Laurie R. King
by Mia Stampe 1999 |
| (BEEK) | The Beekeeper's Apprentice, or On the Segregation of the Queen |
| (MREG) | A Monstrous Regiment of Women |
| (LETT) | A Letter of Mary and |
| (MOOR) | The Moor |
The Canon refers, as usual, to the complete Sherlock Holmes stories by Arthur Conan Doyle (ACD)
I have loved and enjoyed ACD’s books about the detective Sherlock Holmes since my early teens. As everybody else I created my own image of the main character, an image which maybe wasn’t in complete agreement with ACD’s version. But as I discovered LRK’s books I recognized my Holmes. So I fell. Without defense, without much resistance. I just let myself fall, in a state of unconsciousness. (Some will assert that my head seams to have hit the ground first). I confess to being addicted now. I know the influence is extremely harmful to the body, but it is a marvelous feeling. At my bookcase I keep no “seven-per-cent solution” but 4 volumes in which I indulge myself when the World around me becomes too commonplace....
Most of the Russell fans - or Russellians - are women. This is reflected in the overwhelming majority of female members on the discussion list Russ-L. In the article What do Women see in Sherlock Holmes I shall try to discuss why this is so, but here I’ll just state the fact
LRK’s books have become some of the most popular and at the same time controversial pastiches in recent history. She has achieved a substantial following, but she is also confronted with furious resistance from Sherlockian purists. One of the point of criticism is that LRK takes Sherlock Holmes’ name in vain, that is she uses his name as eye catcher just to earn the big money. In my humble opinion this is completely unjustified. LRK has showed in her other mystery series featuring the police detective Kate Martinelli that she is perfectly capable of earning a name by herself.
LRK and Mary Russell’s official web page is headed by a golden banner with the inscription: ”After 1914 Holmes is ours.” That is indeed to wave a red scarf in front of the faithful Canonical Sherlockians. But, as I have written in the article: To find Kindred Spirits, I believe that what really provoke Sherlockian Purists is the very way , the complete conviction, by which the Russellians have adapted the narrations.
No one, not even the hardest opponents, can however deny that LRK carries out a very thorough investigation prior to writing the novels. This regards as well the Canon, the time and the social, cultural, and scientific, let alone the literary, environment. One can continue to find details in her books. Details which in other contexts prove to be tokens of extensive research. She is not faultless; the plot is sometimes slim and at times she approaches the border of sentimentality. The worst is her reduction of Watson to a dear elderly man without much intellect. Poor Watson - what a great sorrow, why did she do that? In my opinion BEEK is still the best story, way better than its successors. But beyond the already published four novels, there is at least 2 and possibly more stories coming, so I and other Russellians are waiting impatiently. As someone of Russ-L expressed it: ”God, now I know how the Strand’s readers felt !!! “ We sincerely hope, that LRK is able to keep the quality and preferably rise to the level of her first Russell novel. A superhuman wish, perhaps.
One of the reasons that many, including myself, read pastiches is, that we are hungry after knowing “what happens next”. It is unbearable just to leave Holmes there in Sussex and then that’s it. In my eyes many of the pastiches pretending to continue Watson’s style unfortunately appear rigid and unoriginal. It looks like many authors in pure eagerness make obvious hints and references to the Watson written stories and just want to expose their good knowledge of the Canon. New adventures, perhaps with suspense and really good plots, but the figure of Holmes nobody seriously dares to touch let alone develop. In that sense he is dead. Writing a good pastiche is wedging between heresy and recycling. LRK apparently does everything one supposed taboo. In BEEK Holmes meets and makes friendship with a young woman, a girl of only 15, feminist and theology student to be. Everything as far from him as it can possibly be. She becomes his apprentice, later his partner in detecting as well as in his private life (MREG, LETT and MOOR). And it goes surprisingly well! Isn’t that amazing?!?! I shall return to the question of why this may be possible at exactly that time. With Holmes’ own word from BEEK “Twenty years ago, even ten. But here? Now?” And as happy readers we can only lean back and shouting out with joy add: “Ohh, yes! If not now, then when ...?”
A nice little detail about pastiches is that if our curiosity is not satisfied by reading about Holmes and Russell in the Kanon (or Holmes and Watson in the Canon), we are always free to write our own versions of the episodes and situations we might want to see. The same goes for the wish to “close holes” in the Kanon or to finish a dead end. Among Russellians there are several gifted writers who until now have offered the hungry fans more than 30 pastiches connected to the books by LRK. Technically these pastiches are pastiches of pastiches. We are far out, indeed, but it is so much fun! Those re-pastiches, as we might call them, are to be found in the collection The Hive at the Internet. There really are some literary pearls in between!
