the Mary Russell books by Laurie R. King

[HerlockSholmes]

 

They were ok. Perhaps a bit of an acuired taste? The main criticism was Frewer's exaggerated English accent. The guy that played Watson, Kenneth Walsh was pretty highly thought of though.

 

Speaking of exaggerated accents, I don't know if you've seen the movie 'The Seven Per Cent Solution?' It stars Nicol Williamson as Holmes and the American actor Robert Duvall as Holmes. Based around Holmes cocaine addiction where Watson and Mycroft conspire to get him to go to Vienna to seek help from Sigmund Freud. The main criticism of the movie that I've heard was about Duvall. He's an excellent actor but apparently, and for whatever reason, he modelled his English accent on the conductor Sir Adrian Boult. Now I've seen a video on YouTube of Boult speaking and his accent isn't in any way outlandish. Duvall just exaggerated it.

Decent film if you haven't seen it though.

I saw it a long way back, and read the book, and I remember I quite liked both, although I realize now that many of the references to the original went over my head. For many many years I thought Holmes ran off with Irene at the end, and that was about the only point of reference to Irene Adler I had when I saw a Scandal in Belgravia. Needless to say, that story didn't turn out quite the way I anticipated .... or did it?

It's supposed to 'explain' what Sherlockians call The Great Hiatus. The period from 1891 to 1894 (The Final Problem to The Empty House) when Holmes was presumed dead. Doyle wasn't always careful with his facts though as The Adventure Of Wisteria Lodge was supposed to have occurred in 1892. Sherlockians love debating these 'errors.'

[Arcadia]

Boy do we ever. :p

[Carol the Dabbler]

 

Yup, when I'm not a mod, and I'm using the mobile version, tapping within my post causes two buttons to appear: Quote and Edit.

I assume it would be the same on a tablet. If not, you could try using the full version.

All I get is 'copy' 'look up' 'speak' 'share' and 'spell' . It's not a problem Carol I just need to watch the spelling. I'm someone who hates predictive text too. I always get caught out when I text. It takes me twice as long! I'll have to find out how to disable it. Give me a quill and parchment every time

[HerlockSholmes]

To be honest Carol I've never heard of Tapatalk so I don't think that I'm using it. It's just that when I 'touch screen' for a menu it doesn't include edit. The complexities of the computer world! One of the JTR forums that I use also has a rarely used chat room which my IPad isn't compatible with so I think that these Apple Pads inhabit their own little world in some ways.

[Carol the Dabbler]

That's quite possible. I have no experience with iPads either. Perhaps somebody who does will come along and clarify matters.

[Arcadia]

I have a friend who uses one to go on Facebook, and yes, it's a completely different experience than using FB on my laptop. For what that's worth. Editing's a pretty basic function, though, there must be a way...

[Carol the Dabbler]

I thought this was already here, but it was in a different thread:

 

As of March, Ms. King sold the television rights to a British production company (with herself as a consultant).

Yay!

[HerlockSholmes]

That could be interesting. My natural pessimism shines through here as my first thought was ‘dont mess this up!’ The casting will be interesting as they can’t go for the usual young heartthrob type. They surely have to go for someone around 50. They will of course be sensitive to the age gap (not wanting to make it seem creepy.) Ears open for any news on this one. They have plenty of stories to use for potential follow-ups.

[Carol the Dabbler]

They've apparently bought the TV rights to the entire series of books, so yeah, they won't run out of material any time soon.

 

A few years back, someone made a TV movie *and* a brief TV series (half a dozen one-hour episodes, I think) based on the No. 1 Ladies' Detective Agency series -- and they didn't even finish the first book! (Did a fine job too, but the producer died, I think, or something like that, so it came to an untimely end.)

[HerlockSholmes]

I remember that series but I never saw it.

 

There must be 17 or 18 Of The Russell/Holmes books by now? I only have around 8 or 9 so far.

[Hikari]

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.

[HerlockSholmes]

Hi Hikari,

 

Welcome to the forum.

