Sunday Snapshot–Eliminating the Impossible to Focus on the Improbable

The dogs' Halloween costumes this year. They love this holiday, can you tell?

Currently reading:

A Kind of Grief by AD Scott: Did I mention this one last week? Anyway, I'm still reading it.
The Conjure Woman by Charles W Chestnutt: A collection of antebellum slave folktales framed by the story of a Northerner trying to start up a vineyard down South. Pretty fascinating actually. Chestnutt's writing style is fantastic.
The Camel Club by David Baldacci: So far it reminds me of Scandal.

Subscription boxes:

This month's Wantable was a study in blue. I feel okay about it. The lace-trimmed cami is very pretty, and the blue cami is okay, although one of the straps is sewn inside out so it twists around. The bra is way more support than I really need, but it fits perfectly.

LOVED this week's Le Tote. I got a cool asymmetrical black top (which you can't really see here, but trust me, it was rad), a badass wine-colored leather jacket, pretty pink blouse, scarf, and a pretty awesome necklace. I think Le Tote's jewelry is much edgier than Rocks Box's, strangely.

And speaking of Rocks Box... more silver jewelry from them. This time it's a pair of bar studs, a Y necklace, and a wrap bracelet. The bracelet kind of bothers my brain; I can't stop messing with it when I wear it. I'm aware this is a personal problem.

This week in heidenkindom:

Busy busy week! Last Sunday we went to a winery called Kingman Estates. Their wines were so unusual and unique, and we got to go on a tour of the winery that was super interesting. This is the type of place that, if I lived closer, I would visit every week.

The next day we went to The International Exhibition of Sherlock Holmes, which I'm sure you can imagine I was suuuuuuper excited about. (Most important decision: which Sherlock Holmes t-shirt to wear.) Anyway, the exhibit was fun, if not terribly informative. There was a mystery to solve and lots of kid-friendly activities to complete (so, perfect for me, then). Not that the exhibit wasn't informed–there were a ton of Easter eggs buried throughout guaranteed to delight devoted Sherlockians. But you wouldn't notice them unless you were already familiar with them and the cannon. The exhibit was mostly about going to the museum and having silly fun than learning about Sherlock, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Sherlock's study

The scene of the crime!

The road to Baker Street

Do YOU have what it takes to join Scotland Yard? Because I don't.

This is the type of Easter egg I'm talking about. If you read my latest post on Book Riot, you not only know who this woman actually is, but who she's supposed to represent.

A nice shoutout to Edgar Allan Poe and his Inspector Dupin stories, which were a strong inspiration for Sherlock Holmes.

Sherlock in pop culture.

My t-shirt's in a museum!

Now the gift shop on the other hand... as soon as I stepped inside I knew me and all my monies would soon be parted. TONS of awesome books, maps, Sherlock toys, etc. I bought two books and a Sherlock hat and pipe–I obviously wasn't leaving without that–and they also had to-scale copies of the Sherlock Holmes story Conan Doyle wrote by hand for Queen Mary's Doll's House library, "Watson Learns the Trick." This was VERY cool. I didn't buy it because it was $25, but I read it, and the story was super silly.

The rest of the week was spent furiously playing catchup on my writing assignments and helping my parents move into a bigger storage unit. Oh, and trying out St. Germain cocktails. It's the perfect liqueur for fall.

Bonus:

Speaking of St. Germain cocktails, here's one I mixed up that I HIGHLY recommend. I think it's called an Elderflower Fashioned? If not, it should be.

• 2 oz Scotch whiskey (a cheap blend like Grant's works fine, although if you want to use the high end stuff, go on with your bad self)
• 1 oz St. Germaine
• 3 dashes Angostura Bitters

Combine all three ingredients in an old fashioned glass and stir. Then add ice and stir again, until chilled. Add two hefty twists of lemon.



Discus this post with me on Twitter, FaceBook, Google+ or in the comments below.

Movie Review: MR HOLMES

Originally released: 2015
Starring: Sir Ian McKellen, Laura Linney, Milo Parker, Hattie Morahan
Directed by: Bill Condon
Based on: A Slight Trick of the Mind by Mitch Cullin

In post-WWII Britain, a 93-year-old Sherlock Holmes is losing his wits, because oldness. Desperate to remember the case that made him quit detecting forever, he travels to Japan to find a cure for his failing mental faculties. But the only thing that really helps is spending time with his bitchy housekeeper's son, Roger.

