Member Reviews

Reviewed by my co-blogger, Celeste, on Novel Notions

I received a copy of this book from the publisher (Tor) and NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.

The Angel of the Crows is basically Sherlock fan-fiction. I can’t even say it’s thinly veiled, because it isn’t veiled at all. And I am completely okay with that.

“I may be on the side of the angels, but don’t think for a second that I am one of them.”
– BBC’s Sherlock

There were a couple of pretty big twists here and there, but for the most part this book is a collection of faithful retellings of some of Doyle’s original Sherlock Holmes stories. A Study in Scarlet, The Hound of the Baskervilles, The Sign of Four, The Adventure of the Speckled Band, and more are covered in this collection. The still unsolved case of Jack the Ripper, which has been included or alluded to in many secondary works about Holmes written by other authors, is the thread which ties all of these separate cases into one cohesive narrative. But what sets this book apart from other Sherlockian stories outside of Doyle’s original canon is the author’s truly fascinating addition of the supernatural. This is not mere whiffs of supernatural in and around certain cases. Addison created a world in which the supernatural runs rampant and is accepted as reality but civilization at large.

“You can not keep faith with the faithless.”

Where the supernatural is seen most interestingly is in the Sherlock and Watson characters. Crow, the Sherlock character in this story, is an angel. Kind of. He doesn’t have his own habitation, which is what gives angels their identity. He isn’t one of the Nameless, because he managed to wrest an identity almost out of thin air. And he isn’t one of the Fallen, who are basically angels who lost their habitations and went crazy. Crow is something that no one can define, and it freaks everyone the heck out. Everyone, that is, except for Dr. J.H. Doyle, the Watson character in this tale. After being wounded in the war in Afghanistan, Doyle finds himself sharing a flat with Crow at 221B Baker Street. Addison barely deviated from the original meeting of the two, which I appreciated. From there they embark on the adventures that have become so well known over the past century, with just enough differences to keep things interesting.

“Shepherds watch over their flocks. And angels watch over shepherds.”

The Angel of the Crows is very much rooted in the Victorian London of Doyle’s original canon. Addison stays incredibly true to the stories that provided her inspiration. But what kept this book from feeling like a stale rehashing, besides the supernatural elements, were all of the references to the BBC series that Addison included. Some of the dialogue was word for word from the show. I’ve read and loved every Sherlock story Doyle penned, but the reason behind that love is my adoration for the BBC series starring Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman. I have watched each and every episode multiple times; the first six episodes I’ve watched half a dozen times at least. It’s my sentimental favorite series ever. When Addison opened the book with a quote from the show, I was already won over. But every time she gave the series even the slightest of nods in the narrative it made me giddy. I mean, she gave Crow wings with the same level of moodiness and sass as Sherlock’s coat gave him in the show. The biggest change was Crow’s complete innocence and joy over the smallest things. Since these personality traits make him very believable as an angel, so I’m totally in favor of them. And I really don’t think they’re too far off from Sherlock’s portrayal in the show.

“Your real name has power.”

If you’re a fan of the original Doyle canon, this is a fun replay of some of its greatest hits, so to speak. Does it do anything truly new? No. The core of the stories are exactly the same. But the trappings are a lot of fun. And if you’re as obsessed with BBC’s Sherlock as I am, The Angel of the Crows is going to make you really happy. It’s as light and sweet and frothy as any plot relying on murder can get.

All quotes above were taken from an uncorrected proof and are subject to change upon publication.

U.S. Release date: June 23, 2020
U.K. Release date: September 17, 2020

Was this review helpful?

Fair warning - there’s no way to review this one without at least minor spoilers so read on only if you’re okay with that!

Going into The Angel of the Crows, I had absolutely no idea what to expect because the blurb was so vague. But I knew it would was urban fantasy so I was sold. Luckily, The Angel of the Crows turned out to be a delightfully updated version of Sherlock Holmes set in an urban fantasy world. Addison captured the characters so perfectly but still managed to make them feel new. And the world!! I could have read about it all day.

This one read more like a short story collection (which holds true to the original). But I frequently found myself wishing that Addison would stretch beyond the original stories. The parts where she did were brilliant but the majority of the book stuck very closely to the source material. So, depending on how familiar you are with Holmes, you’ll know how each part ends. Although the author’s note states that this book began as a wingfic (a subtype of fan fiction), I think the author could have really delved into this rich and fascinating world to create something special.

As it is, The Angel of the Crows is one of best Holmes retellings that I’ve read. I’d just recommend knowing what you’re getting into before you start reading! And I really hope that the author writes a sequel with an entirely original plot because I loved both her take on Watson and Holmes and her urban fantasy world.

