Jump to content

the Mary Russell books by Laurie R. King


chironsgirl

Recommended Posts

He could be married and still be the main character, I should think.

 

As for the apparent asexuality of that marriage, that could easily be chalked up to Russell's idea of propriety: One can do it without talking about it!  Judging by the famous riverbank scene, I suspect there's at least a bit of fire in their relationship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Herlock,

 

It has long been my belief that Gene Roddenberry modeled his primary Star Trek duo on the Baker Street pair--with the addition of Bones essentially splitting the salient features of Doctor Watson into two individuals.

 

On the Starship Enterprise (representing London in its totality, and the bridge being '221b in space') we have an emotional, human, eye for the ladies, prone to temper and other emotional foibles that at times compromise his ability to think and lead rationally Captain Kirk, and his first mate, the half-Vulcan, usually emotionless Spock, who can be tripped up (albeit rarely) by his pesky Human side, but which for the most part he is able to squelch except in times of great stress.

 

I would draw your attention to the similarities between the names Sherlock and SpOCK, and to the enduring partnership of these two completely temperamentally disparate individuals which, though Spock might struggle to articulate in such terms, represents a relationship of best friends who have each others' backs no matter what.  The dynamic is altered from Conan Doyle insofar as the more flawed and human one of the pair is the more dominant personality, but in other respects I think the comparison holds up very well.  In both partnerships, each man (or half-man) brings qualities to the relationship that makes each more whole and functional together than each individual by himself, and these complementary strengths rub off on one another.  Hence, Watson/KIrk learns to behave more rationally and Sherlock/Spock becomes marginally more emotional in close association with his warmer, more emotional friend.

 

As to what Sherlock would attempt to dismiss or attribute vis-a-vis his motives toward the fairer sex . . .I will just say there is the sound bite one releases for potential publication when one happens to live with a Boswell who is documenting his every move and utterance for posterity . . and then there is a man's private thoughts.  In the story "A Case of Identity", Dr. Watson has to intervene to stop Holmes from *literally* horsewhipping a cad who had played around with a lady client's affections and broken her heart.  The lady herself did not ask him to do this and in fact was bearing up quite well under these humiliating circumstances.  It was Holmes who spontaneously intended to inflict serious bodily harm to this man because SH was so very livid on the lady's behalf.  Dr. Watson stopped him before he could be arrested for GBH.

 

Does *this* sound like a man who is nothing but dispassionate and manipulative toward women as a matter of solely professional detachment?  There are several other incidents, too, where Holmes is profoundly touched by the plight of a female client, one feels, not simply as a 'matter of interest' in an ongoing investigation, but to the level of deep concern and ongoing thoughts for her welfare long after the case was concluded.  There's Elsie Cubitt in "The Dancing Men", Lady Brackenstall in "The Adventure of Abbey Grange", the wronged lady in "Charles Augustus Milverton" . . and, of course we cannot fail to mention The Woman, who appears in the third case that ACD ever wrote up and remains as a kind of spirit Muse throughout the remainder of SH's career.

 

Just saying that SH is not nearly as disengaged from matters of the human heart as he likes to pretend for the benefit of Watson and his reputation as a Thinking Machine.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Post with abandon? I'm overwhelmed with the heady possibilities!

 

Well, now that I'm 'official', perhaps I can afford to court a bit of controversy.

 

The following link relates the 'real' truth behind Mary Russell and her purported marriage to Sherlock Holmes, as discovered and related by David Marcum. My thanks to the author for introducing me to it, and for his tireless work on behalf of the Great Game. And also for rocking a deerstalker as daily head gear in our modern world.

 

http://sherlock-holmes.com/Marcum_Descent.html

 

The author was in communication with Mrs. King, who was at first bemused and tolerant of his application of his Game principles to her signature character. Those who read on will see that she had reason to become swiftly disenchanted the direction Mr. Marcum was taking her character and severed communications with him forthwith.

