Hikari

Hi, Carol, I had noticed that we are practically neighbors! I'm only an hour east of Ft. Wayne Since I'm so late to this party I have a lot of catching up to do and I look forward to reading in the archives. For now I am just relieved to hear that I haven't run afoul of any rabid Russell fanatics on this, my third day here. Not that I wouldn't be up for a brisk challenge, but I don't want to go out of my *way* to alienate a huge segment of this community during my first week. If it happens in the course of things . . well, I gotta be true to my truth. Sherlock would want it that way . .(provided my truth is the same as *his* truth). I'm the new kid, just trying to make some new friends. David M. received some vicious hate mail from Russell fanatics in the wake of his story. I can't recall if he specifically said 'death threats' or not . .but these Friends of Mary Russell are serious, y'all. Like the Deadly Viper Assassination Squad if you don't fall in with fawning on their Head Girl. While Russell is a narrator I have always held at arm's length (and sometimes wanted to slap vigorously around the face), I think Mr. Marcum's dealing with the 'problem' of her existence was too harsh. He admits that he has not finished all the books due to his balking at their core premise. It is unclear if he read past Book #2 (ie, the introduction of the odious marriage idea) after penning his 'expose' of Russell's mental health or lack thereof. After I read his story, I wrote a rebuttal of sorts to him endeavoring to show that the Holmes-Russell marriage need not be incompatible with the Sherlock Holmes we know. Theirs is a weird, chilly, undemonstrative domestic arrangement, with a distinct element of competitiveness (all stemming from Russell's side, I hasten to add--Sherlock acknowledges no competition, even from his own wife.) Holmes does not pay any sort of courtly or amorous attention to his young wife; he doesn't even call her by her first name. That suits Russell just fine. We have the proof of 'the Woman' that at least for one person, Sherlock Holmes was not solely an asexual calculating machine. He may have used up his allotment of libido on Adler because he certainly doesn't pursue his nubile 21-year-old wife with the passion that normally drives guys of super middle age who take 20-year-old trophy wives. Insofar as SH is interested in Russell, it seems to be solely her brain and her amusing feminist high dudgeon that has his (sporadic) attention. Frankly, theirs is not an arrangement that would satisfy most 'normal' people. Including yours truly. If Sherlock Holmes were married to me, by God, I'd see to it that it was more than a union on paper, even if I had to use some force to make my point. (That's my Inner Adler speaking . . .but really, I wouldn't stand for being treated with less forethought than the furniture.) Russell is perfectly happy to be left alone to her books. Asexual, that one. The Holmes-Russell marriage is more or less a business arrangement on both sides, not a grand passion. She gets the 'respectability' of being a married woman (despite refusing to use her married name); he gets an audience, when she can be bothered to listen . . .they both get opportunities to Not Be Bored together and globe-trot. Dirty weekends abed were never part of the deal. Indeed, Laurie has all the scruples of a Mennonite schoolmistress when it comes to giving us even a sodding *crumb* of physical affection between the spouses. This, I tried to explain to David Marcum, is how Sherlock Holmes makes marriage work: By treating his young wife exactly as he treated Doctor Watson for all those years. Most likely down to the separate bedrooms. They are two great minds cohabiting . .alone, together. If we can accept this, then there's no reason to make Russell barking mad and lock her up in an asylum. She's the least romantic person going--even less romantic, I add, than Sherlock Holmes. There are no features of this union that would reflect any sort of normal marital behavior that exists in his own relationship--hence, SH can be Married and still be Himself, unadulterated. I think my stance is utterly valid--though perhaps tellingly, I haven't heard back from him since! P.S. As far as Laurie's retrofitting of Holmes's age to suit . . . it's kind of hazy. His actual age is never referred to. Russell was born in 1900, which, if we use Holmes's traditional birthday for calculation, made him 46 when she was born. So Holmes would be 61 years old in 1915 when they 'meet'. He had to wait another 6 years for her to be legally adult before the marriage. Purists would say then that he's 67 to her 21--well old enough to be her granddad. I think that Laurie has shaved off a decade from Holmes's age, pushing his retirement to the Downs back by 10 years. Hence, a 15 year old Russell trips over a 51 year old Holmes in 1915, when he was 51 back in 1905, a year after his official retirement to Sussex. Sherlock Holmes defies age, absolutely, and I agree that the age gap wouldn't matter for him like it might to a mere mortal man. I believe that the Holmes - Russell union may reflect a similar age gap in King's own marriage. She was widowed in 2009, when she was in her early 50s, so I assume that her late husband was a lot older than she. It also does not escape notice that Russell has many physical characteristics of her author . . or an idealized 21-year-old version of Laurie. So I have, fairly or not, decided that Russell is King's alter ego in personality as well. Which makes the series one huge vanity project, as far as I'm concerned.

