Rating: 
Summary: Fragmented
Review: I have to agree with some of the other reviewers -- this book does not hang together well. The actual writing is good and keeps the reader going, but the plot is much too thin and the increasingly annoying digressions into theology only detract from what little plot there is. The entire middle section of the book is taken up with a strange episode where Russell plays secretary to one of the (very marginal) suspects. It all turns out for naught when the actual criminals are discovered to have nothing whatsoever to do with Russell's stakeout. I have to ask, why waste all those chapters? A red herring or just an opportunity to hightlight Russell's seductive techniques? What I call it is a waste of words. The denuement itself is very disappointing and is never made entirely clear -- unlike in the origional Holmes' stories. I liked "The Beekeeper's Apprentice" but "A Monstrous Regiment of Women" was not nearly as well written. I had hoped that this book, the third in the series, had gone up in quality. Unfortunately, it has not. It continues the very irritating attempts at a "surprise ending" which, in "Monstrous....Women" flopped so very badly. This book goes even further and you discover, at the end, that the villains aren't even "name-brand" or, at least, worthy opponents, the motive is almost non-existent and the crime itself unimportant. There is absolutely no attempt to use the supposedly authentic Mary Magdalene letter for anything -- it wasn't even part of the crime -- so why make it the title of the book? Or, for that matter, why even mention it -- other than for the obvious reason that it gives the author a chance to detour off into religious arguments yet again? There is far, far too much theologizing and not nearly enough action -- maybe because there is far too much Russell (who I am beginning to dislike!) and not enough Holmes.
I hope that the fourth book, "The Moor" and it's theme of the Hound of the Baskervilles will prove to be a return to the origional level of "Beekeeper" -- but I think I'll wait for the paperback to come out!
Rating: 
Summary: A frustrated fan cries out for help
Review: I heartily wish I had never read Beekeeper's Apprentice! If I hadn't read it, I wouldn't be so hungry for more stories about Russell and Holmes, hungry enough to even absorb the stale leftovers provided by the next two books. Please, Ms. King, put me out of my misery! Either write a good Russell/Holmes story, or inflict them upon me no more. Signed, a beleagured fan.
Rating: 
Summary: It's the Journey, Not the Destination
Review: I love Laurie R. King's voice. It's unique and engrossing. When I read a title from her Mary Russell series I always learn something intriguing about Greek, Hebrew or linguistics.
The plot for 'A Letter of Mary' could be written on a flea, as Herman Melville would say. The plot and its twists and turns aren't exciting or broad in scope. It is the mind's eye of Mary Russell that pulls me along. She is a fabulous protagonist and King's depiction of her is unerring.
Four stars for a great trip.
Rating:
Summary: Holmes married?
Review: I read a previous Holmes/Russell story and found it engaging and humorous. To my horror, I open this book and find on the first page that Holmes and Russell are now married! What a catastrophy. I read no further. I couldn't abide Sherlock Holmes married, much less to a women less than half his age. The Sherlock Holmes I came to love was brilliant, eccentric, and loyal, but ALONE.
Rating:
Summary: Romance fiction for intellectuals?
Review: I read THE BEEKEEPER'S APPRENTICE, and have been reading the other Holmes/Russell adventures, and found all but the first book curiously disappointing. No one appears to be doing much deducing, and the 'mysteries' are distincly secondary to the action between the characters. This is frequently a fault with Conan Doyle as well.The main appeal to me of the Holmes stories has been the atmosphere of Victorian London and the fabulously eccentric character at the center of the stories. There is a sense of believability about Holmes, no matter how odd his actions may appear.Conan Doyle based Holmes on one of his teachers. Additionally, he was writing in what was (for him) the present day and so his descriptions of his settings don't sound forced. I got a distinct feeling in all but THE BEEKEEPER'S APPRENTICE that someone was trying very, very hard to be 'clever' without really convincing me that these characters were plausible for their period. Mary Russell herself can be very tiresome. She appears to be a collection of mismatched parts. There is no real period detail, other than the occasional aside. I simply could not believe her family story for one minute. Why couldn't her family have died in the influenza epidemic of 1918? But I suppose a car wreck is more cinematic, and I can smell the screenplay from afar... Mary is a very Nineties woman (as in 1990's.) Not that there weren't freespirited, opinionated women in the 1920's. I just think that Ms. King might have researched a few of the more interesting examples rather than trying to assemble her heroine by patchwork. Holmes is written considerably better; but then, there is a lot of information one can use to develop those parts of his character that Conan Doyle chose not to develop. I found the portrayal of him in THE BEEKEEPER'S APPRECTICE to be most successful, the others less so. I was struck by the fact that this series of books appears to be a form of romance novel, where the brilliant and famous male's personality is molded into whatever shape the (allegedly equally brainy) female requires. And I'm sorry to say that I didn't even consider this good romance fiction --which I frankly bought the books for. I am myself a rather bookish female of considerable intellectual prowess and it amused me that there was a form of this literature specifically designed to appeal to me. In short, we have one person's 'dream man' written up in the guise of detective fiction. Dear Watson, take a look at the picture of the authoress on the book, then read the description of Mary Russell, then consider...
Rating: 
Summary: Disappointing finish to the Mary trilogy.
