by Alison Gervais

_{publisher’s synopsis}

When a fellow student goes missing, neither the police nor their teacher, Professor Watson, seem that concerned. Jules and her new friends Percy and Suruthi are determined to get to the bottom of the case and they’re not alone: the strange man who frequents Jules’ aunt’s antique shop is eager to help—and his name is none other than Sherlock Holmes.

Now there are two mysteries to solve. What happened to their missing classmate? And how can it be that Watson and Holmes—two fictional characters from the Victorian era—are alive and well in the 21st century? The only way to find answers might lie in a quote from one of Watson’s old stories: “You see, but you do not observe.” Jules may not be able to hear all that well, but without her hearing aids, she can certainly see more than the average person. And nothing about this is case is average.

---

What I Liked:

-The tidbits about Oxford were fun. I didn’t know about the Narnia door until I read A Game Most Foul.

-Jules, Percy, and Suruthi were fun characters and well-developed. Gervais balanced Jules’s hearing loss well with her character, making it a part of her but not all of her character (if that makes sense). Suruthi’s character, while a little over the top, felt realistic, which can be a tricky thing to do with a personality as bold as hers.

-For the most part, I felt that Gervais’s versions of Holmes and Watson felt fairy in line with Doyle’s original characters.

What I Struggled With:

-The side characters were pretty flat. I honestly forgot about one of the students in the writing seminar until he popped up again. While I understand needing to populate the story, I think the side characters either should have been further developed or cut. They don’t add anything really to the novel as they currently are.

-There were a couple times were the interactions between Holmes and Watson felt weird and childish. It’s been a while since I’ve read the original novels, but those instances felt inaccurate with Doyle’s characters, and how Gervais’s versions acted most of the time.

-This is a little nitpicky. but Jules’s jetlag didn’t feel realistic. I’ve traveled overseas several times and never had minimal jetlag like Jules did. Maybe Gervais and I have simply had different experiences with jetlag, but that initial feeling of inauthenticity did pull me out of the novel a tad.

-The prologue felt clunky, and I think you could skip it without missing anything. Because of the back cover copy, the reader is already clued into the fact that Holmes and Watson are alive in the modern era. However, in the prologue, Gervais never refers to Watson by name, though it’s clear that he’s the POV character, rather calling him “the man.” It led to clunky writing.

-Some of the key revelations in the book relied on telling, rather than showing. As a result, it felt like Jules and her friends didn’t do much to solve the mystery, but were rather given the information.

SPOILER BELOW

-I didn’t like how the mystery was solved. It might be simply because I like the original Watson character, but it left me feeling a little betrayed. I also am not a fan of spiritualism, the occult, etc., so I didn’t enjoy those elements being added.

END SPOILER

Overall:

While I still like the premise for A Game Most Foul, the book itself is unfortunately not for me because of some “bumps” in the writing and how the mystery was resolved. However, I do think several of my dislikes came down to personal preference, so A Game Most Foul might be a great read for you.

Cautions: seven instances of coarser language; two instances of British swearing; two kisses; light-moderate romance; SPOILERS AHEAD mentions of the occult and seances; Watson and Holmes’s immortality is caused by some sort of spiritual interference

(I received an eARC through NetGalley. A Game Most Foul releases in June 2024.)