*Disclaimer: I received an advance digital copy of this book for free from the publisher. This does not affect my opinion of the book or the content of my review.

Was this review helpful?

I can sum up this novel in one word: frustrating.

The Goblin Emperor is my favourite novel, but I’m actually not heartbroken that I didn’t love this second novel by Katherine Addison because I wasn’t sure if it would be for me when I read the blurb, which is why I’m glad I was able to receive a copy via NetGalley (and a big thank you to the publisher for letting me read it early). I love The Goblin Emperor so much that I don’t expect another book by Katherine Addison to wow me as much as that one still does, so I’m genuinely fine that this one isn’t for me.

I do have some issues with it, though, and one of my first issues is with the way it’s been marketed. Once you get to the Author’s Note at the end of this book you’ll discover that this novel started out as Sherlock Holmes fanfiction, and yet the fact that this novel is essentially a Sherlock Holmes retelling hasn’t been mentioned anywhere in the blurb. I wish I’d known it was because I have no real interest in a Sherlock Holmes retelling – I’d much rather just read Sherlock Holmes – and I do think it’s a little sneaky for them not to market it as a retelling when so much of this novel is borrowed from the original stories.

This is a novel made up of several little novellas and novelettes which retell various Sherlock Holmes stories with the over-arching plot of the Jack the Ripper murders (we’ll come back to that, believe me), but if you’re a huge Sherlock Holmes fan you’re going to know exactly where each of these stories are going. I know you could say that for any retelling, but because these stories are also set in a version of Victorian London there isn’t an awful lot of difference at the very core of this novel.

The really frustrating thing is that the differences – the fact that this is an alternate London with vampires, werewolves, angels and hell hounds – are so compelling. I still love Addison’s writing and, for all their similarities to Holmes and Watson, I did really enjoy her protagonists, Crow and Dr. Doyle. This could have been a book I loved if she’d only changed the plot, because while I think the best way to describe this book is as a Sherlock Holmes retelling it feels more like it’s been rewritten, and it often left me wondering what the point of the book is.

I know that sounds harsh, but if a novel is going to be so similar to its source material then am I not better off just reading the source material? Gah! There were so many elements of this story that I could have loved, but I couldn’t get over how all this cool, supernatural content Addison added to her version of London ended up feeling rather bogged down by its need to be similar to a Sherlock Holmes story.

I also had a real issue with how this novel handled Jack the Ripper and the Whitechapel murders. Unfortunately for this novel, it’s publishing the year after Hallie Rubenhold’s fantastic The Five: The Untold Lives of the Women Killed by Jack the Ripper was published, which was my favourite book of 2019. It’s such a brilliant piece of research which sheds light on the lives these women led and how there’s no evidence that three of the five women were ever sex workers.

To then see all of these women referred to as ‘prostitutes’ throughout this novel was really frustrating—particularly when Crow is supposed to be a master of deduction. The Five was hardly under the radar last year and I’m surprised Addison nor her editor decided to make some changes, even if they just changed some of the wording in this book, because they have had time. The Five was published at the beginning of 2019, and the hardcover of this novel isn’t due out until September 2020. It seems like such a strange book to ignore if you’re going to publish a novel about Jack the Ripper in its wake.

I so wish Addison had ignored Jack the Ripper and ignored the original Sherlock Holmes stories to tell us a more original tale with this very cool alternate Victorian London she created. I’m not usually a fan of angel books but I loved the way Addison wrote them and I think she has a real talent for writing about this century – in similar way to the way Marie Brennan writes The Memoirs of Lady Trent, which are set in a world inspired by Victorian Britain – but I don’t think she strayed far enough away from her source material in this instance.

Was this review helpful?

2.5*
I hate to give this such a low rating, but 2 stars equates to "it was okay". And this book certainly was okay. It was totally fine and I'm thrilled so many have given it 5 stars, but for me, I wanted more from it.
I think this will be a long review, because I have a lot of thoughts.

I'm very confused how I feel about this book.

This was not what I was expecting at all....at first.
The blurb gives little indication as to what this is actually about.
For some reason I envisioned this as a YA version of Anno Dracula, but I'm quite wrong there. This is neither YA, nor Anno Dracula.
This is Sherlock Holmes.

But the thing is, the blurb hypes this up to be something mysterious and exciting and out of this world.

This is not the story you think it is These are not the characters you think they are. This is not the book you are expecting.

Actually, no. I know exactly what to expect because I've read a lot of Sherlock Holmes books. And besides the supernatural element, very little originality has been injected into this story.
After the initial surprise of learning this is a new version of Sherlock Holmes (minus Sherlock Holmes himself), it very quickly lost its sparkle when the crimes started to play out almost identically as those in Conan Doyle's original books.
...sorry, wut?