As I mentioned in my Sunday Snapshot, Mr. Holmes is all over the place. It jumps from 1947 Britain to 1920-ish Britain, to Japan, and back again, and the transitions can be rather abrupt. As a fan of all things Sherlockian, I did not find this movie enjoyable, although it did have some interesting ideas.

I don't think Mr. Holmes betrays the Sherlock canon, but there are several points where I feel it went it wrong. First of all, there's no Watson, nor any Watson character–the story is told through Sherlock's eyes. BIG mistake. I love Sherlock, but there's no way he can be a sympathetic everyman. That's Watson's (or Mary Russell's, or whomever's) job. Holmes' job is to be weird and not boring.

Secondly, the mystery element is miniscule. I was expecting way more detecting than whatever the hell else was going on in this movie. And while I enjoyed the mystery, there were moments when it was head-slappingly stupid. There was a sequence where Holmes followed a woman through London and his only method of subterfuge was to peek around the edges of pillars and the like. While wearing a top hat and a three-piece suit and tails, no less, as if he's going to the Ritz! Wasn't Holmes supposed to be a master of disguise? C'mon, movie makers. Try harder.

I also found it ironic that Holmes complained Watson's books were penny dreadfuls with ridiculous plots when Mr. Holmes has more inconsistencies than any of Conan Doyle's works. For example (these are spoilerific, just FYI):

• If he needs a brain/energy boost, why doesn't Holmes just take cocaine instead of traveling all the way to Japan for prickly ash?
• I'm supposed to believe that Holmes, or anyone really, would let some random lady move in with them after knowing her for less than hour? Right. Totally. Not.
• Holmes feels guilty for killing said woman, as if he failed to warn her about a bus veering down the road or something, but she didn't just die. She made the choice to kill herself. He was like, "Hey, don't kill yourself, you have a lot to live for," and she was like, "Oh, you're right, I won't," and then she decided to just go ahead and do it anyway. If anyone should feel bad, it should be her Awful Person husband. I find it very difficult to believe Holmes would feel so guilty about this that he'd give up detecting, even if the two of them shared some sort of instantaneous metaphysical connection. Which I think is improbable.
• Throughout the whole movie there's a "mystery" about what's killing Holmes' bees. Then Roger gets stung and Holmes is like, "Oh, it must be wasps!" THE WASP NEST IS LITERALLY RIGHT OUTSIDE THE HOUSE. Like three feet, and it's freaking huge. He didn't notice a bunch of wasps flying around when he was out there ALL THE TIME?
• The oddest thing in this movie is when Holmes writes to Mr. Umezaki to tell him that his father didn't just abandon him and his mother, but decided to become an asset for Mycroft and the War Office, where he served with distinction. This is, presumably, a fiction on Holmes' part meant to make Umezaki feel better. But would thinking your father left you to spy for the Allies who just dropped two atomic bombs on your country *really* make anyone feel better? "Your dad betrayed his country. Hope this helps!"

Visually, the Japan sections of the movie were the most striking, but they had zippo to do with anything else in the plot. Their main purpose was to underscore what I think of as the ungrieved-for dead–a term from Anne Roiphe's memoir Art and Madness that she uses to describe the zeitgeist that infused post-War America.

And everywhere in Mr. Holmes there are dead people, from Glass Harmonica Woman's dead kids, to the woman herself, to the housekeeper's dead husband (whom she talks about at length on randomly and apropos of nothing, e.g. Housekeeper: "Your dad wanted to join the RAF instead of working on cars." Roger: "Sorry I said you could barely read." Cool talk, bro?), to dead Watson and Mycroft. Holmes' challenge is just to remember them and acknowledge their loss.

The final scene of Mr. Holmes seems to draw a loose parallel between the woman who committed suicide and the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, as well as Holmes' subsumed guilt over the act and deliberate (or perhaps self-preservational) amnesia. An interesting theme to explore, but why use Sherlock Holmes to do it? That's what really confuses me about this story. Holmes is a symbol of Victorian London. Why is he being employed as a stand-in for the War Generation? I honestly have no idea, but I think pairing Holmes with this theme was misplaced and did not serve either the character or the story. It would have been much more poignant and believable if he'd been an average old guy.

