Scan barcode
A review by bargainsleuth
The Beekeeper's Apprentice by Laurie R. King
5.0
For this and all my other book reviews, visit www.bargain-sleuth.com
There was a time when I read through the Sherlock Holmes canon and devoured my library and local used bookstores for every pastiche story I could find. One of the audiobooks I got from the library was this book. I was skeptical of the premise: a teenage girl meeting a middle-aged Sherlock and equaling him? It couldn’t be. But the way Laurie R. King writes leaves little to wonder how it didn’t happen earlier.
Mary Russell has been described as a Mary Sue, but I don’t see her that way. She is very smart and attractive and independent and has great deductive reasoning like Nancy Drew, but she’s flawed, too. As the editor’s note describes at the beginning of the story, this manuscript was found and is supposedly written by Mary, so of course, she’d toot her own horn and concentrate on the positive aspects of her personality.
And the Holmes in this story has softened with his older age, but not enough that he hasn’t lost his sleuthing skills. Just because he’s “retired” doesn’t mean he hasn’t got his foot in all the latest deductive techniques. Beekeeping is a noble hobby, but Holmes also has other things keeping his brain sharp while in seclusion.
The two are thrown into a series of cases over the next three years, as Mary matures to an 18-year-old and attends college. While some people take issue with the Holmes/Russell dynamic, I don’t as I know Laurie R. King and I both married older men. What started out as a mentor relationship evolves as Mary grows older. She’s wise beyond her years, and her time with Holmes and away at school adds to that maturity. There are no bodice-ripping scenes here, just an understanding between Holmes and Russell, and that’s good enough for me.
King’s writing style is similar enough to Conan Doyle that one can imagine the book as a continuation of the canon with a new narrator. My only complaint is that Watson isn’t portrayed in the best light, more along the Nigel Bruce depictions of him than the canon or more modern interpretations of the character have allowed.
There was a time when I read through the Sherlock Holmes canon and devoured my library and local used bookstores for every pastiche story I could find. One of the audiobooks I got from the library was this book. I was skeptical of the premise: a teenage girl meeting a middle-aged Sherlock and equaling him? It couldn’t be. But the way Laurie R. King writes leaves little to wonder how it didn’t happen earlier.
Mary Russell has been described as a Mary Sue, but I don’t see her that way. She is very smart and attractive and independent and has great deductive reasoning like Nancy Drew, but she’s flawed, too. As the editor’s note describes at the beginning of the story, this manuscript was found and is supposedly written by Mary, so of course, she’d toot her own horn and concentrate on the positive aspects of her personality.
And the Holmes in this story has softened with his older age, but not enough that he hasn’t lost his sleuthing skills. Just because he’s “retired” doesn’t mean he hasn’t got his foot in all the latest deductive techniques. Beekeeping is a noble hobby, but Holmes also has other things keeping his brain sharp while in seclusion.
The two are thrown into a series of cases over the next three years, as Mary matures to an 18-year-old and attends college. While some people take issue with the Holmes/Russell dynamic, I don’t as I know Laurie R. King and I both married older men. What started out as a mentor relationship evolves as Mary grows older. She’s wise beyond her years, and her time with Holmes and away at school adds to that maturity. There are no bodice-ripping scenes here, just an understanding between Holmes and Russell, and that’s good enough for me.
King’s writing style is similar enough to Conan Doyle that one can imagine the book as a continuation of the canon with a new narrator. My only complaint is that Watson isn’t portrayed in the best light, more along the Nigel Bruce depictions of him than the canon or more modern interpretations of the character have allowed.