The Beekeeper's Apprentice (Mary Russell and Sherlock Holmes, #1) in Our Shared Shelf

Dec 07, 2019 Katie rated it it was ok

Shelves: audiobook

I loved the Nancy Drew books from the 1980s, but hadn’t read anything in the mystery genre since, with an Agatha Christie novel as one exception. I love the PBS Sherlock adaptation so I thought this might be perfect for me.

It wasn’t.

It was good for some time, but then the mysteries became dull, and Sherlock became a bore, and the ruses became elaborately overcomplicated. The main character was interesting, and I wouldn’t fault you for reading and enjoying this book or any of its dozen-ish comp ...more

1 like · Like · see review

Apr 21, 2018 Emily rated it liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: owned-books, series, mystery

I struggled with how many stars to give this one. There were things I really enjoyed, and things I just could not stand. The mysteries, for one, are propulsive and tricky and kept me turning pages.
[mild spoilers below]
But like so many other readers, there were things that turned me way all off. One: the 40 year age difference between Sherlock Holmes and Mary. I actually love the idea of exploring what might happen to a ruthlessly logical mind like Sherlock's if he fell in love; but doing so wit I struggled with how many stars to give this one. There were things I really enjoyed, and things I just could not stand. The mysteries, for one, are propulsive and tricky and kept me turning pages.
[mild spoilers below]
But like so many other readers, there were things that turned me way all off. One: the 40 year age difference between Sherlock Holmes and Mary. I actually love the idea of exploring what might happen to a ruthlessly logical mind like Sherlock's if he fell in love; but doing so with his 18 year old former student is just too icky for me. The book goes to great pains to dance around the fact that they will very clearly end up together, which I found deeply annoying. No matter that Mary is technically an adult; Sherlock was and is her teacher, and there's very clearly a power imbalance between them. At the end of the day, he's pushing 60, she's not yet 20, and it's GROSS. There is no earthly reason for the age gap to be that big. He's not only old enough to be her father, he would have been *old* to be her father! Icky.

Mary is also *such* a Mary Sue. She's beautiful, brilliant, rich, everyone save her terrible aunt loves her (seriously, everyone in the entire book thinks Mary is just the bee's knees). She's even got a tragic backstory for maximum sympathy. The plot hinges on her math tutor and them doing high-level maths, and yet Mary is studying chemistry and theology, which we never actually see her do, so why not just have her reading maths instead? The thing that really got me about Mary, however, is that she is less a fully-realized character of her own and more the answer to the question "What if Sherlock Holmes were young and female?"(Which, if you'd like a better answer to that questions, read A Study in Charlotte). To have Sherlock fall in love with someone so obviously a carbon copy of himself is a disappointing choice. Do I think Sherlock would fall in love with someone who wasn't brilliant? I do not; he would only be bored. But to make her *so* like him that the reader can tell they're going to end up together from the opening pages is lazy and uninteresting. The oft-used editorial note "make a more interesting choice here"springs to mind.

Much has also been said about how King makes Watson into a blundering idiot who Mary and Sherlock laugh at behind his back. I don't have anything to add except to say that this is a grave error and shows a shallow understanding of the canon texts. Watson is a stand in for the reader, and by showing contempt for him, King makes Sherlock and Mary contemptuous of the reader as well.

Lastly, while the historical research is beautifully done at points, the lack of detail in others drove me completely insane. When Mary goes up to Oxford, for instance, it's never mentioned which college she's attending. Christ Church, Balliol, and other college names get thrown around, but Mary's is never mentioned! There were only four women's colleges; choose one. It's a glaring oversight since anyone with even a passing knowledge of Oxford knows that students matriculate into a specific college. Again, lazy. Also lazy is the introduction of Mary's Jewishness. Much is made of it in their strange interlude in Palestine (which does bugger all for the plot) with Mary suddenly able to read Hebrew and sing ancient Jewish songs and feeling a deep connection to her ancestral homeland. But up until that point, which is in the last third of the book, the only clue to Mary's Jewishness is her mother's last name. That's lazy, and results in what could be a meaningful section that deepens the reader's understanding of Mary's character into a blah section that just slows the plot down. And, as others have mentioned, Mary is supposed to be a feminist blazing trail for women through society, AND YET she faces absolutely no resistance whatsoever. Aside from the comments of the Welsh police inspector who suggest that she and Holmes are sleeping together (which SHOCKS poor Mary, despite the face that she is traveling unaccompanied with a man in 1919 DUH) no one has any issue with Mary traveling internationally with Sherlock unchaperoned, or driving, or smoking, or climbing trees or studying chemistry or even wearing trousers at University, all of which would have been against the social norms of the time. Traveling alone with a man not her father would have been *ruinous* to her reputation, and yet not a SINGLE person even bats an eye. If there's one thing that drives me nuts in historical fiction, it's characters who flaunt social norms without censure. By all means, make her a feminist, make her a firebrand, make her a trailblazer. But do not do so by disregarding the social norms in which she lives when they become inconvenient to you. ...more

Like · see review

Apr 13, 2010 Lianne rated it it was ok

Shelves: historical-fiction, audiobooks, 2010

I thought this book was a great idea, although my knowledge of the specifics of Sherlock Holmes is not all that great. I did enjoy the relationship between Holmes and Russell; my favorite parts of the book were when they were interacting, and I also enjoyed the classic detective work. However, I also thought some parts moved pretty slowly and the beginning was choppy (although I understand what the author was trying to do). Overall probably 2.5 stars.

Like · see review

Dec 26, 2018 Barbara rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: fiction, mystery, 2018

I thoroughly enjoyed this mystery, in which teenage Mary Russell teams up with a “retired” Sherlock Holmes. I’m more familiar with the myriad Sherlock adaptations & permutations than with the original—so any variations from the original characters didn’t really bother me. Mary’s POV is effective, and though she’s a bit too good at everything, she’s likable and a good foil to this version of Sherlock. I’ll definitely pick up others in this series!

Like · see review

May 04, 2013 Alicia rated it it was ok · review of another edition

This book is so innocuous it's a shame to give it a bad review, but I was relieved to be done with it. It has few compelling moments, the mystery is flimsy, and the main character, Mary, is too perfect to like. I also cannot forgive King for repeatedly bashing Watson as simple, apparently solely to make Mary Russell seem better a better partner for Sherlock Holmes in comparison. Let's just say: it didn't work. ...more

Like · see review