Rating: 
Summary: The ingredients are there, something seems to be missing
Review: Laurie King's preface explains that this "anonymous manuscript" was a difficult one to write for its author - filled with corrections and scratchings-out - and well it might be. Writing a novel featuring a combination of Sherlock Holmes, turn-of-the-century academia, feminism, theology (both Christian and Jewish) and a young woman is never going to be an easy task. King makes life significantly harder for herself by marrying Holmes and his partner Mary Russell at the end - a revelation which does not spoil the plot."A Monstrous Regiment Of Women" is still an engaging read. Holmes and Russell are as acerbic towards each other as they were in "The Beekeeper's Apprentice" and the plot takes its customary twists and turns. Where King falls down somewhat is in her attempts at infusing this second offering of the Mary Russell series with more overt feminism - in this case, via the charismatic preaching of the mysterious Margery Childe. The plot revolves around the mysterious deaths of women associated with Childe's organisation, and naturally the simplest way to solve it seems to be to infiltrate Russell into the organisation. As a plot itself, "Monstrous Regiment" is entertaining. Childe's refusal to explain some of the more miraculous events connected to her works from both a mystery standpoint and the standpoint of Russell's theological studies, and the two women engage in some interesting Biblical analysis. It is King's constant bludgeoning of the reader with the feminist doctrines which Childe and Russell have adopted which halts the progress of the plot. From a sociological perspective, such work may be of interest, however it has no need to become the focal point of so much of this novel. The other incongruous moment is when Holmes and Russell take a trip to continential Europe in the middle of the mystery. King then attempts to be a travel writer - and as a travel writer she makes a great author of whodunits - and engages in the old Conan Doyle trick of tangentially referring to the exploits of the characters not directly connected to the case at hand. While the trip is useful to expand the character of Russell especially and also to create the seeds of the third novel in the series, much of it could have been dispensed with. In the end, Holmes manages to solve the mystery - as if there were ever any doubt - and wrap up all the loose ends. While his proposal to Russell seems rather grafted onto the rest of the story, it does serve the purpose of enabling the closer partnership which the two of them need in the subsequent novels. By this point in the series, King had clearly become more comfortable with the characters she was writing about and this can be seen through some of the unexpected humour in the novel - especially in the dialogues between Holmes and Russell. An early scene featuring a disguised Holmes coming upon Russell (who had slipped out to London secretly) is particularly well-written. While this is a well-written novel and a worthy follow-up to "The Beekeeper's Apprentice", I could not help but feel as though something was missing at the end of it. Perhaps some of that is just due to the difficulties inherent in following such a strong novel as "Beekeeper", however I still rate it considerably below that effort. Nonetheless, for those who enjoyed "Beekeeper" (even if for the simple reason that the background is a little difficult to pick up without knowledge of the series opener), this book is recommended. The Mary Russell series continues past this instalment with "A Letter Of Mary".
Rating: 
Summary: Say It Isn't So!