 

Much like Michael Dibdin did in his infamous Holmes pastiche, Mr. Marcum goes boldly into his audacious, original vision and dismantles some beloved truths clung to by Sherlockians. Such audacity is guaranteed to make some (powerful) enemies, but he's not backing down.

 

For my part, I'm content to say that in his sixties, Sherlock Holmes surely could have taken to wife a 21-year-old proto feminist bluestocking young woman with intellectual capabilities that didn't embarrass her in his company. But it was never any kind of marital union which regular folk like us would recognize. No sex, for one thing. Ignoring each other for months on end for another, whether they are sharing the same cottage or on two different continents. Essentially how Holmes treated Doctor Watson during their long association. The mere fact of Russell being a female need not intrude at all, and for those two, it really doesn't seem to be a factor. This might sound like a not-bad arrangement for some. I confess that personally, I'd find the 'no sex' thing too difficult to cope with. A husband isn't supposed to be a platonic roommate. Not for nothing is my favorite 'Sherlock BBC' episode of all 'A Scandal in Belgravia'. My inner Adler, she is strong.

 

I welcome any discussion on this if anyone feels so led.

I just read David Marcum’s ‘Descent..’ I thought it was very convincingly written. I really liked it.

It may have upset some (although I can’t really see why it should?) but I think that’s on the reader rather than the writer.

The only time that I ever got angry at something I read that was related to this subject was when a book was released fairly recently proposing Doyle as Jack The Ripper! (adding him to a list which has involved Lewis Carroll, Vincent Van Gogh, Walter Sickert and Henri Toulouse L’Autrec!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. David Marcum would heartily congratulate you on your stance, as it reflects his own thinking.

 

The more time I spend with Sherlock Holmes, the more I realize that according him a capacity for strong emotions ('humanity') in a word makes his strenuous application of will in order to suppress any 'natural' tendency toward emotions/attachments for the benefit of his work as a detective more of an awe-inspiring achievement.  If he were born devoid of those squishier human feelings . . what we moderns would call 'on the spectrum' . . he'd have been an even more effective detective....

 

Would he, though?  Don't his own emotions (suppressed though they may be) allow him to understand the emotions of others, and the ways in which those emotions can affect behavior -- criminal or otherwise?

 

Maybe there is some similarity between Holmes and Mr Spock in Star Trek? Spock is half-human half-Vulcan and is in a constant battle to suppress his human emotions. Holmes would probably have felt frustration due to his inability to completely suppress his human emotions which he would see as destructive to his aims for perfect logic/reasoning.

 

As an aside, Spock has both human emotions AND Vulcan emotions.  Vulcans are by nature perhaps even more emotional than humans (consider their cousins, the Romulans), but long ago they decided that they only way their race could survive in the long term was to suppress their emotions almost completely.

 

As I said above, regardless of Holmes (again, like Spock) resenting his pesky emotions, I suspect they actually make him a better analyst of human behavior.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good points Carol. If Holmes had a real ‘emotion deficit’ it would have been a serious chink in his Detective armoury especially when trying to deduce a suspects behaviour or thought processes. I have no medical knowledge but I’d compare it to the issues facing an autistic person, or someone with Asperger’s. Although I haven’t watched it for a while I do love The Big Bang Theory. Think of the problems that the brilliant Sheldon meets because he has problems understanding people.

Holmes just seeks to keep the ‘harmful’ ones under wraps. Ones that might cause him to stray from the path of reason. Also I think that by creating this emotionless persona Holmes was able to keep people at arms length; especially women. Holmes, knowing that he was ultimately capable of falling in love, would seek to avoid that risk at all costs.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Post with abandon? I'm overwhelmed with the heady possibilities!

 

Well, now that I'm 'official', perhaps I can afford to court a bit of controversy.

 

The following link relates the 'real' truth behind Mary Russell and her purported marriage to Sherlock Holmes, as discovered and related by David Marcum. My thanks to the author for introducing me to it, and for his tireless work on behalf of the Great Game. And also for rocking a deerstalker as daily head gear in our modern world.

