Years ago, as a younger and callower man, I swore that the only Sherlock Holmes stories I would read were those written by Arthur Conan Doyle. Then I became a John Dickson Carr fan, and it’s been a slippery slope ever since.

Of course, a man could dedicate his entire life to consuming only the Holmes pastiches written since the character came out of copyright and barely make a dent in the volume of material — novels, short stories, manga, anime, films, T.V. shows, stage plays, radio plays, computer games, board games, card games — available. And so some discretion was attempted on my part: those who engaged in such undertakings from a genuine love of the character (Carr, Anthony Horowitz, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar) got a pass, and recommendations from reliable sources got me into Elementary; I was an early fan of the BBC’s Sherlock (and still don’t think it ended as badly as others seem to believe). I read Ed Hoch’s take on the character, tried a few of Laurie R. King’s Mary Russell books, stumbled over Colin Dexter’s superb short story ‘A Case of Mis-Identity’ (1989)…and before you know it you’re reading a YA update and wondering where it all went wrong.

I have, then, taken a step back from Holmes pastiches in recent times, instead revisiting the original stories my younger self was determined to stick to, as if reasserting my once iron constitution. But, dammit, a diversion into the work of Sherlockian super-fan Nick Cardillo reminded me that there’s much about the non-canonical works to admire, and The New Mysteries of Sherlock Holmes (2014) by Martin Edwards has been lingering on my Kindle for some time now…so let’s climb to the top of the slope and start sliding down it again, eh?

Edwards, of course, needs no introduction to those of you in the classic detection firmament. A successful novelist and short story writer, president of the Detection Club, and, thanks to his recent, completely superb non-fiction efforts, winner of just about every award going. So, how does he stand up as a pasticher of the most famous detective of them all? Let’s find out…

Perhaps the most striking thing about these pastiches, written over a 14-year span, is how consistent they feel in tone and focus, with Edwards really nailing his idiom in ‘The Case of the Suicidal Lawyer’ (1997) and continuing in that vein all the way through to ‘The Case of the Musical Butler’ (2011). Not all Holmes pastiches try to capture the original timbre of Arthur Conan Doyle’s original tales, but Edwards does a pretty good job of the Watsonian voice, even if at times his Holmes is a little more wry…

“How often does a lawyer who charges by the word reduce the last will and testament of a client with some money to a single sheet of paper?”

…and his Watson occasionally more tart than we’re used to:

“There is no substitute for a flavour that gives the taste-buds what-for, my good Doctor. The success of Stubbings’ Sauce was founded upon flavour.”

“Quite so,” I murmured, striving to forget the one and only time I had ever sampled the product.

What really helps is that Edwards, who has in his career engaged in a moderate amount of pastichery, gets his tone-setting spot on, capturing with Doyle’s economy the nature of his characters or the atmosphere of his scene.

From the shuttered windows of the west wing, I surmised that Sir Greville made little use of a substantial portion of the Hall. An air of melancholy hung about the place, as though the life was ebbing from it, as well as from its master.

This bodes well, and will help the sceptical amongst you settle into these new mysteries with hopefully nary a concern about the voice used. I know it’s folly to expect any other author to ape Doyle perfectly, but I also know that for many people the little details that glimmer through here — referring to a man as a “toper”, say, when any of a number of less suitable turns of phrase might have been used, or the fact that one character has “a splendid half-hunter” — will be the makings of these stories.

On, then, to the plots themselves, which again show the restraint so often typified by the original canon. Edwards keeps his focus each time on a small cast, as Doyle usually would, and restrains his action to only a few key settings. A man with the obvious love and coverage of the Golden Age that we know Edwards possesses might be tempted to work in a few tropes from this later era of genre writing, but what impresses here is how completely the schemes feel like the sort of crimes Holmes would have investigated: ‘The Case of the Eccentric Testatrix’ (2008) and ‘The Case of the Musical Butler’ (2011) hinging on unusual behaviour, or ‘The Case of the Sentimental Tobacconist’ (2003) tugging somewhat at the heartstrings for the pathetic nature of the theft involved.

Perhaps only ‘The Case of the Impoverished Landlady’ (2004), with its vanishing room and its eponymous homeowner who “nevertheless appeared to be in possession of untold riches”, feels a little out of place, reminding me of ‘The Crime in Nobody’s Room’ (1940) by John Dickson Carr…but, as discussed, since Carr himself wrote pastiches of Holmes and was such an avowed fan of Doyle’s, even that sort of works, as if the wider world of Holmes pastiches is self-aware in an odd way. Or, hey, maybe I’m willing to give it a pass because I enjoyed it. Do you really need a better reason?