I will say on the positive side that Ian McKellen, Laura Linney, and Milo Parker were fantastic in this. McKellen really has that old man face nailed down. I was also relieved Holmes didn't die at the end–at least the filmmakers knew not to do that much.




Discus this post with me on Twitter, FaceBook, Google+ or in the comments below.

Review: THE DEVIL'S GRIN by Annelie Wendeberg

By day, Dr. Anton Kronberg is one of the leading bacteriologists in the world. By night, Anton becomes Anna, a nurse living in the worst slum in London. Since women are barred from practicing medicine, Anna pretends to be a man so she can pursue her passion for science. No one's ever seen through her disguise–no one except the famous consulting detective, Sherlock Holmes. Now Anna and Sherlock must work together to solve the mysterious death of a man found floating in the Thames. Was it disease, or murrrrrderrrrr? I'm guessing the latter.

I have mixed feelings on The Devil's Grin. The story moves very fast, I loved Anna, and the mystery was somewhat chilling. But there seemed to be a lot of gaps in logical storytelling, and by the end I found myself wondering why Sherlock was included in the book at all (aside from marketing, of course).

I'm always a little hesitant going into crossdressing stories like this because they tend not to resonate with me (one word: Yentl. Uhg), but actually the crossdressing was one of the least-problematic aspects of the book. What did bother me was that Wendeberg took what started off as a very interesting character and turned her into something over-the-top and cartoonish. So not only is Anna a crossdressing, famous scientist, she runs through the woods barefoot like a little gazelle and swims in lakes on the moors. Naked. At night. In my head, I was picturing those drawings by (male, naturally) explorers of Indian women swinging from trees bare-breasted. Realism! Anna also exposes her naked self to Sherlock. Cuz, you know, why would a Victorian female who spends most of her life hiding the fact that she's a woman have body issues, AMIRITE?

The investigation also didn't seem like it progressed logically–or, to be more specific, the solution to the problem that Anna came up with didn't seem like a good default option. SPOILERS AHEAD, YE'VE BEEN WAAARNED: When Anna and Sherlock discover that the murder victim came from an asylum where they're performing medical experiments on their patients, Anna's solution is to:

1. get a grant to study the diseases they're experimenting with; 
2. become the world's leading expert on said diseases; 
3. lure them into asking her to work with them (see: become an expert); 
4. gain their trust; and finally, 
5. expose their activities. 

This, she says, is the ONLY WAY TO STOP THEM. What? Huhn? There are a lot of assumptions running through that plan. What if she doesn't get the grant? What if they move on to other diseases by the time she's an expert? Meanwhile, there are a bunch of people still being experimented on and dying! Why didn't she and Sherlock do what they ended up doing anyway and just call the police to raid the asylum? Sure, they found a few more of the people working behind the scenes to run the experiments by following Anna's plan, but they probably could have discovered all that just as easily through other investigative methods. I would have expected Sherlock to be more dedicated to the principle of Occam's razor.

And speaking of Sherlock: let's be honest, the only reason I decided to read this book was because Sherlock Holmes was in it. Yet I wasn't very impressed by his role in the story. He never actually investigates anything–indeed, he doesn't seem to think there *is* anything to investigate (to be fair, he's mostly right). And the "romance" between him and Anna made me roll my eyes. Part of the Sherlock canon is that he's asexual. I'm not opposed to breaking the canon, but if you're going to do it you have to do it in a convincing way–like in the Mary Russell series, for example. Here it just felt rushed and uninformed. Wendeberg could have given Holmes another name and made him just another detective, and I never would have identified him as based on Sherlock Holmes.

This all makes it sound like I hated The Devil's Grin (additional question: what is the meaning of this title?), but I actually didn't. It was an overall enjoyable read with some weird moments. And honestly, I'm not sure I would have enjoyed it as much if it HADN'T had those WTF moments. Without them I might have (probably) gotten bored. Also, how many books do you read with crossdressing female detectives? Not a bunch!

Since this is a fairly original book and a very fast read, I'm willing to forgive a lot. I'll probably wind up reading the second book in this series (against my better judgment, what there is of it). If Sherlockian books about Victorian lady scientists who don't put up with any crap are of interest to you, definitely give The Devil's Grin a shot.



Discus this post with me on Twitter, FaceBook, Google+ or in the comments below.