Actually, with respect, I think the historical dates of the Second Afghan War bolster the argument for Mr. Morley and Mr. Baring-Gould's 1854 birth year for Holmes. The war lasted from 1878 -1880, with the disastrous Battle of Maiwand occurring 27 July 1880. We know that Doctor Watson was back home in London some months later and met Sherlock Holmes in the New Year, 1881. If we take Mrs. King's birthdate of 1861, then that means that SH would have been some days shy of his 20th birthday on January 1, 1881. Sherlock was a prodigy but seeing as he spent nearly three years in the pursuit of university studies and had a period of time after that on his own in digs in Montague Street, 20 years of age is too young to have done all that and already have built some reputation as a consulting detective. If he were nearly 27, though, it is possible. Doctor Watson did the full medical degree plus additional training for Army surgeons plus a year in uniform before returning home to London with his health irretrievably ruined. It is suggested that he was about 18 months older than Holmes, making him 28 and a half when he meets his new flatmate. We might be able to shave a year off that possibly but again, were Watson still in his early 20s in 1881, he wouldn't have had time to qualify as a doctor and also serve in uniform. Easier to say that Laurie fudged her dates for her own purposes. A Holmes of 50, 51 is a more plausible potential romantic object for a teenage girl than one nearer 60. Anyway, according to the Ur-text, Holmes is 'a man of 60' when undertaking his last canonical case for the Crown on the eve of WWI in 1914. That is as solid as it gets.

Yes, Mr. Marcum loves Solar Pons *almost* as much as he loves Sherlock Holmes. I confess, until I read Mr. Marcum's blog I was completely ignorant about this Solar Pons. I had heard the name bandied about but I was under the impression that it referred, not to a person, but to some astrophysiclogical phenomenon like the Van Buren Supernova or something. I had NO idea it has anything to do with Sherlock Holmes--it sounded more like Asimov territory to me. I have been schooled by Marcum-sensei, my Sempai in Matters Sherlockian. There are others, but only he has made me privy to his personal email address. He's a very busy man, though. He doesn't post on his blog often (a few times a year) but the posts he does do are essay-length and worth the wait. See for yourself! The most recent entry is all about Solar Pons. http://17stepprogram.blogspot.com

January 6th seems to me to be the best and only possible birthday for Sherlock Holmes. It is 'Twelfth Night', yes, and there is textual evidence to support Sherlock being fonder of that Shakespeare play than any others. But for those like me who follow the church liturgical calendar . . January 6th has a very special meaning. It is the Feast of the Epiphany, celebrating the visitation of the Magi to the Christ Child with their gifts. The Child that was sent to be 'a Light to Lighten the Gentiles', which the Magi represented. Now we know that Sherlock Holmes is not a 'religious' man in the conventional sense but 'epiphany' is also defined as 'the appearance of a divine or supernatural being' and also as 'a moment of sudden inspiration or insight'. I'd say the first describes Holmes's singular intellectual powers and the second often described his method of deduction. So voila! And yes, the hard-headed Ram of Capricorn is also deeply appropriate.

