The Discussion

[vicki]

Welcome to the LRK Virtual Book Club's discussion of The Beekeeper's Apprentice, our July 2007 selection! It is the first entry in LRK's popular Mary Russell series, which has is beloved by fans all over the world. Laurie will be joining in soon, and will continue with us through July.

Be sure to check out LRK's introductory materials for the discussion, here (http://laurierking.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=67).

The main discussion of the book will take place in this thread, but we may open other threads for sub-discussions if need be. After July, the discussion will remain open for comments, but LRK will not regularly participate, although she may jump in from time to time as her schedule permits.

To celebrate this month's discussion, LRK is giving away a signed first edition of The Beekeeper's Apprentice, valued at $300-400. To be eligible for the drawing, you must simply be registered as a VBC member at or before midnight of July 20 (Pacific Daylight Time). So register now!

[jtb1951]

I finished re-reading BEEK this past week in preparation for the July discussion, and as with each reading I was again struck by Laurie's talent to emotionally involve me in the characters and their situations. I have never been able to get through the scene with Russell and Jessica Simpson speaking privately together at the hotel without tears appearing when Mary asks Jessica to be her sister *tears up again just recalling the scene*! To me that's darn fine writing! (The rest of the book was OK too:p ) I'm looking forward to everyone's thoughts on the book!

John.

[jtb1951]

What does the book’s subtitle mean, beyond a reference to Holmes’ book on Beekeeping?

"or On The Segregation of The Queen" To me, this has always meant the chess gambit of dangling out an unprotected queen with the strategic intent of diverting your opponent's attention from your real offensive tactics, which was then used as the basis for the dangerous (more so than even Holmes expected!) strategy of dangling Russell as bait to entice Patricia Donleavy into making a fatal(!?) move. Typical of Holmes' chess-playing, it was wildly dangerous, especially when confronting an under-estimated foe, and it was Russell's talents and abilities that saved the day, at a cost! Very well played!!

John.

(Sorry, vicki! I posted this in the wrong place the first time; my bad!)

[vicki]

I agree that Holmes underestimated Donleavy, although he did give her quite a lot of credit. Just think what she might have been able to do over the long term, if fatal illness hadn't forced her into more immediate revenge. She was one scary person.


(Sorry, vicki! I posted this in the wrong place the first time; my bad!)


No worries! I forgot to close the intro materials thread last night, which made it confusing. Thanks for moving the post over here!

[tamborina93345]

I have to say that this has to be my favorite book in the series if not in all of King's work. Although I do have to admit that she makes the decistion almost impossible to make because all of her books usually almost bring me to tears at some point in time during the book.

[alina]

Personally, I feel this book is incomplete without its sequel, MREG. I have a hard time discussing the one without mentioning the other, but I shall try to refrain from giving into impulse there!

I love how LRK slips in references to Russell's professors--especially how she offhandedly recalls her number working with her maths professor--throughout the novel. I didn't even recognize the references until the second or third reading.

Donleavy...I thought her appearance, her connection surprising. Moriarty's daughter? I wonder when he had the time to have a child! Then again, Holmes had one too. Moriarty with a girl and Holmes with a boy. I wonder at her childhood, growing up with a mastermind father like that and then losing him. I wonder what she felt those years, how young she was, how she turned to revenge. Was it immediately after he died or in later years? How long had she been planning it?

I'm sorry if this is getting off topic. She just fascinates me as this shadow that suddenly takes form in the last 50 pages or so. That, and I love to flesh out minor characters!

Oh, and a side note: My friend went shrieking down the hallway to tell me she wanted to change her name after reading BEEK. Guess what her first name is! ;)

(Oh, and look, I failed to make a post without mentioning MREG. Oh well! I shall try better later.)

[Strawberry Curls]

Donleavy... I wonder what she felt those years, how young she was, how she turned to revenge. Was it immediately after he died or in later years? How long had she been planning it?

Donleavy answers that question soon after she shoots Russell the first time. She tells Holmes he has been her "hobby" since she was eighteen and she was sitting in a hospital in New York watching her mother die and she read that Holmes hadn't died with her father -- her phrase was "you murdered my father." She says she started her plans for revenge as she waited for her mother to die, and that she had many hours to think about it.

It had been 25 years or so since Holmes had returned to life, so Donleavy had a very long time to plan her revenge and quite frankly to descend into her madness.

Those scenes with Donleavy holding the gun on Russell, shooting Russell in the arm to control Holmes and finally the struggle with Russell and the gun going off again, always sends chills down my spine.

[wsmvgn]

Laurie King puts so much into a book it's awesome! I'm impressed a what she's able to accomplish with understatement. I've seen people write wonderful fan fics based on simply a phrase in the book. On the Russ-L list poll, this is the most popular book of the series. I equivocate between it an Monstrous.

What I love about this book is that when Holmes and Russell meet, they're each a mess. That Russell is a mess is pretty clear, that Holmes is a mess is a bit more subtle: revealed in Russell's first meeting with Dr. Watson. And what's heartwarming to me is that by getting together, they banish each others' demons.

[wsmvgn]

From the discussion questions:
"2. There is a considerable age difference between Holmes and Russell, to the extent that she is little more than a child when they meet. Is it creepy to bring them together in a relationship that seems to be more than teacher/student?"

When I present a plot summary to folks, some expect it to be creepy, but when I read the book, it's not. Holmes, of course, is a perfect Victorian gentleman. Too, I was married for some years to somebody 20 years my senior, and truth to tell, the age difference was never a big deal. But neither of us were childen, either.

An interesting alternate question, to me, is how else somebody could get close to Holmes? When we meet him in Beekeeper, he's hardly the most open and friendly of people. Almost any other meeting would, I think, end very quickly with no chance of further contact. Russell's combination of brilliant deduction and youth allow her to slip in under Holmes radar. And of course, by the time he realizes what's happened, he's done for. No turning back.

[Peppermint]

When I present a plot summary to folks, some expect it to be creepy, but when I read the book, it's not.

I have this happen a lot, as well. My mother, for instance, refuses to even touch the books because of the age difference. Personally, I find nothing creepy about the relationship in The Beekeeper's Apprentice, because it's kept on a very teacher-student level for most of the novel (I'll keep the rest of my relationship comments for discussion on future books ;) ).

[Peppermint]

Looking at part of one of the Discussion Questions :"Do you think it’s fair to base a book on the work of another writer?"

I find it more than fair, especially with a character that has become such a part of the public domain/consciousness as Sherlock Holmes. There were many writers that based published works of fiction around him well before this series was published, and there will continue to be other writers that place Holmes into their own situations.

[spiston]

...than that of Victoria Regina...And the horrors of war in the trenches were beginning to eat at the very fabric of the nation." (from the beginning of BEEK)

Re: question 3
3. In what ways does the War shape the book? Are the guns of the Somme merely background noise, or central? How much would the story change if set in, say, 1910, or 1920?

I believe the war shaped the character of Mary in a far different way than that of Holmes. Holmes had seen over the course of his career what people can do to one another, the evils to which we as a race can stoop to further our selfish ends, and for Mary the grand scale of brutality was a quick lesson indeed. It helped transform her further into a woman of action as she grew; I believe it was the pedestrian academic choice of study which Holmes objected to as much as his own mind closed to issues of faith (which opens slightly as his heart opens to Mary in subsequent books.) Bravery was not just a word to the men returning from the battlefields with whom she volunteered and I would gather that her own senses of bravery and duty were touched by a deeper involvement with this ultimate sacrifice.

As for Holmes, I believe the industrial revolution and the social changes of the era influenced his relationship to Mary more than the war. This Victorian gentleman had to change with the times, with quite a stubborn mind at that. Holmes had already struggled with society's dictates and by choosing an unorthodox occupation was not completely unpliable to these rapid changes, but I believe they had something to do with the timing of his retirement. His known world (and the world of his generation) was becoming foreign, and the defense mechanisms by which he lived to keep order within himself were not so readily adaptable. The breakdown he had undergone when we were first introduced to him in BEEK may have been a way to retreat from the chaos around him which threatened all which he knew to be true.

Which leads me to continue the discussion of question 2:
2. There is a considerable age difference between Holmes and Russell, to the extent that she is little more than a child when they meet. Is it creepy to bring them together in a relationship that seems to be more than teacher/student?

I would have completely been put off by the creepy age difference if they were not so evenly matched in emotional detatchment as well as intellect. Holmes was, in a way, a mere child himself in terms of emotional maturity and his inability to cope was drowning him before he met Mary. He needed an equal in the mind to occupy himself and have hope, but the necessity of an equal in the heart was more vital, I believe, to his survival. Mary was capable of coping with her world by sticking her nose in a book (quite literally as we are witness to their introduction on the Downs) and had in her short life amassed the tools with which to shut herself off from humankind in much the same way Holmes had for many years.

As we see them both learn how to open up and trust another human being as partners in this life, their relationship seems less creepy than it ought due to this bond.

And back a little to question #3 above:

If Mary had been older and not a product of her generation, Great War and all, she would not have had the um, balls, to be so self-determined. This strength is part of what drew Holmes out of his shell and an adolescence under more stringent social mores may not have produced such a fierce young woman.

If a fifteen-year old Mary had met Holmes ten years later, he may have been so far retreated into himself to not recognize the potential of their relationship. And if the War had been merely stories from her youth and she had been sheltered from the grim realities of the front, she would perhaps not have the same understanding of bravery and the suffering of the world. She would not have, then, matured as quickly as she did, and would be most unsuitable for the same adventures.

[ivanova]

Do you think it’s fair to base a book on the work of another writer? Laurie King calls the series not pastiches, but variations on a theme, since the main character is not Sherlock Holmes, but Mary Russell. Is The Beekeeper’s Apprenticejust fan fiction in hardcover? Should she have created a different setting for her strong female version of the Great Detective, and put Russell in, say, 1980 San Francisco instead?

Off the top of my head, I think it depends. I don’t think it would be a good idea to do it with anything current, unless you had the author’s permission of course. But, if the work is not current, you treat it with respect, and what you write is your story, not just rehashing the original, it’s probably okay. When done well, it’s going to get the reader to go track down those other works, I would hope anyway, and that’s always a good thing. Brimstone, a book by Douglas Preston and Lincoln Child, has a character, Count Fosco, in it that’s lifted straight of out The Woman in White by Wilkie Collins. (They tell you this at the end of the book.) Because of that, I tracked down a copy of it to read. I now have multiple works by Wilkie Collins waiting to be read. (You can find them at Project Gutenberg.) Having read both, I can say that they did a good job of it and I can’t imagine Count Fosco not being in Brimstone. (And as a side note, I really love Agent Pendergast. :) ) Sherlock Holmes is also more that just a character created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, he’s gone and taken on a life of his own outside the original stories. How many people know who he is, yet have never read one of the stories? I imagine it’s quite a lot. That quality makes him even more fair game for being used by other authors. (Aside from being English, I wonder if he’d be considered one of the new gods because of that? I think he would. Err… I guess that’s not going to make sense unless you’ve read American Gods by Neil Gaiman.)

[alina]

Oh, duh! *smacks head with palm of her hand* Of course! I really should have re-read the book before jumping in like that!

2. There is a considerable age difference between Holmes and Russell, to the extent that she is little more than a child when they meet. Is it creepy to bring them together in a relationship that seems to be more than teacher/student?

Oh, glee; it's the relationship and age issue!

Personally, there is nothing "creepy" about their relationship in this book or the next. I believe their relationship in the first book, though venturing beyond the teacher/student world, does not go far beyond it towards anything "improper." It is a marriage of true minds, as Shakespeare put it. They happened to meet at the most opportune time in the most opportune way and struck a bargain that led to a close association they both needed. Their needs were evenly matched; she needed someone to help shape and direct her voracious curiosity and ability while he needed someone to spark life back into his system, someone challenging enough to keep him busy. Such an apprenticeship and subsequent partnership was exactly what they needed to develop and mature, so to speak.

If the minds and the hearts and the feelings fit, then the physical age holds very little significance in relationship.

However, my view may also be shaded by my own views of Holmes. I see him as timeless--ageless perhaps is the better word. I completely forget he has an age until she mentions something about his rheumatism in the narrative. It's easy to forget; he doesn't really act his age!

Oh, and when it comes to sharing the series with others? I don't tell them about the possible relationship until they've finished the first book. Usually they 1) don't care about the age difference, or 2) have fallen so in love with the first book that they don't care what whether a relationship happens or not. Though I have had a few shocked reactions....It was worth it!

[Kiyomi]

Ah the age issue! It's funny how many people around me voice their qualms when talking about people a mere 8-10 years appart forgetting that my husband and I are 18 years apart. I think it depends on the couple, some people will never be the correct age to get along well with each other, and others are a good match once both are adults and have established their own place in the world. Which is not to say that being involved with someone older doesn't change ones perspective a bit. I can't think of anyone else I know my age(28) agressively saving for retirement or trying to make sure what can be prepaid is so that it's not a bother later etc. But I don't think that's a bad thing. I think it's also good for the older person to have someone younger in their life as it seems to keep them from the rediculous notion that as you get older you have to 'act old'.

The Beekeeper's Apprentice is incomplete without taking into account the events of 'O Jerusalem' Much of the growth in their relationship, their partnership, takes place in that brief episode when they fled England.

[Lady Natalie Bennet]

2. There is a considerable age difference between Holmes and Russell, to the extent that she is little more than a child when they meet. Is it creepy to bring them together in a relationship that seems to be more than teacher/student?

I don't think it's so bad...I understand the norm is not geared towards this particular sort of relationship. I think it works, though. Russell and Holmes don't really interact in that fashion until a later book, in which she is a bit older.

I almost think of Holmes and Russell as "higher" beings. I suppose they really are. Their brains operate on a higher level than most people's. Who else are they going to interact with but themselves? The one woman who stumped Sherlock Holmes is now goodness-knows-where! It's not exactly as if she's accessible.

[spiston]

Do you think it’s fair to base a book on the work of another writer? Laurie King calls the series not pastiches, but variations on a theme, since the main character is not Sherlock Holmes, but Mary Russell. Is The Beekeeper’s Apprentice just fan fiction in hardcover? Should she have created a different setting for her strong female version of the Great Detective, and put Russell in, say, 1980 San Francisco instead?

On this one, I really love the Gregory Maguire books (Wicked, et al... although I really didn't care for the sequel) and would be really unhappy if I hadn't the pleasure of reading them...I also enjoy music in which other artists (duly credited) are sampled.