 

http://sherlock-holmes.com/Marcum_Descent.html

 

The author was in communication with Mrs. King, who was at first bemused and tolerant of his application of his Game principles to her signature character. Those who read on will see that she had reason to become swiftly disenchanted the direction Mr. Marcum was taking her character and severed communications with him forthwith.

 

Much like Michael Dibdin did in his infamous Holmes pastiche, Mr. Marcum goes boldly into his audacious, original vision and dismantles some beloved truths clung to by Sherlockians. Such audacity is guaranteed to make some (powerful) enemies, but he's not backing down.

 

For my part, I'm content to say that in his sixties, Sherlock Holmes surely could have taken to wife a 21-year-old proto feminist bluestocking young woman with intellectual capabilities that didn't embarrass her in his company. But it was never any kind of marital union which regular folk like us would recognize. No sex, for one thing. Ignoring each other for months on end for another, whether they are sharing the same cottage or on two different continents. Essentially how Holmes treated Doctor Watson during their long association. The mere fact of Russell being a female need not intrude at all, and for those two, it really doesn't seem to be a factor. This might sound like a not-bad arrangement for some. I confess that personally, I'd find the 'no sex' thing too difficult to cope with. A husband isn't supposed to be a platonic roommate. Not for nothing is my favorite 'Sherlock BBC' episode of all 'A Scandal in Belgravia'. My inner Adler, she is strong.

 

I welcome any discussion on this if anyone feels so led.

I just read David Marcum’s ‘Descent..’ I thought it was very convincingly written. I really liked it.

It may have upset some (although I can’t really see why it should?) but I think that’s on the reader rather than the writer.

The only time that I ever got angry at something I read that was related to this subject was when a book was released fairly recently proposing Doyle as Jack The Ripper! (adding him to a list which has involved Lewis Carroll, Vincent Van Gogh, Walter Sickert and Henri Toulouse L’Autrec!)

 

 

 

If I hear from Mr. Marcum again, I will be sure to pass on your compliments.

 

It was, as I said, a bold theory.    His voice for Sherlock was convincingly rendered, although I think the author betrays his basic unfamiliarity with the Russell books with some of his dialogue.  The references he has Holmes making to his alleged marriage with Russell are incredibly vague.  Holmes would, I think, be capable of being exactly specific--1921 is the proposed year for the Russell-Holmes marriage.  Nor is it likely that Holmes would have been so clueless about Russell's pathological romantic attachment to him over a period of a decade-plus  that he'd have to have it pointed out to him by a third party--his own kid, no less, who had only just met Russell.

 

Nor do I think it at all likely that a demonstrably suicidal patient in a secure lockdown facility would be so cavalierly be entrusted with a pen, do you?  A person bent on self-harming could do all sorts of damage with a pen.

 

Doyle as Jack, eh?  Well, it was proposed that the Ripper was possibly a doctor, but this is hardly a likely scenario.  Arthur was an athletic guy but as far as we know wasn't he based in Portsmouth during Bloody Jack's reign? 

 

I wonder if you would enjoy Graham Moore's "The Sherlockian"--that features a dual timeline narrative--contemporary (2010) and turn of the century (1900).  Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and his good friend Bram Stoker assume a very Holmesian-Watsonian partnership to assist Scotland Yard with an investigation.  This episode was loosely based upon a real-life period in Doyle's career.

 

 

Oh dear--this didn't turn out right and I don't know how to fix it.  I've put my reply inside the quote box.    I think you can figure it out, Herlock.  Not sure how to fix it.

Edited by Carol the Dabbler
fixed the quote box
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don’t worry about the boxes Hikari, I have made 1000+ posts on the Casebook.org forum and I still can’t use the quote function properly! I’m useless with technology though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has long been my belief that Gene Roddenberry modeled his primary Star Trek duo on the Baker Street pair--with the addition of Bones essentially splitting the salient features of Doctor Watson into two individuals.