I am a brand-new member and I noticed right away that many of the thread topics were started back circa 2012 and had not had any recent posts. It seems I came here too late for the heyday. Crummy timing--story of my life. Until recently (Oct. 2nd, to be precise) my go-to forum was the Movie Lounge on the Amazon Customer Discussion forums. We had a very lively British Detectives lounge there and I exercised my Sherlock fangirlness with a few like-minded people there. It's fair to say that my dearest cybercorrespondent who I consider a real friend despite never having met her in 'Real World' bonded over BBC Sherlock initially. Sherlock brought us together. And lots and lots of Sherlock fandom videos on YouTube. In the wake of Season 4 and those developments, and just the passage of time . . Bendi is not the fresh-faced New Face that I assumed was like, 26 years old in 2010 when he was actually 34 . .and my face is no fresher, either--those heady days when "Sherlock" was a heady new discovery and The Best Thing I'd Ever Seen in Television seem like a distant memory. I feel so jaded now, with no prospect of a new Sherlock season to look forward to. I really believe that the show is over, though if Mssrs. Cumberbatch and Freeman could be coaxed back into harness to do a holiday one-off episode (perhaps a revisit to Dartmoor, this time in Victorian guise?), that'd be something. With the end of the show, I was forced to look beyond it and acquaint myself better with the Original. I blew through the entire Canon in a few months and that has been a springboard into all sorts of apocryphal Adventures from Doctor Watson's Tin Dispatch Box, some delightful, some mystifying . .some plainly bogus . . but I've discovered that Sherlock Lives indeed--not on the BBC but in reams and reams of stories created by people devoted to keeping him and his Boswell alive. To be honest, the BBC show disappointed me sorely in the end . . but there is comfort out here for the brokenhearted and disillusioned BBC Sherlock fan, and you don't have to look for it--it's literally everywhere. Sherlock Holmes is more prolific now, at 163 years of age, than he's ever, ever been. Sir Arthur hardly kept him busy at all compared to what he gets up to these days. I hope to find some other folks who likewise want to Go Beyond the BBC show. Truly, there is so very Much More to Sherlock. The show was a bit of delightful, homage-worthy fun . . .until it wasn't. We have to search for deeper reasons to keep this forum going. So Herlie . . there's a very long answer to your brief question. Cheers!

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.

Sorry for waiting, Hikari - welcome to the forum and if it helps, only one more post and the forum will recognize you as the fine poster you are and will allow your posts to go live instantly. Only one more? Have I been fast-tracked? You probably decided that you've seen quite enough words from me on this, my second day. Well, this earns a 'Like' and my humble thanks to the Moderators. I knew I liked it here.

Man, it's tough waiting on the moderators' decision to see if I've been deemed Acceptable! What do they think, they are entitled to lives outside of this forum or what? According to my new Senpai in all matters Sherlockian, David Marcum, Mrs. Laurie King's induction into the Baker Street Irregulars solely on the basis of her Mary Russell books has been pretty controversial in certain quarters. As appealing as some of the stories are, and while by sheer page count Mrs. King is extraordinarily prolific, Sherlock Holmes has withdrawn so much into the background, the Russell books would barely seem to meet the criteria for a Holmes pastiche/homage, never mind 'Sherlockian scholarship' that is the stated requirement for membership. Less high-profile candidates have labored for decades on less flashy projects and have been passed over. If anyone is interested, enter 'MX Sherlock Holmes' into any search engine and see how prolific Mr. Marcum has been in spreading the gospel of Sherlock Holmes in the last few years. He's still awaiting his tap. Mrs. King was nonplussed at David's jab at her sacred cow. I don't suppose that if she and Leslie Klinger have any say in the voting that Mr. Marcum will be made a BSI in their lifetimes. He is a lot younger and can afford to be patient. His magnum opus is all in benefit of the restoration of former Conan Doyle estate Undershaw, which has been renovated from sad disrepair and now functions as a school for children with developmental disabilities. Well worth checking out and supporting, if anyone has a mind to.

Can I call you Herl? lol Yes, I suppose you could say that we are guilty of that. I'll put my hand up to that being my expectation going into this series. Laurie herself set that expectation by labeling our precocious teenage heroine 'the Beekeeper's Apprentice'. Just as Dr. Watson was, despite his medical pedigree, Holmes's apprentice in the art of deduction--never quite mastering the lessons his teacher set him, if we are to go by Conan Doyle--so along came this young female student/disciple to fill the Watson-sized hole in Holmes's life. So we thought. Maybe Laurie even thought so too, back in the mid-1990s when she got this ball rolling. Russell is, I think we can agree, a top-notch intellect, and so we knew she'd have a fast learning curve, and posited that she might actually turn out to be a more satisfactory intellectual companion for Holmes to cross swords with than our dear, beloved but sometimes a tad slow on the uptake good Doctor was. It was Russell's extreme youth relative to Holmes, more than her gender or any presumptive intellectual abilities that cast her in the 'junior' role . .one that I presumed she'd retain, seeing as this version of Sherlock Holmes is 40 years her senior and would always be so. (Turns out that Laurie shaved several years off of Holmes's age to make the age gap of this April - December union not quite so squicky.) Less than halfway into Laurie's series (Book 6 or thereabouts), her true feminist world domination agenda was revealed as, increasingly, any pretense that Russell was still Holmes's student/inferior in any way was dropped in favor of making her his co-equal, or, to go even further, his presumptive *superior* . .seeing as the old boy is starting to have his age catch up with him. Russell concedes that Sherlock still excels her at picking locks, even with his 65-year-old eyesight and incipient rheumatism . . but that's about the only area she will accord him superiority. In all else she seems to regard him with the bemused/irritated tolerance which has always been the purview of Mrs. Hudson. Really, the cheek! So it's not clear exactly when I went off Russell for getting too big for her britches (we know how much Russell favors menswear) but it was somewhere around Book 5. Though Russell is our narrator and as such enjoys first billing, rightly--still, I feel that the character of Holmes is not accorded the heft of presence which he deserves as his due. After all, this series wouldn't be so popular, nor Russell much of a matter for interest in her own right without her connection to Sherlock Holmes. The ingénue may get more screen time, but Holmes is the veteran legend we have all paid our admission to see and it's *his* scenes we live for--or else what is the point of this? Mrs. King's objective seems now to have been, not to provide a new 'Watson' for Sherlock Holmes's later years, but to create Mary Russell as the new and improved Sherlock 2.0, Enlightened Femme Version. I'm a femme myself but this just sits all kinds of wrong with me. And there is my Russell manifesto!

