Rating: 
Summary: Very nice, everything comes together for the first time
Review: "A Letter Of Mary" is the third instalment of Laurie King's Mary Russell series and by far the strongest yet. For those not au fait with the background, these novels take place in the early decades of the 20th century and feature an officially-retired Sherlock Holmes and his much younger wife (yes, wife) Mary Russell. Russell is also a feminist and has a talent for theology, two factors which often have bearing on the cases the pair investigates.Here, Holmes and Russell are visited by an archaeologist acquaintance who leaves them with a letter written by a certain Mary of Magdala to her sister. Russell identifies this author as the Biblical Mary Magdalene, and when the letter describes Mary as "an apostle of Jesus", Russell's theological and feminist instincts are both piqued. The archaeologist, Dorothy Ruskin, dies shortly thereafter and our heroes are quick to investigate. By this point in the series, it is clear that King's development of the Russell character is prepared once again to take a backseat to the plot and the intellectual repartee between the two investigators. Where "Letter"'s predecessor, "A Monstrous Regiment Of Women" features long passages discussing feminism, "Letter" does not and is much better for it. The repartee itself is positively sparkling here. One prime example feaures Holmes and Russell discussing the exigencies of their particular disguises, Russell makes a statement which reminds Holmes of the convoluted grammar of French translation and the two of them continue in this vein for some time. Likewise, Holmes' segue later on into a quote from Gilbert and Sullivan's "Mikado" is so well placed as to leave the reader wondering what on earth it comes from - while answering that same question just after it becomes unbearable not to know. Another feature of the series which is continued and improved here is Russell's constant reminders that Arthur Conan Doyle's version of events was never quite correct. At one point, Russell explains the falsehood of Doyle's implication that Holmes only had to wait by a door for some minutes before something happened with reference to a very apt situation. Another wonderful aside is Russell's comments on Holmes' telegrams, always very brief and often completely unintelligible - including one time when a deliberate spelling error was corrected. Entertaining though the dialogue may be, King every so often shoots herself in the proverbial foot by slipping in an Americanism - especially in the words of that most English of detectives, Holmes. It doesn't happen very often, but whenever Holmes suggests that they should "go see" someone or someone is said to have "written" someone, it seems particularly glaring. This is a very minor point, however, and does not detract from the reading experience as much as might be suggested. One of the more enigmatic characters created in "Letter" is the ex-army officer for whom Russell works. Much of the investigation is taken up with her attempts to resist the advances of both him and his son - the latter being given his marching orders in a very well-described scene. Russell even makes the point that she somewhat likes the man, if not the son, and the reader - despite the setting up of both parties as possible suspects - feels the same way to an extent. This represents a considerable triumph for King, in that the previous two novels featuring Holmes and Russell never really had three-dimensional secondary characters. In the end, the resolution of the plot is rather tame considering the possibilities of perpetrator and motive thrown up during the investigation (murder because of emancipation and murder for religious preservation are both suggested). While this is something of a disappointment, at least the reader can be assured that Holmes feels the same way - in the closing pages he bemoans the fact that this was shaping up as a case with a truly unique motive behind it. Nevertheless, King has triumphed with "A Letter Of Mary". The ingredients of the series have finally combined in a manner which results in a satisfying read from start to finish. Fans of the previous instalments of the series are highly recommended this novel, while Holmes fans of any persuasion are also suggested to give it a try. The Mary Russell series continues with "The Moor".
Rating: 
Summary: A disappointment
Review: After reading the first two Mary Russell books, beginning with The Beekeeper's Apprentice, this third novel was a disappointment. It had such an excellent premise with a letter that could shed new light on early Christianity and the roles women played in its development. Instead the letter says almost nothing of importance. King spends several chapters on Mary Russell invading the life of one of the suspects and yet that suspect turns out to have nothing, nothing to do with plot. First person narrative fails King here as the more interesting plot is told second hand by Holmes. This book is saved by its premise alone and fails everywhere else almost completely. I hope King finds the charm that captivated readers in The Beekeeper's Apprentice in her future works.
Rating:
Summary: Third book in an excellent series...
Review: All things are quiet for Mary Russell and Sherlock Holmes, until Dorothy Ruskin, an amateur archeologist, brings them a scroll dating from the first century. As Russell begins to decipher the scroll, she realizes that its very existance could change Christianity. Then, murder enters the picture, and Russell and Holmes must try to discover if the scroll is the reason for the murder, or if there is some other motive afoot. Again, Ms. King combines great characterization with a solid, page-turning plot. Excellent, and highly recommended!
