(By Tom Gauld)
It might have been a matter of timing, or the way I experience the Sherlock Holmes canon, it might even be all Jeremy Brett’s fault. Or even Hugh Laurie’s. The fact is: I didn’t really like The Beekeeper’s Apprentice.
My three major reasons:
Mary
It’s been a long time since I come across such a Mary Sue. Her gifts just keep piling up at an incredible speed from the first moment we (and Holmes) meet her. I got the feeling that King simply chose a favorite literary crush and then projected her wish-fulfillment fantasy.
Just for fun, I’ve made a list of the things Mary excels at: beauty, wealth yet knowing the value of money, being loved by everyone almost instantly, slenderness, chess-playing, intelligence (lots of stuff included here: chemistry, maths, theology, etc), good memory, attention to detail, intuition, courage, appeasing ravenous dogs, disguises, running, climbing, aiming and throwing, tarot reading, juggling, card and magic tricks, accents and languages, following a trail, child psychology, post-traumatic stress disorder, nice hair, healing (changing gauze, applying poultices, knowing what to do in general), driving, puzzles and encryptions.
She’s also meant to be a feminist fighting adversity, but she’s never faced with the barriers you’d expect a woman detective at the beginning of the 20th century would experience. She’s an orphan with an evil step-mother aunt, but she has amazing freedom. She goes to college, where she’s taught by a great woman mathematician and quickly becomes surrounded by supportive friends. Watson, Mrs. Hudson and Mycroft accept her immediately and even when Lestrade dismisses her as a silly little joke, he’s awed by her mental skills five seconds later. The captain of the boat she and Holmes take (un-chaperoned) to Jerusalem doesn’t even blink when Holmes introduces her as his “partner”.
A perfect Mary-Sue already has a lot of annoyance-potential, but one who flounces said perfection around and treats others in a patronizing way becomes downright unlikable. Her condescension of Watson in particular made me cringe.
Watson
Right from the start Mary refers to Watson as “Uncle John”, putting him is his right place as the affectionate, goofy companion which Holmes tolerated for want of someone better. Holmes at times also slashes at their friendship. Six examples:
Mary: Yet another example of the man’s [Watson’s] obtuseness, this inability to know a gem unless it be set in gaudy gold.
Holmes: I work alone. I always have. Even when Watson was with me, he functioned purely as another pair of hands, not in anything resembling partnership.
Mary on the phone with Watson: And Uncle, you must not mention this call to anyone, do you understand? (…) You are not terribly good at dissimulation, I know, but is terribly important.
Mary: [Watson was] not gifted with the ability to lie, and thus could not be trusted to act a part. For the first time I became aware of how that knowledge must have pained him, how saddened he must have been over the years at his failure, as he would have seen it, his inability to serve his friend save by unwittingly being manipulated by Holmes’ clever mind.
Mary: Holmes, you told me nothing, you’ve consulted with me not at all, just pushed me here and there and run roughshod over any plans I might have had and kept me in the dark, as if I were Watson(…).
And the worst one, by Holmes himself, while talking to Mary:
I do occasionally take the thoughts of others into account, you know. Particularly yours. I have to admit that you were completely justified in your protest. You are an adult, and by your very nature I was quite wrong to treat you as if you were Watson. I apologise.
This disregard for Dr. Watson is especially hurtful because, more than your typical sidekick, he’s also a great audience surrogate. He is us, the readers. He’s as awed and humbled as we are by Holmes’ intelligence. He asks the questions we want to ask and if he wasn’t there we’d have no idea what Holmes was doing.
In this book Watson is portrayed as mentally-feeble, but according to Conan Doyle he’s a capable and brave doctor and soldier, whom Holmes trusts above all and does not hesitate to call upon for both moral and physical support. Holmes often praises him for his intelligence and resourcefulness.
Throughout the original books both men become very close, but in The Beekeeper’s Apprentice Holmes even forgets (!!) to warn Watson when a killer is out to get anyone he’s close with. On another occasion, Mary lies to Watson “to protect him” and mentions how this is also a common practice for Holmes. Now, Holmes often doesn’t tell Watson about his plans but I cannot remember one instance in which he willfully lied to him (maybe you can?).
Sherlock
Although readers love Sherlock, he’s not supposed to be a “friendly” character. He’s a manipulative, arrogant, gynophobic, cocaine-addict, manic-depressive sociopath. We the “normal people” are as attracted to his brilliant mind as bunnies to head-lights. This also makes him one of the most difficult literary characters to write fan-fic about.
I did not see the original Holmes in King’s version. Here he becomes just another cozy-mystery detective, toned-down and similar to so many others.
A final side note to say that although I’m perfectly fine with romances with an age gap, I had problems with the 38 years difference here. Just couldn’t accept it as naturally as everyone else seems to. Why such a big gap? Was it really necessary for the plot?
There, I’ve finished my rant. I’m now ready to dodge the rotten tomatoes.
***
Other thoughts: The Written Word, My Reading Books, Book Bath, Steph and Tony Investigate, things mean a lot (yours?)
Book read for One, Two, Theme Challenge
Theme 4: Bees/Honey
17 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 19, 2011 at 10:30 pm
cbjames
I love the cartoon. You’ll get no tomatoes from me. I’ve not read this series myself, but I did discover them for my mother-in-law who enjoyed the first few volumes but the tired of the series.
I prefer detectives who roam the mean streets, which Sherlock Holmes never seemed to do and which this series seems to avoid.
July 20, 2011 at 1:46 pm
Alex
Thinking about the type of crime novels you review in your blog, i don’t think this is your cup of tea either, CB.