 

On the Starship Enterprise (representing London in its totality, and the bridge being '221b in space') we have an emotional, human, eye for the ladies, prone to temper and other emotional foibles that at times compromise his ability to think and lead rationally Captain Kirk, and his first mate, the half-Vulcan, usually emotionless Spock, who can be tripped up (albeit rarely) by his pesky Human side, but which for the most part he is able to squelch except in times of great stress.

 

I will certainly not dispute that a close parallel can be drawn -- but I don't believe that was Roddenberry's intention.

 

GR said that his model for the Captain (originally Christopher Pike, played by Jeffrey Hunter) was fictional naval Captain Horatio Hornblower.

 

Spock's role in GR's original plan was simply to be the alien presence, to keep the audience ever-aware that the show takes place in an outer-space future.  In the first pilot ("The Cage," footage from which was later incorporated into the two-parter "The Menagerie"), Spock behaves pretty much like any other crewman, and is distinguished only by his pointed ears and slanted eyebrows.  In that incarnation of Trek, the cold, rational presence is a woman known only as "Number One" (played by Majel Barrett).

 

For the second pilot ("Where No Man Has Gone Before," used as a first-season episode), "Number One" was merged into Spock, who became highly logical and intelligent, though he still retained fairly human behavior.  Kirk was now the Captain, less moody and philosophical than Pike, more action-oriented.  As Pike's successor, Kirk was conceived as a military man, so in that sense (plus having an eye for the ladies) he resembles John Watson, but was apparently not inspired by him.

 

It wasn't until filming of the first regular episode ("The Corbomite Maneuver") that the classic Spock personality emerged, and it wasn't Roddenberry's idea or even in the script.  The director, Joseph Sergeant, suggested to Nimoy that, instead of Spock getting visibly excited by new information, maybe such a highly-intelligent, intellectual type person would react by calmly saying "Fascinating."  Nimoy took the idea and ran with it, obviously, but he always credited Sergeant for inspiring him with what I consider one of Spock's most Holmesian characteristics.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carol,

I don't doubt that I am projecting a Baker Street mojo onto the Starship Enterprise because it is my fond wish that it be true, and it tickles me.  It seems very likely that something of the most famous literary partnership of temperamental opposites ever created influenced, however slightly, Rodenberry when he set about creating the most famous intergalactic partnership of temperamental opposites ever created.  "Spock" sounds sufficiently alien and a bit off-putting in its blunt staccato sound--almost sounds like one is hawking a lougie when one spits out that hard word.  Still . . .out of all the possible names Gene might have chosen for his half-Vulcan science officer, he picked one just a syllable removed from S-H-E-R-L-O-C-K, the original earth-based Vulcan.  At any rate, I think it had to be knocking around in his brain on some level.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don’t worry about the boxes Hikari, I have made 1000+ posts on the Casebook.org forum and I still can’t use the quote function properly! I’m useless with technology though.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carol (or any moderators feel free to respond),

 

Re. my text box glitch earlier . .  would anybody be willing to share with me if it's possible to cut and paste into the reply boxes here?  I've tried it but so far no joy.  I'm still learning some of the site features, so apologies if that is a really obvious question.  I posted a link with no problems but it doesn't work to import a block of text.

 

Also my emojis don't seem to want to go where I intend them to.  They keep wanting to migrate to the top of a post when I want them to go on the bottom.

 

Thanks for your assistance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Don’t worry about the boxes Hikari, I have made 1000+ posts on the Casebook.org forum and I still can’t use the quote function properly! I’m useless with technology though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Herlock,  (BTW, I see after posting this that you hit the buzzer just before me, so this will repeat some of the stuff you have already replied to, most likely)

 

 

Seeing as you are kind of our resident Ripperphile here, I'd be interested to know of your theories of the Ripper's identity.  I presume you find Lyndsay Faye and Laura Joh Rowland's hypotheses plausible?