But actually I don’t want to talk about LRK as the author. That is not the realm of ours. No, it’s all about the two persons, Mary Russell and Sherlock Holmes.
A Danish reviewer wrote about BEEK in 1995. He liked it as crime fiction, but he emphasized that it was a romantic story even though the atmosphere never did turn pinky or sticky. I whole-heartedly agree. The rose-colored ambience is avoided primarily because the dialogues between Holmes and Russell are sparkling with humor and irony. The same reviewer was however very disappointed about the following MREG. He characterized the book as a “lady novel” in the sense of harmless and sentimental. Herein I utterly disagree, except about one scene that not even I can swallow. But to equal “lady” with “sentimental and harmless”, that is too much! As a matter of fact it is a pure Victorian exclamation of prejudice. Yet, I shall overlook it, this actually could have been one of Watson’s sweet remarks. Watson, who I hold very dear.
In MREG and LETT there are marvelous scenes, puns and witty ping-pong. I admit that the mystery in the two books is no nearly as strong as in the first novel. This is partly due to the fact, that the story in those two books embraces only a few weeks and only deals with one single case. In contrast to BEEK, where we follow Holmes and Russell’s actions during 4 years and where we see a considerable development of the personalities of the two main characters and of their professional lives. Here we are introduced to several smaller problems (ŕ la Watson short story style) leading unavoidably to the final, fatal day of reckoning
Holmes and Russell are lying in the bed speaking about the preceding days events. Holmes has had a hard week for the reason among others that he has had to sleep at the floor at night. Now he says: “I have been very cold without my Shunammite.” He refers to the Old Testament, Kings 1:2-4 (who would have believed that, but explanation follows). Here the old King David is brought a young girl, Abishag from Shunam, who is to lie in his bed to keep him warm. Simply a human hot-water bottle. A very prosaic way of expressing that he has missed her, I dare say! And the dialogue goes on. Russell doesn’t know that Holmes - in his official capacity and disguised as a poor man - has spent some time in a Christian soup kitchen where he also attended bible readings. When Russell asks to his investigations he replies:
Holmes: “I have been reading my Bible”.
[astonished] Russell: “I beg your pardon?”
Holmes: “Sorry, was my arm over your ear?”
To me this kind of humor is simple irresistible!
According to S.S. Van Dine’s twenty rules for writhing a good detective story, love and other misleading topics have nothing to do in crime fiction. LRK brakes this rule obviously and deliberately (ACD on the other hand did not “obey” either). Russell has a desire of telling several stories at the same time, not only about detection and investigation work. Her manuscripts are about evolution and development of personalities, some women history, some feminist theology and in MOOR she makes the place itself come alive, personifies it. I see this last novel as a tribute to one of Watson’s - well, one of the whole mystery genre’s - most famous stories (HOUND) and to Sherlock Holmes himself. It can be argued then, that LRK ought not call the novels crime fiction but categorize them as something else with a touch of suspense. Just like for instance the Danish “Miss Smilla’s sense of snow” by Peter Hoeg, they are in a border-zone. But if we follow LRK’s intention and accept Russell’s wish of expressing more than one message, then we are rewarded - especially as Sherlockians - with tidbits, Canonical hints and quibbles to the great amusement. Russell is playing with fiction and “reality” using such an abundance of details and wit. Ostensible trifles are hiding references to other parts of crime fiction literature or the Canon itself. Here are a few examples:
In BEEK (p. 71) a “practicing case” Holmes is waiting for his apprentice, Russell, to deduce the solution of the mystery. She does indeed so and bursts out in surprise: “Are you telling me the butler did it?” Again, according to Van Dine this is “naughty”. The butler is never allowed to be the culprit. That’s why authors have fun in adding such an unconventional touch.
Another little gem from MREG (p. 280): Russell asks Holmes, very well aware that he is going to turn furious: “How are the fairies in the bottom of your garden?”. My! A provocation unheard-of to wave in front of his (and our) nose this well known - and in our eyes to ACD - pretty embarrassing affair of the fake fairy photograph.
And like these examples one can continue to find new discoveries at each re-reading of the stories. Believe me, I have read them many times.
In “Sherlock Holmes the Detective Magazine” Pat Ward effectively cuts down the Russell series. And many people share her point of view. The cardinal point of critics is that Holmes in LRK’s books is unrecognizable and completely unlike the Holmes we meet in ACD’s books. Especially because he - beyond being made some years younger - is depicted as an emotional human being. Well, I certainly shall not deny that Russell’s description of Holmes is very different from Watson’s. But the reasons are obvious, too!
