walking through his colourful style in all portraits the reality is swept away and the eccentric personas survive

Written with an amazing story teller perspective, this book tells us about where Sherlock Holmes had been hiding for five years of his life : in the glamoured city of Vienna and in the hands of Dr. Sigmund Freud, in search for a cure to cocaine addiction. But ultimately, his treatment turns into a mad search to understand the meaning of Professor Moriarty, his archenemy and perhaps a product of his fantastic imagination and childhood memories. If anyone is looking for a great piece of reading entertainement which pairs golden pieces of Sherlockian investigation with Freudian psychonalysis - this is a treat !

This book is either great or awful, depending on the reader. Many parts were very exciting , not to metion deep and moving. BUT... I would definetly not reccommed it to younger readers becuse of the sexual context.

The book is about George, an American boy whose parents, acrobats in the circus, died in a trapeze accident when George was only 5 years old (they fell from it together and there was no net underneath... ouch...). As there was no one to look after young George, he had to move to Paris, France, to live with his uncle Fritz. Uncle Fritz is somewhat... unusual. He took George to Rome, for a crazy trip, where they got in (and out) of a few troubles. Since Fritz was a member of an orchestra, he was having some rehearsals held at his house. Sometimes blonde violin players were spending the night. He was taking George to the brothels: George was waiting outside while Fritz was busy. They were really having fun together and truly loved each other (even though there were doubts about Fritz being the boy's real uncle). 5 years later George had been sent back to the U.S to live with foster parents. George didn't like life in the states and missed his beloved uncle Fritz very much. Therefor he decided to run away - back to France and to live with Fritz. What happens to George on the trip and what he finds in France, you'll have to find out for yourself. I'm sure you'll want to. I think the book is excellent - it is well written, the story is very interesting and I was really touched by it. I could really understand George's feelings and problems. I laughed, hoped and, believe it or not, even cried while reading the book. George became my good friend. The book "got" me in the first page - I just couldn't leave it. This is absolutely, definitely one of the best books I have ever read in my life. This book is a MUST! I'm just surprised no one has done the movie yet... My opinion - read it!!

I was reluctant to read this one after the "Seven-Percent Solution," but Mr. Meyer disappointed me by writing a much better story.

This story appeared first in Play Boy, and the book is a longer revision of that one.

The story is about Murders that haunted the west end. Of course Sherlock Holmes cannot hold back when there are murders nearby.

The good thing about the book is that Mr. Meyer does not claim that any of the manuscripts provided by Doyle were forgeries. The bad thing is that he still uses real characters, like Bernard Shaw, Oscar Wilde, and Bram Stoker, which I still say is dumb.

One other thing I hate about these pastiches is that they insist on saying that Watson was a real person, and that he used to publish his work under the pseudonym Conan Doyle, or else that Conan Doyle was the agent under whose name Watson used to publish works. I realize that this is one way to make things continue, but come on, we all know that we are only fooling ourselves.

Anyhow, I think the book might deserve 4 stars if not for the little drawbacks I mentioned above, and I am sure you are going to enjoy it, but try first to get it from the library, just in case you detested it.

Unfortunately, I must confess to being a little disappointed with Meyer's second Holmes pastiche. First of all, he went overboard with the famous people. It was as if he was trying to pay homage to all his favorite writers at once. And all the famous people just hurt the story for me. Sigmund Freud in "The Seven Percent Solution" was okay because I don't think that the book would have been the same had Meyer created a fictional person to treat Holmes' cocaine addiction. But in this one, all the famous people just seemed completely unnecessary and I felt that the book would have been much better if Meyer had created fictional characters instead of putting Oscar Wilde, Bram Stoker, etc. etc. into the novel. Secondly, there weren't enough deductions in the book. And third, I felt that the book was too much about the mystery and not enough about the characters. Doyle's Holmes stories were generally a little more about the characters than the majority of this book was. But then this goes back to all the famous people. There was no need for Meyer to tell us about the characters because we already knew them. The last few chapters are very good as far as being a little more about the characters but most of the book was just too much about the mystery. I'm still going to give the book 4 stars though because it was well written and, as in his first pastiche, Meyer did well with Holmes and Watson. The basic plot of the book was also good and inventive and seemed like something that Doyle would have written. There were also enough interesting scenes that made the book well worth reading in spite of the problems that I had with it. To give just one example, there's a scene involving Holmes' indoor target practice and it is discussed in a little more detail than in Doyle's stories. I won't mention anymore of the scenes that I liked so as not to spoil anything for those who haven't read it. Overall, I found "The West End Horror" to be a very decent Holmes pastiche and I would recommend reading it, but just don't expect it to be as good as "The Seven Percent Solution". Also, this book is not about Jack the Ripper. I've read summaries that say the book is about Jack the Ripper but it isn't.