On the TV: THE HOUR and ELEMENTARY

I haven't done a television post in a while (unless you count all those Downton Abbey posts--here and here and at Edwardian Promenade--but anyway) and I thought I was due for one, especially as there are two shows I really want to talk about!

THE HOUR

This a show you definitely should be watching. It takes place in 1950s London and is about a television news show called The Hour. But that's not all it's about! There are spies and murders and cocktails and country house parties and awesome cars. At the heart of the show, is the romance between Bel, The Hour's producer; and Freddie, a copywriter and reporter. Bel and Freddie have known each other forever and are best friends. These two are so clearly in love but aren't sleeping together, I don't know why. It's maddening. I LOVE FREDDIE SO MUCH. Actually I love all the characters, but Freddie's my favorite. He's one of those journalists who looks at his job as a calling, not a means of employment.

Basically, if you like Mad Men, The Hour is like that but with a John le Carré twist. It distracts you with shiny television gossip and then it's like BOOM, SPY STUFF! It's totally awesome. Thanks to Ruth from Booktalk & More for convincing me to give it a try. The second season just started on BBC America and you seriously must watch it; it's one of the best shows I've seen in a long-ass time.

ELEMENTARY

When Elementary first started, I'll admit I was a bit snobbish about it. Compared to BBC's Sherlock, it seemed really fluffy and stupid. It didn't reference the Sherlock canon nearly at all, and the mysteries were kinda blah. Plus it didn't have Benedict Cumberbatch in it (PS: brain, feel free to give me more BBC Sherlock dreams whenever you want, thanks). Buuuuuuut I kept watching because I do like both Johnny Lee Miller and Lucy Lui quite a lot.

Now that the show's been going for a few months, I've done a complete 180. I love this show. No, it's not canon and referential in the way BBC Sherlock is; but I think of the two it's actually the more creative adaptation. BBC Sherlock is almost slavish in its devotion to the canon--which is great, I love the layers of references in each episode--but Elementary allows its characters to live on their own and take off in an independent context. Sherlock's drug addiction, which at first seemed like kind of a gimmick, has really given the character and story an unexpected depth. I also think Lucy Lui does a great job as the Watson--both literally and figuratively--in the relationship, and I love the dynamic between her and Johnny Lee Miller. Despite my crush on Benedict Cumberbatch and my appreciation of the complex references in BBC Sherlock, I think Elementary might actually surpass it as my favorite Sherlock TV adaptation (especially if BBC Sherlock doesn't return until late 2013 *dies*).



Have you seen any of these shows? What are some of your new favorites?

New to You: SHERLOCK HOLMES Short Stories by Arthur Conan Doyle

I wasn't going to write reviews for these short stories, but then the second season of BBC's Sherlock started, and I thought, why not? For those of you who don't watch the show, each episode of the second season of Sherlock was based on the three most popular Sherlock Holmes mysteries: A Scandal in Bohemia, The Hounds of Baskerville, and The Final Problem.

As I've said before in my review of The Sherlockian (Truth, Beauty, Freedom, and Books), I'm not a big fan of Sherlock Holmes mysteries, and it all started with The Hounds of Baskerville. We had to read it in sixth grade English and I was SUPER excited because 1. I'm a dork that way; and 2. I loved mysteries as a kid. And Sherlock is supposed to be the greatest mystery solver of all time, right? So imagine my disappointment when I was kind of bored with the book. There were no interesting female characters, and Sherlock himself was an arrogant ass. I'm aware that that's the entire point of Sherlock, and it wouldn't even have bothered me too much if he'd had one or two redeeming qualities, but he didn't. So I decided 'twas not for me and moved on with my life.

Fast forward a decade or *cough* two, and I've gradually warmed up to Sherlock Holmes. In other people's work--not Arthur Conan Doyle's. Him I'm still prejudiced against. But A Scandal in Bohemia was one of the selections in a Librivox short mystery collection I downloaded, and I thought it wouldn't hurt to give it a try.

A Scandal in Bohemia is famous for marking the appearance of Irene Adler, the only person to have ever bested Sherlock Holmes. The King of Bohemia comes to Holmes asking for help in the return of a set of letters, which detail his affair with Irene, to whom he was engaged but dumped in favor of marrying a princess. Holmes, naturally, has a plan, but Irene Adler is one step ahead of him.

