Hypatia
06-05-2007, 11:02 PM
Anyone else love how well the Sherlock Holmes manuscript in The Art of Detection "fits" with the Russell series? I don’t have my copy of TAoD with me, and I cannot remember the name of the Holmes-like character in the manuscript so if you will forgive me, I will call him MH (manuscript Holmes)
1. Of course there is the obvious: the manuscript and Locked Rooms are both set in SF and in about the same time. (Does anyone have the books? How well do the dates match up?)
2. The manuscript was found in a house on Pacific Heights that survived the earth quake and fire, which describes Mary Russell’s house.
3. MH says he is there because his wife's family lives there (which he thinks was as true as the names they gave each other).
3. The manuscript was typed on an Underwood typewriter, found in the same Pacific Heights house. The typewriter had a crooked "a." In Locked Rooms we learn that Mary had given her father's Underwood typewriter a crooked "a" when playing with it as a child.
4. MH tells Billy Birdson that he would have seen her when she was in Europe except that he was in India recently. (See The Game).
5. MH knows about the club where Billy Birdsong sings because he had been surveying someone who went there (Mary).
6. MH is impressed with the young soldier who helps him thinking that he has known few assistance so able, "with one shining exception."
7. Arthur Conan Doyle’s trip to SF is mentioned in both books.
Did I miss anything?
So, playing the same game as the Sherlockeans do in TAoD, I would like to pose this question: Who wrote the manuscript?
Here is my theory: the manuscript was part of the original materials sent to Laurie R King and was written by Russell. If you remember, the manuscripts that were used in Locked Rooms switched persons. Some of the material was written in the first person (Russell) and some third person (Holmes). Given that Russell was apparently playing with styles, it is not unreasonable that she would write something from Holmes’ perspective. In fact the entire story might be “by Holmes as told to Russell.”
If this is correct, then LRK simply choose to use this document differently. Perhaps it made sense to do so as Russell herself does not appear in the story.
This all seems quite reasonable to me, particularly because, though the Martinelli novels are fun, Kate is clearly a fictional character. LRK has never even tried to convince us otherwise.
It is however distressing that Laurie R. King did not tell us that she was using Russell’s memoirs in this way. She’s usually so good about that.
1. Of course there is the obvious: the manuscript and Locked Rooms are both set in SF and in about the same time. (Does anyone have the books? How well do the dates match up?)
2. The manuscript was found in a house on Pacific Heights that survived the earth quake and fire, which describes Mary Russell’s house.
3. MH says he is there because his wife's family lives there (which he thinks was as true as the names they gave each other).
3. The manuscript was typed on an Underwood typewriter, found in the same Pacific Heights house. The typewriter had a crooked "a." In Locked Rooms we learn that Mary had given her father's Underwood typewriter a crooked "a" when playing with it as a child.
4. MH tells Billy Birdson that he would have seen her when she was in Europe except that he was in India recently. (See The Game).
5. MH knows about the club where Billy Birdsong sings because he had been surveying someone who went there (Mary).
6. MH is impressed with the young soldier who helps him thinking that he has known few assistance so able, "with one shining exception."
7. Arthur Conan Doyle’s trip to SF is mentioned in both books.
Did I miss anything?
So, playing the same game as the Sherlockeans do in TAoD, I would like to pose this question: Who wrote the manuscript?
Here is my theory: the manuscript was part of the original materials sent to Laurie R King and was written by Russell. If you remember, the manuscripts that were used in Locked Rooms switched persons. Some of the material was written in the first person (Russell) and some third person (Holmes). Given that Russell was apparently playing with styles, it is not unreasonable that she would write something from Holmes’ perspective. In fact the entire story might be “by Holmes as told to Russell.”
If this is correct, then LRK simply choose to use this document differently. Perhaps it made sense to do so as Russell herself does not appear in the story.
This all seems quite reasonable to me, particularly because, though the Martinelli novels are fun, Kate is clearly a fictional character. LRK has never even tried to convince us otherwise.
It is however distressing that Laurie R. King did not tell us that she was using Russell’s memoirs in this way. She’s usually so good about that.