Review: I sometimes wonder whether the wonderful "Beekeeper's Apprentice" was really sent to King in a suitcase and it's sequals are merely pale imitations by the idea-starved author. Indeed, apart from the genuine, fluid 1920s London style, there is little in common in the way of quality, between Apprentice and it's sequals. The plot in "Letter" is even more thin than that of "Monstrous", the lengthy 'colonel' sidetract only serves to demonstrate King's passion for feminist and theological themes but do nothing to advance the already over-stretched plot. King's tendency to over-preach her themes no doubt irritates many readers (including this one!). The book only sparks to life in the all too brief moments shared between the Great Detective and his protegee. As a previous reader remarked - any Mary book is better than the average in this genre. "Monstrous" and "Letter" however, are disappointing let-down to the potential promised in "Beekeeper."
Rating: 
Summary: I highly recommend this book!
Review: I thought this book was very enjoyable. I have read the first two, and am presently reading "The Moor". I like the romance between Holmes and Russell, even though it doesn't seem like Doyle's Sherlock Holmes. I understand why Mary calls him "Holmes" (who would want to call their husband "Sherlock"? It's a bit awkward.), but why can't he call her Mary? They ARE husband and wife! Also, their marriage is a little odd. They basically act the same as before, except for (to quote "The Moor") "certain activities rendered legal by a bit of paper". I have to admit I liked "A Monstrous Regiment of Women" a bit better, because it better romance between Holems and Russell, and it had a thicker plot. Although, if you want thick plots, nothing beats "The Beekeeper's Apprentice". All in all, this is a very delightful series to read. I just wish I knew who the real author of these books is. That's mystery I'd love to solve! We need the partnership of Holmes and Russell on this one! Also, I like how these books suggest that A. Conan Doyle was merely Watson's agent, that Holmes and Watson really lived. I think that is really neat.
Rating:
Summary: I highly recommend this book!
Review: I thought this book was very enjoyable. I have read the first two, and am presently reading "The Moor". I like the romance between Holmes and Russell, even though it doesn't seem like Doyle's Sherlock Holmes. I understand why Mary calls him "Holmes" (who would want to call their husband "Sherlock"? It's a bit awkward.), but why can't he call her Mary? They ARE husband and wife! Also, their marriage is a little odd. They basically act the same as before, except for (to quote "The Moor") "certain activities rendered legal by a bit of paper". I have to admit I liked "A Monstrous Regiment of Women" a bit better, because it better romance between Holems and Russell, and it had a thicker plot. Although, if you want thick plots, nothing beats "The Beekeeper's Apprentice". All in all, this is a very delightful series to read. I just wish I knew who the real author of these books is. That's mystery I'd love to solve! We need the partnership of Holmes and Russell on this one! Also, I like how these books suggest that A. Conan Doyle was merely Watson's agent, that Holmes and Watson really lived. I think that is really neat.
Rating:
Summary: A welcome addition to the Sherlockian legacy
Review: In 1923 England, amateur archeologist Dorothy Ruskin visits Mary Russell and her husband Sherlock Holmes. Dorothy gives Mary a tattered papyrus that she says was found in Palestine. The document is allegedly a letter written by Mariam the Apostle to her sister in Magdala, dated 70 AD. That night Dorothy dies in an alleged traffic accident that Holmes and "Mrs. Sherlock" prove to be no accident. The detective duo wants to learn why the woman was killed. The number of suspects is mind boggling as it could be her family, her involvement in the volatile Near East politics, or even the papyrus. It is up to Mary and Sherlock to uncover the truth and though there is a four decade difference in their ages, no team works better than the Holmesian duo in solving a murder. This is the third novel starring Mr. and Mrs. Holmes and like the first two books, A Letter of Mary is an absolutely incredibly delightful tale. Fans of Holmes will flock to this refreshing look at the legendary bachelor, who has found himself a female counterpart and companion. Mary is actually a much more complex character than Dr. Watson. I presume that Doyle purists will not start a flash war over that comment; Watson still remains one of the great characters in literature. This novel is worth reading by fans who enjoy a who-done-it with nostalgia elements. Laurie R. King has taken possession of the Holmesian crown. Harriet Klausner
Rating:
Summary: A married Sherlock Holmes and wife go a' slething
Review: In 1923 England, amateur archeologist Dorothy Ruskin visits Mary Russell and her husband Sherlock Homes. Dorothy gives Mary a tattered papyrus that she says was found in Palestine. The document is allegedly a letter written by Mariam the Apostle to her sister in Magdala, dated 70 AD.
That night Dorothy dies in an alleged traffic accident that Holmes and "Mrs. Sherlock" prove to be no accident. The detective duo wants to learn why the woman was killed. The number of suspects is mind boggling as it could be her family, her involvement in the volatile Near East politics, or even the papyrus. It is up to Mary and Sherlock to uncover the truth and though there is a four decade difference in their ages, no team works better than the Holmesian duo in solving a murder.
This is the third novel starring Mr. and Mrs. Holmes and like the first two books, A LETTER OF MARY is an absolutely incredibly delightful tale. Fans of Holmes will flock to this refreshing look at the legendary bachelor, who has found himself a female counterpart and companion. Mary is actually much more complex character than Dr. Watson. I presume that Doyle purists will not start a flash war over that comment; Watson still remains one of the great characters in literature. This novel is worth reading by fans who enjoy a who-done-it with nostalgia elements. Laurie R. King has taken possession of the Holmesian crown.
Harriet Klausner
|