I wasn't expecting much from A Scandal in Bohemia or Irene Adler--I anticipated Conan Doyle would either make her a vamp or a victim, and how much can one build of a character in a single short story anyway? However, I was pleasantly surprised. Holmes starts off being his know-it-all self, but then Irene shows up and things get a helluva lot more interesting. Conan Doyle did a good job of making Irene a believable, feminine character who is admired for her intelligence, not her boobage, and who has her own motivations in the story. She's not just there for the guys to lust after. I loved the end where the King of Bohemia declares, "What a woman!" and in response Sherlock says something to effect of, "Well, you're an idiot and you never deserved her anyway." Aw.

A Scandal in Bohemia definitely challenged my notions about Conan Doyle's writing being chauvinistic, and I now completely understand why the fascination with Adler's character persists. This was a great story!





The Final Problem is famous as the story where Conan Doyle killed off his most beloved character. I decided to read--well, listen to--it after seeing the last episode of Sherlock, "The Reichenbach Fall." Again, as with Scandal in Bohemia, I was surprised by how much I enjoyed this short story.

The Final Problem opens with Watson in his medical office. He hasn't seen a lot of Sherlock since he got married, and this gives him the sadness. As if conjured by his thoughts, Sherlock shows up, acting even stranger than usual. It turns out the net is finally closing around his arch-nemesis, Professor Moriarty; and after receiving a visit from Moriarty at 221 Baker Street, Sherlock has decided he should leave the country until the master criminal is safely behind bars. Of course, Watson's game for an adventure, and soon they're setting out for Switzerland.

This was a very well-written story. Watson--or Conan Doyle, rather--sets us up for Sherlock's death from the first page--and it's a good thing, too, because otherwise his death would be too hard to take. Then we're taken on a fun cat-and-mouse chase through Europe, until the story's tragic conclusion.

I have, on occasion, accused Conan Doyle's writing of being emotionless, but that wasn't the case in The Final Problem. Not that it's sentimental or histrionic--far from it. But I felt so sorry for poor Watson at the end and it was very sad, even knowing that Sherlock isn't "really" dead. I can appreciate Watson's value as a relatable character in this series--we've all had friends we've lost, either permanently or just drifted away from, and The Final Problem resonates with that common experience. For that reason I think this story is one that's accessible to people who people who aren't fans of mysteries or Sherlock Holmes.

What I wonder is, did Conan Doyle plan on bringing Sherlock back at some point? I know the popular opinion is that he hated Sherlock and was happy to be rid of him, but the way he killed the guy off does leave open the possibility of Sherlock's (and Moriarty's, for that matter) return. Maybe the final problem isn't defeating Moriarty, but finding out what happened to Sherlock.




Ten years after killing Sherlock, Conan Doyle brought him back in The Empty House. It's a bit of mystery--har har--why he did so, but everyone is happy he did; and after the double whammy of The Reichenbach Falls and The Final Problem, I needed a pick-me-up.

Watson is carrying on, when one day Sherlock appears in his office. Watson faints. When he comes to, he's like, "Sherlock, is it really you?" etc. etc. I'm sure you can fill in the conversation for yourselves. Point is, for the last few years, Sherlock has been wandering around Europe, with the assistance of his brother, doing odd jobs and pretending to be dead. But he's been a little bored lately; and since England is the only place where interesting mysteries happen, Sherlock has decided to return.

I honestly could not tell you anything about the mystery in this story, but does it really matter? The point is, Sherlock's back! And he's wearing disguises! And Watson still can't recognize him when he's in a disguise. Seriously, I can't even see Sherlock and I'm still like, HELLOOO, WATSON, THAT'S OBVIOUSLY SHERLOCK IN DISGUISE. And he's tricksing people with his smarts and making wax casts of himself and going, "See what I just did there? No? Sorry, I forgot how slow you are."

The Empty House was not as good as A Scandal in Bohemia and The Final Problem. It seriously felt phoned-in. And Watson seemed to accept Sherlock's return way too easily. After the fainting spell, he's pretty laissez-faire about the whole thing. If one of my friends whom I thought was dead suddenly showed up at my house and was all, "Sorry I didn't write," I'd be PISSED. I'd want to either hug them or punch them in the face, and possibly both. Watson just shrugs it off and goes back to business as usual, as if he finds out dead people are actually alive on a semi-annual basis.