 

I had a chill go through me when I read Faye's theory.  I've always struggled with the notion that Saucy Jack was a gentleman, with a gentleman's demeanor and potentially a private carriage for picking up his prey and doing his ill deeds.  I'm sure gentlemen from all quarters of London wound up in Whitechapel intent on a debauch, but surely a guy with means and a taste for the wild side could have found willing ladies of the evening in more salubrious parts of London?  There were any number of establishments catering to the higher class gents wanting some female company by the hour.  How desperate would a gentleman have to be to wind up shopping for companionship in Whitechapel?  Of course, we know Jack wasn't just there to have a bit of slap and tickle and be on his way.  However, gentlemen's attire and most assuredly a gentleman's carriage would have stood out worse than a sore thumb--they would be a beacon announcing his presence in the district.  The last thing that Jack would have wanted.  And, I've never been to Whitechapel but I know that its streets would have been in the main too narrow to make getting away cleanly with a carriage a tricky prospect.  No, Jack was on foot, he was moving fast, and he had intimate knowledge of the warrens of Whitechapel, enough to know of shortcuts and to potentially have any number of hidey holes to stash tools, changes of clothing, what have you . . .or to duck into if he felt the heat getting too hot.  Perhaps he even grew up in Whitechapel.  I don't think any visiting 'gentleman' from another part of the city or another country full-stop like the U.S. would have such intimate knowledge of Whitechapel and her denizens.

 

Then there is the matter of how easily he got these women to go with him.  Of course, they were all desperate and would have glommed onto any prospect of getting a drink and a few bob for the night--but what if Jack hand-picked his victims not strictly from opportunity, but because he *knew* them . . as in, knew to say hello to and tip his tall hat to in the course of his rounds?  If he'd cultivated a reputation as a copper who would turn a blind eye to their activities, perhaps, it was suggested, with a bit of a 'freebie' to ensure his cooperation . . .a bent copper wouldn't make these street birds have batted an eye . . .and if they already knew and trusted him as a friendly sort willing to do them a favor in exchange for a quickie in the alley--why wouldn't they have trustingly have gone with him down a dark passage?  After all,  if he was the 'law', he wasn't going to hurt them, was he?  Arrest them maybe . .but not anything violent.

 

If he were in fact a Whitechapel boy whose mother had gotten sucked into the life of the streets . . and he joined the police as one of the few career paths providing respect and an opportunity for advancement for a working-class bloke  . . well, we must had the brain-tickling possibility, then, that the Ripper might very well have been one of Fred Abberline's own constables--if not a higher ranking officer.  As to why the Ripper stopped so very suddenly--if he did in fact stop and not just transfer his activities to another jurisdiction--not sure.  Maybe he felt the net closing around him and left London.  Maybe he committed suicide and became one of the thousands of unidentified bodies washed up by the Thames.  We will never know for sure but the 'Ripper as copper' theory seems very chillingly plausible to me.  More so than Ripper as random civilian.

 

What do you think about this?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Don’t worry about the boxes Hikari, I have made 1000+ posts on the Casebook.org forum and I still can’t use the quote function properly! I’m useless with technology though.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't doubt that I am projecting a Baker Street mojo onto the Starship Enterprise because it is my fond wish that it be true, and it tickles me.  It seems very likely that something of the most famous literary partnership of temperamental opposites ever created influenced, however slightly, Rodenberry when he set about creating the most famous intergalactic partnership of temperamental opposites ever created.  "Spock" sounds sufficiently alien and a bit off-putting in its blunt staccato sound--almost sounds like one is hawking a lougie when one spits out that hard word.  Still . . .out of all the possible names Gene might have chosen for his half-Vulcan science officer, he picked one just a syllable removed from S-H-E-R-L-O-C-K, the original earth-based Vulcan.  At any rate, I think it had to be knocking around in his brain on some level.

 

Yes, you have an excellent point.

