Okay, I'm going to open up discussion on the Sherlockian. One of the things that piqued my interest about this story, was the knowledge that, although the story was purely fictional, many of the facts which it is based on are true. I found this author's "theory" of what could have happened, not only plausible, but an enjoyable read.
I think the way it was written with how the story bounced back and forth between the modern day murder mystery and the historical story about Arthur Conan Doyle's experiences, really helped move the narrative along quickly. The mystery was well written and not terribly confusing or bogged down with unnecessary red herrings. (Skye and I recently had a lengthy conversation about what makes a good mystery. For both of us, one of the hallmarks of a good mystery is that it's very simple. The author doesn't try to mislead you or steer you in a particular direction, but instead, keeps the evidence almost unremarkable, causing you to mislead yourself.) I did eventually figure out the answer to the modern murder mystery before they revealed it, but it was still so entertaining I didn't mind. I particularly enjoyed the "historical" story. (I loved that Bram Stoker was his "partner in crime" so to speak. I loved their friendship and having read both the original Dracula and much of the original Holmes canon I find the idea of their close friendship intriguing knowing the differences in their writing styles and the stories they told. It's hard to picture the somewhat old-fashioned, very outspoken and devoutly Christian Doyle, so closely aligned with the flamboyant theater manager and author of the macabre. But their friendship is well document and one of the true facts upon which this story was based.)
Probably my favorite line in the book was when Sarah and Harold were discussing the differences in the character of Sherlock Holmes before and after the great hiatus. Harold says something about him changed, while Sarah perceptively notes that the biggest changes or events were not those to the character of Holmes, but whatever had happened to Arthur Conan Doyle. It was the author who had changed, not the fictional detective. I think it's clear to anyone who has read the Sherlock Holmes canon that something traumatic must have happened to Doyle to affect the changes that we see reflected in the character of Holmes.
I wasn't as satisfied with the conclusion (throwing the book off the Falls in the company of the woman who lied and manipulated him, while he's running from the police left a few too many loose threads for my taste) but I could live with it because at least Harold finally got his answers. At least he finally knew what had happened.
All in all, I enjoyed the story a second time. And It did make me want to visit the Reichenbach Falls and the various Doyle properties and museums. As well as go back and read the original Holmes stories. I'm interested to hear your thoughts.