I believe that there's a fine line in between respecting intellectual property and augmenting a rich body of work by adding new and exciting ideas from another perspective. It depends, according to the law, for example, when music is sampled, what proportion of innovation is introduced to the original song. If someone were to write a full series in the voice of the narrator of an original book, attempting to mimic the source material for profit, then it would be a different matter altogether. Nothing in this world is an original idea, no? The human animal gravitates towards the stuff of our collective past. We physiologically learn by treading familiar pathways in our brains. It would be hubris to assert our complete originality in any case, I believe.

I would really like to get a copy of "The Wind Done Gone," for example, where this question was put to the courts by the estate of "Gone With the Wind" author Margaret Mitchell. I side strongly with Alice Randall on this case in theory but have not read the book so it may change my mind when I get around to picking it up. Any of you read this book?

[Ruthie]

I discovered the Mary Russell books last year – my local library had a copy of BEEK on its “new acquisitions” shelf - and then quickly worked my way through the series, not in order, but as I was able to get hold of them.

So well written, and importantly, believable. LRK produces a narrative in the style of 1920s well-educated speech, and also of an adolescent recalling the heightened emotional state, the need for a mentor (especially since no likely candidate in own family), and the mood swings! Even though written in the first person there is so much reticence, a very private person despite the 1st person narrative For example Russell touches on aspects such as the crash but without giving further details, so that the reader is unaware of the full impact until later in the story.

Russell condemns Watson for being the buffoon whose only requirement for his presence is to carry a gun (was this legal?), or to act as a sounding board, and thankfully LRK’s books do not fall into this trap. Periodically Lestrade may be used in this way, but otherwise the tales unfold as Russell and Holmes uncover the information themselves – much more agreeable, and makes the (many) rereads just as enjoyable.

Age difference; well I’ve married a man 15 years (to the day) my senior who I met at 19, but as others have pointed out it’s no big deal. Others are more interested in the age gap than us, and just as it seems to play little part in the Russell/Holmes interactions. We all have separate former lives to some degree, some just have longer ones than others.

I think this book works on many different levels – jolly adventure story, emotional coming of age (the following books are more romantic, but this certainly holds tantalising hints) and (for me) the timeless battle to be recognised and respected as an equal. And I do enjoy the subtlety of LRK’s writing; so many new discoveries, and re-interpretations are possible

[wsmvgn]

If Mary had been older and not a product of her generation, Great War and all, she would not have had the um, balls, to be so self-determined. This strength is part of what drew Holmes out of his shell and an adolescence under more stringent social mores may not have produced such a fierce young woman.


At the time Holmes and Russell meet, the principal influences on Russell's life were the sudden loss of her family of origin (and her guilt associated with that) and her unsatisfactory relationship with her aunt. The influences of the Great War come later, and Holmes helps her get perspective about it. (They have a big fight about it, in which Holmes, interestingly, is unwilling to let her back down from her position that they should be doing something about it.) Nobody, including Mary, knows how her life would have turned out had she not stumbled over Holmes at that critical juncture, but she, and we, suspect that it would not have gone so well. So I'm not sold that the Great War was such a big deal.

But Mary's strength and self-determination, now that's another issue. The classic way to write their meeting would have Mary aged perhaps 22 and gorgeous, and Holmes smitten. But after Irene Adler, there's no way Holmes is going to bite on that lure. So instead, she's 15, modestly endowed, and in androgynous dress. This stealthy outfitting allows her to slip under Holmes radar.

[laurierking]

Ruthie comments that Russell is a very private person despite the 1st person narrative

Ruthie's comment reminds me, how much easier it is to be deceptive when writing first person than third. Revelation is given almost in spite of the narrator's best intentions, since--particularly with a woman like Russell--her primary impulse is not to give things away.

[Kerry]

On the age difference . . . I don't disagree with anything anyone else has written, but have a slightly different way of articulating it to myself. Of course, had the two met when Mary was an adult, the difference wouldn't even be on the radar. But they did meet when she was a child. For me, the real key is that, because of their equality of mind and their particular emotional needs, they never had a parent-child relationship. It would be very difficult, I think, to have that kind of relationship change into a romantic adult relationship without introducing a very large "creep" factor. The master-apprentice relationship, instead, is (almost? always?) predicated on the notion that the apprentice has the potential to equal the master in the chosen field, which I think leaves open the possibility for a future partnership that encompasses many different levels.

I also agree that the Great War was an important element in Mary's growth. She already had a capable and independent mind. The war demanded that women take on many of the jobs historically held by men, which meant that she (and many other young women) proved herself in those realms. I think that, without the sort of "physical" opportunity to demonstrate equality, she would not, perhaps, have had as much push to maintain her independence over the long term. That is, she knew she was smarter than most; the war gave her the opportunity to prove (to herself) that she could "do" as well as think. Once that knowledge has been gained, it's hard for anyone -- much less her! -- to put up with any sort of second-class status or restricted life. So I see it as only natural that she would continue to develop as a strong and independent person, without fear or hesitation (about that, at least).

I don't know if I've articulated that at all well -- I hope y'all get what I'm trying to express :o .

[lizholland14]

I read The Wind Done Gone, mostly because of all the controversy, and it was a pretty bad book. An interesting, if predictable, argument, but handled immaturely.

[mcgownbryant]

The alternate title - "On the Segregation of the Queen" - works on two levels. Clearly, the first level is the one you have already and very capably analyzed. However, the alternate title equally applies to the effect upon a queen bee of being segregated within a bee hive. Namely, anger, insanity, frantic behavior, poor decision-making. In this instance, the alternate title, therefore, applies to Patricia Donleavy.

Mary Russell and her writing partner, Ms King, have an alternate title that paradoxically applies to both female protaganists.

"or On The Segregation of The Queen" To me, this has always meant the chess gambit of dangling out an unprotected queen with the strategic intent of diverting your opponent's attention from your real offensive tactics, which was then used as the basis for the dangerous (more so than even Holmes expected!) strategy of dangling Russell as bait to entice Patricia Donleavy into making a fatal(!?) move. Typical of Holmes' chess-playing, it was wildly dangerous, especially when confronting an under-estimated foe, and it was Russell's talents and abilities that saved the day, at a cost! Very well played!!

John.

(Sorry, vicki! I posted this in the wrong place the first time; my bad!)

[nkk1969]

While browsing the page with all the editions of BEEK, I stumbled across the German version, DIE GEHILFIN DES BIENENZUECHTER. It's an odd translation, to say the least. Roughly translated, it is the beekeeper's _helper_, not apprentice. If you look at the Dutch and Danish editions on the same page, you can see they have used a similar form of the German word lehrling, or apprentice.

So, Ms. King, does Mary know about this? ;-)

To the rest of the group:

The Russell/Holmes age difference has never bothered me. I fail to see why it's even an issue. I have a girlfriend who married a much (42 years, to be exact) older man. They had a wonderful life together and she says she doesn't regret a thing, even though she is now raising two teenagers alone.

IMHO, there are soooo many more interesting things to talk about when it comes to this book. For example, the character development in this segment of the story has always fascinated me. I wonder if it was difficult for Ms. King to find and stick with Holmes "voice" in this new setting/situation? What sections...flowed freely and what others were problematic? What was her favorite scene to write?

We have the author in our midst. Carpe diem, folks.

Nikki

[jtb1951]

However, the alternate title equally applies to the effect upon a queen bee of being segregated within a bee hive. Namely, anger, insanity, frantic behavior, poor decision-making. In this instance, the alternate title, therefore, applies to Patricia Donleavy.

Mary Russell and her writing partner, Ms King, have an alternate title that paradoxically applies to both female protaganists.

I like it!!

John.

[seslavie]

On the age difference, I've always had the impression that the Holmes/Russell relationship would never had happened otherwise. Holmes wasn't open to a relationship. Russell slipped in under the radar and became an intregal part of Holme's life before he realized what had happened. At that point, the option to live without the other's presence in their lives was an inconceivable option. In my opinion, they never were in a parent/child relationship (which would have been creepy), but rather a mentor/mentee relationship, which was based on respect.

[laurierking]

Nikki says,
While browsing the page with all the editions of BEEK, I stumbled across the German version, DIE GEHILFIN DES BIENENZUECHTER. It's an odd translation, to say the least. Roughly translated, it is the beekeeper's _helper_, not apprentice. If you look at the Dutch and Danish editions on the same page, you can see they have used a similar form of the German word lehrling, or apprentice.

So, Ms. King, does Mary know about this? ;-)


I think Ms Russell is probably resigned to such interesting variations as Sacrificier une Reine and L'alieva e l'apicultore. I think there was one somewhere that used the feminine of "beekeeper" although I can't find it at the moment.

At least it wasn't the more common error, "The Beekeeper's Daughter."

[Strawberry Curls]

One of the things that most impressed me with BEEK ,and then the series, was the amount of information what was dropped in that novel that later was developed into whole books. The trip to Palestine, meeting the lady archaeologist (who later appeared as Dorothy Ruskin in LETT) the two Arab cutthroats who appeared in full form in OJER and again in JUST and finally the revelation of the dream that told of Russell's past and was explored fully in LOCK. This is quite amazing if you think of it.

It begs the question, was the storyline of all the future books already written down or just rolling around in the back of Ms. King's brain? Either way it is quite extraordinary.

[nkk1969]

LOL! The Beekeeper's _Daughter_? I guess that's one way to deal with the age difference.<big snort>

I had to check amazon.de to see the rest of the titles. Some aren't bad at all. Die Apostelin for LOM was good. Toedliches Testament for MREG was different, but not so bad.

On a side note, (and not to subvert the thread, though it is one of my not-so-hidden talents) I noticed that the later books are not available in German. If you are shopping for a German publisher or translator, I have a friend in Germany who is wonderful. She translates many, many best sellers for Blanvalet, a large German publisher. Shoot me an email if you're interested and I'll give you her your contact info.

Nikki

[nkk1969]

Alice,

I always think of these sorts of tidbits as bread crumbs, as in the Hansel and Gretel variety. Isn't it fun to go back to connect the dots and find your way home? :-)

This may be one of the identifying marks of a great series.

Nikki

[Strawberry Curls]

Nikki,

Yes, it certainly is, and you put it so well, bread crumb indeed. I had forgotten to mention the things from "the much abused trunk." Finding those items listed in the Editor's preface has become a treasure hunt through the books and so rewarding when something is found and finally is explained in its context of that books story.

[alina]

Indeed; the thing that first caught me about the series (other than the intriguing concept gleaned from the back cover) was the editor's and author's prefaces in BEEK; I thought them very clever and decided to continue reading! They have now proved a useful guide in scanning the series. I only fear the day when my check list of trunk items ends and I am left wondering whether the entire thing is finished or if LRK's going to pull items from a secret compartment! *crosses her fingers in high hopes*

[cynthia]

I didn't find the age difference between Holmes and Russell to be "creepy". I found it very satisfying when their relationship turned out to be more than just mentor/student. A man who is older, intelligent, and mature is very attractive.

[wsmvgn]

One of the things that most impressed me with BEEK ,and then the series, was the amount of information what was dropped in that novel that later was developed into whole books. The trip to Palestine, meeting the lady archaeologist (who later appeared as Dorothy Ruskin in LETT) the two Arab cutthroats who appeared in full form in OJER and again in JUST and finally the revelation of the dream that told of Russell's past and was explored fully in LOCK. This is quite amazing if you think of it.

It begs the question, was the storyline of all the future books already written down or just rolling around in the back of Ms. King's brain? Either way it is quite extraordinary.

Me too, what particularly impresses me is that the hints don't need to be hammered into position in the subsequent books, they just naturally fit. That, to me, is very, very hard.

[library_student]

my check list of trunk items ends

That's it, I need to make my own checklist! :)

[LexaKlein22]

If BEE was set anywhere but early 1900's England, it might not have been as apparent that Russell has a more fiery, confident personality than is common in her world. Her confidence in herself as a formidible young woman is much more important to her overall character because of the stark contrast set off by conservative England in a time when women were just barely establishing themselves as something more than cooks and mothers. If Russell were starting out in a more modern day context, we would not value her strengths nearly as much.

[Carlina]

I have much to add here...but I'm currently under writing constraints so some quick thoughts...

The age difference...well that does not bother me, then again one must remember this is a different time period where older men and younger women pairings were common. I am also married to an older man, so maybe that is a personal issue. Also in terms of the meeting at 15...I don't think Holmes was instantly in love with her then. He saw genius, wit, intelligence and that attracted him more so. It was more of a meeting of minds. There is something written much later to that extent in LOCK when he meets D. Hammett...He thinks some thing as such...I'll let you folks grab that quote...

I get the impression the attraction and yes, even the need, came later, by the time Russell was 18. I think her birthday was the wake up call between the fit and then the possibility of him pacing outside her bedroom door that night (although I still think it was the clock). Then there was Jerusalem and that's when I think Holmes' heart starts to overpower his mind. Then Donleavy and her taking a bullet for him, well...that would change my mind about anyone...really. I think the key scene in BEEK when we are slowly learning Holmes' attitude towards Russ is at the end...when she is in the hospital and that first scene of her awakening...He calls her Mary...then Russell. She sees him and wow is he in a bad state.

Did they ever go to the continent together? Laurie? Anyone? Did they go together? Do I sense another book to cover that time....

[LAParent]

I have to admit, the age difference in the relationship did keep me from reading these books for a while. For me, I think it would be a lot more comfortable if Mary had been 30 or so...but someone pointed out to me that she thinks and acts like a 30 year old anyway. So in my mind I have just aged her up a bit to a more comfortable level for me. To make it a bit more "fair".

People say "Age doesn't matter". But if Mary had been in her 50's and Holmes a boy...would the results have been the same? Would they have gotten married? I think age doesn't matter in a relationship in the eyes of most of society...as long as the woman is younger. I mean, we don't see Miss Marple having any young male admirers who would be in a relationship with her for her mind. So the unfairness of it bothers me.

Sheesh. I am 6 months older than my husband and he talks about me like I am a crumbling Roman ruin (OK, I exaggerate). But I am the "older woman". Yeah, right!

Anyway, once I made myself ignore the age difference, the book was quite good. I tore through it once I got into it. The only thing I didn't like was Mary's gentle contempt for Doctor Watson. She portrays him as a bit of a bumbling fool, and I never felt that when I read ACD's stories. He was the normal person who set off Holmes' super intelligence. I never thought he was dumb...just not a superman like Holmes. And with a lot more common sense.

I'm about to start the second book...I hope the rest of the series is as good as the first!