 

Holmes is so much a part of our culture that many people associated with Trek may have been subconsciously influenced by that character as they made successive approximations to the familiar Spock, starting with Roddenberry's first couple of versions.  Not that anybody thought, hey, let's make him more like Sherlock Holmes!  More like, each time they tweaked the character, it just "felt right" -- until Nicholas Meyer (who wrote both Seven Percent Solution and Wrath of Khan) could have Spock attribute a famous Holmes quote to "one of my human ancestors" and everybody thinks, yeah, that makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't doubt that I am projecting a Baker Street mojo onto the Starship Enterprise because it is my fond wish that it be true, and it tickles me.  It seems very likely that something of the most famous literary partnership of temperamental opposites ever created influenced, however slightly, Rodenberry when he set about creating the most famous intergalactic partnership of temperamental opposites ever created.  "Spock" sounds sufficiently alien and a bit off-putting in its blunt staccato sound--almost sounds like one is hawking a lougie when one spits out that hard word.  Still . . .out of all the possible names Gene might have chosen for his half-Vulcan science officer, he picked one just a syllable removed from S-H-E-R-L-O-C-K, the original earth-based Vulcan.  At any rate, I think it had to be knocking around in his brain on some level.

 

Yes, you have an excellent point.

 

Holmes is so much a part of our culture that many people associated with Trek may have been subconsciously influenced by that character as they made successive approximations to the familiar Spock, starting with Roddenberry's first couple of versions.  Not that anybody thought, hey, let's make him more like Sherlock Holmes!  More like, each time they tweaked the character, it just "felt right" -- until Nicholas Meyer (who wrote both Seven Percent Solution and Wrath of Khan) could have Spock attribute a famous Holmes quote to "one of my human ancestors" and everybody thinks, yeah, that makes sense.

 

 

Aha!  See, you are more of a Trekker than me.  I didn't know that Spock reference Sherlock Holmes as an ancestor nor that Nicholas Meyer wrote a ST movie.

 

Then we come full circle, when Benedict Cumberbatch, made internationally famous by portraying the Great Detective became even more internationally famous (in China, as 'Curly Fu') when he portrayed 'KHAAAAAAN!"

 

I think all writers working in this genre in any medium owe a creative debt to Sir Arthur.  I'm in the midst of rereading the Tony Hill-Carol Jordan forensic thriller series by Scottish author Val McDermid.  In 'The Last Temptation', the novel I'm in now, McDermid has her profiler hero Dr. Tony Hill (memorably played by Robson Green in the TV series) utter this line, verbatim:  "It's an error to theorize ahead of the facts."  Some people may think that Tony thought that up off the cuff, but we know Sherlock said it first.  And Dr. Hill does have very Sherlockian traits.  He is partnered with his 'Watson', or perhaps better said, his "Lestrade" in the person of DCI Carol Jordan.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're right, that ACD basically pioneered the detective novel that we know today.  (Though he credited Poe with that honor, and I must admit that I've never read AEP's detective fiction.)  For one thing, Watson is the first "ear" that I know of, the first-person narrator that the detective sometimes confides in (thus allowing the author to introduce bits of exposition in a natural sort of way), and who tells the story based on his own observations of the detective at work.  This device allows the author to keep most of the detective's thoughts private until he's ready to unveil the killer, and also allows the author to make the occasional less-than-complementary remark about the detective.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re. my text box glitch earlier . .  would anybody be willing to share with me if it's possible to cut and paste into the reply boxes here?  I've tried it but so far no joy.  I'm still learning some of the site features, so apologies if that is a really obvious question.  I posted a link with no problems but it doesn't work to import a block of text.

 

Also my emojis don't seem to want to go where I intend them to.  They keep wanting to migrate to the top of a post when I want them to go on the bottom.

 

Yes, you can cut-and-paste as usual, and people often do that in order to quote from another website.  (Trying to cut-and-paste within the forum, however, can have some odd side effects, so it's generally best to use the Quote functions in that case.)

 

There are, however, a few sites that are very difficult to copy from -- you think you've copied and pasted, but there's nothing there -- or at least nothing visible.  It's still possible to copy from these sites, but the only way I've found involves going into plain-text mode.  If you can send me a link to the page you were trying to copy from and what text you were trying to copy, I can see if it's one of the troublesome ones, and if so I can tell you how to circumvent the problem. 

