Much as I wanted to like this there were things in it that as a native of Edinburgh I found annoying.

The heart in the cobblestones by St Giles is not called the Heart Of Edinburgh it is the Heart Of Midlothian, the river that runs through the city is not the river Leith but the Water of Leith. As for describing Prince's Street as chic all I can say is that it is clearly a long time say they've been along it.
' a typical Scot would never be seen drunk wandering through the streets of Edinburgh for fear of being consigned to eternal damnation imposed by his Calvanist creed.' really, clearly the authors have never been out and about in Edinburgh at the weekend. ( )

This book attempts to tell the story of the Edinburgh dignitary who dabbled in crime and was the inspiration for Robert Louis Stevenson's Jeckyll and Hyde novella. Sadly, it is so badly written, that the original ambition becomes lost. There are so many howlers that the main enjoyment for the reader quickly becomes one of spotting the mistakes.

I started keeping a list of some of the better ones:

Factual error: “ostlers” are not “hotel owners” as the authors helpfully explain on page 39, but were in fact stablehands at hotels.

Sloppy sentence structure: ' “Old Braxie" (Chief Justice Braxfield) later would serve as a model for one of Stevenson's most famous works, The Weir of Hermiston.' What, as the weir? And this unfinished work is hardly considered one of Stevenson's most famous works.

Parochialism: Starting the chapter on the life of William Brodie with the sentence: "Just over a decade before the birth of George Washington (1732), and close to the events that preceded the American Revolution, there was born on September 28, 1741, William …." It is possible that uneducated American readers might need the help of some context, but as Brodie had absolutely nothing to do with Washington or the American revolution, perhaps this reference would have been better presented as an aside in the body of the chapter?

Hyperbole (and sloppy sentence structure): “The trial … could be ranked among the most famous trials in history both because of this unusual case, the oratorical flourish from a galaxy of legal luminaries, and the harshness of a sentence punishing a man for the theft of a relatively modest sum.” (Page 49) Well, where do we start? A trial that will be unknown to most until they attempt to read this book is hardly likely to qulaify as one of the "most famous" of trials. And surely the death sentence was not so unusual as to make this case one of the “most famous”? In England in 1820 (30 years later) there were still 160 crimes that were punishable by death (a neighbouring jurisdiction to Scotland, but comparable in severity). And while there many reprieves, hangings were commonplace. (At one site, Tyburn, there were 800+ death sentences in 8 years up to 1883, of which more than 400 were carried out.) And lastly, sentence structure: “both” would almost universally imply two instances, except in this sentence, in which it is followed by three causes.

Bad history: Page 55: "After the American Revolution of 1776, Britain had no readily available place left for prison exiles until Australia was later used for that purpose during the 19th century.” It is true that the loss of the American colonies interrupted the flow of convicts out of Britain, but the first Australian convict colony had already been established by the time of this trial, not 'during the 19th century'. The authors are both history professors at an American college, but the concept of history might be different in this US college - I see from the blurb that one author teaches a course in "The History of Horror", a comparitive study of classic horror literature and movies!

Sloppy sentence structure P. 55: “Erskine tried to discredit the testimony against Brodie by John Brown … because he was a convicted felon who had been sentenced to exile in England.” Remember, the court case is taking place in Scotland. Perhaps what is meant is: sentenced to exile from England, or: sentenced in England to exile?? But a better phrasing would replace exile with transportation, the term used by both the legal system and the lay community at the time, and most historians ever since.

Bad grammar: P.56: “… the incriminating evidence of the circumstances leading to the numerous thefts and, particularly, the attack on the Excise Office were, to say the least, overwhelming.” In this sentence the subject of the verb is evidence, which calls for the singular verb, was, not were. More troubling is the fact that from the following two sentences it seems that the authors actually mean that the evidence was not overwhelming.

Sloppy sentence structure, P. 61 In discussing the fact that two accomplices were allowed immunity from prosecution for giving evidence against Brodie and another, the authors write: “The prosecution was so dedicated to convicting Brodie that they were willing to sacrifice two hardened criminals for it.” Perhaps they meant to write: … willing to sacrifice gaining the convictions of two hardened criminals …”

Just plain bad writing: Robert Louis Stevenson is introduced in a chapter beginning on page 67. On page 70 we find the sentence: “The relationship between Louis and his father was particularly close during early boyhood.” This is the first reference to someone called Louis. Who is he? Well, if you wait for a couple of pages we find on page 72 that: “His family and friends called him Lou or Louis, not Robert because there always so many other relatives called Robert.” Was the editor asleep? Was this book actually given the benefit of an editor?

Huh? On P. 72 we find: “This was the retreat of his maternal grandfather Pastor Louis Balfour, the husband of his beloved aunt Maggie.” While it may not be impossible for ones grandfather to be married to ones aunt, it is, at the very least, extremely unusual. From a quick search I can find no details of this particular family relationship, but if Robert Louis Stevenson’s grandfather was actually married to RLS’s aunt, then some further explanation is called for.

Where was the fact checker? RLS’s step-daughter, Belle marries a younger man, Ned. Page 160: “At the time Belle was 56, Ned barely 34. …. they lived a charmed life that lasted until the death of Ned on the eve of his 78th birthday. She survived him by 15 years.” If Belle was 22 years older when they married, then she must have been 100 when he died at 78. If she then survived him by 15 years, she would have been 115 at her death. Not impossible, but highly unlikely. A quick Wikipedia check shows that Belle survived her younger husband by 17 years, but that Ned died at 58, not 78. Belle was 95 when she died in 1953. ( )