The Phantom Project Forum

The first time I read this book, I was incredibly pissed off with it. I loathed it.

As well as being a fan of all things "Phantom" (well, most things "Phantom", I can't stand Argento's atrocity) I am also a big fan of Doyle's original Sherlock Holmes stories and I thought Meyer's two previous Holmes pastiches ("The Seven Per Cent Solution" and "The West End Horror") were brilliant.

But the "Canary Trainer" left me cold. I was irritated that Meyer had departed from both the Holmes-canon and from the Phantom-canon... when I felt he could have quite easily written a piece of crossover fiction that didn't contradict either the established Holmes mythos or Leroux's original novel.
(He would just have to set the events sometime before those depicted in Leroux's book... have Holmes and Watson called upon by the managers to investigate the ghostly happenings... then end the book by having Holmes solve the mystery but not reveal his findings out of pity for Erik - this would not be out of character, Holmes has previously shown mercy to criminals before in stories like "The Blue Carbuncle")

Basically, I was disappointed that "The Canary Trainer" was a retelling, rather than a straight up prequel/midquel.

I will also concede that the weight of fanboyish expectations didn't help... I was a Phantom fan, a Sherlock fan and a Meyer fan
(more of his films than his novels - "Time After Time" and "Sommersby" are both guilty pleasures of mine and I think that the three "Star Trek" movies he was involved with were easily the best of the series)
With all those things thrown together, I really wanted "The Canary Trainer" to be a masterpiece, not merely an above average book. So maybe I was expecting too much of it?

But Anne's glowing review made me pick up the book again and give it a second chance. I'm very glad that I did because I actually enjoyed it very much, once I just accepted that it was a retelling and just enjoyed it as a story in it's own right.

What I find most interesting about the way Meyer wrote about both Holmes and The Phantom was that he did not romanticise either of them.

I wonder if Meyer was conciously trying to restore some of the mystery and horror to the character of The Phantom that has been diluted so much through various other media interpretations, his afterward seems to hint at this... The Phantom is a shadowy offstage presence throughout most of the novel, and definitely a figure of menace rather than a figure of romance.

He's come up with his own origin story for the character, and now that I was prepared for this departure from canon, I actually found it quite intriguing... more so than most of the newfangle scarred-with-acid origin stories given in the various film versions. Like Anne, by the time I got to the end of "The Canary Trainer" the second time round, I was kind of disappointed that Meyer seemed to chicken out of presenting this in full at the end
(though the first time I read this I was filled with relief... I was such a stickler for canon back then)

The Holmes/Adler relationship is also handled quite well and without any overt sentimentality. Most fan fic which reintroduce this character do so expressly for the purpose of creating a love interest for Holmes, and though there are hints of this at the end it's not something that's shoved in the readers' faces.

I still don't think of it as a brilliant book though... having Leroux as a character in the book seemed to cutesy to me, and too different from the real Leroux
(especially glaring a fault considering that Meyer's two other Holmes pastiches have portrayed real life historical figures far more credibly)

Too much of the plot development is dependent on Holmes making uncharacteristic blunders and ultimately the book pales in comparison to "The West End Horror" and "The Seven Per Cent Solution" because the readers are always one step ahead of Holmes, "The Canary Trainer" being a retelling of a pre-existing story, what suspense the story has comes from seeing in what manner Meyer reiterates certain details and how Sherlock puts things together - but the ultimate solution is already known.

Still, after reading "The Canary Trainer" I felt the urge to check out some of the other Phantom/Sherlock crossovers...

But then I read Anne's reviews and realised I would be better off avoiding them like the plague (especially Siciliano's homo-erotic version)... I think after reading Anne's reviews of Sam Siciliano and Tim Kelly's efforts I came away with even more respect for Meyer as a writer than I do already.

I think what I really liked the best about Meyer's book was that it seemed faithful to the spirit of the Holmes canon (though it deviated from the letter). It was well-written and interesting, and an enjoyable way to spend some time, and for all of that I couldn't help but like it (and I'm totally with you on Adler--I was so glad that the situation didn't get all syrupy like it does in a lot of versions. I like Holmes to be his normal, unromantic self). I'll agree, though, that the inclusion of Leroux was pretty cutesy; while I liked some aspects of it, I can easily see it's not everybody's cup of tea. It's definitely not historically accurate.

Hey, if you like Holmes, I'd say check out some of the others. Siciliano makes me snort-laugh, but there are a lot of fans who really, really like The Angel of the Opera, so you might be surprised (if I haven't spoiled it for you with my prurient interpretation, anyway). The Jones comic is pretty good, too, and sticks pretty close to canon. The Kelly plays... well, yeah, I'd say avoid those (in his defense, he wasn't trying to be good, but still, they're pretty damn awful).

Anne, seriously, if you haven't already then check out Meyer's two other Holmes pastiches "The Seven Per Cent Solution" and "The West End Horror" - they totally blow "The Canary Trainer" out of the water.

Hey, if you like Holmes, I'd say check out some of the others. Siciliano makes me snort-laugh, but there are a lot of fans who really, really like The Angel of the Opera, so you might be surprised

There are a lot of fans out there who would probably buy a paper bag full of crap if the bag had the name "Phantom" printed on it...

Seriously, just from reading your review, a lot of the concepts in "Angel Of The Opera" sound so stupid I'm amazed they ever got past the editor...

Sure, I could buy that Sherlock would let Erik go after discovering his secret - in other stories like "The Blue Carbuncle" and "The Devil's Foot" he has let criminals off the hook at the end because he has pity for the circumstances that lead them to crime... but for Holmes to go so far as to set Erik up with some blind chick is just ridiculous.
And Holmes hitting on Erik? Anything that puts Erik and Sherlock in the same story together in order to generate homo-erotic tension between them loses all claim to credibility with me.

But the main thing that makes me think that "Angel Of The Opera" would be a monumental waste of time is that Watson is written out and replaced with some cousin/author-insert I've never heard of who keeps whingeing about what a bastard Watson is.

Enough damage has been done to Watson by the bufoonish portrayal of him in various Hollywood films, without some cousin of Holmes getting in on the act.

Ben wrote:There are a lot of fans out there who would probably buy a paper bag full of crap if the bag had the name "Phantom" printed on it...

Touche, sir.

Ben wrote:But the main thing that makes me think that "Angel Of The Opera" would be a monumental waste of time is that Watson is written out and replaced with some cousin/author-insert I've never heard of who keeps whingeing about what a bastard Watson is. Enough damage has been done to Watson by the bufoonish portrayal of him in various Hollywood films, without some cousin of Holmes getting in on the act.

This is very true. That was probably my biggest gripe with the book--I really just didn't see the need, since the new character fulfilled basically all of the same functions that Watson usually does, and it all seemed very much like an excuse for Siciliano to write his version of Holmes without being accused of being unable to adhere to canon (i.e., Watson reported Holmes "incorrectly", and he is doing it "correctly").

Wellll... the homoerotic subtext is just that; subtext. I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of Phantom readers I've talked to didn't see that at all when they read the book. It's possible that it's just me. Except that it seemed SO BLATANT. I really can't decide if Siciliano did it on purpose or not, or if he wanted people to nice it or not. It's a mystery to me.