 

Your reply probably ended up inside the quote box either because you accidentally positioned your cursor there, or because -- before adding your reply -- you did something that effectively made the space following the quote box unavailable to you.  It's important to keep very careful track of your cursor position on this forum.

 

Same goes for your emotie positions.  They will end up wherever your cursor is at the time, or at least the forum's own emoties will.  If you're importing emoties, the same should apply, but I would need to know what method you're using in order to say for sure.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also from my own experience I know the kind of browser you are using can have an effect on how the forum works ... in Explorer, for example, I couldn't cut and paste unless I was in "plain text" mode. Very annoying.
 
Plain text mode is via that little square icon on the upper left of the menu in the reply box. (At least, it's there on my laptop ... I gather the type of machine you're using can also have an effect on the function and appearance of the forum (?)) In plain text mode you can see the forum's formatting code, and with a little patience you can tease out any formatting problem you have. I assume that's how Carol fixed your quote box above. You can also get into a heck of a pickle in plain text mode. I just happened to have some prior html knowledge, which made it easier for me, but I can imagine it just looks like chaos to many people. :smile: But a couple of times I've managed to make most of a post disappear ... the text was still there, you just couldn't see it in "regular" mode because I'd hashed up the code. Aaargh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Herlock, (BTW, I see after posting this that you hit the buzzer just before me, so this will repeat some of the stuff you have already replied to, most likely)

 

 

Seeing as you are kind of our resident Ripperphile here, I'd be interested to know of your theories of the Ripper's identity. I presume you find Lyndsay Faye and Laura Joh Rowland's hypotheses plausible?

 

I had a chill go through me when I read Faye's theory. I've always struggled with the notion that Saucy Jack was a gentleman, with a gentleman's demeanor and potentially a private carriage for picking up his prey and doing his ill deeds. I'm sure gentlemen from all quarters of London wound up in Whitechapel intent on a debauch, but surely a guy with means and a taste for the wild side could have found willing ladies of the evening in more salubrious parts of London? There were any number of establishments catering to the higher class gents wanting some female company by the hour. How desperate would a gentleman have to be to wind up shopping for companionship in Whitechapel? Of course, we know Jack wasn't just there to have a bit of slap and tickle and be on his way. However, gentlemen's attire and most assuredly a gentleman's carriage would have stood out worse than a sore thumb--they would be a beacon announcing his presence in the district. The last thing that Jack would have wanted. And, I've never been to Whitechapel but I know that its streets would have been in the main too narrow to make getting away cleanly with a carriage a tricky prospect. No, Jack was on foot, he was moving fast, and he had intimate knowledge of the warrens of Whitechapel, enough to know of shortcuts and to potentially have any number of hidey holes to stash tools, changes of clothing, what have you . . .or to duck into if he felt the heat getting too hot. Perhaps he even grew up in Whitechapel. I don't think any visiting 'gentleman' from another part of the city or another country full-stop like the U.S. would have such intimate knowledge of Whitechapel and her denizens.

 

Then there is the matter of how easily he got these women to go with him. Of course, they were all desperate and would have glommed onto any prospect of getting a drink and a few bob for the night--but what if Jack hand-picked his victims not strictly from opportunity, but because he *knew* them . . as in, knew to say hello to and tip his tall hat to in the course of his rounds? If he'd cultivated a reputation as a copper who would turn a blind eye to their activities, perhaps, it was suggested, with a bit of a 'freebie' to ensure his cooperation . . .a bent copper wouldn't make these street birds have batted an eye . . .and if they already knew and trusted him as a friendly sort willing to do them a favor in exchange for a quickie in the alley--why wouldn't they have trustingly have gone with him down a dark passage? After all, if he was the 'law', he wasn't going to hurt them, was he? Arrest them maybe . .but not anything violent.