Review: No, no, no. Why must authors feel the need to ruin perfectly good characters with awful sequels? This happened with Jean Auel's Ayla, and it's happened with Ms. King's Mary Russell. Holmes and Russell complemented each other wonderfully as partners in combating crime. But this ridiculous idea of a romance between them...how on *Earth* can anyone believe Holmes would marry his complete antithesis: an 1970's style ultrafeminist, smartmouthed, Jewish young woman forty years his junior who seems to live to irritate and contradict him? We lose something of the real Holmes in this farcical scenario as he is dominated by Russell, becoming a thin shadow of his real self, merely a backdrop to display the supposed glow of Russell coming into her own. Doyle's Holmes answered to nobody. I shudder to see Holmes giving the equivalent of a meek "Yes dear" to Mary. Next thing you know he'll be happily changing the diapers on the inevitable Sherlock Jr while Mary's tromping around the country fighting crime. It's somewhere between comedy and disgust that I read the Holmes/Russell exchanges in this book. With Holmes sneering about the "pleasures of the marriage bed" and forcibly kissing Russell (and her enjoying it!), it seems the great detective's turning into something of a Snidley Whiplash caricature. All he needs is a mustache to twirl as he manhandles the hapless maiden. Not that I'd expect Holmes to be bleeding-heart sensitive in any way, shape, or form, but this goes far beyond anything I can ever see. I loved "The Beekeeper's Apprentice". The two worked wonderfully together, and I was pleased to leave them as friends and partners. But the plot of "MRoW" was flat and uninteresting, and I cringed at Holmes having to rescue Russell in a rather hackneyed plot device. The rather dry humor of "Beekeeper" is missing here, as is the character development. The women are all ardent feminists whose ideals are some fifty years ahead of their time, and all the men are oppressive jerks. Not the stuff of great literature. "Beekeeper" was a masterpiece, and "MRoW" is quite frankly an unworthy follow-up. The romance is ridiculous, the characters bland and laughable, and the mystery never reaches the heights of the first book. My advice is to read "Beekeeper" and "O Jerusalem", which almost returns to "Beekeeper's" brilliance (as it occurs during that book timeframe). Then avoid this book and any of the other nauseating sequels churned out *ad infinitum* like the plague...better pastiches can be found by Carole Nelson Douglas and Larry Millett, to name two.
Rating:
Summary: No Shot, Sherlock.
Review: Unfortunately I can't award zero stars. Yes, feminists rave about Laurie King and her series: Imagine a latter-life Sherlock Holmes who "wrapped his arms around me and his mouth came down on mine with ... force..." (How could he have known my body better than I did myself?) "By God," he murmured throatily, "I've wanted to do that since the moment I laid eyes upon you." "Holmes, when you first saw me, you thought I was a boy." Oh, did we mention the heroine, Ms Mary Russell, is a post-modern feminist who likes to dress like a young man at times? Indeed, this is London (we know this because she tells us it's London) populated by 1970s American feminists who deliver rapier thrusts of quotations to demonstrate how men cruelly and callously viewed women. It's a good era: Men are wicked cartoon-thin characters, neo-feminists haven't yet sullied NOW, Andrea Dworkin hasn't flipped to the other side, and Gloria Steinem won't collapse into marriage until the next century. Best of all, in this "nectar for feminists" (to quote a reviewer), if you happen to be a feminist who still has heterosexual thoughts, you can fantasize about the feminist male ideal: coldly logical, aloof and distant, unlikely to ply you with emotional or sexual demands or children. It's a shame, too, because Ms King is obviously intelligent and educated, even if a little sloppy with her historical research, but why let a few anachronisms get in the way of a plodding story when you can dig out quotes from 3rd century Norman Mailers. Her character could otherwise be interesting, though terribly self-involved and forgivably immature at 20, exchanging thrusts with other 1970s feminists dressed in period costumes. Unfortunately, her best moments occur when she delivers nuggets from her theological studies. Ms King, if you really must wrap feminist politics in a mystery story, look at how Elizabeth Peters carries it off with Amelia Peabody. Peabody can be self-mocking at times, has a humorous wit, and she surrounds herself with males who aren't as thinly drawn as a penny postcard. My leisure time is too valuable: I shan't be reading a third book of Ms King's.