I've read The West End Horror 3 times and absolutely love it. I would recommend it to anyone who likes Sherlock Holmes and I think Nicholas Meyer writes even better than Conan Doyle! I used part of the solution as an example in a project I did recently on the... well if I give you the topic, I'll also give you the solution to the mystery so I won't spoil it.

THE SEVEN-PER-CENT SOLUTION is a story unparalleled in the annals of criminal detection. Discovered in Hampshire, England, where it had lain neglected since 1939, then painstakingly researched and annotated for two years by editor Nicholas Meyer, THE SEVEN-PER-CENT SOLUTION marks the first publication of a heretofore unknown and astounding episode in the career of Sherlock Holmes as recorded by his closest friend and chronicler, Dr. John H. Watson.

Even more remarkable than the historic discovery of Watson's transcript are the revelations it contains concerning the real identity of the heinous Professor Moriarity, the dark secret shared by Sherlock and brother Mycroft Holmes, and the detective's true whereabouts and activities during the Great Hiatus when the world believed him dead.

Most astounding of all, THE SEVEN-PER-CENT SOLUTION details the events that led to the meeting in Vienna of the world's two most brilliant investigators and their collaboration on a sensational case of diabolic conspiracy.

John Hamish Watson was born in England in 1847. After a childhood spent abroad, he returned in 1872 and enrolled in the University of London Medical School, where he took his degree six years later. After finishing the course at Netley prescribed for Army surgeons, he was attached to the Fifth Northumberland Fusiliers and sent to India. Severly wounded by a Jezail bullet at the Battle of Maiwand during the Second Afghan War, in 1880, he returned to England, his health ruined, with no specific plans other than to live as best he could on his Army pension. In January of the following year, quite by accident, he met Sherlock Holmes, who was then looking for someone to share his lodgings. The ensuing friendship, which lasted until Holmes' death found Watson his niche as the great detective's biographer through more than sixty cases. In his spare time he resumed the practice of medicine. In 1889 he married Mary Morstan. He died in Britain in 1940.

I thoroughly enjoyed this book and was very impressed with it. I checked it out from the library to read it but I'm definitely buying a copy for myself. First of all, it was just a well written and entertaining book. Some scenes were hilarious while others were postively heartbreaking. Secondly, I found it to be very true to the spirit of Doyle's stories and to his Holmes and Watson. I felt that Meyer did an excellent job with Holmes' character. Holmes was slightly different from what he was in the canon but I felt that this could have been how Doyle would have written Holmes had he ever chosen to write a story such as this. Meyer also had Holmes and Watson's relationship down to perfection. I loved how he seemed to realize how important Watson was to Holmes. The deductions in the book were also very good. Most of them were worthy of Sir Arthur himself. I also liked Meyer's footnotes. I thought they were cool. What I loved most about the book though was that I got the strong impression that it was written out of a love for the canon and not out of a love for the money. The book appeared to have been written by someone who had read and re-read the canon and not by someone who was getting all their information from the Basil Rathbone movies.

I should add that the book does deviate from the canon so I have to advise caution if you're a purist. The book gives a different explanation for the Great Hiatus and Moriarty isn't portrayed as Doyle wrote him. I can understand how some people could have a problem with this. I admit that I did too at first. But I don't anymore. Although I love Doyle's Holmes stories, I realize that they are not perfect. They are not without their faults and contradictions and I feel that those who love the canon the most are the ones who will try to correct the faults and explain away the contradictions. And I felt that that was the reason for the book's deviation from the canon. So I would highly recommend it unless you just can't tolerate a deviation from Doyle's work.