[jtb1951]

The only thing I didn't like was Mary's gentle contempt for Doctor Watson. She portrays him as a bit of a bumbling fool, and I never felt that when I read ACD's stories. He was the normal person who set off Holmes' super intelligence. I never thought he was dumb...just not a superman like Holmes. And with a lot more common sense.

I'm about to start the second book...I hope the rest of the series is as good as the first!

Welcome to the VBC! I think you are in for a great treat with the rest of the Russell books, and I wouldn't be surprised if you see a more mature Mary/Watson relationship develop!:) Welcome, again!

John.

[Carlina]

I don't think it would have worked had Russ been 30...Holmes defences would have been up and on full throttle. The man does not, nor will he ever, I think, trust women or their motives. Yes, two women, well actually three (if you believe some biographies), have gotten under his skin. The first in his youth, believed to be Victor Trevor's sister...marred him badly with women. Then there was that *Bites lip* Adler woman...finally there was Russ. The thing is that Russ was, although developmentally and intellectually precocious, still a child. He even calls her that at times (and still occasionally does so in their marriage). Because she was so young, he "let her in" easier and before the poor man knew it...he let her right into that organ of his he had neglected so much in his life...his heart. Had she been 30...It would not have happened.

I think they both share something else...that damage...that corruption of innocence...those extremes...that allow them to have the relationship they do. As my pal Strawberry Curls put it.."they are both two poor sods that saved each other." I think she is very right in that respect and we do hear Russ say this more than once.

Why am I talking like these people are real...sheesh. Now what I really want to know is how are Laurie's novels going to affect the game? Anyone here play that? I'm I the only soul....

[Peppermint]

Sherlock Holmes is also more that just a character created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, he’s gone and taken on a life of his own outside the original stories. How many people know who he is, yet have never read one of the stories? I imagine it’s quite a lot.

My sentiments exactly -- there are countless images and reworkings of Holmes going around, which make him an easily recognizable figure regardless of whether you've read the books (case in point, the cartoon Sherlock Hound). I'm completely in favor of any works that encourage people to look up the original stories for themselves.

[The Solitary Cyclist]

Heyloo! I thought I might finally add something to this discussion. Some of you may know me from Holmesian.net or the LOM Yahoo! listing. But, enough about me...

I am a firmly believe that age is relative as companionship lies in the heart and mind rather than in the body. The Russell and Holmes relationship stretches my belief rather thin, true, but I still have no problem with the age difference of forty years. Holmes did not immediately find Russell romantically attractive; Carlina brought out a good point when she mentioned that Holmes would not have "let her in" if she were a woman, especially if she were a woman to whom he was attracted. Our older Holmes understands a bit more about the heart and emotions, it is true, but the man was still a loner and a misogynist. A child, though, presents no potential heartache or irrationality. Holmes may have considered the intruging person a possible living legacy. Who knows? He found her interesting and was attracted to her wit, intelligence, and logic.

Holmes did not account for the emotional ties, however, and these feelings became more romantic (if I can use such a word to describe Holmes) when he began to view her as a woman. Their companionship could no longer be considered that of a tutor and a student; it was much more than a simple friendship. Russell was always an "old soul" and Holmes is human, too. His love for Russell and her love for him was founded in respect and understanding.

There is nothing disturbing about that in my mind!

Sorry if I have offended anyone! It was not my intention.

[Strawberry Curls]

The only thing I didn't like was Mary's gentle contempt for Doctor Watson. She portrays him as a bit of a bumbling fool, and I never felt that when I read ACD's stories. He was the normal person who set off Holmes' super intelligence. I never thought he was dumb...just not a superman like Holmes. And with a lot more common sense.

I'm wondering if some of the perception that Ms. King portrayed Watson as a fool comes from the statement Russell makes from her hospital bed? When she awakens to find him in her room Russell says, "'Uncle John, your mustache is almost back to normal.' (Doddering old fool...)" This is not Russell denigrating Watson but her remembering Donleavy's words. "I did not need Dr. Watson, though that was amusing, was it not? Doddering old fool."

I realize early in the book Russell says, "Which brings me to Watson, a sweet bumbly man whom I came to call...Uncle John." Russell seems to have deep affection for "Uncle John" but is always, as Holmes was, in a position of superior intellect. She credits his great heart but sees his limitations.

Just a thought.

[Carlina]

Well put by both SCs, one of which I must catch..*grabs Solitary yet again and sets her back on the cab* There you are nice and restored. Mind the cobbles...

Thanks for the kudos Solitary. I think you are right indeed...an old soul...a great way to describe Russ!

As to Watson, I still have reservations about his portrayal, which Laurie has admirably addressed here. As to Russ' gentle contempt, I think I see what LAPArent is saying in regard to those slips Russ makes about his inability "not to get it." "How long could someone be around Holmes and learn absolutely nothing" is close to what I think Russ said. In that respect, Russ does, in a way, a gentle way, scold him. However, I think as Strawberry brings up, Russ was also quite close to the man. She refers to him as "Uncle John" and "dear Uncle John."

I personally never saw Watson as limited..but that is me. In the canon, he is not bumbly or as, for lack of a better word, absent minded, as he has been portrayed in film (poor Nigel Bruce) and in some respects in BEEK when he brings his doctors bag along. Canon Watson would have been smarter than that I think. However, where Laurie shines with Watson is showing his immense gentleness and his huge heart. She tackles that beautifully. Now...all that is needed the ladies man effect and he'll be Watson alright. I would love to see Watson's description of Russ (since Watson was quite the ladies man and good with all the feminine descriptions)...written by Laurie...that would be...neat....but I digress...

[Arcadian]

The age difference didn't bother me. Holmes does treat her almost as a male for a while and does keep his distance. Even when Russell is 21, he is courting her perhaps, but lets her make the first move. Let me not to the marriage of true minds and all that...

[AtypicalSororityGirl]

I think this book could be just fine as a complete stand-alone; it ends satisfyingly enough that it doesn't need oodles of sequels and mid-quels, but I do admit the first time I read it, I was like "noooooooooooo" when I got to the last page because it's such a world of its own, but then I turned the next page to a sneak preview of MREG, and promptly freaked out, ran home to my mother begging for a trip to barnes and noble.
--I'm glad there's a series, but it could have ended cleanly and nicely by itself, and we would've been left to imagine the rest, i suppose.

[Kerry]

The only thing I didn't like was Mary's gentle contempt for Doctor Watson.

The way I read her reaction to/relationship with Watson was that she did, as she admits, begin by being prepared to find him a bumbling fool. I personally take that as a function of her youth, and the arrogance that comes with it. I don't think we, as readers, are supposed to agree with her, or necessarily admire her for her initial feelings; I, for one, see the development of their relationship as a great device to show how she grows and matures. Anyway, that and $1.50 will buy you a cup of coffee ;) .

[laurierking]

It begs the question, was the storyline of all the future books already written down or just rolling around in the back of Ms. King's brain? Either way it is quite extraordinary.

Me too, what particularly impresses me is that the hints don't need to be hammered into position in the subsequent books, they just naturally fit. That, to me, is very, very hard.


The one that was really tough was Locked Rooms, where I had to go back and troll through the earlier books for references about Russell's past that I had long forgotten, and try to shape the story around those events. A few of them had me wondering if I couldn't just have future editions of Beekeeper rewritten....

[The Solitary Cyclist]

The way I read her reaction to/relationship with Watson was that she did, as she admits, begin by being prepared to find him a bumbling fool. I personally take that as a function of her youth, and the arrogance that comes with it. I don't think we, as readers, are supposed to agree with her, or necessarily admire her for her initial feelings; I, for one, see the development of their relationship as a great device to show how she grows and matures. Anyway, that and $1.50 will buy you a cup of coffee ;) .

That was what I was going to write and you beat me to it. Russell is a female Holmes in many respects and only knew Watson from the stories in The Strand. It makes sense that her youthful, arrogant self would believe he was a bumbling fool; Holmes would have no doubt thought the same thing with the same amount of knowledge. But, she loves him for his heart just like Holmes came to. He is still underrated by Russell, true, but without years of friendship backing her opinion of him, we can hardly expect her to fully understand the man.

[spiston]

I agree with you all on the disparaging comments about Watson, however, in BEEK he manages to shave his moustache and get the doorman's clothing to go to Mycroft's uninvited whilst still carrying his undisguised doctor's bag for all to see. True, loving someone for their good intentions despite poor execution tends to be a bit condescending and assumes an air of superiority. But after all these years working with Holmes one would think such errors would be behind him, no?

[jtb1951]

But after all these years working with Holmes one would think such errors would be behind him, no?

I guess our man Watson is what he is, and we'll have to accept that he will always be the counterpoint that we know and love!

John.

[spiston]

So when on the case of Jessica Simpson's kidnapping Russell does a tarot reading for herself. I thought it was an interesting three-card reading.

The first card was the Hanged Man, which represents the past. This is a time of trial or meditation, selflessness, sacrifice, prophecy. This card can also imply a time when everything just stands still, a time of rest and reflection before moving on. Things will continue on in a moment, but for now, they float, timeless.

The second card, the present, was the Fool, which represents a time of newness, a time when life has been "re-started" as it were. Far from being sad or frustrating, this is about feeling remarkably *free*, light hearted and refreshed, as if being given a second chance. They feel young and energized.

The third card, the future, was the Tower. This card is a bit heady and powerful. Nothing built on a lie, on falsehoods, can remain standing for long. Better to tear it all down and rebuild on the truth. It is not going to be pleasant or painless or easy, but it will be for the best.

I sort of see this reading as applicable for Holmes and Russell; perhaps she asked a quesiton about their partnership before drawing the cards?

[Arcadian]

Yeah, gotta love Watson for being the character he is, and for sharing so many stories with us. I loved the first meeting between Watson and Russell. So, do you suppose he asked Holmes what his apprentice looked like or did Holmes volunteer that this brainy young female was also lovely? Being something of a ladies' man himself, I think Watson would ask about her looks, and Holmes obviously described her in admiring terms.

[ValentineWiggin]

After reading The Moor this summer, I bought a book of Conan Doyle's works which had The Hound of the Baskervilles in it, but it also had an introduction about how Watson is the much maligned character of the Holmes stories when they are adapted. I must say that I find Watson to be an inteligent man who, quite simply, pales substantialy in comparison with Holmes. It must take such generosity of spirit and genuien goodness and purity to not abandon Holmes after years of being intelectually walked all over by him; I think that Holmes respondes to and appreciates this. After all, Holmes life is spent dealign with all that is dark and ugly in humanity, and seeing criminality's complete antithesis in Watson must provide some catharsis and renowed faith and hope for the world after such experiences.

[AmyLizzie]

I think Watson must be a good man to be so lovely to Mary. After all here is another person who is more intelligent than him, and half his age and to top it all off - a woman! He must have been more than able to move with the times. I think that's an intersting point about the Holmes and Watson stories in general, they do seem to move with the times. New pastiches and novels appear and yet they are still as popular as they ever were...amazing....

[spiston]

The alternate title - "On the Segregation of the Queen" - works on two levels. Clearly, the first level is the one you have already and very capably analyzed. However, the alternate title equally applies to the effect upon a queen bee of being segregated within a bee hive. Namely, anger, insanity, frantic behavior, poor decision-making. In this instance, the alternate title, therefore, applies to Patricia Donleavy.

I think it applies to both Donleavy and Russell. In the beginning of book 4, chapter 14, it is quoted from "The Life of The Bee":

"Isolate her, and however abundant the food or favorable the temperature, she will expire in a few days, not of hunger or cold, but of lonliness."

This chapter begins with Russell and Holmes as they are returning to England, with their act of estrangement in its beginning stages. Hence, I take the alternate title also as a warning of what might happen to Russell should she be permanently without Holmes and an indication of their mutual need. As all the chapters begin with information from this tome on bees, cementing the thematic thread linking humanity with the community of an apiary, I cannot help but see this mirrored in the blossoming humanity of our two leading characters. It is as if the child and the thinking-machine are both learning how to be human as they find community with one another, mimicking the communal needs of the bees. A human is merely half-human without the emotional development which comes from intimacy and for their own separate reasons this has been stunted in both of them. As we meet Holmes he is sickly with this unidentified need which Russell fulfills most suprisingly. And were it not for Holmes, Russell would hardly have been able to access her true power and passion. I could imagine her becoming more like Donleavy; not murderous perhaps, but a cold academic nonetheless.

[The Solitary Cyclist]

I agree with you all on the disparaging comments about Watson, however, in BEEK he manages to shave his moustache and get the doorman's clothing to go to Mycroft's uninvited whilst still carrying his undisguised doctor's bag for all to see. True, loving someone for their good intentions despite poor execution tends to be a bit condescending and assumes an air of superiority. But after all these years working with Holmes one would think such errors would be behind him, no?

This is true and a good point. I still regard Watson as a normal, though absent-minded, man. He was, after all, a doctor and a great writer. Perhaps his brains were founded in different areas. His "polished" innocence would also make him less likely to realize the true danger of such situations. He was with Holmes all that time, true, but he himself could not imagine such evil. If he was more aware of his surroundings, he might put just a bit more thought into his disguise.

[Kay]

This dinosaur has finally figured out how to post a message (well, we'll see). Beekeeper is my all time favorite book. A librarian turned me on to it about 12 years ago. I can't tell you the nuber of copies I've purchased and distributed to friends over the years. That's it until I find out if I really am as tachno-savvy as I think I am.

kay

[vicki]

You did great, Kay! You're plenty techno-savvy for us, so keep it coming. If you do get in a spot where you need some help, feel free to send me a private message or email, or you can just holler "help!" on the forum, and someone will come by and give you a hand shortly.

[Kay]

Thanks, Vicki. Now I just need to check for typos before I enter my posts!
Kay

[AtypicalSororityGirl]

you said something about "how are L's novels going to affect the game?"
what game are you talking of?

[jtb1951]

Thundering out... have to shut down the computer. Did that make any sense??

You bet it did! Major storms hitting and time to protect the old computer from power outages/surges!

John.

[library_student]

4. Russell and Holmes, though similar in many ways, yet differ profoundly in others. How does Russell’s sex influence her outlook and actions? How does her interest in theology reflect and affect those differences?