July 19, 2011 at 10:47 pm
nymeth
Boooo. Hiss 😉 *throws rotten fruit*
I think you may well be right about the depiction of Holmes – I’m quite the newbie when it comes to Conan Doyle and the Holmes canon, so it’s possible that this made it easier for me to take to King’s version of him. But I read Mary and especially her dynamics with Watson very differently than you. Like Holmes himself, Mary *is* arrogant a bit of a know it all (which was part of why I didn’t read her as a perfect Mary Sue – to me her flaws her clear and seemed very much intentional), but in her own way I think she respects Watson and rather looks up to him. And it’s true that she’s immensely privileged and had an easy life despite the loss of her parents, but I found that King did explore the social realities and gender injustices of the time through other characters’ storylines as the series progressed.
But anyway, as they say, can’t love them all 😛
July 20, 2011 at 2:00 pm
Alex
Arrogance is definitely one of her faults, but King doesn’t seem to think so. No one checks Mary’s condescension, not even Holmes when she’s bringing down his best friend. Actually, Mary is loved by everyone she meets, and no one ever mentions her attitude, even when talking to/about people much older and experienced than her. Mary is everything into one: she has Holmes arrogance, but on the other hand she apparently has none of his social difficulties. it’s just not believable.
Regarding Watson in particular, I saw no especial respect for him as Holmes’ companion and a perfectly capable man. She respects him as you would respect an older, gentle and slight senile uncle.
July 19, 2011 at 11:01 pm
T
You are totally right. This book is fanfic, by definition of fanfic. Public domain fanfic so legal. With literary and intellectual ambitions. But fanfic it is, or maybe that is condescending to fanfic. I actually read the second book as well ( or third. The one related to the gnostic gospels) and it does not get better. Not for me.
July 20, 2011 at 2:00 pm
Alex
You did try to warn me…
July 19, 2011 at 11:30 pm
Teresa
Oh no, say it isn’t so! Nymeth has pretty much covered what I was going to say. I can’t speak to the depiction of Holmes as compared to Conan Doyle’s, but I did think King’s Holmes was plenty prickly–I wouldn’t call him at all friendly! And although I can see where the Mary Sue vibe comes from as regards Russell, I agree with Nymeth that she can be awfully arrogant and sometimes oblivious to people’s feelings.
But not every book suits every reader!
July 20, 2011 at 2:03 pm
Alex
I used “friendly” just because compared to the original one, that’s what he comes across as. Thinking about it, except for lashing out at Lestrate when he made fun of Mary, I don’t remember any instance in which Holmes is un-friendly in this book. Just maybe aloft and always struggling with his feelings.
July 19, 2011 at 11:36 pm
clarklindsley
Sleepless, your skewering of King, makes me, in a fit of masocistic ecstacy want to offer my own work up to you. I have just posted the first chapter of an action thriller manuscipt on my blog and would be facinated by the perceptions of your sharp eye. thegrowhouse.wordpress.com. Let me just say in advance, ouch!
July 20, 2011 at 9:16 am
Joanna
I loved your review Alex! Your list of things Mary is good at made me laugh. 🙂 I enjoyed this book, though not as much as everyone else seemed to. Your thoughts totally make sense to me and possibly explain my own feelings towards this one.
July 20, 2011 at 2:05 pm
Alex
And I’m sure i missed some on that list!
July 21, 2011 at 9:54 pm
Steph
So sorry to hear this didn’t work for you! It’s been a while since I read this first book, so perhaps some of my perceptions are colored by the events of later books, but I never really felt like Mary was a Mary Sue. I think there is a lot of stage-setting in this book, and that the subsequent books are better at developing the characters, especially when it comes to pointing out their flaws. If anything, many of the issues you mention about Mary sound an awful lot like the issues one might have with Sherlock Holmes himself, and I suppose I have always viewed Mary as a female version of Sherlock, with the same brilliant mind but many of the same weaknesses (which become more apparent in later books). Of course, while I’ve read many of the original Holmes adventures, I’ve by no means read them all, and have likely not even read the very best ones, so the comparisons between the two for me are probably not the same as they were for you!
August 10, 2011 at 3:47 pm
Alex
I agree, King did want Mary to have some of Sherlock’s “flaws”, the difference is that with S we know that his abilities leads to a sort of social autism, that he’s misunderstood and doesn’t really care if he it because he’s above it. Mary on the other hand seems to be loved by everyone. She embodies Sherlock’s abilities AND manages to have amazing socials skills as well.
July 22, 2011 at 9:51 pm
CanaryTheFirst
I was ready with the tomatoes. Dear Alex, how could you! And then I read the rest, and settled back to simply shuffling grumpily on my perch. Maybe. Maybe.
I think the core reason I hadn’t noticed much of–well, any of these issues when I first read the book (and the subsequent sequels) lies in the fact that I swallowed them up when I was in my early teens, despite (or perhaps because of) having read all of the original Holmes.
At that age, Mary Sues are the swirled ice-cream topping on the cake. I adored Mary, in all her perfect angst.
This review makes me wants to give this book a solid shake of a reread and see what birds fall out of trees.
August 10, 2011 at 3:49 pm
Alex
I can imagine myself have a VERY different perspective on this book if I’d read it in my teens. I know I’d have wanted to be Mary then, in all her glorious self. Although probably the age different would still gross me out a bit…
September 30, 2011 at 2:28 pm
cassincork
I like this series a lot, but you’re spot-on about the Mary Sueness. For me, appreciating that is something else about the book I quite like – as with the sheer unrealism of it all and the faintly ickiness of seeing into Holmes’s emotions. You have to read the books as fantasy I think.
November 14, 2012 at 5:39 pm
Teresa (@teresasreading)
No rotten tomatoes here either. I haven’t read any of this series, but this is an excellent review with very valid points. You’ve peaked my curiosity, I may have to pick it up and see for myself.