Rating: 
Summary: Not Beekeeper, But Entertaining & a Little Thought Provoking
Review: I have never read anything like the Mary Russell novels. Each is a really fascinating combination; they are primarily elaborate character sketches of Mary Russell, with her character being very influenced by Sherlock Holmes, and with a mystery popping up sometime late in the novel. It's a really odd mixture and one which doesn't always gel, but the amalgam is at least always fascinating. The primary focus of A Monstrous Regiment of Women is Mary Russell's development. In this novel, she is turning into a woman from a very mature youth. Here, Mary has come into her inheritance which offers her a different life and freedom. Her passion for theology has also begun to bear fruit, marking her intellectual development separate from from Holmes. The novel focuses on the developing relationship between Holmes and Russell as she begins to not look at him as a father figure. The character development all happens within a leisurely paced plot which really accellerated near the end. Early in the novel, Russell encounters her old friend Veronica Beaconsfield who is working in London. Veronica introduces Russell to the fascinating, charismatic Margery Childe and her feminist organization the Temple of God. Russell is intrigued by Childe and the Temple, and is dragged into the affairs of the organization. Eventually, that organization becomes involved with a series of heinous crimes. Of course, Holmes and Russell have to try to correct things, and the result is an intense, fairly bizarre climax which also produces the result of Russells character developments throughout the novel. A Monstrous Regiment of Women is a fascinating and entertaining novel. As other reviewers have pointed out, this is a transitory novel in the series which develops Russell's character and Holmes and Russells' relationship. The result is that it is much less plot driven than The Beekeeper's Apprentice, and the novel is less satisfying than its predecessor. Nevertheless, A Monstrous Regiment is certainly worth reading. The last hundred pages of the novel are sooo intense that they make the novel well worth reading. I can't wait to get on with the series. The potential is certainly there for something great.
Rating:
Summary: Not As Good As Beekeeper, But a Good Transition Book
Review: It is important to view Monstrous Regiment as a transitional book in the Mary Russell series, rather than as a sequel or even a stand-alone. This book finds Russell pursuing her first case on her own, without the aid of Holmes, while she also attempts to sort out her developing (and highly confusing) feelings towards him. Some readers may find this book disappointing, but I give high marks to King for attempting a very difficult book, one in which she addresses new aspects of both Russell and Holmes' characters and completely shifts the balance of their relationship. [In terms of the actual mystery, once again King's outstanding knowledge of Old Testament theology is evident, but it is a delicate topic that depends on the individual reader as to whether it comes across as fascinating or boring. Readers should note, however, that these passages are fairly substantial (and probably King's vehicle for expressing some of her own philosophy about feminism and the Bible).] What I find fascinating about MROW is how King juxtaposes Russell's exploration of feminism and even lesbianism (literally, a regiment of women) with her attempt to sort out her feelings about Holmes. This book focuses on Russell's transition from a precocious fifteen-year-old who, despite her maturity, still sees Holmes as something of a father figure and an intellectual superior, to a self-possessed young woman. Necessarily, Holmes takes a back seat in this narrative, not just in pursuing the mystery, but also in Russell's everyday life: she begins to form an identity separate from Holmes' world, as she comes into her inheritance, establishes her own residence in London, and begins to explore more deeply her interest in theology. This exploration leads her to Margery Childe and her strange feminist regime--a complete turnaround from her relationship with Holmes, since his is a very dominating (and male) personality. Instead, she explores an association of women who are financially, intellectually, and mostly romantically independent. Russell appears to be torn between two conflicting lifestyles: a more conventional relationship with Holmes, or the kind of independent, woman-about-town life that her inheritance has now made possible. This internal struggle makes for a very interesting character study, if not a particularly memorable mystery, and results in an important (and slightly bizarre) climax. Unfortunately for those readers who find the exchanges between Holmes and Russell to be the most enjoyable and stimulating parts of the book (like me), Holmes does not appear as frequently as a result of Russell's involvement with Margery Childe. However, his noticeable absence is imperative in order to allow Russell to develop as a mature and well-rounded character. Because this physical and emotional distance is established throughout much of the novel, the ending is much more believable. All in all, not my favorite book (though my friend loves it), but kudos to King for taking her characterization to the next level. A final, thought provoking question: Considering the transition Mary Russell has to make from Beekeeper to Letter of Mary, could King really have written her book any differently and still addressed all Russell's issues of independece and her relationship with Holmes within the context of a mystery? I don't think so--an unsatisfying book, perhaps, but a very important and necessary one.
Rating:
Summary: A 3-dimensional Holmes!