This is a question I appreciated. My maternal grandmother, born in 1902, only lived 3 blocks away until I was 8 years old, and then moved in with us. She had her own difficulties owning and running a factory after the great stock market crash in 1929 in New Jersey. Woolworth’s wanted to cancel their contract, because “a woman couldn’t run a factory efficiently.” Grandma got dressed in a businesswoman’s suit of the time, and marched into the Woolworth’s office demanding to be given a chance to keep the contract before they just cancelled for nothing. They appreciated her forthrightness and left the contract alone. For reasons of her sex alone, the factory would have lost a significant amount of business if Ruth Newman was not willing to stand up for herself, her abilities, and those of her workers. I’m sure Russell would find the same, when dealing with those who did not know of her connection to Holmes. Since she has such a mentor, she doesn’t quite have the same need to stand up for herself without Holmes’ reputation. Now, if she had a case in Oxford, and those involved don’t know about her and Holmes, she would have that same need to be blunt and outspoken. I’m sure Russell can do it; we just don’t have the same proof yet with less knowledgeable clients.

I greatly appreciate Russell being Jewish! I am, and my husband is not, as well. Indeed, Talmudic training in logic would serve Russell well as a detective and in keeping up with Holmes. The rabbis are known for arguing a point into absurdity, even to my taste. The decision on how to free a mamzer from being forbidden for marriage into the Children of Israel for 10 generations is my favorite example. Some commenters have wondered at Russell’s level of observance, but again, this is rather what I was accustomed to with my grandmother. I would expect in American terms, Russell is a Reform (or the English term at the time I understand, Modern) Jew, at a time when the Orthodox were being considered ignorant for not knowing English yet. Grandma said that the official languages of the Reform prayer books were English, with some Hebrew, “because we already know English and don’t speak Yiddish.” Yiddish was considered by her a language for the ignorant and illiterate, and never heard her speak a word of it. French, she taught me, took me to Saturday services, and taught me my first Hebrew blessings. Grandma was born in the U.S.A. but her elder siblings were born in London, rather like Russell and at the same time period. Grandma kept Shabbat when she could by going to services and not doing the Jewish definitions of “work” after she retired, would not eat pork but would eat crab and lobster, never had a problem about mixing meat and milk, and actually wore a cross at certain times during her life because it was a gift and beautiful.

[jtb1951]

I meant the rest of the post I wrote without re-reading.

Yep, it all made eminent sense!!:)

John.

[Mary]

Another 'first post' and I hope it works! I have just re-read LR and am going back to BEEK with (hopefully) fresh insights. I greatly admire the skills of LRK in keeping all her balls in the air... the complexity of the relationship between the books makes for terrific interest (apart from the stories themselves).

[jtb1951]

... the complexity of the relationship between the books makes for terrific interest (apart from the stories themselves).

Welcome, Mary! The relationships (and inter-relationships) among the books certainly make for enthralling story-lines and definitely keep the interest level high! Thanks for posting!:)

John.

[Ingrid B]

Hello everyone! I´ve been a fan of Russell/Holmes for many years now. These books are intelligent and entertaining. (As well as all other LRK books I´ve read.)

There are a lot of things to discuss about BEEK, but one thing that has always intrigued me is what Holmes says in chapter 1: "Twenty years ago," he murmured. "Even ten. But here? Now?" This is after he has realised Russell´s intelligence, but did he see all the implications of their companionship the first day already? What do you think?

Ingrid

[jtb1951]

This is after he has realised Russell´s intelligence, but did he see all the implications of their companionship the first day already? What do you think?

Welcome, Ingrid B!! As prescient as Holmes could seem at times I don't think even he could see all the implications of their possible relationship. However, I do think that he was so taken with Russell's apparent raw talent that he couldn't help but wistfully wish that they had met when Holmes was much younger (to take her on as an apprentice, only). Thanks for posting, and please join us regularly!!:)

John.

[Ingrid B]

Interesting to hear your point of view. I tend to think that he might, in the back of his mind, have had some kind of presentiment of it.

Ingrid

[Strawberry Curls]

Interesting to hear your point of view. I tend to think that he might, in the back of his mind, have had some kind of presentiment of it. Ingrid

Well, we know Holmes liked to present himself as omniscient and that pronouncement fit right into that persona. LOL

[Kerry]

Doesn't LRK answer this question later in the book? As I recall, the explanation is that Holmes is realizing that he has found his apprentice at the only time in his life when having a female apprentice would be possible. Earlier, the mores of the times would have prohibited them from working closely together; the relatively liberal times, coupled with the age difference, made it easier. I don't think he had a clue about what was going to happen down the road, though :)

Anyone else remember this bit? I'm at work, so don't have a copy of the book handy.

[wsmvgn]

...one thing that has always intrigued me is what Holmes says in chapter 1: "Twenty years ago," he murmured. "Even ten. But here? Now?"


My sense of it was that he was lamenting that this opportunity, he thought, had arrived too late. That he didn't think he could pull himself together, cold turkey off cocaine, and become the mentor Russell clearly needed.

But he did!

[Ingrid B]

Ah, isn´t this book just great? There are such a lot of details to discuss, and we just have to guess as we are not given straight answers. That is why I reread it now and then. And each time I find something new in it.

Ingrid

[Arcadian]

Yes, I also think its a great book. Just read it (and all the others) this summer. As a long time Sherlockian, I have been reluctant to try any more of the aftermarket Holmes stories, generally find them disappointing. This one surprised me. I feel like I've caught up with an old friend I hadn't had any news from in a while. Any other Sherlockians feel the same way?

[Nomi Hanlon]

[QUOTE] Personally, I find nothing creepy about the relationship in The Beekeeper's Apprentice, because it's kept on a very teacher-student level for most of the novel

I would definately concur with that. The reality of life is that it is fluid, and that relationships do change and evolve. If this happens naturally, without coersion or manipulation, then this is can be quite beautiful (I speak from my own experience, which has brought me more richness and more joy than I ever could have imagined). Laurie King is able to present this development as something which is natural and a blessing to both Russell and Holmes; as a reader, I never even questioned their relationship.

[wsmvgn]

One thing I've not been able to figure out was why Holmes needed two kinds of paint for the bees in the opening scene of Beekeeper. Seems like you'd only need that if you already had the answer to the question you were working on. Or maybe Holmes and Russell are smarter than I am.

[Quill]

Hello, everyone. *waves* I've been a fan of the Russell books for several years, along with the audiobooks--I usually read sci-fi/fantasy, but these are one of my few exceptions.

I agree with the folks who say that Russell and Holmes have a very apprentice/master relationship going, and that he at least is quite aware of it at the time. But, if I may drag in something from a subsequent book, he's also attracted to her physically from the very beginning. To paraphrase A Monstrous Regiment of Women (I don't have the volume on me) right after Holmes kisses Russell:

"By God," he murmured throatily, "I've wanted to do that from the moment I set eyes upon you."

"Holmes," I protested, "the first time you saw me, you thought I was a boy."

"And don't think that didn't cause me some moments of deep consternation," he said.

That doesn't mean that Holmes fell in love at first sight, by any means, but it does rather indicate a response of some kind! As a gentleman, however, Holmes obviously kept this in check. While Russell was still too young at that point, women in the time in which Holmes had grown up did often get married in their late teens. The societal squick factor wasn't as high.

He was smart enough to tell the difference between lust and love, too.

[AmyLizzie]

I love that scene!! It's so beautifully written, and so sensitively done, that it doesn't sound at all cheesy or fake. I think that is my favourite Russell book :)

[nkk1969]

While Russell was still too young at that point, women in the time in which Holmes had grown up did often get married in their late teens. The societal squick factor wasn't as high.


Hmm. I've never thought of it in those terms before. Maybe one's environment while growning up colors the outlook on the ick factor of their relationship. Growing up in West Virginia, it was nothing to see someone 15 getting married. LOL! (Joking, but only just.)

[MaryBe]

Hello everyone! *waves*
I love the Beekeeper's Apprentice. It is by far my favorite of the Mary Russell books. All the books are great, but BA has its special little charm for me.
Not only is the growing relationship between Holmes and Russell is great, but I also enjoyed the fact the character of Patricia Donleavy and her "history" with Holmes. I wish Ms. King had gone a bit more in depth with her relationship with Mary and how the two of them interacted, although I could see that delving into that might have inadvertantly spoiled the identity of the story's villain prematurely for the reader.

I think that it is because of her connection to Moriarty that she became such a compelling antagonist for me. None of the other books could quite match that for me. I liked that BA's antagonist and the book as a whole had a strong connection to the Holmes canon, which the other books, (with the possible exception of The Moor) seemed to be a little disconnected from. It makes complete sense because this is a whole new series and not merely an extension of the Holmes canon, but I liked that mutual link that both characters had to Donleavy, which none of the other books had. Is there anyone else who feels the same? I don't mean to be overly critical of the other books; I love all of them, but this one has a special place in my heart and upon giving it some thought, I think this might be the primary reason why.

[laurierking]

I've been thinking about some of the topics we're discussing here, and one of them inspired me to write a thing that was too bulky for the forum. If you're interested, it's over at the blog--http://laurierking.com/wp.php/

What do you think?

[KarenB]

—“The idea doesn’t appeal to me so I don’t think I’ll try them.”
So, what do you think? Valid criticism, or just sad that the reader won’t give the next books a chance?

It's a valid reason for not reading a book - the subject is perhaps distasteful or not of interest, but it isn't a valid critique. A good critic will be able to discuss the good and/ or bad points of the writing while acknowledging his or her own emotional response to the writing. It is certainly possible that some readers will find your writing not to their taste, either because of subject matter (loved the canon Sherlock, can't go beyond that or the age difference between Sherlock and Mary) or the protagonist (witness some of the responses you have gotten in your blog regarding Kate Martinelli). However, I do find it sad that someone did enjoy BEEK and can't get beyond the age difference to read further.

We all decide whether or not to read every book we pick up and some will not interest us. That is not to say it is badly written, just not to our taste. BUT, being open to new writing, new authors, new ideas expands our own horizons. Having just read Sharyn McCrumb's St. Dale and Once Around the Track, I have some appreciation for NASCAR racing; something I thought impossible!

[kuttlewis]

In the Monk Tun case, Russell recovered the cash (inspite of notes floating about) and three and something hams. What happened to the three whisky bottles that set Mrs. Whiteneck back quite a bit? In importance, I'd have thought whisky would come after cashbox and before hams. Holmes and Russell drank Bass ale.

Inge

[SandyG]

I have read all of LRK's Mary Russel series and just finished re-reading BKA for this discussion. It's one of my favorites, but I do wish we were discussing O Jerusalem next as its story takes place before MROW.

[Ingrid B]

NKK1969 said: Maybe one's environment while growning up colors the outlook on the ick factor of their relationship.

Yes, that is true. And also, as others already have said, it wasn´t unusual that men married very late and then with a very young bride. And Russell and Holmes are, although they at first were master/apprentice, so equal in their minds that for me their union is most natural.

Ingrid

P.S. Yes, I also wonder what happened to those whiskybottles. Surely, Tony Sylvester, the barkeep, couldn´t have had time to drink them all?;) D.S.

[kuttlewis]

Russell was studying theology, but what were her personal beliefs?

Inge

[The Grey Badger]

Hmm. I've never thought of it in those terms before. Maybe one's environment while growning up colors the outlook on the ick factor of their relationship. Growing up in West Virginia, it was nothing to see someone 15 getting married. LOL! (Joking, but only just.)

Well, consider the girl in Pride & Prejudice who was married - at the point of an invisible shotgun - at that age. When was it set, 1812?

[nkk1969]

Well, consider the girl in Pride & Prejudice who was married - at the point of an invisible shotgun - at that age. When was it set, 1812?

Proving, once again, that things haven't changed in WV in the past 200 years.... ;)

Seriously though, the point is not what literary precedent there is for a marriage or relationship at this age. My point was because I grew up seeing folks get married at a young age, and marriages with huge age differences as their base, the Russell/Holmes pairing didn't even cause me to bat an eye. Maybe if I had been raised in another place, one where "civilized conventions" were observed, I would have reacted differently. Maybe not, I can't say for sure.

[library_student]

Russell was studying theology, but what were her personal beliefs?

Inge

Russell is Jewish. Not Orthodox, or she would never eat ham unless starving, literally. Whether in today's terms, Russell is Reform, Reconstructionist, or Modern, seems to be determined by the reader's personal beliefs beforehand.

[vicki]

Hi, all! <Waves> Fun stuff going on here in the thread--I'm playing catch-up after a very busy week in RL. Pesky RL!

Welcome to those posting for the first time here--tamborina, Ruthie, lizholland, mcgownbryant, LexaKlein, Nomi Hanlon, Quill, kuttlewis, LAParent, Solitary Cyclist, Arcadian, Kay, Mary, Ingrid B, MaryBe and SandyG! I hope I didn't leave anyone out. Venture out and explore the other parts of the VBC when you get a chance. There are a lot of great discussions going on around the forum.

Alina mentioned way upthread that she has trouble talking about BEEK without also mentioning its sequel, A Monstrous Regiment of Women. I find the same thing to be true for me. In fact, we discussed both books together in the Readerville discussion LRK visited back in 2002. Russell comes of age over the course of the two books, and her relationship with Holmes develops and changes quite a bit. So I tend to think of the two books together, too.

Sandy mentioned, however, that she'd prefer to see O, Jerusalem discussed between BEEK and MREG, since it falls chronologically before MREG. I sympathize, as I usually like to read a series in strict chronological order. But in this series, it worked for me to read MREG second, as it fits better thematically with BEEK. OJER really seems like its own separate episode. But if the series or part of it ever gets made into a mini-series, I think it could work well to have the OJER material inserted at the proper chronological point in the series, and essentially do BEEK, OJER and MREG together as one story.

[SaraB]

When I first read BA, I thought: finally, Sherlock Holmes has met his match. I was glad it was a girl and delighted with the way the book and the series went on from there.
I have given the book to teenage girls so they could see an age-mate who was so smart. They loved it.

SaraB

[sherrie221]

Regarding the age difference, to me the gap is almost entirely chronological. In many other ways the gap is much smaller.

Physically, Russell and Holmes are both athletic, both have lived through experiences that battered their bodies, and they have emerged tried but sound. Holmes has kept his body in decent shape, and Russell's has aged prematurely from wear and tear.

Intellectually, their mental capacities seem to be equal. The main difference here is a matter of experience and training, not of ability.

Emotionally, Holmes is not so very far ahead of Russell in development. Both of them have built walls and have let few people even see inside. Being so much alike in intellect, they both have chosen to limit their emotional exposure, since they feel so misunderstood by most everyone they encounter.

Experientially (I need a better word here!), Russell has had much tragedy packed into her life in a very short time. From age 14 to 19, she lost both parents and her brother, suffered an accident that was physically and emotionally damaging, attempted suicide and is haunted by nightmares. Then she is shipped off in fragile condition to her aunt (that circumstance alone could scar one for life) and into England in the midst of wartime. To put it bluntly, she has to grow up fast. Holmes himself remarks that he regrets exposing her to so much while she is so young. These experiences and exposures do much to close the experiential gap.