Anyway, The Empty House was okay. I don't think Conan Doyle was as psyched about bringing Sherlock back as he was about killing him off, but maybe it says something that after ten years, it feels like the detective never left.


For the most part, these stories have really improved my opinion of Conan Doyle's mysteries and writing. I'm NOT going to reread The Hounds of Baskerville, but I might consent to read more Holmes mysteries in the future. Do you have any favorites?


Originally published on Project Gutenberg Project.

Review: THE SHERLOCKIAN by Graham Moore

I have this weird thing: I hate the original Sherlock Holmes stories. I tried, okay? But there are hardly any women in them and they're just boring. That being said, I LOVE Sherlock adaptations. Maybe it's the fact that I find the survival of his character as more of a real person than a fictional character fascinating; or maybe it's that Sherlock mysteries are always about the reign of logic and empirical evidence--yawn--while the Sherlockian ephemera produced in their wake is incredibly illogical and theoretical. Either way, if there's a Sherlock spin-off or adaptation, I'm all over that. That's why I really wanted to read The Sherlockian as soon as I heard about it, and Sheila from One Person's Journey Through a World of Books was kind enough to send me her copy of the book.

This novel started off really well. It's told in two alternating story lines, the first one being from the perspective of Arthur Conan Doyle during The Great Hiatus (the years during which he didn't write Holmes stories); and the second taking place in 2010, told from the perspective of Harold White, one of the youngest people to be inducted into the Baker Street Irregulars. Harold is lovably nerdy, and even Conan Doyle wasn't as annoying as he's usually made out to be. The Conan Doyle story has a writing style that attempts to imitate Victorian prose, filled with extraneous details and overly long sentences (I just want to say that I hate when authors do this. *coughTheFlightofGemmaHardycough* If you're not a Victorian, and if the reason behind the style of writing you're imitating doesn't apply, please just don't do it). It drove me a little crazy at first, but I was able to ignore it for the most part and enjoy the setting. Graham Moore clearly did a lot of research for this book, and it shows. Plus, the mystery in this historical section was fabulous.

The contemporary section, on the other hand, had a very different vibe. It was very funny and read more like an adventure than a mystery--it kind of reminded me of the movie A Shot In the Dark, which I adore. I also love Harold, who is a total nerd and Sherlock fanboy. Unfortunately, the mystery in this section wasn't set up as well as the one from Conan Doyle's storyline, and I got bored with it pretty quickly.

About a third of the way through the book, it started losing me, mainly because of the constant flipping between 1900 London and 2010 New York City. That's a always a concern for me when I encounter a book that alternates between time periods. It can be pulled off--Wonderstruck by Brian Selznick (review here) being a perfect example--but it usually doesn't work, and this book was no exception. The chapters in The Sherlockian tend to be very short, so it was difficult to stay invested in one story line only to have to switch to another, especially considering the difference in writing style and tone for each.

In the interest of saving my sanity, I knew I had to pick one story line and just read that; but the problem was I liked each storyline, for different reasons. I chose to go with Harold's storyline, because the characters were so fun; but the mystery itself was skimmable and really over-the-top. Which is crazy, because as Moore tells us in the final pages of the book, it's based on something that actually happened. That is way more interesting than the novel version!

I still like the idea of The Sherlockian, and found it enjoyable, but I wish Moore would have chosen to focus on just one of the stories in this novel. Perhaps he could have interspersed the Conan Doyle scenes in a more creative way. I get what he was trying to do, but because of the narrative structure, I found it difficult to emotionally invest in the characters. I do hope to read more books from him in the future, though!

Audiobook Review: O JERUSALEM by Laurie R. King

Dang, this book is long.

Mary Russell is the young partner-in-detection to the officially retired Sherlock Holmes. In the first Mary Russell "memoir," The Beekeeper's Apprentice, there is a small side note that she and Sherlock Holmes went to Palestine on a secret mission for the British government (and also to get out of the country) that's treated basically like this: "We went to Palestine for a year and it was kinda awesome and also the longest trip evar. Then we got back, yay!" O Jerusalem, the fourth book in the series, jumps back to that time period to tell us everything that went on during Russell's and Holmes' briefly-mentioned trip, to wit: they wander around Palestine for what isn't forty years but definitely feels like it; there are a lot of sheep; Sherlock Holmes gets almost-killed a bunch of times; and then they finally get to Jerusalem, where Russell starts geeking out and they stop a terrorist plot.