 

Although I haven’t read all of them I have to say that I tend to agree with what you’ve said. As you said ‘The Beekeepers Apprentice’ was superb but as the series has gone on I’ve perhaps found myself looking forward to the next one a little less. Maybe it’s old age but I find myself, when looking back at the titles, not being able to recall the plots. My main complaint, and you’ve already mentioned it, is that there’s not enough Holmes in the stories for me. For King though Mary Russell is the main character so perhaps we are guilty of viewing these as Holmes stories with Russell as a sort of female Watson? I don’t know.

[Hikari]

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. 

[Hikari]

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.

[Hikari]

Hi Hikari,

 

Welcome to the forum.

 

Although I haven’t read all of them I have to say that I tend to agree with what you’ve said. As you said ‘The Beekeepers Apprentice’ was superb but as the series has gone on I’ve perhaps found myself looking forward to the next one a little less. Maybe it’s old age but I find myself, when looking back at the titles, not being able to recall the plots. My main complaint, and you’ve already mentioned it, is that there’s not enough Holmes in the stories for me. For King though Mary Russell is the main character so perhaps we are guilty of viewing these as Holmes stories with Russell as a sort of female Watson? I don’t know.

 

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!

 

[Hikari]

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.

[Caya]

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? 

 

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.

[Hikari]

 

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? 

 

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.

[Caya]

Unfortunately, the Six Posts Rule is beyond our scope to alter (or I would've put you through sooner), the only thing we can do is put someone back into moderation (in case of, say, a patient spammer abusing said rule). Glad to hear you like it here, though, and no, feel free to post with abandon now that you have live access.

[Hikari]

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.

 

[HerlockSholmes]

I haven’t read the link yet but I will very soon. Ive just noticed though is that David Marcum has written The Papers Of Solar Pons! I’ve mentioned Pons on a thread here a few weeks ago.

 

More money for me to spend! I’ll have to get Mr Marcum’s book soon. I don’t have all the Derleth or Cropper ones yet (a lot of them are very expensive.)

[Hikari]

I haven’t read the link yet but I will very soon. Ive just noticed though is that David Marcum has written The Papers Of Solar Pons! I’ve mentioned Pons on a thread here a few weeks ago.

 

More money for me to spend! I’ll have to get Mr Marcum’s book soon. I don’t have all the Derleth or Cropper ones yet (a lot of them are very expensive.)

 

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

[Carol the Dabbler]

Yay -- another midwesterner! 
 

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.

 
I don't think you'll find much disagreement in this thread.  If you haven't yet read the earlier pages, you might enjoy doing so now.  Our initial discussion is pretty well summed up in this post:
 

... we don't like King's innuendos that Holmes is "old" and we don't like her out-and-out assertions that Watson is nearly an idiot -- but other than that, we like her books just fine. Is that accurate?

Added: Wait a minute -- we'd also like to see more Holmes-and-Russell and less just-Russell. Have I got it all now?

 

 

 

"Beekeeping for Beginners" ... 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....

 
Thanks!  Will have to ferret that out.
 

... 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.

 
Interesting theory.  I would be tempted to buy into it if I hadn't enjoyed reading some of those "delusions."
 

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.)
 
[....] 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.  [....]  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?

 
Amen!  That's one reason I stopped watching Elementary when Joan became Sherlock's acknowledged partner.
 
Exactly how much retconning has King done with the age difference?  (I must say, the original gap never bothered me a bit.  I've known some real-life marriages with that much of an age gap and more, and they seem to work fine.  If it works for the couple, then who am I to object?)
 

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.

 
Ah, so that's why Marcum is irked with Russell!  I can certainly understand (though of course, King's side of the story may be somewhat different).  I'm well familiar with Marcum's work on behalf of Undershaw.
 
Lives outside of the forum?  Well, we try sometimes.  ;)
 

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? 

 
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.

Nope, no special favors for you.  It's just that (near as I can figure) the functional rules changed but the posted rules did not.  Or something like that.  I'm still trying to figure it out myself.  Did you indeed go live at six posts?

 

Sorry for such a long catch-up post!  Right after approving your first post, I had to buckle down and get busy in real life.  Up for a bit of air just now!

[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. 

[HerlockSholmes]

I still haven’t gotten over Clive Brooke’s Holmes marrying in 1929!