What do you think?

Sherrie
(Can you tell registration has finally ended, and I can escape to play!) ;)

[vicki]

Sherrie, I agree that Russell and Holmes have a lot of abilities and traits in common, and that those lead them to understand each other exceptionally well right off the bat. I also agree that Russell's experiences have forced her to grow up fast. Very early in the series, she develops a physical and psychological bearing that seems a decade or so ahead of her chronological age.

The age difference in this case didn't bother me, although such a difference might weird me out in RL, particularly if the genders were reversed (with apologies to the Harold and Maude (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067185/) fans out there). But in this case, and for these two people, it works. We're privy to their meeting and to the growth of their relationship, and it is apparent that, in meeting each other, they are find a sense of "home" that they would not have had otherwise. They can be very comfortable and utterly themselves around each other, even from the beginning. And that's an unusual thing to find in another person.

I think Quill brings up a good point that Holmes eventually admits that his first impulse on meeting Russell was not platonic. But he is evidently able to banish the impulse to some backwater of his mind and behave properly and platonically toward her until she comes of age and inherits her money. I think that makes a big difference, as she is no longer dependent on him. She's free to accept him or reject him without feeling beholden. Feeling beholden is a serious relationshop-wrecker, as any fan of the Lord Peter Wimsey series could tell you.

[The Grey Badger]

There's another thing to think about. Holmes was basically an Edwardian, reared to a kinder, gentler time and standard of conduct. The ideal of his day was the gentleman, and controlling one's 'baser impulses' was a huge part of it. Russell is (as she says somewhere) part of the Lost Generation, who came of age already battle-scarred above and beyond her personal experiences. World War I comes to mind. So she is toughened far beyond what a 15-year-old of any other time (before the present - a case can be made for the kids growing up in the Vietnam Era) would be, and he has had a higher standard of conduct ingrained into him than any one record before or since. (Not that they were angels! But that was the standard.) Which makes it a bit of a more even match than, say, a man his age who was Russell's contemporary marrying a 15-year-old who was mine.

Am I making sense here?

[elle]

A question I've always wanted to ask Ms. King - did you have the bones of the OJER story in place when you wrote that section of BEEK, or did you decide later that there was a place for a full-length novel there? And when you wrote that novel, did you have the bones of JUST in place, or just knew that you wanted to write a "sequel", the specifics of which were yet to be determined? This might be a question better suited to the discussions of the other books, but inquiring minds want to know! OJER and JUST are probably my favorites in the series, although it is really, really,REALLY hard to choose!

[Dicentra]

"By God," he murmured throatily, "I've wanted to do that from the moment I set eyes upon you."

"Holmes," I protested, "the first time you saw me, you thought I was a boy."

"And don't think that didn't cause me some moments of deep consternation," he said.

That doesn't mean that Holmes fell in love at first sight, by any means, but it does rather indicate a response of some kind! As a gentleman, however, Holmes obviously kept this in check. While Russell was still too young at that point, women in the time in which Holmes had grown up did often get married in their late teens. The societal squick factor wasn't as high.

He was smart enough to tell the difference between lust and love, too.

I'm inclined to take him at his word, in view of the bit at the end of their first afternoon together when Holmes kisses Russell's hand and she snatches it back.

There is no Ick Factor in their relationship, for me, because there is never any attempt at seduction.

[vicki]

Hi, elle and Dicentra! <Waves>

Dicentra, I agree that whatever was going on in his mind, he acted appropriately and platonically. That kept the ick factor from rearing its head for me--that and the fact that they do seem so right for each other in so many ways, once Russell comes of age.


Am I making sense here?


I see what you're saying, Badger--tough times often require a generation to grow up fast, and Russell comes of age in a very tough time for Britain. You see some of this in the Lord Peter Wimsey series, where in one scene an older man criticizes some of the young WWI veterans, discounting the psychological and physical scars they suffered on the battlefield, simply because he couldn't relate to the kind of horror they suffered in war--he lacked a common frame of reference.

On the other hand, I'd be remiss if I didn't say that Holmes is no typical Edwardian. He's seen a lot and done a lot that most people of his time would never dream of. So I'm not sure I'd say that Russell is has much of an advantage over him in that sense.

[laurierking]

In response to the query posted by the awkwardly named wsmvgn (how ever did your teachers learn to pronounce that?)
One thing I've not been able to figure out was why Holmes needed two kinds of paint for the bees in the opening scene of Beekeeper. Seems like you'd only need that if you already had the answer to the question you were working on. Or maybe Holmes and Russell are smarter than I am.

Rats, I was hoping there would be some amateur beekeeper out there who answered this. I know I read the technique somewhere, but couldn't possibly retrieve where. As I remember, it has to do with an area where more than one hive of bees are working. You put spots on bees, watch them fly in and out for a while, then re-spot those that seem to come from one direction. The spots, I suppose, make it easier (especially for middle-aged eyes) to follow the direction of fast objects half an inch long.

I'll ask when I start research about bees for the next Russell book in August, but that's what I remember.

[laurierking]

A question I've always wanted to ask Ms. King - did you have the bones of the OJER story in place when you wrote that section of BEEK, or did you decide later that there was a place for a full-length novel there? And when you wrote that novel, did you have the bones of JUST in place, or just knew that you wanted to write a "sequel", the specifics of which were yet to be determined?

I knew I wanted to write the Palestine book from the beginning, but putting it within Beekeeper would have made the book 900 pages long. And as it turned out, it was very interesting to return to a past phase of their relationship, because I could play with what the reader knows as opposed to what Russell and Holmes themselves know. Great fun.

Similarly, I planted the bit about the accents of the two "Bedouins" because I had the idea I'd like to bring those two out of their setting and into England, although I didn't know how until I started writing O Jerusalem.

Often, the back of my head has a much clearer idea what I'm doing than my conscious mind.

[Kay]

I'm a little behind on the age thread, but I never felt the "ick factor" at all. It always seemed mentor/mentee to me. We have Holmes the quintessential gentleman meeting up with an American who had a kind of nontraditonal upbringing. (As if being American wasn't non traditional enough in Sussex!) Russell was certainly not programmed to grow up and marry (I'm thinking Sunny from The Game).

I also agree that Beekeeper and Monstrous are sort of a boxed set for me, too. When I reread Beekeeper I always have to immediately follow it with Monstrous. If any of you out there have not listened to the audio version of all the Russell/Holmes books you have really missed out. Jenny Sterlin does an excellent job. I wonder what Laurie thinks of those?

[Strawberry Curls]

[QUOTE=Kay;1236]We have Holmes the quintessential gentleman meeting up with an American who had a kind of nontraditonal upbringing. (As if being American wasn't non traditional enough in Sussex!)QUOTE]

I have to say something here as there seems to be this mind set that Russell is American. Russell was not an American. She was born in London, England and using the chronology unearth in LOCK she spent more of her time ages birth to 15 in England than the U.S, and from 15 on lived in England as what she was, an English subject. Just saying.

[vicki]

But I do think it's fair to say that she had a strong American influence in her life, with an American father and the paternal side of her family in America, as well as several years' residence and much property there. She is much more connected to America than say, someone like Winston Churchill, who had an American mother but not much regular contact with America or Americans (including his own mother, who was almost surreally neglectful of him).


Jenny Sterlin does an excellent job. I wonder what Laurie thinks of those?


I also wonder if you've heard the BBC radio dramatization of BEEK, Laurie, and what you think of that production. I enjoyed it a lot, although Russell sounded older than I imagine her voice sounding in my mind.

[jtb1951]

I also wonder if you've heard the BBC radio dramatization of BEEK, Laurie, and what you think of that production. I enjoyed it a lot, although Russell sounded older than I imagine her voice sounding in my mind.

vicki, where's my best bet for finding the BBC radio dramatization of BEEK?

John.

[vicki]

I'll add you to the lending line-up for my copy, John. It's out with one member right now and there are two more people ahead of you. When they're done, I'll let you know and will send it on to you.

<edit>

Oh, and I found this link (http://gaudynight.multiply.com/music/item/7) to the BBC radio play that Strawberry Curls posted elsethread a few weeks ago. Thankee, Strawberry!

[Strawberry Curls]

vicki, where's my best bet for finding the BBC radio dramatization of BEEK?

John.

John, I posted this last month but here is the address where you can download or listen to the BBC BEEK.

http://gaudynight.multiply.com/music/item/7

Isn't the gaudynight appropriate?

[vicki]

We cross-posted! <Waves to Strawberry>

Isn't the gaudynight appropriate?

I read the Wimseys after I busted through all the Russells available at the time (and I found them largely because of LPW's uncredited appearance in A Letter of Mary), and the Wimseys were really good hair of the dog for my Russell-withdrawals.

[Strawberry Curls]

Vicki, **waves** back at ya...

I read the Sayer books back in the late 70's, yep, I'm that old, and revisited them when I read LETT and recognized Peter. Laurie captured his silly-ass dialogue so beautifully I just had to go back and read a few once again. Gaudy Night was on the list along with The Nine Tailors. BTW you haven't read that one you said, well, one of the minor characters is named Mary Russell, hand to God. I was reading along and just about fell off my chair when I saw that. Of course, the first time I read it the Russell books hadn't been written, but this next time there it was.

[jtb1951]

John, I posted this last month but here is the address where you can download or listen to the BBC BEEK.

http://gaudynight.multiply.com/music/item/7

Isn't the gaudynight appropriate?


We cross-posted! <Waves to Strawberry>


Quote:
Isn't the gaudynight appropriate?

I read the Wimseys after I busted through all the Russells available at the time (and I found them largely because of LPW's uncredited appearance in A Letter of Mary), and the Wimseys were really good hair of the dog for my Russell-withdrawals.

Vicki, **waves** back at ya...

I read the Sayer books back in the late 70's, yep, I'm that old, and revisited them when I read LETT and recognized Peter. Laurie captured his silly-ass dialogue so beautifully I just had to go back and read a few once again. Gaudy Night was on the list along with The Nine Tailors. BTW you haven't read that one you said, well, one of the minor characters is named Mary Russell, hand to God. I was reading along and just about fell off my chair when I saw that. Of course, the first time I read it the Russell books hadn't been written, but this next time there it was.

Thanks for the info, both of you; you are the best!!:)

John.

[laurierking]

I also wonder if you've heard the BBC radio dramatization of BEEK, Laurie, and what you think of that production. I enjoyed it a lot, although Russell sounded older than I imagine her voice sounding in my mind.

...and Thanks especially to John for the purchase references. Not that I get royalties from those, but the more financial attention you pay to LRK, the more attention The Publishing World pays to LRK. Sad, but true.

I heard this recording years ago when it first came out, and remember being amused by the dramatic violins, but also filled with consternation when it came to plot. I've managed to forget just what it was they did with the plot, but it had something to do with social mores that I didn't have in the book. (One reason I no longer sell abridgement rights to audio books.)

Don't remember the voices.

[laurierking]

One of the interesting things about the Russell books is that, because of the link to Holmes, they are generally classified as Sherlock Holmes pastiches, and put in the back of the reviewer's stack in favor of more serious fare.

From early on, I've been asked why on earth I write about Holmes. And I have a lot of answers for that, but I wanted to ask, what would you think about a Mary Russell of the late 20th century? The same personality but in the modern age, without Holmes and Mycroft and the Great War?

Would such a person work? Or would she be incomplete?

[wsmvgn]

...I wanted to ask, what would you think about a Mary Russell of the late 20th century? The same personality but in the modern age, without Holmes and Mycroft and the Great War?

Would such a person work? Or would she be incomplete?

It's really two questions:
1) What would Mary be like after Holmes passes?
While I believe that were Mary to die or otherwise unhook from Holmes, he'd be dead of an overdose within the year, I think Mary would go on and continue to succeed and prosper.

2) Could a Mary Russell, born later, come of age and find herself without Holmes et al?
I think she's got to have some help. She herself says she doesn't like to think what she would have become had she not stumpled onto Holmes. In terms of inventing or finding herself, between her aunt and the car wreck and loss of her family, she's got a harder time of it than we think Holmes did.

[Arcadian]

I think the darker side of her personality might predominate. She and Holmes are generally not depressed at the same time, so one can work at snapping the other out of it. Without that yin/yang balance she might be alone way too much. And who would get her hair untangled?

[jtb1951]

The same personality but in the modern age, without Holmes and Mycroft and the Great War?

Would such a person work? Or would she be incomplete?

As you have Russell written, I would have to think she would be incomplete. When you wrote the very first lines of BEEK I think you seeded the crystallization of a working and personal relationship that a different set of circumstances would most likely not have brought about. So I almost think the question is a moot point (pardon my impudence) because any other Mary would not be our Russell (and thank you for making it so!!:) )

John.

[2maple]

Hi - a little bee buzzed in my ear that folks were wondering about bees & spots....

This is a technique to find a hive by taking advantage of a bee’s natural homing instinct. Baby bees that are ready to become field bees (~3 weeks) will do these orientation flights, buzzing around in front of the hive memorizing their surroundings. After orienting themselves, they will return to that exact location, even if in the midst of several hives. Even if you move the hive 50 ft away, they will return to the original spot and buzz around there, unable to find their home. You have to actually move the colony completely outside of its foraging area to make them reorient themselves (~2-3 miles)!

So the theory is that you mark the bee and follow it back to its hive. Two colors if the bees seem to be flying away in more than one direction, indicating more than one hive. But they fly really fast and really high (over the treetops) and my eyes aren’t that good. You’d probably end up marking one, following it, losing it, mark another, and follow it, etc. in the same general direction until you found the hive. I guess that would be easier on the relatively treeless downs v the Maine woods :) . Might be good way to find a wild hive and, I suppose, cheaper than buying one.

What I, with the wicked practical streak, would probably do is divide a colony and make sure each half had some frames with newly laid eggs and some workers; the one without the queen will then go about making a new one. The bees will select a few eggs, feeding them royal jelly etc. …and, presto chango…you have a new hive!

Alas, that wouldn’t have fit the story nearly so well what Laurie did.

[Magpie]

Hi, Everyone,
I think that Mary in the 20th century might have become reclusive. There would be more opportunities for her to some degree, but without any support or encouragement, I think she would have buried herself in her books and not come out. The War and the relationship with Holmes gave her the the scope to stretch her mind and heart outward from the abstract, intellectual work that she loved. It would take something that large to attract her to interact outside of herself.
Mind you, these are first thoughts. It is a question worth pondering.