Characters

As this is literally a Sherlock Holmes retelling, Crow and Doyle may as well have just been called Holmes and Watson to make it feel more deliberate. Considering most of the basic principles of Sherlock Holmes is present here, I'm not sure why their names are changed.
It would make more sense for their names to just straight up be Holmes and Watson, but of course with their very obvious differences that makes this story such a unique version of the classic tale.

Crow is an angel and a consulting detective living on Baker Street. Doyle an injured ex- army doctor, and something else entirely, and lives with him.
Their personalities very accurately represent Homles and Watson, which on one hand is fantastic, cause it really makes me feel like I'm reading a new version of Sherlock Holmes. Until I remember ... this isn't Sherlock Holmes.
Which bring me to the other hand. Why aren't they Holmes and Watson?
This author is clearly a big fan and has studied their idiosyncrasies enough to depict them perfectly. This is the perfect opportunity for a straight up alternative world, supernatural retelling of Sherlock Holmes.
And yet it's not. It feels almost like a wasted opportunity.

Crow and Doyle were so similar to the original characters that it caught me off guard every time Crow introduced himself as Crow and not Holmes.

Though I like Crow and Doyle, I find I like them only because they are Holmes and Watson under different names. Their personalities, natures, temperaments, and dynamic as a duo is what I love in Holmes and Watson, so it's difficult for me to extend that love into Crow and Doyle as they aren't individualistic enough to stand on their own.

The characters are a perfect emulation. But still only an emulation. And it leaves me a little confused as to why.


Plot

It's very difficult to review the plots of this story. On one hand I like them because they are the plots to various Sherlock Holmes tales, but on the other hand, this isn't Sherlock Holmes and these plots have been lifted entirely from the original text with a few supernatural elements thrown in. The scenarios are more or less the same, the supporting characters are more or less the same.
It's basically just supernatural Sherlock Holmes... except IT'S NOT.
I found that the more I read, the more I questioned why the hell this wasn't just Holmes and Watson.

Basically, what I'm saying is, I'm struggling to review the plot because it isn't an original plot created by this author. She's lifted Arthur Conan Doyle's work and stuck a couple of original characters in it (by original I mean they have different names because everything else about them is the same).


Writing Style
The writing is without a doubt the best thing about this book. It's authentic and very true to Conan Doyle's original text.
A lot of research has clearly gone into, not only replicating the stories of Sherlock Holmes, but also the depiction of the historical setting.

I had few complaints about the writing and that was how I knew straight away this was an adult book and not a YA. It just reads like an adult book. It reads like a Conan Doyle book. It's mature and sophisticated.

Taking into consideration how good the writing is, I'm going to say that the faults in this book lie primarily in this story and not in the author. This author is quite clearly a very capable writer and I have little doubt her other books are fantastic.

Possibly the only complaint I did have with the writing was the sheer amount of adverbs. I counted them for a while when I started to notice them (if a reader notices it, there's too many). I counted between 5 and 9 adverbs on a single page, on an ebook page no less. On a physical page there was probably more. Now I'm not against adverbs, I think they are highly necessary at times, but I don't like to notice them everytime they're used.


Final Impression
This is just Sherlock Holmes, but without Holmes or Watson, and a few vampires and werewolves thrown in.
The frustrating thing is, if this author had simply written a supernatural retelling of Sherlock Holmes and marketed it as such, I probably would have loved it.
But it wasn't meant to be Sherlock Holmes, and I just can't understand why.

I imagine that if you've never read a Sherlock Holmes book, then you'll probably love this, and I'd would whole heartedly suggesttrying it if you haven't. There's nothing ardently wrong with it. This book just wasn't for me.

Thank you to Netgalley and the publisher for providing an e-arc in exchange for an honest review.

Was this review helpful?

J.H. Doyle, a doctor wounded in Afghanistan, returns to London and finds an unexpected flatmate: a mystery-solving angel named Crow. From their home ase of 221 Baker Street, the two solve a series of mysteries, and we get to explore a London populated with vampires, werewolves, hellhounds, and other monsters.

This begun as a wingfic of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes. I'm usually not particularly keen on rehashes of popular stories, but this works so well in Addison's hands that I thoroughly enjoyed myself. The classic Sherlock stories take on a different twist in a world where ghosts and the like really exist, and Addison does a marvelous job of showing rather than telling.

Addison's other novel The Goblin Emperor has been one of my favorite books from the last few years. The well-intentioned, imperfect, utterly real protagonist won my heart, and the slice-of-life feel was a bit like settling into a comfortable bath. This shares some of those qualities: Doyle and Crow are delightful, complex creatures, and the episodic nature with an overarching mystery worked really well.