Hello, Boss (Because you are a Detective Chief Inspector and I'm only a lowly Trainee Detective Constable) I am here as a refugee from the Movie Lounge on the now defunct Amazon Forums, where we had our own cosy British Detectives room for a number of years. I am bereft of that but hoping to find some new friends who share my enthusiasm for Sherlock Holmes. So far I am quite optimistic that this is the place! I can't recall the exact date I encountered 'Beekeeper's Apprentice', but it was, at the earliest at least 10 years after it was published. I thought it was fantastic--it was like Sherlock Holmes lived again. The next few were not as captivating but they were solid, as Russell grew from gawky young teen into a more self-assured and worldly young lady of her majority, and came into her fortune and into possession of one singular husband. Of this early batch, I seem to recall "The Moor" (#4) fondly, wherein the newlyweds return to Dartmoor and the scene of 'Snoop Sherlock's' greatest triumph, some 30 years before. As his assistant/spouse in tow, Russell is christened 'Snoop Mary'. Which is a compliment among the moor folk. Then followed 2 obscure and for me, unreadable ones which saw King wading in heavily to her and Russell's pet interest of esoteric medieval Jewish theology/history. I do not share their pet interest and had to concede defeat when it seemed that we were going to be trapped in the desert forever. "Locked Rooms" ought to have been captivating, seeing as it's set in my favorite American City of Dreams, San Francisco, but what a snorefest that one turned out to be. Felt very perfunctory. "The Game" is probably my favorite of the latter adventures, seeing as SH is uncharacteristically on the scene for the duration and the setting (India) is interesting. Rudyard Kipling's Kim is a featured character and that was droll. "The Pirate King" was one I unexpectedly liked--a minority view based on some scathing reviews it received. As it happens I have seen 'The Pirates of Penzance' on Broadway--but I liked it for other reasons. On the downside, SH is practically a no-show . . but on the upside, the setting (Morocco) is once again interestingly wrought by Laurie and, for once Russell is actually performing a function (PA for a movie company) that could actually be performed by a human girl of 24 years old with some clerical skills. She is not called upon to learn a foreign language in a week, juggle knives, ride camels, bust anybody out of prison or in other ways act superhuman, or as Sherlock Holmes's equal, which amounts to the same thing. After this fairly fluffy outing came two more unreadable ones--the low point of the series, I'd say. Holmes's son by Irene Adler is introduced . . but while this should be interesting, the unlikely Papa is practically invisible for the length of two (VERY LONG) books. Once I got to this point, I was so ready for it to be over and for Laurie to put us all out of our misery. Maybe she will come back from this little break with recharged energies. We can hope. By the way, author David Marcum, who plays the Game with deadly seriousness (his own words) deals with the Russell Problem by suggesting that Russell was, yes, the apprentice to Sherlock Holmes when she was a young girl . . . but that any events subsequent to the first book are the delusions of a deeply mentally-disturbed young woman who invented a relationship between herself and her venerable teacher which never, ever happened. An 83-year-old Holmes bluntly informs the chief of the mental asylum to which Russell has been committed of this. I said the Russell-philes wouldn't like it. Mr. Marcum cannot assimilate a 20-something *wife* into the gestalt of Holmes with any level of comfort. I am somewhere in the middle ground. I enjoy the idea of SH having a companion for his later years . . one with a good brain and skills who happens to be a woman. The marriage between these two is nearly 100% platonic from what I can see . .no icky canoodling is to be found on a single page of these 14 books. That seems very Holmes-authentic to me. If anything, Russell is an even colder fish. Certainly, she is no Adler, and we know that, regardless of what Mrs. King says, for Sherlock Holmes there was only ever One Woman who perhaps appealed to more than his Great Brain.