Rating: 
Summary: It started well, but proved a disappointment
Review: Dr. Watson carefully chose his stories so as to showcase the best of Holmes' efforts. It's a pity that Mary Russell does not show the same discretion. The book is one large red herring, from the theological discovery at the beginning that proves to have little to do with the case, down to Mary Russell's own investigations, which prove tangential to the solution. Meanwhile, Holmes -- who of all four of the individuals "detecting" on the case, is the only one on the right track -- is working offstage; we only see the results, and then only by implication. Ms. King has forgotten the first rule of a Holmes story: show us the Master in action, and then explain his methods and the steps he took to arrive at the solution. The Beekeeper's Apprentice worked precisely because the reader was fully and completely a part of the investigative process (A Monstrous Regiment of Women failed miserably because there was no investigation, but that's another story entirely). What we have in Ms. King's attempts is a third-person narrative of all the events in a case except for those events that involve Sherlock Holmes. I agree with another reviewer: Ms. King, either produce a decent Holmes pastiche, or stop teasing us with these poor substitutes!
Rating:
Summary: Did anyone notice a similarity to ...
Review: Everytime I read one of King's books, I cannot help but draw a parallel to one of Anne Perry's fabulous Pitt novels, especially Callander Square and Bethlehem Road. There always seem to be similarities of plot situations that seem too much coincidence.
Rating: 
Summary: The Chair Scene is worth the entire book
Review: For those who wonder how Sherlock Holmes could love a woman, all you have to do is read the "chair" scene at the end of Chapter 11. Sherlock Holmes explains to Mary and therein the reader. This character study of Holmes and his wife and partner Mary Russell was just as good as Laurie King's debut novel in the series, The Beekeeper's Apprentice. That being said, I would have to agree with many on this board who were disappointed with the mystery. The wrap-up at the end does seem a bit contrived given the potential of the mystery, a problem King had with her previous work Holmes work, A Monstrous Regiment of Women. Very good, but don't expect a top-notch mystery. Enjoy it for the characters.
Rating: 
Summary: A Study In Mashochism
Review: I can't believe I got suckered again. I'd promised myself I wasn't going to waste my time with another Laurie King novel, but I grabbed the book to take sailing. In retrospect, drowning would have been preferable. First, the plot... you need to be a detective to find it. Second, the characters... Doesn't this author have an editor? If you're an ardent old-time feminist without otherwise a life (or relationship) of your own, you may rave about the one dimensional characters. King's males are shallow blackguards, except for her masturbatory famtasy of Holmes, varying between emotionally distant and pliantly submissive. Blech. That's not a man and it certainly wasn't Holmes. For the third (and last, I swear) time in as many books, I find myself wondering if King has ever read any of the Doyle Canon. Third, the setting... I recall one review of A Monstrous Regiment of Women which said King's Victorian era was populated by American 1970's feminists. She got that right. It's always a challege for period authors to place their characters without imbuing them with the authors' "modern" politics and philosphy. Obviously, King missed that lesson in class and still hasn't made it up. (And I loved the review that instead recommended Beavis and Butthead.) And that's really the problem. In the early days of "women's liberation", we had underground newsletters and newspapers like Rat, many that published feminist fiction, much of it pretty awful. Some of us have moved forward, some haven't, but now those that haven't waste our trees and time with tripe masquerading as mainstream "literature" instead of the fodder for those long-gone newsletters. I buried the book at sea and prayed it doesn't wash ashore.
Rating:
Summary: Thinking, still, into the night
Review: I do admit that this book was not of the calibre to which The Beekeeper's Apprentice(a book which I read four times and plan to read soon, again) belonged. Yet I do wonder at the identity of the author. If Laurie R. King had indeed written this book, she could not possibly have hoped to sell it. But, seen as the memoir of one Mary Judith Russell Holmes, it could very well have been a simple account of a period of time during her life. It is a persisting question which continuously distracted me from my work. The plot was not very well constructed, but the emotions of Mary Russell were very well constructed. This is why I like this particular serie--The detectives experience more than stumbling upon clues and feeling confused until the very end when s/he is trapped in some way and escapes by sheer brute strength. They actually use the brain inside the head that God has put on there shoulders! I hope THE MOOR offers another good story with interesting characters and the answer to the question "Is Sherlock Holmes left-handed or not?" Could anybody please tell me? Help! I'm deperate! (uncontrollable sobs of depair, screams opf agony, etc. etc. etc.)
Rating:
Summary: I really enjoyed the book.
Review: I found the book really interesting and amusing. This book is certainly funnier than the previous book (A Monsterous Regiment Of Women) and definitely more enjoyable. In fact, I spent so much time laughing over it that I almost had a sore mouth and a stitch in my side! Ms King has done a wonderful job of writing this novel and I am certain you will enjoy it as much as I did.
Rating:
Summary: Smart and Fun!
Review: I have never had an interest in reading the Sherlock Holmes' novels, but I read The Beekeeper's Apprentice and enjoyed it. The last 2 weeks I've read the next two installments. I absolutely loved them. Russell and Holmes' relationship is warm, amusing, and sweet. I've ordered the next 3 in the series and will be anxious for any others the author may write.
| 