Was this review helpful?

Well. I certainly had high expectations for this book. I loved The Goblin Emperor and the concept seemed amazing – a retelling of Sherlock Holmes with magic and “This is not the story you think it is. These are not the characters you think they are. This is not the book you are expecting.” as the tagline, so presumably a fresh approach and some giant twist? Gimme. Now.

Unfortunately, it didn’t come close to living up to its promise. No matter how much I try to avoid it, the main word that comes to my mind when trying to describe it is mediocre. Deeply, painfully mediocre.

At its heart, The Angel of the Crows is a classic Sherlock Holmes retelling. Structurally, it’s pretty unique, composed of several largely independent short story to novella length arcs all connected by a framing story of Jack the Ripper. As per the author, it started as a wingfic of Sherlock (fanfic where a character has wings), which I thought was quite interesting as well. It was definitely a draw rather than a detractor.

However. What I’m looking for in retellings of classics are new takes on an old story. In a new setting, queerer, crossover, whatever. Here, the names and plot points are different and there’s magic and angels, but it even though it promises to reinvent the wheel, it…doesn’t, really. Admittedly, I’m not even remotely an expert on Sherlock Holmes, and it might work better for someone who is and gets a kick out of catching references, but changing a few details in a isn’t-this-clever way and adding magic do not a good retelling make. Not on their own. And before anyone gets their hopes up: no, it’s not even queer. As in, I don’t think there’s a single unambiguously queer character even among side characters. And if there was subtext, it’s too subtle for me to see.

There’s nothing horribly wrong with it. It’s competently written and I have no complaints about the structure or style. It was just a slog. This book’s version of Watson isn’t a particularly interesting character and of course, Crow (the Sherlock), the far more interesting of the pair, somehow isn’t around as much as I’d wish. I quite like fantasy mysteries, but here, even the plot was dull to follow and without any real tension. And yes, it can be challenging to add tension to stories everyone knows. But it’s surely not impossible.

But the main problem of The Angel of the Crows and the biggest dealbreaker for me is that it throws a whole lot of cool concepts at you and then absolutely refuses to explore them in any kind of depth. Angels are fascinating, but I can’t help but feel that more could be done with them. How does the magic impact society? What do magical beings add beyond cosmetics? Not much. Even the promised big twist is nearly forgotten a few pages later and even though I was suitably shocked by it at first, the more I think about it, the less I like it.

Ultimately, retellings of Sherlock Holmes have been done to death and unless they do something dramatically refreshing and new with the source material, I don’t see much point in reading them. This one, alas, failed to convince. If there was a 2.5* rating, I'd use that, but as it is, I will be rounding down to 2*.

Was this review helpful?

really enjoyed this book. I had not read anything by the author previously but I had heard very positive things and this was a great entry point to her writing. I loved the twist on the Sherlock stories and the "usual" characters were well portrayed with enough familiarity but enough difference that it felt unique and interesting. I would be very interested in learning more about this world and it's twist on London, particularly the angel and other supernatural communities. Really, that was the most interesting part! It's a fun read and well done.

Was this review helpful?

I have never actually read any fan fiction before, and I thought this was marvelous fun. Mix Sherlock Holmes and his cases with an angel (Crow) who helps the police solve cases, a hell hound (Doyle) who becomes his friend and helper, and numerous Sherlock Holmes references, and voila! you have the Angel of the Crows. Of course you know all will end well, but I still thought it was an interesting and enjoyable read. I particularly liked Crow, and would like to know more about him. Many thanks to NetGalley and Macmillan-Tor/Forge for the e-arc. I would definitely read more if this becomes a series.

Was this review helpful?

Thank you to Netgalley and Tor publishing for providing a copy for review.

Do you like books about supernatural beings? Werewolves, hellhounds and vampires? How about angels, and mages? Yes? How about Sherlock retellings? Yes? Well then my friends, this is the book for you! Katherine Addison has managed to blend all these elements into a fun and unique take on Sherlock Holmes. This book was not at all what I was expecting, and after a bit of mental whiplash initially I ended up loving this. It's such a fun read.
Our main characters are Dr. Doyle and Crow. Crow is the Angel of London. In this world angels fall into three categories: those that have names and a domain, Nameless, and the Fallen. When an angel gets a name, they have a public domain that is there job to watch over. So we have beings like the Angel of Waterloo station, and the Angel of Scotland Yard. Crow is unique as he has a name but no. actual domain. Fallen angels are essentially evil from what I've gathered, but I'm a bit foggy on how they become Fallen. Nameless angels can be called upon to run errands (at least they do for Crow). Crow is such a sweet, slightly obsessive angel. His and Doyle's friendship is just adorable. They lean more on the BBC version of Sherlock and Watson. This covers a lot of the bigger Sherlock mysteries like the Hounds of Baskerville, but the overarching storyline is Jack the Ripper. There are smaller mysteries where we get to see how all of these supernatural beings interact with each other and the humans of this world. I loved the magical/fantasy additions to the stories. Doyle's character has some fun twists thrown in along the way that I honestly can't discuss without spoiling things. Overall I really enjoyed this book, and I honestly hope there are more because I love Crow and Doyle. If you enjoy the above mentioned things definitely keep this on your radar.

