were installed on the Underground in 1911, at the Earl’s Court station - thirty years after this story’s setting. Until then one descended and ascended by stairways. (Though I do have to give author Andrew Salmon credit for a richly described ride on the Underground.) This little “unforced” error could easily have been left out. There are other technical wonderments, but I’ll forego mentioning them so as to avoid spoilers. Overall: This is a very imperfect story - yet it’s not without merit. It’s certainly better than some in my collection of published Holmes apocrypha. Due to the copious editing errors and structural imperfections, I’m afraid that I can’t rate it higher than two stars out of five. A good editor could have brought it up to an easy three, maybe even four. I’m hoping the rest of the book impresses me and I can improve the rating.