I can understand why Laurie R. King gave Russell's trip to Palestine its own book, because there was not way to do justice to it otherwise. As I mentioned before, this book is long. And meandery. It isn't quite that it doesn't have a plot, because it does; the reader just doesn't know what the plot is until maybe the final quarter of the book. They wander around and around with what appears to be no direction, and at some point it's like, "Just get to Jerusalem already!" Even worse, I listened to this on audio, which I really only do while cleaning or folding laundry, and thus it took me two months to finish.

I'm not going to say this book should have been shorter--mainly because I can't remember everything that went on at this point--but it does require a considerable amount of patience. It's well-researched and -written, as are all of King's novels; but I'm not a huge fan of "journey" books to begin with, and mystery books where the mystery is incidental outright annoy me most of the time, so I can't say I'm a huge fan right now.

What I did find really interesting, though, were the dynamics of Russell's and Holmes' relationship. Chronologically this is several years before they get married, before we even get a hint that their relationship is anything other than platonic. But in O Jerusalem, you definitely get the sense that the foundation of their marriage is being formed here, especially on the part of Holmes. It was more sentimental and sexual than I was expecting (not that, I'm sure, I would have interpreted it that way had I read the books in chronological rather than release order), and I think it's an awesome way to tell the story--to play with what we already know about the characters and add more layers to them that what would otherwise be there.

This probably won't be listed among my favorite Russell and Holmes books, but if you're already reading the series, naturally you want to read this one. If you're not reading the series, you're missing out on some great writing!

A Letter of Mary by Laurie R. King

In the chronicles of Mary Russell, book three, Russell and Holmes have settled into married life.  If the cottage (or the car or the train or the great outdoors...) is a-rockin', don't come a-knockin'!  Ha ha, I kid.  Or do I?????

ANYway, Holmes is bored, which means everyone in the house is walking on eggshells.  But then, lo, Dorothy Ruskin, whose name always reminds me of John Ruskin, arrives to give Russell and Holmes some much-needed excitement.  Dorothy is an amateur archaeologist whom the couple met on their trip through Palestine in The Beekeeper's Apprentice, and she wants to give Mary a letter that she believes is from Mary Magdalene.  Then she is murdered and, naturally, Holmes and Russell decide to investigate.

Again, this book was better than the previous ones--much more focused plot, and a very quick read without many lags in the story.  The writing is also very intelligent--which is appropriate, considering our heroine is smart enough to keep up with Sherlock Holmes--and full of literary and cultural allusions, most of which went completely over my head.  I don't think you need to have a degree from Oxford to enjoy the book, though, or catch at least some of the references.

That being said, there were two main things that continue to bother me about the novel.  Thing one is, what the heck happened to Colonel Edwards' wife and the woman who was killed after taking her to the hospital?  That had foul play written all over it, but the Holmes' totally let it go after the death of their friend was solved.  And speaking of Edwards and his loathsome son, this leads me to thing two:  what was the point of Mary going off and investigating them at all?  Seriously, I want to know.  Because this is the kind of book where everything is a red herring, and because of the way the mystery was solved, I can only conclude that the novel itself isn't a mystery.  So what is it, then?  What are we supposed to infer from the misadventures of Mary?

Despite the fact that the ending of the book left me with a kind of w-t-f feeling, I found myself impressed all over again by this series and in love with characters.  They kind of remind me of something Elizabeth Peters might write if she was inclined toward Sherlock Holmes instead of Ancient Egypt, and I'm looking forward to digging my way through the rest of the Russell and Holmes books memoirs.

Powered by ScribeFire.

A Monstrous Regiment of Women by Laurie R. King

The second book in the Mary Russell series (or memoirs, as we are presented them) finds Mary all grown up, finished with Oxford, and about to be emancipated from her hated relative.  But what direction will Mary's life as a free and independent woman take?  This is the question she faces in A Monstrous Regiment of Women.

I read this book many months ago, but never wrote a review for it--probably in the self-delusional belief that I would read the entire series in a timely enough manner to recall all ten books and write a review of all of them at once.  Clearly, this is not going to happen; so from now on I'm just going to review every book individually.  Mmkay?