[Meredith47]

Arriving at this point, so many thoughts about the previous posts. (and I join anyone else who is rather intimidated about all these fonts/smilies/etc. on the post area. ye gods. ) Regarding the "eew" factor, I have had many thoughts about this from entirely unrelated parts of life. I think the issue (ably touched upon by others) is the issue of equal or unequal power. It's icky if the boss makes a pass at the secretary because she cannot (realistically) feel able to decline the offer without repercussions. Holmes dodged this by remaining the perfect Victorian gentleman (remember whose initials are on the wall!) and then by making the necessary transition for a pupil who has passed every examination ever set. They agree on equal power (even though that continues to be negotiated, more or less forever. but that's marriage for you!). I am about to lapse into MREG and will refrain with difficulty. And the premise is equal power: a Holmes, only 15 and born female in 1900. Also: so, a Russell in modern times?? will need a lot of thought. as a dyed-in-the-wool Holmesian since about age 12, my most favorite things about Russell/Holmes are the growth for Russell, the views of Holmes from a different angle and the on-going evolution of their relationship and the ways they both change. I agree that a modern Russ would have to bounce off someone. And a quick shout out to the fellow DLS fans. I felt ever so pleased when I noticed the "second son of a duke" reference when I first read BEEK. I had a whole dialog "well, there are other second sons of dukes, I suppose." Not in detective land, there aren't! best regards. Meredith

[AmyLizzie]

Mary in the twentieth century wouldn't work, I don't think, because there are so many of them around! What I mean is you have empowered females all over the place, women are,and have been, in control of their own destinies for a while,and nowadays a figure like Mary is not necessarily an unusual thing. She works because she is unusual in the period in which she lives, she is unusual to Holmes who has never met a woman like her,he probably never had, the nineteenth, and even early 20th century England wasn't a very woman friendly place. Their relationship works because Mary is so unique. While I believe she would still be extraordinary in a modern age she would suffer because she would not be a pioneer of her sex, women have been going to university for years, they are intelligent and capable human beings, no shock there, as it would have been in Mary's time. She does also work because of Holmes' response to her, on her own I don't think she could carry herself very far :(

[Vilian]

I won't tell anything surprising when saying that indeed Mary born nowadays wouldn't be too unique. Of course, she would be in a way every person is unique, but she wouldn't be so very special, as nowadays strong ladies are pretty common. Brilliant mind is a one thing, but it has to be shaped properly - without Holmes, but with ambitious girls everywhere she'd be someone completely else.

I really wonder how she goes on without Holmes. Being a helpless granny and having only great memories recalled on and on? Somehow I don't think so, but I'm sure she changed after him passing away. She still has sense of humour in 1990's, that's for sure. But how she goes on? Alone? With whom, an offspring? Flesh and blood of her and Holmes' flesh and blood or adopted? I wonder if we'll ever know...

[The Grey Badger]

One of the Baker Street Irregulars who strikes her as unusually bright and someone she can talk to.

[Love Bug]

I have a question for Ms. King:

In BEEK, Donleavy taunts Holmes by telling him how she has tracked his activities for years, including how he "...took up with Irene Adler after my father's death..." Does his 'taking up with Irene Adler' have anything to do with the 'lovely, lost son' mentioned in MREG? I know pretty much what everyone else thinks, but I'm curious to see if you have any comments on it. Thanks!

Love Bug :cool:

[kuttlewis]

If Mary had been born in 1990, her schooling would be different. Had her accident happened in 2004, her medication could have made her an addict. Would she have really met a psychoanalyst who would have spend so much time with her or just given pills (antidepressants for example)? Another factor: she wouldn't have walked those hundreds and thousands of miles which were so condusive to thinking and talking things over with Holmes. And lastly, there is not such a dearth of men her own age as it was during the first World War.

[laurierking]

In BEEK, Donleavy taunts Holmes by telling him how she has tracked his activities for years, including how he "...took up with Irene Adler after my father's death..." Does his 'taking up with Irene Adler' have anything to do with the 'lovely, lost son' mentioned in MREG? I know pretty much what everyone else thinks, but I'm curious to see if you have any comments on it. Thanks!


Hmm, what do you think? Should I give away the plots of books not yet written, far less published? You really want that kind of a spoiler floating around?

[wsmvgn]

The important thing to remember about Mary Russell when she meets Sherlock Holmes is that while she has lots of resources, as smart and observant as Holmes himself, she's also a mess. She's burdened with terrible guilt about the loss of her family and harnessed with an aunt who cares not a fig for her.

If she is to make her way in the world, someone has to help her figure out who she is and harness her intelligence. As she herself says, she would have turned out very differently without him. So who's she gonna meet who can help her grow up?

[Love Bug]

Hmm, what do you think? Should I give away the plots of books not yet written, far less published? You really want that kind of a spoiler floating around?

YES! (just kidding!)

Ah -- is this your way of telling us this topic may come up in a future book? :D

Love Bug

[VictoriaMisselthwaite]

Hmm, what do you think? Should I give away the plots of books not yet written, far less published? You really want that kind of a spoiler floating around?

Oh yes, absolutely! And hello! :)

I love spoilers on just about anything...but I can deal with surprises too, I suppose! ;)

[sherrie221]

Hmm, what do you think? Should I give away the plots of books not yet written, far less published? You really want that kind of a spoiler floating around?

That all depends on how far into the future you are talking. If said questions might be addressed in the next Russell, for example, I could be satisfied with just a hint...

but if answers are *years* away - I'd like to know some of the story now, just to tide me over, you know! Answers to these questions now will in no way lessen my enjoyment of the complete story when it comes. In fact, knowing what is to come will just make me pine for the whole story even more!

Sherrie

[Ms. Kay]

Hmm, what do you think? Should I give away the plots of books not yet written, far less published? You really want that kind of a spoiler floating around?

Dear Ms. King,
Ah, let me think......No.



Ms. Kay

[vicki]

I think the "lovely lost son" is one thing most Russellphiles are very curious about. I wouldn't want a full-bore spoiler on it, but vague hints are always fun. :)

It's interesting to think about how Russell would be if she'd been born in recent years. So much of what she experienced and became was tied up in her reaction to her family's car accident and in Holmes's influence on her. She even says at one point that if Holmes had done something different than detecting, she might have followed him in that, rather than in detecting. Like others here, I tend to think that, without Holmes to pull her out of her books (which is seen more clearly in later books), she might have become so wrapped up in academia that the outside world would have taken a back-seat. She gets out into life and gets her hands dirty with it more than she would have without Holmes's influence, I think.

One thing I'd be interested in talking about is a charge I've seen lobbed at Russell a number of times--that she's a "Mary Sue." There's a pretty good discussion of the MS concept here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sue). Keep in mind that the term has expanded greatly (as the article explains) from its original use, so that it now encompasses a much broader range of characters than it initially did. Using the broad definition, the term is probably applicable to many of my favorite characters--I had to laugh at the "anti-Sue" discussion, for instance--that's so reminiscent of Kathleen Mallory (from the Mallory series by Carol O'Connell). Even Lord Peter Wimsey has been labeled a male Mary Sue (aka "Gary Stu")--one that Dorothy Sayers created as her ideal romantic interest. And Harriet Vane has been called a Mary Sue, since she shared a similar background and profession with Sayers. Even Elizabeth Bennet could be seen as a Mary Sue, in the broad sense of the term.

In all fairness, I think that Russell does have some attributes that are often associated with Mary Sues, but as I said, many of my favorite characters have at least some such attributes. Some of what underlies the Mary Sue concept gives fiction, particularly genre fiction, a strong appeal to many people. And I think that's okay.

I have further thoughts, but I'll have to get some sleep before I can express them quasi-coherently.

[spiston]

I don't know what to say about the Mary Sue phenomenon. I read the Wikipedia entry and see what you mean, but I don't think that Russell is that two-dimensional a character.

As for the twentieth century Mary Russell. here's what I think would have happened:

Investigators at the scene of the accident would have noticed the shorn brakeline (or whatever modern vehicle treachery) and the culprit would have been caught or pursued (insert CSI theme music here). Russell would have certainly been given a bunch of anti-depressants and anti-anxiety medication. She and her penurious aunt would have gone into family therapy as soon as Russell hit her when discussing the nightmares (if the Ambien hadn't taken care of them already) and she would have found herself threatened with becoming a ward of the state. When she happened upon Holmes on the downs their discussion would have lost all the biting subtext (since Holmes himself would have also been prescribed a host of medications) and they would have discussed their emotional baggage freely instead of bees or anything else of interest. ("You're on Wellbutrin! So am I!!" "Why yes, I had this emotional breakdown twelve years ago when I woke up one morning and realized that my life had become meaningless." "You don't say. I totally know what you mean. Can't keep myself from crying sometimes...") When they got back to Holmes' house Mrs. Hudson would have probably called the police or Russell's aunt to report a runaway. Instead of honing her talents on detection Russell would have become a crack video gamer (perhaps Myst and/or Mortal Kombat) and when she and Holmes hung out and played dress up they would have been probably arrested for impersonating officers of the law or obstruction of justice. And the chemicals they experimented with would have roused the suspicion of Britain's version of Homeland Security before too long. They could have become co-dependent in regards to their gaping holes of emotional need but at some point either her therapist or his would have given them pause to allow the relationship to continue. Instead of the acid-tongued parrying that made them equals we would have seen them engaged in full-on verbal abuse as their defense mechanisms exploded all over eachother like poorly-attended pressure cookers.

Well that's the downside of it...I hope I'm not being too jaded or bitter or (something I can't place my finger on but it's negative)...

I see her as more of a modern day Daria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daria) than anything, if she could even get that interesting. I think it's the supposed normalcy of Daria's suburban household that makes her so insightful and jaded and Russell would have lacked that environment.

Anyway, one of the things I like most about the series is the period piece aspect of it. Getting to know characters within the context of a time of different social mores helps reflect upon those of our own time. Sometimes we need to romanticize about another time and place where people were able to form solid bonds and share a common humanity; against all odds. We've been nostalgic for so many reasons, as a culture. As our world continues to become larger and connections more complex (and driven to ground with analysis) it's refreshing to step into another world where two people can simply discover themselves through one another. Oh yeah, and also kick deductive reasoning ass and risk their lives for an old-fashioned good vs evil smackdown.

The discussion has made me think about why I love the series so much and really get into what it does for me. It takes me away from an often stressful daily life because they are entertaining stories. As most humans, I like to ally myself with the smarter-than-your-average-protagonist in order to elevate my own self-worth. The romantic quality of their partnership being equal to their intellectual connection, as well as their staunch independence as individuals, gives me hope for an ideal relationship. Sometimes I'm Russell, sometimes I identify with Holmes. The reading has made me feel more observant, although I don't know if my observations are banal. My thirst for new material once I had sampled the series filled me with vigor and I have spread that attitude across other pursuits as well. I suppose any great book or series can do that for a person, but I don't belong to any other VBC's and have given the Russellian universe this function in my life.

So as we wrap up the discussion on this first book of the Russell series, any other personal thoughts about the pull of this world into our own psyches? Why does it do so much for you, where does it touch you the most?

[kuttlewis]

I love this series because of its fearlessness. Can you imagine Holmes nowadays talking to a group of Irregulars? Parents and police wouldn't let him near them. What about Russell learning from Holmes? Would anybody believe that story? So many opportunities for dialogue is lost through fear. Neither Holmes nor Russell had any class or race bias either. I can't imagine myself talking to a homeless person, for example.

[laurierking]

RE: spiston's postmodern Russell--all I can say is, wow. Now if only I'd thought of that scenario, I could have saved myself endless hours of researching the Twenties.

Is it too late to start a new Mary Russell series?

[KarenB]

Wow - an entirely different Mary Russell, I do believe! Being new(-ish) to all this I had never heard the term Mary Sue before and had to look it up. While an arguement could be made that MR is an MS, it doesn't really seem to fit. I think she'd be a rather difficult person to live with although extremely interesting to read about.

Spiston's scenario aside (which has some very valid points!) I agree that modern, Holmes-less Mary would have become a reclusive academic, brilliant but hard, perhaps a bit like Donleavy albeit with less passion. It is the relationship with Holmes that gives Mary the security to achieve emotional attachment. Of course, she does the same for him, both easing into it through the intellectual attachment of teacher/apprentice.

[Magpie]

Hmm, what do you think? Should I give away the plots of books not yet written, far less published? You really want that kind of a spoiler floating around?

Ms. King,
Would spoilers affect your writing? By the time that you get to that story, maybe you've changed your mind; maybe the story has taken a different direction? I think you should keep things under wraps until you're ready to write.

[sherrie221]

RE: spiston's postmodern Russell--all I can say is, wow. Now if only I'd thought of that scenario, I could have saved myself endless hours of researching the Twenties.

Is it too late to start a new Mary Russell series?

Two points:

1. Mary is fine just as, and when, she is - the only thing you leave us wanting from the series could be *more* and perhaps *faster* ;)

2. In my mind, you have given us some beautiful, fully-formed, modern "spiritual" heirs to Mary Russell in Kate Martinelli, Rae Newborn, Allen Carmichael and Anne Waverly. They are real - damaged, flawed, triumphant, human - and you have made them so. Now if you are led to giving us series' for Rae, Allen and Anne - you'll get no objections from me!

Sherrie

[laurierking]

I was writing a blog entry about the flooding in England and my re-reading of Sayers’ Nine Tailors and how (blogs being a place for stream-of-consciousness--and if you're interested it's on Mutterings--http://www.laurierking.com/wp.php) Sayers' need to work a highly complex puzzle into the story just didn’t work, since the puzzle-code that leads the villains to the treasure doesn’t seem to fit the circumstances of its creation or its creator’s abilities, and frankly, stretches the reader’s attention span. Sayers didn’t need it, but clearly she’d worked too hard on it to leave it out.

And then I had to wonder if the same might be said about the Base Eight puzzle in Beekeeper. I think that in the context of the book it works, since it comes from a woman for whom mathematical puzzles would come naturally, and is aimed at a woman who speaks the same language.

Any thoughts?

[Strawberry Curls]

I wasn't as diverted by the puzzle in "Nine Taylors" as it would seem I should have been, I found it an interesting plot point and moved on not worrying over much about the writer and whether it fit the character or not, I just enjoyed the book.

The puzzle in BEEK was well crafted I thought, left for the reader to ponder, but not beaten to death and the answer when it was revealed interesting and totally appropriate for the characters. At least IMHO.