Was this review helpful?

I received an e-arc of this book via Netgalley in exchange for an honest review.

This was not the story I expected from the summary, and to be honest it left me with mixed feelings. I really enjoyed the writing style, which has reinforced my desire to check out The Goblin Emperor, and there were aspects of the world that were fascinating. The strongest part of the book were where the author was exploring the supernatural/fantastical aspects of the world, and I would happily have read an entire book focused on that aspect, especially as I would have loved more exploration of the Nameless and other Angels. Unfortunately, this was counterbalanced by the negatives, the main one was that this was too close a retelling of Sherlock Holmes for my liking, and I found myself being jarred out of the story because of that. I understand from the author's note that this was originally Sherlock wingfic, and I feel that it would have done better if it had leant further into the second part rather than the former. The Ripper storyline was somewhat lost beneath the Sherlock Holmes retelling, and especially from the blurb I feel that should have been more of a focus. Still, it was an enjoyable read despite this.

Was this review helpful?

So this is one of the best books I have read in a long time. It is like it was written specifically for me. I love it, I love it, I love it.

I don't even know what to say so I don't give too much away. I have been a long time fan of Katherine Addison, including her writing under the name Sarah Monette. I will read anything she writes, and I already had this book preordered, so when I was able to snag this as an electronic ARC via Netgalley (in exchange for an honest review) I was thrilled. I honestly didn't know anything about it going into it. I have had a real difficult reading during the pandemic, and this shook me out of my rut perfectly. I went from not sleeping because of pandemic-anxiety to not sleeping because I was staying up late reading. It was a wonderful change of pace.

If you don't want any spoilers, don't read past this. Just go buy this wonderfully, lovely, humane book. Preorder it from your local bookstore right now. Email your local library and politely demand they purchase many electronic editions.

It starts with a medical doctor being injured in the leg in Afghanistan in the 19th century, and being saved by his orderly named Murray. But the doctor was injured by a Fallen Angel and was injured in some sort of supernatural way. I immediately went to twitter and lost my mind about the idea because SUPERNATURAL SHERLOCK HOLMES OH DANG BRING IT COUNT ME IN. It's just *so* clever and *so* well done and it's not just re-told Sherlock Holmes stories, everything is re-imagined in for this different world, and it fits so beautifully. Everything terrible about the late 19th and early 20th century is made better, and it's like a cool drink of water on a hot day.

Seeing Addison/Monette getting to write about Jack the Ripper and other murders is just icing on the cake.

Was this review helpful?

First off, I would like to thank Netgalley and Tor for providing me with an e-ARC copy of The Angel of the Crows. However, this has no effect on my review, all thoughts and opinions are my own.

I feel a little bad for saying this, but when a piece of fanfiction is adopted for a book, it should probably be very closely examined by people who have less of a stake in either the source material or the fanfiction itself. This book was almost an exact mirror to the source material, especially A Study in Scarlet. Clearly the author has done a lot of research into the Victorian era and the Sherlock Holmes stories themselves. However, I would have liked to see the added elements have a little more impact on the stories themselves. It was superficially supernatural, with the actual supernatural elements having little impact, for the most part, on the stories. For me there needed to be a larger development into how the world was changed or shaped because of the existence of the supernatural.

My other main complaint is that I never really got attached to the characters. I kept on trying to separate Crow and Doyle from Sherlock and Watson, to help them be their own beings. Crow started to a bit towards the end, but Doyle was just Watson. Perhaps that is what the author was going for, but I prefer a little more distance in my retellings. Also, Crow did very little actual deducing. He is somehow correct with his guesses, despite there being little to no evidence, purely because God (the author) had decided it to be so.

I also had problems with the semi-Victorian writing style. It just made the novel drag for me and I found myself doing other things to actively avoid reading it, such as jointly reading four other books. Also, since Doyle is the main POV, and I found him a bit boring, well, you can see where this is going.

Overall, if you're a die hard of Sherlock Holmes, Victorian style writing, or wingfic you'll probably enjoy this novel a lot more than I did. If it sounds like something that you would be interested in, you should definitely check it out. It just didn't work on pretty much any level for me.