Furthermore, we should not forget, that we have no primary sources (with the exceptions of the few stories that are claimed to be written by Holmes himself). Watson wrote about Holmes, and ACD was Watson’s literary agent. Mary Russell describes her life with Holmes and LRK just transcribes and publishes her handwritten manuscripts. All of these are secondary sources. And unfortunately none of us have ever met the Master, which leaves us in the state, that each of us is left to create a picture of Holmes (and Watson and Russell and the others) from the sources we personally find most reliable. My argument in this debate is then, that just because Watson came first this should not be tantamount to regarding his interpretation as the one and only true. To cut it down, I think that we in LRK’s books see another side of the person Holmes (notice! Not another Holmes!), because we see him through the eyes of another person.
And finally, it is not without significance to remember, that Holmes, as an intelligent human being, obviously has to develop with age. Watson portrays him in the time they were younger. He tells us about Holmes’ life as consulting detective in London. But actually we see already in Watson’s stories a man who changes. Holmes behaves a little differently after his three years abroad. His character is further changed/developed in the last of the Canonical accounts (LION, LAST). Many Sherlockians don’t like LION, but I do for instance because I there see a more human and wiser Holmes. (It is very deliberate that I use the non “Stackhurst” at Hounds-L). So, yes, of course Russell and Watson’s descriptions of Holmes are different !!!
Now first of all, in the Canon Altamont is described as
being sixty. The narrator, not being Watson, would probably not
know his actual age. Furthermore he is in disguise. Would Holmes
not also have hidden his real age? Next. it was under his visit at
his school friend Victor Trevor’s home (GLOR), Holmes became aware,
that he wanted to make a career as consulting detective. I anticipate,
that young Trevor and Holmes must be about the same age as they attended
college together. How old was young Trevor then? Well, in 1855 his
father was on the ship Gloria Scott heading for Australia. Many things
happened, but I think he would need as minimum
3 years to make himself a fortune in gold digging and for traveling
1 year to establish himself in England and to find a wife
1 year before Trevor was born.
- i.e. the year of 1860. At least. Say 1861, then Holmes and Trevor
probably attended college together in the years 1876 and 1877.
“The Ultimate Sherlock Holmes Encyclopedia”, USH, dates the visit
at Trevor’s to a summer in the period 1872 to1876. Baring-Gould
says 1874, but 1875 is a realistic bid. We are just not used to
seeing a teen talk and act so sure of himself as Holmes does. But
I wonder if Holmes not already at that time should have been pretty
cocksure. Holmes had his third real case as a detective in MUSG. At
the same time he studies at the university. USH indicates a summer
in the period 1878 to 1880. Baring-Gould mentions 1879. Taking the
latter Holmes would then have been only 18 years old when he solved
the Musgrave mystery. Well, this doesn’t sound improbable to me.
After all, he was a bright young man, wasn’t he? He only has a few
cases in the beginning of his career. This gives him time enough to
attend some lectures and do his own experiments, enough to achieve
a BA (probably in chemistry plus one other subject) before March
1881 or 1882 which of many Sherlockians is considered the date of
Watson and Holmes’ first meeting (STUD). Bringing me back to answer
the original question. That Holmes should be born in 1861, that’s
fine to me!
This leaves a small problem, though: Watson. He took his medical exam in 1878. The education probably took at least 5 years and even though he started early at the university (about the age of 17) he hardly can be born later than 1855. Baring-Gould suggests in the beginning of the 50s. At best this makes Watson 6 years older than Holmes as a minimum. We’ll have to live with that.
Approaching WW1 and following, women’s education independence accelerated. The war itself caused radical alterations everywhere: socially, economically, politically, psychologically and also relationally between the sexes. When the men were send to the battlefield, women took over jobs, which were earlier to be managed by men. They took on new responsibilities and obligations. After the war the country had a deficit of hundreds of thousands of men. The effect of this was that a lot of women had to create a self-supporting life on their own. Once the women as a group in the society learned to fend for themselves they got more independent, and because of their role in WW1 women gained in the years after a series of improved conditions such as the right of voting, more privileges in cases of divorce and inheritance. The time after the war was quite different from the one before where a strong national optimism based on a conservative and orthodox foundation were prevalent. Now people in general were less conventional, life had to be learned and tried again, it was too short for sham correctness and old-fashioned hypocrisy.
Because Russell has the background she has and meets Holmes at the time she does, she is able to catch him off his guard with that magic combination of intelligence, wit and independence, which Holmes had never met before, neither in a man and not at all in a woman. In addition to this they get attached in friendship while she is still just a child and when they realize she has grown up, it is too late to retreat.