[Ingrid B]

Originally Posted by laurierking
And then I had to wonder if the same might be said about the Base Eight puzzle in Beekeeper. I think that in the context of the book it works, since it comes from a woman for whom mathematical puzzles would come naturally, and is aimed at a woman who speaks the same language.

Yes, it worked for me too. When MR found out it fitted in just fine. As she studied mathematics, and as it gave her the answer of who their enemy was. It fascinated me.

[Dicentra]

The base 8 code worked well, imo. Once revealed, I could dredge up enough seventh grade math to 'get it', yet the code was sufficiently perplexing to stump Russell and Holmes, and even Mycroft, for a while.

[jtb1951]

And then I had to wonder if the same might be said about the Base Eight puzzle in Beekeeper. I think that in the context of the book it works, since it comes from a woman for whom mathematical puzzles would come naturally, and is aimed at a woman who speaks the same language.

It works very well, I think. A base 8 cipher would be sufficiently challenging back in the 1920's; it would take mathematically-inclined individuals with an analytical bent to both create the puzzle and decipher the clue. I find it interesting that we have also been discussing a theoretical thoroughly modern Mary (not Millie!), because the same puzzle presented to a late 20th century Russell, similarly gifted, would probably prove trivial to solve considering the integral nature of base 8 (and higher powers of 8) in computer languages. I vote for the Russell we know and love!

John.

[Strawberry Curls]

I have just realized today is the last day of the month and the last day for the discussion of BEEK. I can't let this go by without saying how much BEEK changed my life. I know that sounds a bit melodramatic, but it is the truth.

Reading BEEK and then racing through the other seven books and then going back and reading them again gave me a thirst for all things Mary Russell and Sherlock Holmes. It sent me to Canon to read those stories and to learn more about Holmes and Watson. It also brought me to the Internet and to websites where the books are appreciated by others. Here I found a community of fascinating people, mostly woman, but a few men, who were as taken with the series as I had been. Many have become friends and some friends in the real world, meeting with me in person.

Writing has become my hobby and my passion and I thank goodness for it every day.

So, Ms. King, thank you from the bottom of my heart. You have quite literally changed my life, filling it with new friends and new interests.

Alice
"...the girl with the strawberry curls"

[Kay]

Strawberry Curls, I absolutely agree that Beekeeper was a lifechanging book! I discovered Beekeeper shortly after it arrived at my library. I was new in town, had two very young children and a husband on the road 3 1/2 weeks a month. To lose myself in that intelligent, intriguing book was a gift beyond price. It is as wonderful at every reread as it was the first time. And then, oh, came Monstrous.. Thank you Laurie.

kay

[ivanova]

I just wanted to share something from the book discussion I ran last week on BEEK. One of the things we talked about a bit was the fact that they end up married. One of my participants was happy to hear that, she'd been reading the book and thinking that they should get married, that they were perfect for each other, which does not seem to be a typical reaction.

[Arcadian]

The base 8 code worked for me. Maybe its hindsight, but I think I figured it out ahead of Russell. (This from someone who learned to write in dancing men years ago.) Now I'll have to read the Sayers book.

[wsmvgn]

I don't think so. Reading the definition, I note that she's not endowed with super-powers (for example, except in somebody's fan fic she cannot play a musical instrument) and is not necessarially likable. (Sort of like James Bond. Nobody wants Bond as a friend, they want to be Bond.)

I think we can understand this better by working backward. We want a character who can meet Sherlock Holmes and get close to him, get under his radar, before he realizes what's happening. Who might be able to do this? The only answer I get is the character Laurie King presents us with, an androgenous 15-year old girl, endowed with powers of observation and intellect rivaling his own.

[annie]

Late reply as I'm late reading through all of this. The Woman in White is my Desert Island Book (it has everything in it, especially the high Gothic melodrama) and I never knew that the arch-villain Fosco (one of the greatest villains ever) makes a guest appearance elsewhere, so I'm off to track down Brimstone. Thanks!

[VictoriaMisselthwaite]

Strawberry Curls, I absolutely agree that Beekeeper was a lifechanging book! I discovered Beekeeper shortly after it arrived at my library. I was new in town, had two very young children and a husband on the road 3 1/2 weeks a month. To lose myself in that intelligent, intriguing book was a gift beyond price. It is as wonderful at every reread as it was the first time. And then, oh, came Monstrous.. Thank you Laurie.

kay

I hope you don't mind the gushing...but I'm currently re-reading The Beekeeper's Apprentice, and the second time around, I'm finding it just amazing! I really love the way Mary's change of heart regarding Watson was written...in spite of knowing everything, as teenagers do, Mary Russell was quite teachable...and that's illustrated throughout, actually...but yes, I'm enjoying it again immensely!

[vicki]

Thanks for waking up the BEEK discussion, Victoria! I'll agree--BEEK doesn't pale on rereading. I've read it multiple times and have always enjoyed it and caught new things I missed before.

Anyone got the lovely new Picador edition that just came out this month? <Hugs copy to self> I know Strawberry and Younger Son have copies already. And LRK is giving away six of the new BEEK/MREG sets at the end of the month, so get all your good-luck talismans out. :)

[VictoriaMisselthwaite]

Thanks for waking up the BEEK discussion, Victoria! I'll agree--BEEK doesn't pale on rereading. I've read it multiple times and have always enjoyed it and caught new things I missed before.

Anyone got the lovely new Picador edition that just came out this month? <Hugs copy to self> I know Strawberry and Younger Son have copies already. And LRK is giving away six of the new BEEK/MREG sets at the end of the month, so get all your good-luck talismans out. :)

You know, I don't own any of them yet...I've been reading and rereading by way of the local library...but my birthday *is* coming up! :D

[The Grey Badger]

I just took the audiobook of BEEK with me on a road trip from Albuquerque to Denver and back and noticed how clear the action becomes in audio form - how you get two different impressions of the same thing from print and from audio. Not contradictory; just two different persepctives.

And that I was promptly moved to dig out OJER to read in print next.

[Kalexys]

I am just catching up and digesting this discussion of the BEEK rather belatedly. With respect to the age difference and the creepiness factor, I agree with much of what was expressed above, that Holmes and Russell's relationship is indeed a marriage of true minds to which we should not admit impediment. That said, as a reader of BEEK, it wasn't something I expected and found myself sort of lulled into not seeing it, despite the obvious chemistry between the two, until it was impossible to miss, which moment caused a bit of a shocked surprise, a literary frisson at the unexpected turn in their relationship. It was a little startling, but at the same time, not so startling. Viewed abstractly, the number of years, 40, seems difficult to accept. But 40 is really just a number, and, under the circumstances, an irrelevant number when it comes to measuring the compatibility of these two characters and how they might be eminently suited for each other, on so many levels. The actual age gap between these two characters does not seem that great since Holmes seems to be a quite vigorous man, physically fit and obviously still mentally acute. He defies his chronological age, and, no doubt, his friendship with Russell rejuvenates him, in body and spirit. Russell herself is precocious, both intellectually and in terms of life experiences, due to the trauma that she's experienced. She is, as The Solitary Cyclist put it, an old soul, belied by her mere 15 years. They seem to be attracted to each other first intellectually, and their physical attraction which manifests later seems secondary, although perhaps this is in part a function of Holmes' checking his own impulses for propriety's sake.

For me, the analogy to Pygmalion, and in particular, the Hollywood musical adaptation, My Fair Lady seems to provide some insight into their relationship. I agree with Seslavie and Carlina who have said that it seems to work because Russell slips in under his radar, because she's an adolescent and because of the unique circumstances of the time, as mentioned in the book, the relative freedom Russell enjoys, being an orphan/heiress who chafes under her aunt's control in a place (the rural Sussex countryside) at a time (the backdrop of the Great War), Russell and Holmes are able to spend so much time alone together, more or less unchaperoned except for Mrs. Hudson, engaged in their intellectual pursuits and experiments, all totally innocent and platonic. Under his tutelage, she's not only learning the art of detection, but also other things, including who she is as a person, ethics and morality, a sense of right and wrong. This is evidenced by the scene in LOM where Russell recalls her discussion with Holmes on the cliffs regarding the motives for why people commit crime. Holmes offers that the motive is typically self-defense and when Russell asks whether such a reaction is not defensible since even animals will kill to defend themselves, Holmes reacts sharply in reproof which leaves Mary feeling ashamed. Later, Holmes has let himself into her room at her farmhouse and waits for her to apologize, conceding that he often forgets Russell's age.

Holmes teaches her his profession, but influences her in other ways as well, then ends up falling in love with his creation. Which is not to say that Mary was a blank slate or an unshaped lump of clay; far from it, but she is malleable and he does mold her. In a similar way that Eliza Doolittle, the cockney flower seller, is molded and shaped into a lady by Professor Higgins. Although the age difference between Eliza and Professor Higgins does not appear to be quite as great as 40 years, there is an apparent age difference of seemingly some 20+ years, which is commented upon in the film. Freddie Eynsford-Hill (played by Jeremy Brett, before his incarnation as Sherlock Holmes) is more age appropriate, but although he's in love with her and writes to her "sheets and sheets," he is, as the audience feels and Eliza knows, unsuitable for her. Freddie pales in comparison to the curmudgeonly Prof. Higgins as a companion for Eliza, and, at the end of the day, age seems the least important consideration as a criteria for compatibility.

[kasmyra]

I have returned from vacation and got BEEK read while away. I have to say I was skeptical I would like the books because I was afraid that the using Sherlock as a main character would just not work for me and especially with a female accomplice. I was willing to give it a shot since I had read Art of Detection and enjoyed it. I see where Testament of Youth was a book club read around the same time and I think people did a great job of connecting the ideas between the two books. Russell would not be the same fiery personality that she is in the books without the setting of The Great War as illustrated further by Brittan in TOY. This was a time of rapid and far-reaching change for women as they had to take control of aspects formerly for men only and were seen as more than baby carriers and cooks and maids.

I wanted to ask, what would you think about a Mary Russell of the late 20th century? The same personality but in the modern age, without Holmes and Mycroft and the Great War?

Would such a person work? Or would she be incomplete?

It's really two questions:
1) What would Mary be like after Holmes passes?
While I believe that were Mary to die or otherwise unhook from Holmes, he'd be dead of an overdose within the year, I think Mary would go on and continue to succeed and prosper.

2) Could a Mary Russell, born later, come of age and find herself without Holmes et al?
I think she's got to have some help. She herself says she doesn't like to think what she would have become had she not stumpled onto Holmes. In terms of inventing or finding herself, between her aunt and the car wreck and loss of her family, she's got a harder time of it than we think Holmes did.
I find it entertaining that LRK asks us her readers what we think of her characters placement in time. And the above referenced response is very good. I have to agree that I believe Holmes trained Russell well enough to operate on her own and thus she would continue to find work and success without him though I don't know if the dialogue would be quite as good and the witty banter between the two would be gone. As for if Russell would be the same person if she hadn't met Holmes, well that is obviously a "no"; for every person that we meet changes us in some small way. Do I think that Holmes is the only one who could have pulled Russell from her funk of a mindset? Not necessarily, though I think it would take someone who appealed to her intellect and not her gender to get her respond favorably.
Another aspect of the book that was a main theme in the discussion was the age difference and whether such was "creepy". Call me non-observant or just plain naive but I didn't even notice the age gap. Maybe it's because LRK doesn't bring it up on every page and thus the characters aren't dwelling on it, maybe it's because I think it is a personal decision between the two parties (or the fact that I live in KY and the 15 and 40+ something person getting together is not unheard of).
Also, as for Watson, I have never thought of him as the "fool" or even "incompetent" naive and not nearly as observant as Holmes but then he served his purpose and served it well when one considers the close relationship he still shares with Holmes.
All in all I enjoyed the book immensely and am now looking forward to reading the others with more relish than I thought when I first started this venture!

[vicki]

Hi, Kas--thanks for poking the BEEK thread back to life!

I'm so glad you enjoyed BEEK! It was my introduction to the mystery genre and remains one of my very favorite books. I agree that Russell has developed into a strong person who can stand alone, if she needs to, in most any arena. But she really enjoys comparing notes and bouncing ideas around with Holmes, and their occasionally nettling each other, and she'd miss that greatly if she had to do without it, I think (as would we, as they're a fun pair to follow around!)

I also wonder how Russell would have turned out in various different quantum universes. One where she was born earlier--or later. One where she didn't lose her family, or maybe only part of it. One where she didn't meet Holmes--maybe she wandered on a different trajectory while she read and walked across the Sussex Downs, and missed stumbling over Holmes by a couple of hundred yards. I agree that other people, even short-term acquaintances, can alter us in subtle ways. And for an impressionable teenager or young adult, the alteration can be much more pronounced. For Russell, I think Holmes (and those in his circle), the War, the loss of her family, her horrible aunt, her physical and psychological traumas, and her Oxford experience all created a perfect storm that helped form the Russell that we love to read about. Any difference in those circumstances would change how she had developed. I suspect that she'd still be an interesting character to read about, but she wouldn't quite be Our Russell.

The age difference never freaked me out, but it did bother a friend of mine somewhat. Some people are just more sensitive to it than others. But I think that if they give BEEK and MREG a chance, they're likely to see that the pairing--personal and professional--really does make sense regardless of the age difference.

I may be off the mark with this, but it seems like we've generally gotten more tolerant of many kinds of personal and lifestyle choices over the last century, but *less* tolerant of age differences in romantic relationships. I remember reading about Tony Randall's widow complaining about it. They seem to have had a happy marriage in spite of the 50-year age difference, but had to endure a lot of disrespectful comments and speculation. And I laugh now in remembering my 10-year high school reunion, when we all were so weirded out when one girl showed up with a 40yo husband. That doesn't seem quite so ancient these days!

Another social shift I think may play into intolerance of age differences is the gradual extension of "adolescence" into the early 20s, with helicopter parents calling their collegiate kids four and five times a day and that sort of thing. I think there may be some justice to the charge that young adults are more likely to be infantilized today than ever before.

[Pat Floyd]

Vicki, you are keeping the kind of hours I'm trying to wean myself from!


I may be off the mark with this, but it seems like we've generally gotten more tolerant of many kinds of personal and lifestyle choices over the last century, but *less* tolerant of age differences in romantic relationships.

I agree. We have also taken our ideas about sexual harassment to an extreme--which I hope is moderating. A needy 7-year-old often needs a hug or a pat on the back from a teacher, and a big deal should not be made of a six-year-old boy kissing a little girl. Of course, real sexual harassment mustn't be tolerated. I wonder if sensitivity about sexual harassment underlay some of the initial discomfort to the Holmes-Russell relationship?