Was this review helpful?

I’ve received this book via Netgalley in exchange for an honest review. The synopsis says: “This is not the story you think it is...” and that’s definitely true. It starts like a retelling of Sherlock Holmes and then it becomes something unrecognizable.. I must say I really liked the fact that the new Sherlock, that in the book is Crow, is an Angel. Sherlock has always had problems in interacting with other humans and being an angel is a great way to explain why it’s difficult for him to fit. But then the story becomes a mess, not only because the social structure is incredibly complex and there are so many supernatural characters but also because there are too many cases in which Crow and Doyle are involved. The main case is about Jack the Ripper, but it disappears among all the others and I think that most of them have been solved too easily that they could have been avoided from the start. There are two plot twists but one of them is so strange and unexpected that I had to read the page twice to see if I understood correctly.. honestly I was expecting a mystery book with supernatural elements but unfortunately I found the investigations not thrilling at all..

Was this review helpful?

As a kind of supernatural retelling of Sherlock Holmes mixed in with the historical figure of Jack the Ripper this book was a must read for me. While I will admit I have not actually read a single Sherlock Holmes title by Arthur Conan Doyle (something I intend to rectify), I have watched several of the movies and series that were based upon them. I honestly cannot attest how similar the plot in The Angel of the Crows is by comparison. I do know that at least elements of the stories make an appearance. This book isn't as dark and gritty as I thought it would be; however, that didn't detract from the story at all the ambiance of the book fit the characters perfectly. One of my favorite eras is Victorian England, I'm not entirely sure why but it is one of those things that I'm drawn to with books. The book did successfully convey the near hopelessness of solving crimes in the time period and the bumbling police force that jumps to conclusions definitely doesn't help matters any. This is especially true with Jack the Ripper - even with supernatural elements willing to assist the police.

While reading I found myself slightly frustrated with the lack of background information about the world itself and the supernatural beings mentioned almost just in passing. I was disappointed with that lack of backstory or information in that regard because I find it inherently interesting and made me feel like I should just... know... more than I did. Some of these are filled slightly more later, the main ones being The Fallen, Angels, Nameless, vampires, hemophages, hell-hounds and werewolves - but I still have around a billion questions. The Angels and Fallen of this book is an interesting take on the subject and it wasn't something that I had encountered before in any book I've read.

I thoroughly enjoyed the cast of characters encountered. Crow and Dr. Doyle are well developed and definitely fit with the Sherlock and Watson personalities. Crow as Sherlock softened the often harsh edges and opinions that we see from Sherlock through the perceptions of an Angel who isn't really wired to think the same way that people do. Crow's wiring leads to some awkwardly funny situations for everyone involved. There were a few characters that I would've liked to have more character building but considering how much time they were in the book specifically it wasn't really warranted. The main character I would love to know more about, including "his" background relationship with Crow, is the Angel of Whitehall. Madame Silvanova is the other, she was an interesting entry point to other aspects of the supernatural world. They could possibly be in the next book, especially Whitehall (if there is one) and we could see more of their development in it. The revelation regarding Dr. Doyle halfway through the book totally blindsided me and at first I thought Dr. Doyle was lying to the other person in the conversation as a way to escape the situation.

I believe the world that Katherine Addison has built by combining fantasy, history and other literature is unique and could very well continue in a series of she chose to do so. I found the re-imagined Victorian Era Sherlock Holmes with a twist of supernatural enchanting and I really do hope that she will indeed write at least a second novel. I would consider this book 4.5 stars - the only thing that left me wanting was some of the background information. I would recommend this book to readers who enjoy fantasy, murder mysteries, the supernatural/paranormal, the Victorian Era, and Sherlock Holmes. A big thank you to Tor/Forge and NetGalley for the opportunity to read a digital ARC of The Angel of the Crows - all opinions are my own.

Content warning: murder/gore, LGBTQ

Was this review helpful?

I read this book on strength of the author’s name. I adored The Goblin Emperor and was hoping for the same sort of light and enjoyable read. I kept reading as cozy mysteries are my second favorite genre, especially ones with a bit of paranormal in them. So she had me with the Sherlock Holmes pastiche with angels, werewolves, witches and so forth. If you think the description of the book sounds good you should find this a pleasant read!

Was this review helpful?

I was intrigued by this novel given the type of urban fantasy synopsis, however, I found it a bit of a slog to go through. For me, the setup was brilliant, the lead characters interesting but I was lost when this went down a Sherlock Holmes trip. I found myself getting confused between where I thought parts of the story would go due to to Holmes references, only to be tripped up and go off on a tangent. For me, a good book and certainly one I would read again, I just would have liked some more unique storylines!

Was this review helpful?

