"You seem to be suffering under some delusion, monsieur le Comte. I am a consulting detective, not a pimp."

Hello.

Have fallen behind again on the 'write about what I read' goal; however it is of no matter.
Got some library books to peruse at the moment - just finished reading one, actually, so here goes:

I picked this up because it looked flipping hilarious. And it was, somewhat. It was also somewhat good - and at the same time, really, really bad. But allow me to elaborate on that.
I don't approve of this-kind-of-thing, by which I mean to say what I call published fanfiction. Because, even if the stories you borrow from are public domain, it still feels like a violation of intellectual property to me. I don't have a problem with fanfiction existing (although when it comes to the masses of fanwritten porn I HAVE LOTS OF PROBLEMS WITH THAT) - fanfiction's part of what the internet is for - but I don't think it should ever be a source of income for a writer; more a silly sort of recreational activity. So I would never actually buy a book like this, for that reason. Moving on.

Why is this book somewhat good? Because Sam Siciliano is not that bad a writer. There were a few standout passages that had me clapping my hands (metaphorically speaking): the best one that comes to mind is the description of a woman with a bustle looking like 'an abbreviated centaur'. Genius. (Although all subsequent references to bustles were just annoying.) He also does a decent job of writing atmosphere.

Now... problems I have with this book. Firstly, the narrator. I liked that Siciliano used Holmes's vaguely referenced cousin as a character in this story - but I did not like the character himself. Vernier is a terribly annoying narrator for a fan of the original Conan Doyle canon: he abuses and belittles Watson (who is not present in the story) and Watson's role and has Holmes do the same. Not cool. And the weird sexual undertow really really was not a good motif. Vernier's constant references to his lover Michelle are particularly irritiating, for the simple reasons that:

a. Michelle does not actually appear in the story until the last chapter

and

b. No one really wants to hear about Vernier's love life angst

BAD WRITING RIGHT THERE. A writer who is doing Sherlock Holmes&Phantom of the Opera fanfiction should have figured out that readers are interested in his book because of Sherlock Holmes and the Phantom - not because of some random previously unknown character rambling on about another random nonpresent character.
There were a few egregious cases of Info Dump. One long, long passage about the Opera House's lighting system was so very tedious that I caught myself skipping pages ahead to try and find the end of it.
But I think I could have coped with all these minor quirks... if it weren't for a serious, nay terminal case of character derailment. At first I was fairly satisfied with Siciliano's treatment of the characters - Madame Giry and Comte de Chagny were fine, Holmes himself was passable and the managers recognisable - and then all spiralled into chaos. I KNOW that in the book Raoul, Vicomte de Chagny is a bit of a crybaby, but Sherlock and the Angel of the Opera took it too far. Raoul is despised by all the other characters in this interpretation and with good reason. This angers me because I actually love the character of Raoul (I take the 2005 Australian musical production - not the book, or the movie or any other musical version  - never the Love Never Dies version! for my model Raoul); in my head he's always been a ridiculously young and rather naive, but still loving nobleman, not particularly smart or artistic but good at heart, who loves Christine not just for her beauty or for her talent, but because of 'Little Lotte' and their shared memories. As opposed to the Phantom, who, despite his great talent and romantic brokenness is really a creepy stalker who enters Christine's life on a false pretense, kidnaps, threatens and emotionally abuses her. Not to mention his career as blackmailer, saboteur, torturer and murderer. Erik is a great character, wonderful to read about - but never defensible or desirable as a love interest. And (spoiler alert) Siciliano writes Sherlock Holmes as being completely sympathetic to Erik's cause - even lining up the Phantom and Raoul at one point and pretty much saying to Christine "Just hurry up and pick one. I know you'll pick the pretty one. Aren't you shallow." If it could get any worse, Holmes's motivation is suddenly and casually revealed to be his own troubled past love life. NOT CANON. No me gusta. I've always toyed with a private headcanon of Holmes having a sad past as far as women were concerned - but to just randomly stick a failed Sherlock Holmes love affair in the middle of this story? Sacre bleu!

All in all, a very silly, trivial read. Can only be appreciated properly by aficionados of either The Phantom of the Opera or Sherlock Holmes - and they probably won't enjoy it because of the aforementioned playing fast and loose with established characterisation. Or the fact that Holmes is constantly referred to as 'Sherlock' even though nobody does that in the canon. And the bizarre sexual themes that pop up all the time. I dunno what's up with that.