Sorry I was having a bit of a rant and didn't do a good review.
The book can be found here on amazon - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Study-Lavender-Queering-Sherlock-Holmes/dp/...
The introduction was by the editor, Joseph R.G. DeMarco and he wasn't providing a historical overview which is what I assumed he was going to do when I started reading the introduction and instead he started to pick pieces of history and twist them to suit his theory. Such as by stating that in the 'Final Problem' Holmes asks Watson to go to the continent with him to avoid certain matters. The next sentence states that anyone familiar with the era knows that the rich and lucky evaded prosecution for homosexuality by fleeing to the continent, and then saying no more on the subject. This is to my mind the editor trying to suggest that Holmes fled to the continent to evade claims of homosexuality which we all know isn't true. It is more cherry picking interesting factoids and overstating them while ignoring the actual historical context of the time and the canon of the stories.
I haven't heard of the authors before, some of them seemed to be up and coming in their field (one this was their first published story I think) while others did seem to be more established but I don't read LGBT fiction so don't know if they are very well known or just established. None of them were names I recognised from any other Holmes pastiches and from a quick google of the authors most of them seemed to be primarily LGBT writers or writers who were LGBT with only one seeming to have a particular interest in Holmes that was tied with other detective narratives.
The first story in the book was by Stephen Oborne and was the one that really annoyed me due to its bad writing. The next one by Rajan Khanna is much better but not exactly memorable.
Sherlock Holmes: End Justified by Tom Cavanaugh, seems more professionally written and polished than many of the "New" Sherlock Holmes stories I have read recently. It succeeds in being both original, and familiar, as all such stories should be. Clearly, the author is familiar with the Sherlock Holmes chronology, and works that into the tale neatly. It definitely held my interest, and I look forward to reading the sequel.
Two quibbles. First, for no apparent reason, the author decides to recap in detail the entire "Adventure of the Crooked Man". Why? There seemed little point to this, other than to fill space. My other complaint was the phrase "on Baker Street" being used at least twice. It should always be the British "in Baker Street". But these were the only false notes for me.