 

If he were in fact a Whitechapel boy whose mother had gotten sucked into the life of the streets . . and he joined the police as one of the few career paths providing respect and an opportunity for advancement for a working-class bloke . . well, we must had the brain-tickling possibility, then, that the Ripper might very well have been one of Fred Abberline's own constables--if not a higher ranking officer. As to why the Ripper stopped so very suddenly--if he did in fact stop and not just transfer his activities to another jurisdiction--not sure. Maybe he felt the net closing around him and left London. Maybe he committed suicide and became one of the thousands of unidentified bodies washed up by the Thames. We will never know for sure but the 'Ripper as copper' theory seems very chillingly plausible to me. More so than Ripper as random civilian.

 

What do you think about this?

On the question of the ripper being a police officer, it’s certainly possible, but there’s no persuasive evidence that he was. Police Officers had to stick to strict beats with strict times. The consequences for a policeman abandoning his route could be severe and as the victims were all killed on different beats it’s almost impossible for it to have been one officer. Even if the arguement was put forward that an off-duty officer could have gone out in his uniform he would again have been taking a massive risk of being noticed by a fellow officer. All officers had ‘collar numbers’ which signified the area in which they were based. ‘H’ division was Whitechapel, ‘J’ division was Bethnal Green etc. As I said though it’s not impossible that it could have been a police officer in his everyday clothes. He would have had local knowledge and might have been familiar with some of the women (especially if, as you suggest, he was more than willing to turn a blind eye maybe in exchange for the odd ‘favour.’) Two suspects, Cutbush and Lechmere had family connections to the police and a guy in Spain was supposed to be writing a book in which he could ‘prove’ via handwriting that Abberline was the ripper!

As to the idea that the rippers mother may have been a prostitute its certainly a possible motive that could explain a hatred of prostitutes. What we don’t know is whether the ripper had a specific hatred of prostitutes or did he just hate women and prostitutes were the easiest targets? The ages might be suggestive. Apart from Kelly they were all mid to late forties and, because of the terrible hardship of their lives, would have looked older.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 11 months later...

On Herlock's recommendation, I am reading Charles Veley's The Last Moriarty, which proposes that Sherlock Holmes fathered a daughter as a university student by a violinist named Rosario.

Rosario, a beautiful musician who captivated Holmes and captured his heart as the One Woman is obviously a stand-in for Irene Adler.  I'm not too keen on rivals for Adler, and the timing as proposed here means that SH would have been made a father (without his knowledge) at the tender age of 19 or 20.  The product of this union, a comely lass named 'Lucy' with some definite thespian and deductive talent inherited from her old man becomes the star, along with her old, yet newly-discovered father, in a series of books.  I don't plan to continue the series after this. Despite it being well-written as far as the Watsonian voice goes, I don't find this scenario or the character of Lucy James very plausible.  

It's not that I object to Sherlock having a child, boy or girl, per se.  But for me it's with Adler or nobody.  Why accept imitators?  But that got me thinking about the whole Mary Russell Problem and I  have come to the conclusion that Laurie King's series and her self-important, unbearably precocious  heroine would have been a whole lot less objectionable on a number of levels if King had made Mary Russell Holmes's daughter by Adler instead of his child bride.  The chronology almost fits as well . . .Russell's year of birth is listed as 1900.  If one accepts that Holmes and Adler could have stayed in touch up to 1899, then nothing else need be altered.  Sherlock's 46 year age gap with Russell then becomes quite natural instead of a mystifying stumbling block, nor do we have to tinker around and shave a decade off his age just for increased plausibility as King has done.  I definitely prefer this alternative explanation to David Marcum's of having Russell be crazier than a loon in an asylum.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, that would have been a more plausible premise.   And very little would need to be changed, especially supposing that Irene never told Holmes they had a child, that she had married a man named Russell, and had allowed Mary to believe that he was her father.  The delightful meeting on the moor could be left entirely as is.  But hopefully they'd discover the truth before the end of Monstrous Regiment!

Unfortunately, however, the very fact that the change needn't alter the story means that my primary gripes would remain:  Watson would still be a loveable dimwit, and there'd be precious little of Holmes in subsequent books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 23 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of UseWe have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.Privacy PolicyGuidelines.