the Mary Russell books by Laurie R. King

[Carol the Dabbler]

... Watson is not left behind, he is just not needed in these cases.

I also get the impression that he is basically retired, perhaps in failing health.

 

But when he does show up, he seems awfully dense. I'll take back what I said last time about his possibly being a bit senile -- his denseness doesn't seem to be anything new in the King stories. Both Holmes and Russell refer to Watson's write-ups of the classic cases as naive and such.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I feel the same way, Carol. In one of the last books I read, Watson is worried that Holmes has taken exception to some mentions of fairies. It seems there is a close tie between Watson and Sir Conan Doyle in King's books.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I think you've figured it out, Bakerstreet! Yes, that makes sense. Because Conan Doyle is the real-world author of the stories and Watson is the in-universe author, it's sometimes hard to know where one leaves off and the other begins -- and King has gotten around that problem by more-or-less combining the two.

 

I don't have to like it just because it's logical!

[Undead Medic]

I don't have to like it just because it's logical!

 

*eyebrow*

[Carol the Dabbler]

Surely you recall what was perhaps the most scathing insult that Spock ever delivered?

 

 

"Logical. Flawlessly logical." (To T'Pring at the end of "Amok Time")

 

 

 

However, now I'm thinking that I may have read the King novel with that "fairy" passage. Bakerstreet, wasn't it Conan Doyle (Watson's "agent" or whatever) who was supposed to have mentioned them (as in real life)? In which case I'm not so sure about what I said about King having combined the two.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I'd have to find the book and then the passage. Not sure either but if it was Doyle who mentioned them, why would Watson be worried about Sherlock's reaction to it? Anyway, food for thought, if nothing else.

[Carol the Dabbler]

True.

 

I may simply be thinking of having read about Conan Doyle's fascination with fairies (which allowed him to be taken in by a famous hoax). It does seem like there was a reference in one of King's books, though -- but darned if I can think how it went. Does anyone else remember that passage, or perhaps which book it was in?

[onthegokc]

From A Monstrous Regiment of Women (p. 280): Russell asks Holmes, very well aware that he is going to turn furious: “How are the fairies in the bottom of your garden?”. My! A provocation unheard-of to wave in front of his (and our) nose this well known - and in our eyes to ACD - pretty embarrassing affair of the fake fairy photograph.

http://www.sherlockiana.dk/shklub/artikler/lrkandmr.shtml

[Carol the Dabbler]

Thanks, onthegokc! I've re-read it now (page 291 of my Bantam paperback edition):

 

"The question I have for you, then, Holmes, is this: How are the fairies in your garden?"

 

By the yellow streetlights, I saw the trepidation that had been building up in his face give way to a flash of relief, then to the familiar signs of outrage: the bulging eyes, the purpling skin, the thin lips. He cleared his throat.

 

"I am not a man much given to violence," he began, calmly enough, "but I declare that if that man Doyle came before me today, I should be hard-pressed to avoid trouncing him." ... "It is difficult enough to surmount Watson's apparently endless blather in order to have my voice heard as a scientist, but now, when people hear my name, all they will think of is that disgusting dreamy-eyed little girl and her preposterous paper cutouts. I knew the man was limited, but I did not even suspect that he was insane."

[Russell's question is a non sequitur, apparently designed to defuse the tension between her and Holmes.] Even though his indignation is aimed specifically at Conan Doyle, Holmes doesn't seem to have very much more respect for Watson, mentioning him (and his "apparently endless blather") in the same breath with Conan Doyle. So it does seem plausible that, even though King presents them as two separate individuals, her Watson may have borrowed some of Conan Doyle's less admirable attributes.

 

On the other hand, even when Watson is "on stage" in the King books, we're seeing him through Russell's eyes. Holmes is canonically and traditionally impatient with what he sees as Watson's shortcomings, so Russell (who shares much of Holmes' nature) may be coloring our perception of Watson. Maybe he's not such a dolt, after all, merely seen as such by Holmes and Russell.

 

On the other other hand, maybe he's been a dolt all along. The canonical stories are, after all, written by Watson himself, and can therefore hardly be expected to show him in a poor light. Maybe Holmes and Russell are right!

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

No, even in the canon Watson is not so dense. He admits as not having the mental talents as Sherlock, he can at times impress Sherlock with his own talents and insights. Sherlock wrote that there were times that he missed Watson's company and talents on certain cases when Watson wasn't around quite so much.

 

If Watson was such a dolt and annoyance, why would Sherlock constantly call him away from his medical practice, and even his wives, to accompany him? No, I do think that Russell is doing Watson the same injustice Hollywood did with Nigel Bruce's Watson. King could not have Watson in competition with her Russell.

[Carol the Dabbler]

OK, I give up! I've been trying to talk myself out of that position ever since I brought it up, or at least to think of some palatable reason for King's portrayal of the good doctor -- but I can't argue with your reasoning.

 

So -- 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?

[onthegokc]

OK, I give up! I've been trying to talk myself out of that position ever since I brought it up, or at least to think of some palatable reason for King's portrayal of the good doctor -- but I can't argue with your reasoning.

 

So -- 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?

 

 

You are 100% Right on all four counts. Well put.

[SolitaryCyclist]

It was good to read this discussion, as I am about to begin 'The Beekeepers Apprentice.' It is always a bit of a risk when we find a beloved character in the hands of someone not his/her creator.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Indeed. In this case, I think you'll find that the risk was worth taking. Let us know what you think of the book!