It’s amusing, too, to contrast the Victorian plot devices here with the Golden Age astuteness which would, a few decades after Doyle’s original writings, take these same approaches and turn them on their head: an impersonation done by the most obvious person, or a seemingly valueless piece of art obviously in no way being related to the unusual terms of a will — wink, wink. This is not to criticise Edwards for using them, either — quite the reverse: his commitment to the structure, characterisation, and resolutions of these older stories shows a man having great fun in an uncommon toybox. Indeed, the one arguably Golden Age conceit, a dying message, turns out to fall rather flat, and it’s to Edwards’ credit that he hasn’t tried to alter the style of storytelling to support such fanciful notions where they have no place existing. I can well believe that much fun was had conjuring with this style of crime writing, and it comes across in practically every line.

Finally, then, the other facet of Doyle’s writing that Edwards captures so well is the relationship between Holmes and Watson, especially the protective role that our narrator adopts regarding his brilliant, elusive friend. “[O]ne of the reasons why I take up my pen to relate the tale of the persecuted accountant is to dispel the widely held view that, after leaving full-time practice, my friend had scarcely any opportunity to exercise his gifts as a detective,” Watson tells us at one point. “Holmes did not lose the taste for detection when he left his rooms in London. He merely reordered his priorities.” Another moment finds Watson wondering if Holmes is “brooding about the malicious rumours concerning his move from London”, and it always amuses me to see pastiche writers wrangle with Holmes quitting the metropolis — though here, more than perhaps ever before, I find myself believing that Edwards actually has an explanation of his own all worked out…

Watson is, of course, a foil, and remains such here, albeit occasionally evincing the intelligence that an educated man would possess and that various incarnations of the ‘stupid friend’ have all but erased from his personality:

By this stage in our relationship, I was able to follow each logical step of his reasoning, even if I could never have taken those steps without the benefit of first hearing his conclusions.

Pleasingly, too, Edwards sprinkles references to other cases, as yet unwritten, which in just a few words conjure up some fascinating possibilities: “a business concerning a blind auctioneer and a croquet mallet”, “the blind woman and the Eastbourne bicycle race”, and, most tantalisingly, a case “concern[ing] two senior members of the clergy and a suitcase filled with twigs”. That final one is going to occupy a lot of space in my mind in the years ahead.

Edwards also has the good sense not to mess with the canon’s tropes: the Irregulars get one mention, but we’re thankfully saved any additional visits to or from Mycroft, or yet more maundering about Irene Adler. Such over-reliance on the familiar have unsettled more than a few pastiches for me, and it speaks volumes of the confidence Edwards rightly has in his ability to capture the tone of the original stories and tell a new case well that he’s not trying to distract — or console — us with meaningless gewgaws in this way.

Pleasingly, too, he has the good sense to let the character of Holmes largely exist as we typically know and love him, adding nothing beyond a believable awareness of the printing quality of regional newspapers. It’s fair to say that we come to Sherlock Holmes stories for Sherlock Holmes, and Edwards sensibly delivers what we expect in that regard. The temptation to tinker must be strong, but the character has endured because of the clarity and strength with which the great detective was laid down in those original tales. Play with whatever else you like in the canon — make Mrs. Hudson a spy or Professor Moriarty a misunderstood agent of the British Government, make Watson a traitor or Lestrade a robot from the future — but for God’s sake give us Sherlock Holmes. Edwards does, superbly, and is to be commended for that.

All told, then, this is an enjoyable set of tales that evinces a canny appreciation of why the characters and the stories told about them still fascinate us over 130 years since their first appearance. It’s no surprise to those of you who know Edwards’ writing that he acquits himself so well — and with more than a few nods to his legal profession along the way (“The lgeal world is the source of the best stories in the world…”) — and those of you who are here more for Holmes than the author can breathe a sigh of relief that the character is treated so respectfully and intelligently.

Let’s not pretend that all Holmes pastiches are created equal, but these do a wonderful job of making you wish more had originated from this pen. And to stand out in such a crowded field is no mean feat. Expect more extra-curricular Sherlock Holmes to follow in due course!