The way we know Holmes from the Canon he was in many aspects on the front edge of the developments in the society. His methods eventually became standard police procedures. We can not imagine that man not being able to keep pace with latest news (if it was important to him). If he had lived in our time, he would without doubt have known exactly where on the Internet he could achieve certain information and in which subcultures he should mingle in order to contact certain people. He probably would appreciate e-mail as a modern form of wire to which an instant reply was possible (though, often he did not reply). I presume most Sherlockians will agree, that part of the charm and popularity of the Canon is due to the atmosphere described by Watson in the fin de sičcle: London fog, Hansom cabs, warmth from the fireplace etc. All that is more or less the past in Russell’s narrations, but I find that Holmes looks very good in the age of the automobile, too. Russell says, that when she finds him in BEEK, he has actually come to a mental halt, which Holmes admits himself (and which Watson over-dramatizes). We know Holmes’ depressive point from the Canon, so this seems absolutely reasonable. But Russell draws him into an active life again. Think about that! If it wasn’t for Mary Russell, Holmes would be dead by boredom as an anachronism in his own time. We Sherlockians truly have a lot to thank her for! And honestly, if Holmes decides to marry, we should accept this as his own private business. He certainly seems to enjoy this special marriage where neither of the two proud and self-confident people is prepared to leave a discussion without having fought for their respectively opinions.
“You see why I married her, Mycroft? The exquisite juxtaposition of lady-like threats and backhanded compliments proved irresistible.” (LETT p. 60).
Therefore it is only a natural evolution that Holmes under and after WW1 through his young apprentice accepts the new role women have come to play in the society. That he keeps up with the times is just another evidence of this strange man’s intelligence and understanding of mankind. An ability we see increasingly through the Canon. Watson does give us the general picture of Holmes as a cold thinking machine, egocentric (how, by the way, can a machine be that?) and scientifically objective. But at the same time he also describes him as “the best and the wisest man”, and a true friend. In Watson’s stories we also see a vulnerable person who cares a great deal about his associates. A human being who doubt, feel shame and pride, love, despair and wonder. Innumerable details indicate this. A few quotes are listed in App. A, but the thorough discussion of them must wait for another time. Holmes is affected when he fails or is too slow. He says himself, that he if often wrong (App. B), but Watson mostly shows us his good results. We never see the dead ends Holmes necessarily must test and which - if depicted - would overshadow the (mostly) triumphant endings of his cases. All this is not an attempt of fiddling with the will-of-steel and superior energy of our hero, but I shall at any time maintain that Holmes, also in the Canon, is an emotional human being and also to some extent portrayed as so. But he restrains (to show) his emotion and is able to keep himself under control. In the article What do women see in Sherlock Holmes I shall comment further on this.
Together with the increasing number of women crime fiction authors during the last decades, classics such as Dorothy Sayers have gone through a renaissance. Her series featuring Lord Peter Wimsey is re-evaluated, analyzed and legitimated. LRK acknowledges a considerable debt to Sayers. It is no coincidence that in BEEK there is a reference to a certain “younger son of a Duke”, and that in LETT an elegant, monocle-wearing gentleman named Peter appears - just to mention the totally obvious hints. Russellians have in addition pointed out scores of connections between LRK and Sayers. This is in itself am extensive study.
It occurs to me when discussing time, that perhaps the very critical Sherlockian Purist simply just don’t like to see Holmes portrayed as an elderly man with the old age incipient physical weaknesses. Now who is it to be called sentimental?! Following the natural order of things Holmes must necessarily age. Unless, of course, if you consider him immortal, which some do, but that discussion, too, must wait for another time. I suppose, though, that we can agree about the pathetic line “Sherlock Holmes is immortal because he has never lived” is an unworthy remark and certainly not an argument among Sherlockians?
To me there is no doubt. What Mary Russell has told us about Sherlock Holmes until now, is true. And from now on - in my mind - an adequate biography of Holmes is constituted of both the Canon as well as the Kanon. Though, amongst Sherlockian Purist I shall attempt not to use the latter as base of evidence in our many small disputes. (I promise for instance never to refer to Holmes’ son)
Writing this, I speculate about if I with the present article have signed my own expulsion of the honorable Danish Sherlock Holmes Society. But one must follow one’s conscience, right? Did not even the Master do that? A few times he preferred to trust his own judgement and put his own conscience above The Law of England? (DEVI, BLUE). Meanwhile, I think I may defend myself with the official object of the very same society in which it is declared, that the purpose is to promote Sherlockian scholarship based both on ACD’s books as well as of any kind of apocrypha.
I shall finish this paper with the following remark. It belongs to a member on Russ-L, but the words could just as well have been mine (except for the word “creator”, of course). “I ‘believe’ in these stories... Seriously in my mind Mary Russell is as real a character as Sherlock Holmes and they belong in the same world. It doesn’t matter whether ACD know about Russell or not. Holmes has attained a life independent of his creator - indeed one might well say he’s always had that kind of life and is not to be bound by trifling matters of authorship.”