Apropos of my last post, I am back with a revision. Apparently Laurie R. King is NOT done with Holmes and Russell but just took a year's hiatus to write in another genre. The 15th novel in the Holmes-Russell series, "Island of the Mad", slated for release in March 2018 takes Russell and Holmes to Venice on the trail of a missing heiress. I was a bit confused by the pre-release jacket photo that labels this as a 'story'. I was under the impression that it was a short story in the manner of "Beekeeping for Beginners", which is Laurie's most recent work dealing with Holmes and Russell. That is a good story, by the way. It retells salient portions of "The Beekeeper's Apprentice" from Sherlock's point of view, including a new and rather shocking explanation of how and why SH happened to be on the cliffs that day to be tripped over by a gangly 15-year-old youth with her face in a book. Except that Russell is so devoid of feminine features, even the Great Detective mistook her for a boy. This story is contained in Laurie's short story collection, "Mary Russell's War", prefaced by a glowing (one might say 'fawning') introduction by eminent Sherlockian and King-bestie, Leslie Klinger. I found this collection of largely re-warmed bits and pieces disappointing, apart from Beekeeping for Beginners and one other offering, "The Marriage of Mary Russell." Russell's longtime readers will recall that after Sherlock startled our heroine (and the reader, forsooth) by taking her in his arms at the end of "A Monstrous Regiment of Women" and proposing marriage and planting a big old smackeroonie on her . . . the next (#3) installment opens with the newlyweds already married and on their first case together, with zero mention of the nuptials--a disappointing omission. Laurie does have Russell make one (insufferably coy) reference to Sherlock Holmes proving adept at 'certain husbandly duties rendered legal by a piece of paper'--and, infuriatingly, that's all either one of them have to say 'bout DAT. King revisits the (extremely memorable, chaotic, verging on disastrous, and really can there be any other kind when SH is involved) Holmes-Russell Wedding in this story, and the results are charmingly madcap. 'Uncle John' puts in an appearance, and we get some snippets of the Great Detective's elusive childhood upbringing. As it happens, Laurie is almost entirely wrong about the backstory she envisions for Holmes as to the location of his childhood home and even his legal name . . .but I will concede that Sherlock's nameless mother (Mr. Baring-Gould favored 'Violet') was dark-haired and beautiful and lives on in the features of her younger, brilliant son. So take heart, Russell-philes . . .Laurie's not done.

Hello, all, New member here--I just joined yesterday. Here's a View Halloa to my slightly senior fellow 'newbie', Herlock Sholmes. I will introduce myself properly in the New Members thread but I wanted to contribute to this discussion. To the best of my knowledge, the Holmes-Russell series stands at 14 books, with the most recent one being "The Murder of Mary Russell" (2016). I don't know if anything has 'officially' been said to this effect, but it was my impression that this title may represent the end of the series. KIng's project immediately following TMoMR was a stand-alone contemporary thriller about a school shooting called "Lockdown". I could go on at some length about my rather complicated feelings about Mrs. King and her creation, but I guess I will wait and see if I get approved by the moderator for this comment! "The Beekeeper's Apprentice" was a truly outstanding debut and a wonderful pastiche. None of the subsequent 13 books were able to live up to its high bar, in my opinion. I liked some of them pretty well, and in all honesty, there were at least three that I found nearly unreadable. Mary Russell becomes less and less sympathetic as a narrator-heroine as the series wears on. Her Teflon self-assurance veers into a form of overweening narcissism in the opinion of this reader, but Mrs. King is so enamored of her that Sherlock Holmes takes a very distant back seat to the self-preoccupation of this snit of a girl. And 'girl' she remains--over the course of 23 years and 14 books out here in 'real' world, in the world of the novels, 10 years have passed, taking Russell from 15-year-old schoolgirl to 25-year-old postgraduate-scholar-about-town (and many far-flung reaches of the globe.) The travelogue aspects of the series are interesting and exhaustively researched, along with the historical milieu. Too bad the main protagonist is such a buzz kill. I have recently struck up a correspondence with American Sherlockian author-editor David Marcum, editor of the MX series of new Sherlock Holmes adventures, and he has a unique perspective on what he terms 'The Problem of Mary Russell'. He's not a fan, either. I will share this theory in my next post. Russell-philes are not going to like it one bit.