<i>Thank you to NetGalley for providing me with a free e-copy of this ARC in exchange for an honest review.</i>

<b>Oh no. <i>The Angel of the Crows</i> is a Sherlock Holmes retelling but with angels, demons, and Jack the Ripper. I was a huge Sherlock Holmes fan as a kid, so I was immediately drawn in. But unfortunately, there wasn't anything sufficiently <i>new</i> about this retelling.</b>

I don't understand why the basic premise isn't included in the summary but oh well.

<b>WHAT I LIKED</b>
1. The worldbuilding. I really enjoyed this alternate Victorian London with angels, hellhounds, vampires, and other paranormal creatures. They aren't explained in-depth, but I'm not the type of fantasy fan who likes having encyclopedic knowledge about book universes, so I didn't mind. Addison's angels are unique; they must be tied to a physical place to exist.

2. Crow (Sherlock) and Dr. Doyle's (Dr. Watson's) relationship. <b>Holmes is often a very surly, unlikable genius in other retellings, but Crow is such a sweetheart.</b> Sure, he's awkward because he's an angel who doesn't understand how humans work, but he does care about Dr. Doyle (he hugs him and professes that he misses him!), is kind to everyone who isn't police, and doesn't have the rudeness of other Holmes versions. Him and Dr. Doyle hit it off immediately, and they act more like partners than one man hanging off his genius flatmate's every word.

<b>WHAT I DIDN'T LIKE</b>
<b>While there were moments that squeezed my heart, there were many more that bored me. This doesn't have the same charm as other Sherlock Holmes retellings.</b> This is no BBC Sherlock, no Elementary, no Charlotte Holmes, no House MD... <b>Aside from adding a supernatural aspect, the mysteries are exactly the same.</b>

The novel is basically a series of short stories interlinked by one bigger mystery (the Jack the Ripper case), but even that didn't have a satisfying conclusion. <b>Crow does his signature deducing but it lacks magic, somehow.</b>

I ended up skipping Parts/mini-stories that I didn't enjoy. Some I really liked but many more were a big miss. Such a shame because I really enjoyed the concept. <b>Other Sherlock Holmes retellings add another aspect</b>; bigger focus on Holmes and Watson's relationship, or a more traditional method of mystery-solving, or even different drama all together. <b>Unfortunately, I wanted to tease more out of this one. Maybe if Addison had focused more on the relationships (or even Dr. Doyle's interesting personal arc!) then it would be more fulfilling.</b>

Was this review helpful?

The Angel of the Crows is a mix of Sherlock Holmes, Jack the Ripper, and the supernatural. Dr. Doyle is a former military surgeon who was attacked by a Fallen and
was discharged. Now back in London, he meets and angel named Crow who isn’t truly an angel. Together, they help the police investigate murders and other mysteries filled with vampires, werewolves, and hell-hounds.

I feel like the premise was very intriguing, but the actual story was a little too similar to Sherlock Holmes. I would’ve liked the plot to focus more on the Jack the Ripper storyline, but it kinda jumped around to other stories a lot. Because of that, the ending to the Jack the Ripper mystery felt short and rushed.

I liked the different twists that Addison puts on the characters. The gender reveal was definitely one of my favorite parts and I wish there was more to that. There were so many interesting paths that this story could’ve explored such as the Registration Act that kept coming up, gender disparities, vampire marks, etc.

The angel aspect of this book was definitely one that I genuinely enjoyed. It was detailed and explained pretty well. I liked how every angel had wings based on a different type of bird (Crow = crow wings).

Was this review helpful?

A steampunk Sherlock Holmes riff with angels, vampires and werewolves, and also the Holmes analogue is on the trail of Jack the Ripper. Which is exactly the sort of thing I would normally run a mile from – or to be more accurate, that I would have loved 25 years ago, but which now feels like thoroughly overworked territory. Still, I greatly enjoyed the only other book of Addison's I've read, her fantasy of manners The Goblin Emperor, so I requested this on Netgalley without looking too closely at the blurb, and I don't regret that, even if I wouldn't necessarily recommend this one quite so widely. The Goblin Emperor is a book which lots of people who don't think they'd like a book called The Goblin Emperor would like; it has the minute social observation, the grand balls and the finely tuned conversations, of Jane Austen, without that same besetting air of determinedly Lilliputian Middle England pettiness. Whereas here, there are going to be people who are 100% in the market for Benedict Cumberbatch's Sherlock with notes of Michael Sheen's Aziraphale, and people who really aren't, and I suspect most will know which camp they're in.

