The Angel of the Crows

Don't get me wrong, I love Katherine Addison in general. I love a good novel that comes from the realm of fanfic (hello, Winter's Orbit!). I love mysteries and a Sherlock pastiche. I love gender stuff! With all of that, I enjoyed the writing itself, but the book tried to do too much structurally and it didn't come together for me.

The Angel of the Crows is a Sherlock story, but the setup here is that Crow (Sherlock) is an angel and Doyle (Watson) took an injury in Afghanistan from a fallen angel that left them partially a hell hound (in a werewolf sort of way). Crow here is awkward but also kind, and so the relationship between Crow and Doyle where they each help and care for each other in their own way works for me. (I personally am alienated by "jerk Sherlock" and don't quite understand why anybody would ever like him.)

This book is also a direct retelling of a Study in Scarlet, the Sign of Four, part of the Adventure of the Yellow Face, and Hound of the Baskervilles. My Sherlock knowledge is not the best, and so it's possible there's other references I missed too.

For me, these Sherlock stories hewed too close to the source material. It's not that there aren't minor shifts around in the story to accommodate for the more supernatural elements in the world or of Crow and Doyle, but it's not quite enough to make a compelling story for me. When I already know what the Barrymores are up to in the Baskerville estate or about the treasure in the Sign of Four, I need something more: either something much more unexpected to happen, or for it to stretch the worldbuilding, or for it to highlight character dynamics in some fresh way. It just wasn't enough change in most of these cases to feel like all this merited a novel-length retelling with so many of the same details.

(I will say that the most fun twist was the nicely foreshadowed subversion of Mary Morstan at the end of the Sign of Four.)

The worldbuilding is a bit wild: airships, vampires, werewolves, ghosts, clairvoyance, angels, but also at the same time (somehow?)! a largely unchanged Victorian England. I have so many questions about "alternate history with magic" style changes where the magic and supernatural elements haven't deeply transformed society. There's also no indication of when or where all these things started existing or being possible; just that they're there and are largely accepted parts of society.

I was hoping that the reveal of worldbuilding was leading up to something like a supernatural mystery, or a case that more closely involved Crow and the angel consensus, or something with the vampire Moriarty plot, or even something to reveal deeper information about what angels actually are. In the end, we get a moment of connection between Crow and Doyle, but unsatisfyingly are left with nothing to tie together any of the disparate Sherlock stories, the supernatural worldbuilding, or the many loose plot threads.

 Although his public, formal manners were perfect, as angels' manners always were, I had discovered that he had no real understanding of how to treat someone with whom he did not have a strictly defined, formal relationship. I often caught him staring at me as if he had simply no idea what to do with the fact of my existence. It was not that he disliked me or that he did not wish us to be friends. He simply had no idea how and in some ways only the vaguest conception that the thing was possible at all. 

Well, this was... certainly different from The Goblin Emperor, which happens to be one of my favorite books ever.

I did know, going in, that this was a Sherlock Holmes retelling. I figured that maybe, since it's been years since I last cracked open a Conan Doyle book, my recollection of the specifics of the crimes would be dim enough for me to still enjoy the plot. Apparently, my memory functions are faring better than I thought. Even with all the supernatural twists and the addition of an overarching storyline connecting the familiar investigation, the plot was incredibly predictable and I had trouble focusing on the plotty bits. Er... on most of the book.

I did enjoy the moments that were focused more on character interactions. Addison's version of Moriarty is now officially my favorite, and Crow—the Sherlock stand-in—is a compelling character, as well. Most of all, I enjoyed the parts that explored the setting. As I said in one earlier review of another book (The Bear and the Nightingale), the setting alone isn't enough to carry the story for me, but in this case, combined with interesting characters, it at least held my attention. I strongly feel that this version of Victorian London with all its angels and vampires and hemophages and hellhounds deserves a book with  its own original plot that focuses on fully exploring what this world has to offer. I hope to read it someday.

My favorite moment was the conversation that revealed the characters' queerness. Like some reviews I've seen state, it did come pretty much out of the blue and it didn't influence anything much. However, that's precisely what I loved it. I always enjoy stories where queer characters get to just, you know, exist and do stuff and not have parts of their fictional lives turn into educational pamphlets. There doesn't have to be a point to a character being queer any more than there needs to be a point to a character being straight. If you don't ask questions like, "But what was the point of X being cishet? It doesn't add anything to the story!", you shouldn't ask these questions about characters who are trans, or ace, or gay, or queer in any other way. That's my hill, I'm prepared to die on it. :)

Overall, however, I'm sad to say I didn't enjoy the book very much. I did enjoy the parts of it that belonged to Katherine Addison's imagination and not the one that came from Conan Doyle's stories. I'll say it again: this world and these characters deserve something uniquely their own.

Read for the following September 2020 readathons:
- Monsterathon: Mystery