THE DARKEST OF HARBORS still sounds cool, but I'm somewhat dismayed at checking this one out...it's as if you're just walking through known history and applying the "maverick detective with an asshole boss" trope in one historical setting after another. It comes off as formulaic and possibly insincere - cranking product off an assembly line. Also - just my opinion, but I feel like the whole "serial killer" phenomenon might not have played out that much in Roman Britain. Thinking of it in terms of Maslow's "pyramid" of self-actualization, you've got your basic needs to sustain life (food, clothing, shelter) at the very bottom...and only when you get toward the top, do you start concerning yourself with things like romantic love, or finding meaning in your life's work (or whatever). In a certain light, serial killing could be seen as a kind of self-actualization - indulging a psycho-sexual fetish, and so on...but in Roman Britain, most people were overwhelmingly occupied with all the food-clothing-shelter crap at the bottom of the pyramid (more so than in 1775 with HARBORS). So mathematically, I guess I just don't see a serial killer in Roman Britain as all that likely. All of which is not to say this couldn't still be interesting and cool - if done right, and possibly tweaked with some element that sets it apart and makes it more believable.