So that's Addison's Sherlock: Crow, the Angel of London. And her Watson is Dr Doyle (no, the first names are not Arthur Conan), whose Afghanistan injury is a little more complicated in this world suffused with the occult. But after they agree to room together, their first case still takes them to Lauriston Gardens, where the previous resident still died of typhoid, and the landlord still won't fix the drains. Lestrade is the same, as is the luckless Rance - though here he lives in barracks, rather than his own house. And for the most part this is how it goes - distorted reflections of the Holmes canon, and generally ones which hang together better than the flashy, fun but often incoherent Moffat/Gatiss take that inspired them. Sure, there are occasional minor glitches which don't seem so deliberate, or otherwise reminded me that I was reading a 21st century American rather than a 19th century Londoner, even an alternate one - little matters of word choice, describing Brixton as "a dismal part of east London", the modern tenor of the anti-colonialist interjections during the Sign Of The Four rework*. In places the magical set-up (which Addison frustratingly but commendably refuses to let her characters over-explain to other characters who would of course know how it works too) can feel cluttered: angels who have lost their role can be Nameless, Fallen, or simply dissolve; vampires and hemophages are separate things, as are werewolves and hell-hounds, and if you think these last two (plus ghosts, not to mention fetches and curses) being acknowledged facts might complicate The Hound Of The Baskervilles somewhat, you're not wrong. But for me the main appeal of any Holmes variant is spending time with the leads, being an invisible third to their double-act, and on that point this definitely delivers.

Also, I love that the vampires of this world seem to operate a lot like drag houses.

*A story which, for all I knew of (AC) Doyle's Norwood connection, and other Holmes cases set here, I hadn't realised took place so near to me. With our circuits so constrained since the Event, it was refreshing to again be able to visit a location I'd been reading about, and realise it sat right by one of our regular park circuits.

Was this review helpful?

The Angel of the Crows is basically Sherlock fan-fiction. I can’t even say it’s thinly veiled, because it isn’t veiled at all. And I am completely okay with that.

There were a couple of pretty big twists here and there, but for the most part this book is a collection of faithful retellings of some of Doyle’s original Sherlock Holmes stories. A Study in Scarlet, The Hound of the Baskervilles, The Sign of Four, The Adventure of the Speckled Band, and more are covered in this collection. The still unsolved case of Jack the Ripper, which has been included or alluded to in many secondary works about Holmes written by other authors, is the thread which ties all of these separate cases into one cohesive narrative. But what sets this book apart from other Sherlockian stories outside of Doyle’s original canon is the author’s truly fascinating addition of the supernatural. This is not mere whiffs of supernatural in and around certain cases. Addison created a world in which the supernatural runs rampant and is accepted as reality but civilization at large.

Where the supernatural is seen most interestingly is in the Sherlock and Watson characters. Crow, the Sherlock character in this story, is an angel. Kind of. He doesn’t have his own habitation, which is what gives angels their identity. He isn’t one of the Nameless, because he managed to wrest an identity almost out of thin air. And he isn’t one of the Fallen, who are basically angels who lost their habitations and went crazy. Crow is something that no one can define, and it freaks everyone the heck out. Everyone, that is, except for Dr. J.H. Doyle, the Watson character in this tale. After being wounded in the war in Afghanistan, Doyle finds himself sharing a flat with Crow at 221B Baker Street. Addison barely deviated from the original meeting of the two, which I appreciated. From there they embark on the adventures that have become so well known over the past century, with just enough differences to keep things interesting.

The Angel of the Crows is very much rooted in the Victorian London of Doyle’s original canon. Addison stays incredibly true to the stories that provided her inspiration. But what kept this book from feeling like a stale rehashing, besides the supernatural elements, were all of the references to the BBC series that Addison included. Some of the dialogue was word for word from the show. I’ve read and loved every Sherlock story Doyle penned, but the reason behind that love is my adoration for the BBC series starring Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman. I have watched each and every episode multiple times; the first six episodes I’ve watched half a dozen times at least. It’s my sentimental favorite series ever. When Addison opened the book with a quote from the show, I was already won over. But every time she gave the series even the slightest of nods in the narrative it made me giddy. I mean, she gave Crow wings with the same level of moodiness and sass as Sherlock’s coat gave him in the show. The biggest change was Crow’s complete innocence and joy over the smallest things. Since these personality traits make him very believable as an angel, so I’m totally in favor of them. And I really don’t think they’re too far off from Sherlock’s portrayal in the show.
If you’re a fan of the original Doyle canon, this is a fun replay of some of its greatest hits, so to speak. Does it do anything truly new? No. The core of the stories are exactly the same. But the trappings are a lot of fun. And if you’re as obsessed with BBC’s Sherlock as I am, The Angel of the Crows is going to make you really happy. It’s as light and sweet and frothy as any plot relying on murder can get.

Was this review helpful?