I did enjoy this novel and thought it was an improvement over The Beekeeper's Apprentice--it's much less episodic and the plot is more focused.  That being said, the mystery was pretty lame.  I honestly don't even remember what it was about, other than it involves some extreme religious society run by a charismatic woman who thinks God is actually female.  This is 1921, so you can imagine how far-out most people would think she is, and that includes Mary.  Since Mary's newly minted degree is in theology, she regards Margery Childe--the religious leader in question--with something similar to the fascination of a train wreck.  In any case, the mystery here feels incidental.

However, the interaction between Holmes and Russell makes this book completely worth it, especially as Holmes is pushing Russell to consider their partnership in a new light.  The direction of his thoughts isn't particularly surprising (especially if someone's already spoiled it for you, coughRuthcough), but the way it's handled and Mary's reaction is.  Plus I loved the ending.

I wouldn't say Monstrous Regiment is a delight from start to finish, but it does have moments of pure storytelling genius that give me great hope for the rest of the series.  Highly recommended!

Powered by ScribeFire.

The Beekeeper's Apprentice by Laurie R. King

I started The Beekeeper's Apprentice because Ruth from Booktalk & More told me to, and basically I do whatever she tells me.  I'm very happy I took her advice, because this book was super-awesome!

The Beekeeper's Apprentice is about a young woman name Mary Russell in WWI England, who meets Sherlock Holmes (aka the beekeeper).  Holmes, the quintessential Victorian detective, has retired to the country, where he amuses himself conducting experiments with bees and chemicals and whatnot (not all at the same time... usually).  Russell declares she is not interested in bees because they're too much like humans, to which Holmes responds by saying that's probably why he's so fascinated by them (extended metaphor alert!!!).  Almost immediately thereafter, he decides to make Russell his apprentice in the arts of detection.

Russell spends her teen years being trained by Holmes before she goes off to Oxford, and slowly begins to assist him on cases.  There is no central mystery in this novel; mainly it's a coming-of-age story for Russell.  Several mysteries move the development of the characters along.  Usually I like my mysteries to be very, very focused; and I do have to admit that there were times when the lack of a focused mystery plot frustrated me.  But it's practically impossible to fault the book for that, since a more focused plot would not have allowed Mary's character to develop.  Also, this is one of those books where the best scenes are those that are completely unrelated to the plot--Holmes and his brother Myron having a totally pointless argument, Russell and Holmes' excursion to Palestine, etc.

In the actual Sherlock Holmes books, Holmes annoys me.  But in this book I loved him!  He was exactly the way one would imagine him, only better.  And the chemistry between him and Russell (which is non-sexual, just fyi) was great.

The thing that really cemented my opinion of this novel is that I was depressed when it was finished.   I wanted to spend more time with Holmes and Russell and Myron!  Fortunately, there are many more books in this mystery series, and I can't wait to read them.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Thursday Tea

Thursday Tea time yet again! Actually, I thought there wouldn't be a Thursday Tea tonight because, quite frankly, it's been way too hot to drink tea. But lucky for y'all we had a cold and stormy day today, and I was in the mood for something warm.

Thursday Tea is a weekly meme hosted by Birdbrain(ed) Books. To play along, all you need is some tea, a book, and the will to answer some very simple questions: what tea are you drinking (and do you like it)? What book are you reading (and do you like it)? Tell us a little about your tea and your book, and whether or not the two go together.

Tonight I'm trying a new tea I picked up at the grocery store: The Good Earth's Sweet and Spicy Blend. It's a blend of Black Tea, Artificial Flavor (sounds yummy! WTH? You say all natural and healthy and then put artificial flavor in your tea? Bite me, "Good Earth"!), Rosehips, Cinnamon, Chamomile, Lemongrass, Peppermint, Papaya, Jasmine Tea, Anise Seed, Ginger Root, Orange Peel and Orange Oil. The cinnamon is completely overwhelming all the other flavors of the tea. I'm not liking it much, to be perfectly honest.


Shop Indie Bookstores

Right now I'm reading A Monstrous Regiment of Women by Laurie R. King. This is the second book in King's Mary Russell series, which features Sherlock Holmes circa 1920. It's actually really, really good so far--I only got to page 50 last night, but at the moment I'm thinking it will be better than the first book in the series, The Beekeeper's Apprentice.

Does my tea and my book go together? Hrm. Well, Mary does like to drink tea, but I don't think she would like this brand. I see her as more of a darjeeling or earl grey type.

What are you drinking/reading this Thursday?

Powered by ScribeFire.