As I read this forum, I found myself wanting to say at times "Don't sell short the satisfaction of an academic life or the excitement of intellect: learning, discovery, and insight." Russell needed Holmes, and he was necessary in creating the Russell we love. But her academic life would not be dry or sterile.

[LindaE]

Well, I have finally gotten my copy of Beek, and, now, I know why everyone is so devoted to these characters. I certainly liked them a lot before I started this book, but, now, my understanding has gone way up the scale, and I'm less than halfway through the book. Laurie King certainly caught the essence of Sherlock Holmes, in this book, and has provided him an equally fine mind to connect with. I can't wait to see how this turns out.

Of all the non-Doyle Holmeses out there, this one is the most Holmesian one I have come across yet, and my interest in this character just grows and grows.

Best to all,

Linda

[Strawberry Curls]

Well, I have finally gotten my copy of Beek, and, now, I know why everyone is so devoted to these characters. I certainly liked them a lot before I started this book, but, now, my understanding has gone way up the scale, and I'm less than halfway through the book. Laurie King certainly caught the essence of Sherlock Holmes, in this book, and has provided him an equally fine mind to connect with. I can't wait to see how this turns out.

Of all the non-Doyle Holmeses out there, this one is the most Holmesian one I have come across yet, and my interest in this character just grows and grows.

Best to all,

LindaLinda, that is the gotcha part of BEEK. I had read a couple of the ACD stories in my youth, but never connected with Sherlock Holmes. I thought him too self-centered and unkind to his friend Watson and arrogant to the point I detested him. Fast forward forty-five years and I picked up BEEK, and in spite of the fact Sherlock Holmes was involved, I decided to read the book. I was hooked in the first few paragraphs and devoured all the remaining books then looked around for more. I found websites of Russell/Holmes fanfiction, found a yahoo group that discussed the books and became so obsessed I started writing Russell/Holmes fanfiction. That still wasn't enough so I went back to Canon and read all the stories finding them more to my liking because ever time I felt some distaste for Holmes, I remembered he would mellow a bit (which you actually see in the later stories) and become the man Russell meets on the downs. One of the many brilliant things Ms. King has done with this series is how she shows us a Holmes that made sense. He is the natural extension of the man at the end of "Last Bow." The Holmes Russell encounters is weary of life but finds himself revitalized by the possibilities the existence of Russell presents him. Watch out, you too may become obsessed. It is not an entirely benign obsession, I find I am collected way too many books about Sherlock Holmes and I even took a seminar from Les Klinger about Holmes and his world. Once it gets you there is no going back. ;) --Alice

[Pat Floyd]

I had read a couple of the ACD stories in my youth, but never connected with Sherlock Holmes.

That has been my experience as well. I haven't gotten around to reading ACD again, but I plan to.

[kasmyra]

I had read a couple of the ACD stories in my youth, but never connected with Sherlock Holmes. I thought him too self-centered and unkind to his friend Watson and arrogant to the point I detested him. The Holmes Russell encounters is weary of life but finds himself revitalized by the possibilities the existence of Russell presents him

Alice I so agree with the sentiment of not "getting" Holmes in my youth. I actually was not sure I would like the Russell/Holmes idea. What convinced me to pick them up was two-fold. One was a book that I received for Christmas titled The Italian Secretary by Caleb Carr and reading The Art of Detection. Carr softened Holmes to the point that I found him approachable as a character; and King intrigued me with writing the ACD lost story enough to make me curious about the Russell/Holmes scenario. So far enjoying the books.

[Strawberry Curls]

Alice I so agree with the sentiment of not "getting" Holmes in my youth. I actually was not sure I would like the Russell/Holmes idea. What convinced me to pick them up was two-fold. One was a book that I received for Christmas titled The Italian Secretary by Caleb Carr and reading The Art of Detection. Carr softened Holmes to the point that I found him approachable as a character; and King intrigued me with writing the ACD lost story enough to make me curious about the Russell/Holmes scenario. So far enjoying the books.I got my husband to read the Kanon by giving him TAoD first. He was hooked by the "Holmes manuscript" and then went on to read all the Russell books. He is not the fanatic about the books I am, but he does know what I'm talking about when I burble on and on about something in one of the books, and has now started reading some of my stories, and that pleases me no end. --Alice

[kasmyra]

I doubt I can get my hubby to read the books, but he enjoys it when I share "clips" of them with him. We are actually talking about purchasing a nicer edition of SH stories when we find one that is reasonably priced due to the fact that neither of us really enjoyed them when we were younger, but enjoyed the PBS series and are now once again curious about them. Also, if you have not read Italian Secretary I would recommend it highly.

[Strawberry Curls]

Mine's getting there. But I keep finding him other books to read and he doesn't have a lot of time yet to read. Keep trying to convince him.

Sheri Sheri, my dh and I have shared a love of mysteries for over 35 years and often share books (its cheaper that way). It just took me a while to convince him he would enjoy the Russell series. The "my stories" I referred to are the things I'm writing. Now that he knows the Russell universe he can understand my fanfics and is enjoying reading them. --Alice

[LindaE]

Linda, that is the gotcha part of BEEK. I had read a couple of the ACD stories in my youth, but never connected with Sherlock Holmes. I thought him too self-centered and unkind to his friend Watson and arrogant to the point I detested him. Fast forward forty-five years and I picked up BEEK, and in spite of the fact Sherlock Holmes was involved, I decided to read the book. I was hooked in the first few paragraphs and devoured all the remaining books then looked around for more. I found websites of Russell/Holmes fanfiction, found a yahoo group that discussed the books and became so obsessed I started writing Russell/Holmes fanfiction. That still wasn't enough so I went back to Canon and read all the stories finding them more to my liking because ever time I felt some distaste for Holmes, I remembered he would mellow a bit (which you actually see in the later stories) and become the man Russell meets on the downs. One of the many brilliant things Ms. King has done with this series is how she shows us a Holmes that made sense. He is the natural extension of the man at the end of "Last Bow." The Holmes Russell encounters is weary of life but finds himself revitalized by the possibilities the existence of Russell presents him. Watch out, you too may become obsessed. It is not an entirely benign obsession, I find I am collected way too many books about Sherlock Holmes and I even took a seminar from Les Klinger about Holmes and his world. Once it gets you there is no going back. ;) --Alice

Hi Alice,

My thoughts on Holmes are similar to yours, in that I also believe that the Sherlock LRK depicts is a natural extension of the younger Holmes. Even those with Holmes' intellect must learn life's lessons, and like everyone else, they either become kinder, more empathetic, or sympathetic people, or they become bitter and don't grow. I was impressed with the powerful figure that LRK first showed us, and I could hear the old Holmes through him. I thought 'This is the same Holmes I remember.' I could also hear Jeremy Britt. (or is it Brett?) I was not fond of Jeremy's portrayal, when I first saw it years ago, for various reasons, but in the recent rerunning of the episodes, I'm most impressed with the energetic, fidgety Holmes that he portrays. There are still some things that annoy me, but they almost seem to be a comic attempt on Jeremy's behalf, even a humanizing one. So the old ACD Holmes blends with Jeremy Britt and Laurie King's Holmes to build a picture of Holmes in my mind now. Phew! Hope that makes sense!

I also don't like the unkindness with which Doyle has Holmes treat Watson. I've wondered if I misremembered that or put more emphasis on it than I should have. I can't say really. It's been so long since I read those stories. Years ago when I was in college. I plan to drag the big old volume out again soon.

Best to you, Alice.

Linda

[Strawberry Curls]

Linda,

I found the Holmes of Canon to be a bit too arrogant and self-absorbed. He makes no allowances for the fact others do not have his mental capacities. He chided Watson rather severely over the way he gathered information in The "Solitary Cyclist" although he'd sent him off without instructions, then when Watson did not do what he would have done he kept saying how badly Watson had done the thing. Also, for whatever the reasons of security, Holmes allowing his best friend (not to mention Mrs. Hudson) to believe him dead for three years then just show up...surprise!...was cruel in my estimation. Holmes knew of the death of Watson's wife and never considered how the double loss might hurt him and how shocking it might be to find the "dead" Holmes in his sitting room. He even made light of the fact Mrs. Hudson had dissolved into a fit of hysterics when he showed up at Baker St. I'm no expert on Canon, goodness knows, I've only completed reading it in the past two years, but those are what come to mind.

I'm a Jeremy Brett fan!! I think his Holmes was brilliant, catching all the nervous energy of the man, his laughter and his wild moods, his gentlemanly manners with woman, and his affection for Watson and Mrs. Hudson. I have watched a fair share of Holmes films and Brett captures the Holmes I see on the pages of Canon. YMMV --Alice

[LindaE]

Hi Alice,

I wanted you to know that I'm not ignoring you! I'm still reading BEEK and forming some ideas from that. Will get back to you soon on this.

Best,

Linda

[vicki]

I finally met the Canon-Holmes when I took in The Hound of the Baskervilles, and like many, I didn't like him nearly as well as the Kanon-Holmes I'd already come to know. Canon-Holmes needed some serious mellowing-out, which he seems to have gotten by the time we meet him in BEEK. :) I've seen a number of people in RL relax and chill-out as they age so that they gradually become more comfortable with themselves and more easy to be around. It's an interesting process to observe in RL, and it's also interesting to see the process in reverse by reading the Kanon first, then starting the Canon. Pretty cool!

[tangential1]

I actually have the Cdn version from the ILLO system.

Megan Follows read's it (Anne of Green Gables made for TV movies) and the dang thing is ABRIDGED!!!!

It's well done, can't complain, except that I've read the book...... lots... and know exactly what's missing. :(

Sheri

That's really sad. Kind of like watching the movie version of a favorite book, I'd imagine.

[Strawberry Curls]

I really dislike that version of BEEK. I didn't like Fellows voice at all, kept thinking of Anne of Green Gables (but that is me) and they just chopped the heart out of it. Jennie Sterlin's unabridged is the BEST!!! IMHO. So, Alice, how do you really feel. LOL --Alice

[Bachi]

Having purchased (way to many) abridged on sale, I found that often the jumps in events and empty holes are daunting depending on the size reduction, editor and author. Some authors are so redundant that abridged version don't miss much. I'm currently 'reading' "Atlas Shrugged" and although a good friend advised me to go for the abridged, but I went for the whole 52 hrs and now realize how right my friend was.

[Strawberry Curls]

Love your avatar, Wanda, it is way cool!! BTW, 52 hrs of "Atlas Shrugged" are you sure that isn't one of Dante's lower circles of hell???? :eek: I'm in awe of your fortitude and resolve. I couldn't do it. --Alice

[Bachi]

Love your avatar, Wanda, it is way cool!!
Thank you, what's even cooler is it is a miniture shadow box creation my dh gave me as a b'day present a while back.

BTW, 52 hrs of "Atlas Shrugged" are you sure that isn't one of Dante's lower circles of hell???? :eek: ...
--Alice

:eek: is exactly what I look like now! lol

[Strawberry Curls]

Thank you, what's even cooler is it is a miniture shadow box creation my dh gave me as a b'day present a while back. How cool is that. Your man is a keeper!! Creative, and knows what you like!! Yes...a definite keeper.



:eek: is exactly what I look like now! lol So sorry to hear that. LOL --Alice

[Bachi]

How cool is that. Your man is a keeper!! Creative, and knows what you like!! Yes...a definite keeper.
...

Yes he is, but I may have mislead you, he purchased it, not made it, but he's a keeper just the same!

[Strawberry Curls]

Ah, but he knew what you would love and bought it for you so that is pretty special. --Alice

[tangential1]

BTW, 52 hrs of "Atlas Shrugged" are you sure that isn't one of Dante's lower circles of hell???? :eek:

*snorts* Hahahaha! That's awesome. I'm going to have to borrow that:p

[Strawberry Curls]

BTW, 52 hrs of "Atlas Shrugged" are you sure that isn't one of Dante's lower circles of hell???? :eek: I'm in awe of your fortitude and resolve. I couldn't do it. --Alice

*snorts* Hahahaha! That's awesome. I'm going to have to borrow that:pI give it to you free of charge, Tang. I wasn't kidding, that just sounds like torture to me. I am at an age, and a time in my life, where I just can't tolerate reading anything that doesn't really interest me. I guess I have just given up on ever being really "well read" and now read what I like and what pleases me. It is all I have time for these days. --Alice

[Pat Floyd]

I give it to you free of charge, Tang. I wasn't kidding, that just sounds like torture to me. I am at an age, and a time in my life, where I just can't tolerate reading anything that doesn't really interest me. I guess I have just given up on ever being really "well read" and now read what I like and what pleases me. It is all I have time for these days. --Alice

I agree, Alice. Furthermore, I don't want to spend that much time with ideas I deplore. Ayn Rand was a brilliant and fascinating woman shaped by growing up in Russia at the time of the revolution. When I was in college, I was entranced by The Fountain Head and later by Atlas Shrugged. But the kind of ego-centric individualism, admiration for the masterful man, and unbridled capitalism she advocates are, in my opinion, among the last things we need today.

[nkk1969]

I'm having trouble with Holmes and Mycroft... they sound very strange and exactly the same.

I had a huge problem with the speed of the reading. It sounded as if she was reading the book while attempting to run a marathon. I understand she had to read as fast as she did to even get that much of the story in in the allotted time, but still. :mad:

[Ruthie]

I really dislike that version of BEEK. I didn't like Fellows voice at all, kept thinking of Anne of Green Gables (but that is me) and they just chopped the heart out of it. Jennie Sterlin's unabridged is the BEST!!! IMHO. So, Alice, how do you really feel. LOL --Alice

I haven't heard the Fellows version, but if we're compiling a most hated list, then Sean Prendegast's adaptation for a BBC radio play takes the biscuit for me. A travesty! (Always wanted to be able to say that) Holmes was an imasculated, doddering old fool, Russell an irritating all conquering heroine. What happened to character development, subtlety of phrase, or even honouring the spirit of the book? I know there had to be some abridging to fit it into the BBC standard slot, but, well! I'm trying to find something positive to say here... I suppose he did keep some of the plot, but it didn't make sense in its curtailed form.

Doesn't look as though it'll be making my top ten all time favourites list then, does it.:p

Ruthie

[LindaE]

I'm happy to say that I recommended Beek to a dear friend of mine. She got an audio copy of it and is listening to it on a long drive over the New Year's holiday. I'm happy to have introduced her to Laurie and Mary. Holmes, she already knew. :)