[wildwoodflower]

As long as we are being nit-picky, I have another observation to make. King's Watson may be even denser than Nigel Bruce's character. He's certainly not the Watson of ACD's stories. Maybe King has done this on purpose, with the idea that Watson is older, and therefore possibly a bit senile. But the canon Watson seems to be roughly the same age as Holmes, so he's presumably no older than his 60's in King's stories. Senile, indeed!

 

I agree completely. It was one of the things I had to gloss over in reading the books because well, the stories were not about that relationship but about a new one. But Watson did seem more like the pleasant but doltish guy in the old movies. As if she had actually modeled the character on that version.

 

I liked the first three books very much and continued to read past the point of diminshing returns. But I haven't read the latest one.

[Carol the Dabbler]

[King's portrayal of Watson] was one of the things I had to gloss over in reading the books because well, the stories were not about that relationship but about a new one. But Watson did seem more like the pleasant but doltish guy in the old movies. As if she had actually modeled the character on that version.

 

I liked the first three books very much and continued to read past the point of diminshing returns. But I haven't read the latest one.

Good point (also made by Fox in post #35) about King understandably wanting to keep Holmes and Russell front and center. Since she apparently didn't want to write Watson out entirely, she needed some way to have him occasionally present without being a major player -- and the average reader (who grew up on the old movies) probably accepts her Nigel-Bruce-like Watson without question. If we're too canon-happy to do likewise, that's just our problem, isn't it?

 

I'm currently reading #3, A Letter of Mary (finally found a copy!), and agree with you, the first three are definitely my favorites so far.

[SolitaryCyclist]

I do think that Russell is doing Watson the same injustice Hollywood did with Nigel Bruce's Watson. King could not have Watson in competition with her Russell.

 

 

I just finished reading The Beekeepers Apprentice, and I agree with this observation completely. The book was readable and enjoyable, except for King's denigration of Watson. For my money, she did not need to do this to cement the relationship between Mary and Holmes. It felt like a cheap shot, to me.

 

So saying, I will read the next book anyway. I'd like to think that she mellows her attitude toward Watson, but from reading earlier comments on this thread, I fear not.

[biscuitbear]

I have read all the books (except for the pirate one), from the first one at the time it was published. I enjoyed the first few books immensely, among her latest offerings some are better than others, but I always welcome them with pleasure. I didn't try to compare them to the canon as I was not especially interested in Sherlock at the time, I had read Doyle some years before but had no precise recollections. So I enjoyed her books as separate stories. I remember that I was really surprised that she could make a 60 year old Holmes believably sexy!

[wildwoodflower]

I just finished reading The Beekeepers Apprentice, and I agree with this observation completely. The book was readable and enjoyable, except for King's denigration of Watson. For my money, she did not need to do this to cement the relationship between Mary and Holmes. It felt like a cheap shot, to me.

 

So saying, I will read the next book anyway. I'd like to think that she mellows her attitude toward Watson, but from reading earlier comments on this thread, I fear not.

 

I think she was also playing Watson as a few years older than Holmes. He'd a bit doddering by that time. I had to let go of my Watson to enjoy the books - which, as I said, the first three were quite good, I thought. I have to let go of a lot of assumptions reading those books though - like how the age difference is a bit creepy:

[Carol the Dabbler]

... I didn't try to compare them to the canon .... So I enjoyed her books as separate stories....

 

That's really the most enjoyable way to view any adaptation, I think. I keep the original in the back of my mind just to give me a framework, but I don't often do direct comparisons.

 

 

... I remember that I was really surprised that she could make a 60 year old Holmes believably sexy!

That was when Apprentice first came out in 1994? Has 60 gotten any younger since then?

 

 

I think she was also playing Watson as a few years older than Holmes. He'd a bit doddering by that time....

I recently calculated Watson's age (here) as about 61 in 1914 ("His Final Bow"). Beekeeper's Apprentice is set the following year, so if he's the canonical Watson, he's about 62 at the beginning of King's series -- hardly old enough to dodder (though I agree, King seems to be portraying him that way).

[SolitaryCyclist]

. I remember that I was really surprised that she could make a 60 year old Holmes believably sexy!

 

My husband is 60+ and still believably sexy

 

Enjoying her books as separate stories is probably best, but I do so love Watson!

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

And in the canon there are places where Sherlock refers to Watson as "his partner" so elevating him to almost an equal. So he certainly was not pottering.

[SolitaryCyclist]

Defintely not! He was courageous, loyal, and utterly trustworthy. And face it, there is only going to be one 'Sherlock' in the room; everyone else will inevitably look a bit dull, even if they aren't.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I believe that Sherlock's John Watson captures those traits very nicely. When I first attempted to analyze the BBC character, I was puzzled that he could seem so real while being so nearly perfect -- but then I realized that (from a dramatic standpoint) he'd have to be just about perfect, because otherwise he'd be virtually invisible next to Sherlock Holmes. The writers and Mr. Freeman have done an incredible job of bringing Watson to life.

 

Back to the Mary Russell books -- I'm reading A Letter of Mary, and just noticed an oddity on page 194. Holmes is writing to Russell, and he uses the term "ink pen," which I have always taken to be an American Midwestern expression. I realize that the author Laurie King is an American, and I think she made a very logical decision in making Russell an American and having her act as narrator. But she set a difficult task for herself by setting the stories in the UK and making Sherlock Holmes a major character. Using "ink pen" may simply be a glitch of the sort that is inevitable under the circumstances. But for all I know, the term may be used in the UK as well. I've just posted a discussion of it on The Language Thread, and would welcome any input.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I posted in the Language Thread.