I love Pérez-Reverte. I’ve been reading him for decades. There are things I like more and consider true works of art (Line of Fire) and other lesser works that I think are merely the author amusing himself.
This novel undoubtedly falls into that second group.
It is therefore a simpler, lighter work than others by the author. And that is not necessarily bad (there’s the Alatriste series and its worldwide success). But here we run into a problem that, without being final, makes this one of the books I have enjoyed least among all the books by the writer from Cartagena.
But let’s take it part by part. No spoilers, of course.
Índice de Contenidos del Artículo
The plot
We are in 1960. In a hotel on a small Greek island, a storm leaves several characters cut off.
Then what could have been several boring days trapped in the hotel is cut short by something else: a body appears. Suicide, in theory.
Since the police will take days to arrive, the rest of the guests decide that the protagonist —Hopalong Basil, an actor who has played Sherlock Holmes on screen countless times— should take on the role of detective.
An actor playing Holmes in real life.
This is the basis of the work.
Also, making the most of the setup, Pérez-Reverte pays constant, explicit tribute to Conan Doyle, almost on every page. He makes no attempt to hide it. Quite the opposite: it gives the novel substance.
What I liked
Reverte writes well. Always. That is not up for debate.
The novel is agile, quick to read and technically very well built. It also introduces an interesting element: it breaks the fourth wall by pointing out that the real duel in the work is not the one between murderer and detective, but between author and reader.
It is a powerful idea. One that makes you rethink how you analyze detective, crime and noir novels you may have read so far: does this duel happen in all of them? In which ones does it, and in which ones not? Does it match your perception?
The problem
But for whatever reason, this intellectual challenge along the lines of “let’s see if you follow my clues” that the writer proposes has not clicked with me. It has not sparked in me any desire to try.
Perhaps it has done so for other readers, in which case I am sure their assessment of the book will be better. But, as I say, it has not worked for me.
It is probably because the basic idea —that an actor could act as Sherlock Holmes— makes the suspension of disbelief required in any fiction wobble.
I do not buy it.
And yet, back when I read them many years ago, I could believe the adventures of the British detective with the pipe. Every single one of Conan Doyle’s stories achieves it, however unlikely they may seem.
This is serious because, in a mystery novel (or film, or series), if you fail to make the reader suspend disbelief, the house of cards starts to wobble.
And why does that not happen here? Well, in my opinion, the reason is that I feel that the novel does not take itself completely seriously.
As if, by being a tribute, the writer wanted to prove it all the time. As if Pérez-Reverte were shouting at us at every moment: “hey, this is not a mystery work, but a tribute to all of them”.
And that is what makes it not work. At least for me.
That feeling is helped by the fact that —except in the case of the protagonist— there is not much depth in the characters either. They are pieces serving the mechanism.
Reading this right after What We Become, the contrast is strong. There, the characters are complex, well developed, each revealing themselves little by little over the pages.
It is not that this is essential for a mystery novel to work —see again any Conan Doyle story— but it certainly does not help change the impression that, for the author, this is a minor work.
This is in line with what the author said about the book:
He does not want to make the characters interesting, but rather their dialogue. And yes, I think he achieves both things.
Conclusion
I close as I opened the article: it is an entertaining novel. Well written. Intelligent in some of its ideas and dialogue.
But it remains one step below the author’s best works.
Good entertainment. A well-executed tribute. But not a novel that leaves a mark on you, as several other works by the writer have done for me.
Fact sheet
| Field | Data |
|---|---|
| Title | The Final Problem |
| Author | Arturo Pérez-Reverte |
| Publisher | Alfaguara |
| Year of publication | 2023 |
| Publication date | September 5, 2023 |
| Pages | 328 |
| Available formats | Hardcover with dust jacket, audiobook, multimedia eBook, hardcover, paperback and flexibook paperback |
| Genre | Crime novel, mystery, thriller, suspense, fiction |
| Type of work | Puzzle novel / whodunit |
| Original language | Spanish |
| Country | Spain |
| Setting | June 1960, the fictional island of Utakos, off Corfu |
| Main characters | Hopalong Basil, Edith Mander, Foxá |
| Literary references | Sherlock Holmes, Arthur Conan Doyle, Basil Rathbone |
| Premise | A storm leaves several guests stranded on a Greek island; after an apparently suicidal death, an actor who played Sherlock Holmes must take on the role of detective. |
| ISBN / EAN hardcover edition | 9788420476360 |
Rating
Who it is for
✔️ Pérez-Reverte fans who accept a minor work within his bibliography.✔️ Those looking for an fast-paced, well-written and easy-to-read novel.
✔️ Readers who value the literary game and dialogue more than character depth.
Who it is not for
❌ Those looking for Pérez-Reverte at his best.❌ Readers who need plausibility and a work that takes itself entirely seriously.
❌ If you expect a deep novel that leaves a mark.
Frequently asked questions
What is The Final Problem about?
The novel takes place in 1960, in a hotel on a small Greek island. A storm cuts the guests off and a dead man appears in what looks like a suicide, although it probably is not. Since the police will take days to arrive, those present try to solve the mystery on their own.
Who is Hopalong Basil?
He is the protagonist: an actor famous for having played Sherlock Holmes in the cinema. In the novel he is asked to take on the role of detective in real life and try to solve the case while they are cut off.
Is it a tribute to Sherlock Holmes?
Yes. The book is an explicit tribute to the Baker Street detective and to Conan Doyle’s work. The references are constant and form part of the novel’s own literary game.
What is the best thing about the book?
It is very well written, agile and quick to read. It also poses an interesting challenge: the true duel is not only between murderer and detective, but between author and reader.
What does not work?
The story never feels entirely believable and the suspension of disbelief suffers. It also lacks greater depth in the characters (except for the protagonist), who function more as pieces in the mechanism than as memorable characters.
Is it worth reading?
If you are looking for a light, entertaining read with a clear homage to Holmes, yes. If you expect a deeper and more emotional novel, like others by the author, it will probably feel a little short.
Leave a Reply