First, the review from "henry@coombs.anu.edu.au" contains several mistakes. Lestrade does not appear in "The Valley Of Fear", and that story is a prequel to "The Adventure Of The Final Problem". Second, it is probable that Watson altered events in FP in order that it would appear as though it was his first look at Moriarty, since it was the reader's as well. By "Valley Of Fear", readers know who it is, so it is unnecessary to do the same thing. Watson has plainly stated that he altered facts to make stories suitable for the reading public. Third, there is no "official" Holmes continuity. You accept what you, the reader, wish to accept. Nothing more. I disagree with his thoughts on the later Doyle stories, but that is a matter of opinion.

That said, this is a great book which does what Doyle never bothered to do; make the narrative an intense character study where we find out some of the deepest corners of Holmes' mind. This is Sherlock Holmes at it's best, filled with splendid characterization and a cunning mystery. The drama is this story is incredible; Holmes' confrontation with Sigmund Freud is heartstopping, and his moments of weakness are heartbreaking. There are also many nice touches that warm a reader's heart, like examining Watson and his wife, Mary Morstan, and her references to "brandy and soda" and calling him "Jack".

The mystery is also quite good, and appears halfway through the book (but does not forget to deal with Holmes' addiction). There are moments of high drama and action which are integrated nicely and paced swiftly. Holmes' deductions are excellent and well thought out.

If you have ever felt that Doyle's stories lacked emotional investment for the reader, then this is the book to read.

Doyle was an excellent writer, but he did not truly understand what a wonderful character he had created in Sherlock Holmes. He saw him as merely a calculating machine, perhaps never noticing the hidden passion that he placed within the character; the kindness and heart within Holmes.

But Nicholas Meyer did.

And he displayed it in a novel that was a bestseller, that led to a feature film, and revitalized Holmes in the late twentieth century. With creators like these, with people that care so deeply about him, Sherlock Holmes will survive for another hundred years.

Final notes. Meyer is the director of several movies, including the movie adaptation of this novel, and a few Star Trek movies.

This book does have it's mistakes, and one is that if Moriarty is what he is in this novel, then "Final Problem", "Empty House" and "Valley Of Fear" are lies that slander an innocent, if annoying man.

Meyer continues his version of Sherlock Holmes with a tale of Holmes' lost years after the "Moriarty Problem." Holmes becomes a violinist for the Paris Opera and through the intervention of Irene Adler, becomes involved in the strange case of the "opera ghost." There are many problems with this novel. Watson's presence is sorely missed and efforts to replace his role with characters from the opera are unsuccessful. Irene Adler's inclusion is an uneccessary distraction and is used soley to comment on Holmes' sexual repression. The case itself is so familiar to the reader that only the inclusion of Holmes changes the basic story, thus there are no surprises.(who doesn't know the basics of Laroux's Phantom?) This was a very disappointing sequel to Meyer's other Holmes' novels and wasn't owrth the wait.

I liked this book because it combined my two favourite characters: the phantom of the opera (Erik) and Sherlock Holmes. Sherlock stayed the remarkable genius that he is(even though he blundered miserbly sometimes-but,hey,YOU try to do better). But I was really disappointed with the treatment of Erik. Meyer calls him 'the creature' and makes him more insane than even in the original book! Personally, I the most appealling thing about Erik is that he IS a sympathetic character hopelessly in love with Christine Daae. This is why I 'liked' the Canary Trainer, not 'loved' it. (P.S.-Having Gaston Leroux as the music instucter was a creative touch)

But it's not as bad as all that. Nevertheless if you want to read Meyer's Holmes pastiches I'd recommend starting with the other two (_The Seven Per Cent Solution_ and _The West End Horror_). Meyer at his best is splendid.

If you do so, then be sure to ignore the misinformation in the Kirkus Reviews excerpt above. _The West End Horror_ has nothing to do with Jack the Ripper; it concerns a pair of grisly murders that take place in London's theater district. I assume the reviewer is thinking of Edward Hanna's _The Whitechapel Horrors_.