It occurred to me while reading The Beekeeper's Apprentice by Laurie King that all the stories in the Sherlock Holmes canon are titled as "adventures." They aren't "cases" or "mysteries" (or "satsujin jiken"); they are "adventures." I find the character of Sherlock Holmes obnoxious, and the stories tend to be obvious, trivial, absurd, or lacking anything that could be called deduction (or some combination of the four), so I don't particularly like Sherlock Holmes stories... as mysteries, at least. But maybe they aren't meant to be "mysteries"; maybe they're meant to be "adventures," and should instead be evaluated from that perspective. Or maybe they are meant to be mysteries, which they clearly present themselves as and what they are widely considered to be, and I am simply putting too much stock in a single word.
The Beekeeper's Apprentice made me consider these things because I realized as I was reading The Beekeeper's Apprentice that "adventure" was a much more apt word to describe it than "mystery." As a suspense novel, it might be fine. But as detective fiction, it is certainly not. Even if I do not particularly like the Sherlock Holmes stories, I do think they have a certain charm in presenting situations with flair, but The Beekeeper's Apprentice lacks even that.
That being said, The Beekeeper's Apprentice isn't a total wash. Even if suspense isn't detective fiction, it's still gripping. The writing is great, and the characters touching. While there will definitely be some Sherlockians who object to Laurie King's interpretation of Holmes, I think there will also be a portion that enjoys it... and yet I'm still not sure who this book would be for.