Review: After finally completing the entire Conan Doyle Canon, I started reading the many pastiches created by other authors. Some of them were all right, and some were not. And I admit, when I first heard about Laurie King's series of books, I was skeptical. I mean, a 15-year old matching wits with everyone's favorite sleuth. Come on, hardly believable, right? Until I read the books. I have noticed many people complain about Sherlock and how a misogynist like he could NOT fall in love. You must remember that these books are set ten years into Holmes so-called retirement to the country. I don't know about you, but I have found that ageing can do one of two things: make someone harder, or softer in their personality. It is obvious that Holmes has softened a bit. MROW is a worthy sequel of The Beekeeper's Apprentice. While some cringe at the thought of a much-older Holmes falling in love with his much-younger friend, I personally can not see the problem. I think too much is made of it; after all, it is NOT a romance novel. Mary Russell is obviously much older than her years. Maybe I'm just sympathetic because I met and married a much-older man myself. But I was always told that I had an "old soul" and could see the same right away with Russell. The reality of Russell and Holmes finally discovering each other as a member of the opposite sex is not heavy-handed, and in fact does not take up a lot of time in the book. It is an awareness that heightens their senses but does not detract or interfere with the solving of the mystery. That being said, any reader with half a Holmes brain could see the ending coming, so those that are shocked and dismayed need to tighten their detective caps a little more. If Holmes and Russell were to get together, I do not think it would happen unless some major life-altering event were to occur. The fact that Holmes actually has feelings seems to be disconcerting to many fans of the original stories; I find the opposite true. The fact that Holmes can begrudgingly realize he has feelings for Russell makes him much more realistic. In fact, he even addresses the issue in the third book of the series, A Letter of Mary. Overall, a very good book. While the mystery is not top-notch, the character study is. And I myself like the fact that Holmes is finally being put in his place by of all things, a woman.
Rating:
Summary: I like this series!
Review:
In the second book of her Mary Russell/Sherlock Holmes series, author Laurie King uncovers the world of religious fervor and burgeoning feminism in London during the early 1920's.
A wealthy Oxford classmate of Mary's has given up her cushy life to work for a charismatic leader of a mostly female congregation. The only trouble with the arrangement is that some of the congregation's most wealthy patrons are dying under mysterious circumstances. Mary and Holmes join forces to find the cause and source of the accidental deaths. Their electric relationship continues to grow, baffling both the young woman and her much older partner. Russell continues to learn from AND teach Holmes, while Holmes seems to be pulled closer and closer to his young charge. Their difficulties provide a rich backdrop to their relationship, making the entire reading experience fulfilling and thoroughly entertaining. Enjoy!
Rating: 
Summary: Amazing! Breathtaking!
Review: This was an amazing story that held my captivation to the last page. It is full of drama and humor. I would recommend this book to even the hardest Sherlockian. The Beekeepers Apprentice was excellent, but not nearly as good as this. I couldn't set this book down!
Rating:
Summary: Good story ruined by obssession
Review: Ahh, a sequel to the Beekeeper's Apprentice. Good? Maybe. Mary Russell is led to an odd sort of "church" by her friend Veronica. Rich members are dying right and left! Russel investigates. I was dissapointed with this book. The main reason was the whole first half of the story accomplished nothing whatsoever, save voice femenist ideas of dubious theology. I suppose if the reader is a femenist, this would be no hardship, but I am not; hence I was rather bored. Also, Mary Russel went from being, in TBK'sA, a sensible woman who believed in femenist causes, but was not obssessed. Now she spews illogical principles, such as "all men would be tyrants!" History has shown that men aren't all bad. Geez, come on. My opinion of Russel's sensibility was much lowered by such things as that. (Just FYI, I am a woman; I am not biased) However, the author gets over it by the second half and the story moves on, with an exciting climax and ending. This book is worth reading, though perhaps not buying to treasure forever.
Rating:
Summary: Disappointing...
Review: After reading The Beekeeper's Apprentice this is a very disappointing sequel indeed. It is about Mary Russell and Sherlock Holmes embarking on a case. There are many people getting murdered in a group of women, and then Russell and Holmes find out what happened, as usual. It is long and boring. The only important thing in the book, is the development of Russell's and Holmes's bond together, which is explained in the next book, A letter of Mary. In a nutshell, this is an abysmal book.
| 
