In The Valley of Fear,, Doyle employs a narrative structure he used in several earlier Sherlock Holmes adventures. As in earlier uses of the device, a man comes to England having made his fortune in an exotic locale (in this case, the gold fields of California). While abroad, he has run afoul of some local organization, here, a putatively benevolent brotherhood. After his return, he marries a gracious, beautiful woman who knows nothing of his previous life, a past that threatens their present idyllic existence. Thus, unraveling the current case that demands Holmes’s involvement leads to an account of the story behind the story. In Valley, this results in two extended tales of roughly equal length.

The second tale is a potboiler set in a coal and iron-mining region, whereas the first is one of the cases in which Holmes fails to prevent a death he foresees. I was impatient with the second tale, but then it was resolved in a way that surprised me. Well-done. Meanwhile, the first tale and the coda at the end involve Professor Moriarty in a contrived way. Perhaps readers had remarked that it was odd that Holmes’s archnemesis hadn’t appeared in any stories until “The Adventure of the Final Problem,” which ends in his death. In that story, Watson seems to be hearing of Moriarty for the first time. Blithely contradicting this, Doyle sets Valley, and therefore, Watson’s awareness of Moriarty, earlier.

As I continue to reread the Holmes canon in order of publication, I found this the weakest so far. Holmes is more garrulous than in earlier tales, surrounded by police investigators who bow to his acknowledged expertise. In this and other ways, the writing seems padded (was Doyle being paid by the word for serial publication?). Nevertheless, I found the solution in the first tale after a couple of misdirects ingenious. ( )

I went into "The Valley of Fear" hesitantly, as I'd heard that it was the dud of the canon. Well, I can't say I agree...

The first half of the book is a satisfying little mystery. It's certainly clear that Conan Doyle was bored with Holmes by now, as he continued to fill the gaps in the timeline rather than further the adventures, and indeed he spends as much time with other characters as he does with the formerly addicted detective. However, the author's ability to write the Holmes/Watson relationship has never been smoother, and the opening scenes between them are delightful. The characters and setting of the mystery are all interesting enough. However, pretty much every trope, clue and element of the solution has been used in a previous work, suggesting to me that Conan Doyle probably should have stopped after "The Hound of the Baskervilles".

The second half, meanwhile, is a very enjoyable story. Unfortunately, it doesn't feature Holmes or Watson or - for that matter - the other elements which are referred to in the opening chapter, and which I assumed would play a role. Also - as in a few of the short stories - Conan Doyle's attempts to write authentic American and gangster dialogue comes off as both lazy and forced. Again, nothing here is new: the secret society, the romantic melodrama, the sometimes-awkward exposition. Indeed, the novel's entire structure is reminiscent of the first two novels, only I'd argue "Valley of Fear" bests both of them. It's easily more believable than the ludicrous [b:The Sign of Four|608474|The Sign of Four (Sherlock Holmes, #2)|Arthur Conan Doyle|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1299346921s/608474.jpg|2922650], and much better written than the at-times ponderous [b:A Study in Scarlet|102868|A Study in Scarlet (Sherlock Holmes, #1)|Arthur Conan Doyle|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1266472643s/102868.jpg|1997473].

In closing, no: there's nothing new here. And if you're reading the canon in order, you'll probably be annoyed by the promise of a follow-up to earlier stories which is never taken up. For newcomers to Holmes, I'd suggest reading the short stories and then [b:The Hound of the Baskervilles|8921|The Hound of the Baskervilles|Arthur Conan Doyle|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1255670340s/8921.jpg|3311984]. After that, if you're still craving Holmes, this might be an enjoyable - if unsatisfying - dessert. ( )

I don’t know if it were me or the book, but I had little idea of what was going on after chapter 1 😂 something something freemasons? ( )

Like A Study in Scarlet, this novella is in two parts—the mystery being solved by Holmes and the backstory of the principle character in the mystery. Each part has a bit of a twist near the end. The mystery section is interesting enough, though doesn’t stand out much from the others I’ve read so far. I was spoiled on the twist (people seem to care a lot less about spoiler tags and warnings when leaving a low rating), so it’s difficult to say how I would have felt about it. It didn’t seem particularly inspired, that’s all I can really say. The backstory portion I found interesting and unnecessarily long in turns. It’s very difficult for me to get into the head of someone who is so brutal and uncaring. The twist, though, was probably one of the most surprising twists I’ve read. I did not see it coming and mentally applauded Doyle for the misdirect. I raised the story at least half a star, maybe a full star, just because of that twist.

I have to say that screen writers over the years have really done a number with Moriarty. I am sure I’m not the only person who has read these stories after seeing and hearing about Holmes over the years and imagining Moriarty as a dastardly foil for the great detective, only to realize that book Moriarty is nothing compared to his on-screen counterparts. This book had even less Moriarty than the short story in which he was introduced (“The Final Problem” in The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes), and now that I’ve read both stories with the infamous villain in them, I really can’t believe how big of a deal the character became. We really only know he’s brilliant because we’re told he is. There’s no proof given; Sherlock says he’s a criminal mastermind, so that’s all we need to make up stories about his treachery. Anyway, all of that aside, this was a more memorable Holmes story for me, so that’s something (though it has nothing to do with Moriarty). ( )

Con La Valle della Paura, Arthur Conan Doyle torna alle origini dei primi libri su Sherlock Holmes, costruendo un romanzo e non una raccolta di racconti, nei quali per me riesce meglio (tranne che ne Il mastino dei Baskerville, che è davvero superlativo).

In effetti, anche La Valle della Paura è molto bello, ma soprattutto nella prima parte: nella seconda, invece, si perde tensione e interesse, perché è il racconto di come si è arrivati al delitto (che Holmes risolve, come al solito, brillantemente).

Parlando della prima parte, l’ho trovata molto ironica, con un Holmes così in forma da dare sui nervi al paziente Watson, che però, proprio come noi, alla fine non può fare a meno di volergli bene e di riconoscere il suo genio, anche se emotivamente bislacco.

«Un manubrio, Watson! Penso a un atleta con un solo manubrio. Immagini lo sviluppo unilaterlae dei muscoli, il pericolo imminente di una scoliosi. Scandaloso, Watson, scandaloso!»

Questa citazione non sarà la più significativa del romanzo, ma mi ha fatto davvero morire dal ridere (soprattutto se ripenso allo sconforto di Watson che continua a non capire una mazza), insieme a Holmes che nel cuore della notte sveglia il povero dottore per chiedergli se ha problemi a dormire con un tizio rincoglionito solo perché non aveva capito al volo il mistero!

La seconda parte, invece, venuta meno la curiosità del colpevole risulta un po’ piatta, sebbene si redima nel finale con un plot twist di tutto rispetto. Però, Arthur Conan Doyle non è riuscito a farmi appassionare alla storia: sarà stata la carenza di Holmes? ( )