Friday, November 11, 2011

A MONSTROUS REGIMENT OF WOMEN, by Laurie R. King


A Monstrous Regiment of Women, written by Laurie R. King, continues the story of Mary Russell, a Oxford graduate just coming into her inheritance.  Russell lives in two worlds throughout the book: she is first a researcher publishing her thesis, enjoying recent academic attention while poring through theological tomes in the Bodleian Library; when this world fails to stimulate her, she takes the train out of Oxford and navigates the streets of London, providing the reader with observations about post-World War II British society.

As a portrait of life after the war, a time when theological, social, and scientific revolutions were taking place, I believe the book.  As a discussion of feminist theology, King succeeds in starting an excellent discussion.  As a mystery novel, the novel falls flat.  Mary Russell is not a detective; she is a woman of action, a brave and intelligent woman capable of discerning character traits in others.  The book is not about her ability to tease clues from suspicious scenarios; the author actually delves very little into the mystery itself.

Instead, the crux of the novel is Mary Russell's romance with her mentor, Sherlock Holmes of 221b Baker Street.  Call me a conservative, but at this point, I stop believing the novel. The idea of a romance driving a Holmes novel is sacrilegious, while the idea of a romance driving Russell's novel instead of the mystery undermines her own abilities, accomplishments, and potential.  She only exists to romance the man.  How is that a feminist novel? Holmes is believable as a mentor, even to a woman; I cannot accept his identity as a lover.

As far as I'm concerned, his very immortality makes him untouchable.

Perhaps no character in the mystery/thriller genre remains as popular as the innovative and eccentric Sherlock Holmes.  No character since has achieved such legendary status as the Baker Street detective, with his passion for modern forensic methods and a power of observation that verged on supernatural--yet, as Holmes reminds us, is merely "elementary" deduction.  Sherlock Holmes amassed so much popularity that his own creator, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, lost complete control: an attempt to kill off the character resulted in such an outcry that Holmes came back to life, as immortal in fiction as he has been in our culture.

Of course, as a celebrity, the character of Sherlock Holmes has been the subject of numerous movies and subsequent books. Take Basil Rathbone's portrayal in the 1940s, Jeremy Brett's rendition during the 80's and 90's, and Benedict Cumberbatch's in the current TV series "Sherlock."  Rathbone often plays a detective in the midst of World War II, quoting Churchill, promoting democracy, and taking down Nazis.  Jeremy Brett takes Sherlock back to his turn-of-the-century period, and successfully portrays the eccentric, ingenious roommate who one moment succumbs to a depressed cocaine-infused funk and the next moment, inspired by intellectual stimulation, leaps energetically (and arrogantly) into the fray with unwavering focus.  Cumberbatch plays "A New Sleuth for the 21st Century," using wireless connections to solve cases; Dr. Watson publishes his stories on a blog.  Mark Gatiss, the co-creator of "Sherlock," notes in his own blog that Rathbone and the modernization of Holmes's setting influenced the TV show, and that "police may be able to put clues together, but only Sherlock has the vast brain power and imagination that can make the huge leaps of deduction."

Interestingly, we have never had a Holmes from Holmes's point of view; we are always on the outside, with Watson, admiring a brilliant bohemian intellectual unfettered by societal myopia.

I'll admit, I have no idea how to comment on the Hollywood movies and Robert Downey Jr.'s representation of the famous detective.  I like the movie; I enjoy it; but I also separate this version of Holmes from the literary legend, as though they were two separate entities instead of the same character.  And perhaps I should allow for this in A Monstrous Regiment of Women.  For Holmes to be a figure of romance, he would have to grow and change; this is not within the ability of an immortal, of a legend.  So maybe, King's novel portrays Holmes as even more human than Doyle himself could manage.   This isn't a crime against nature.  However, if you are looking for a feminist and Holmesian novel, I would rather recommend you to Stieg Larsson's novels.

For more information about Laurie R. King's book (and image), visit A Monstrous Regiment of Women.


1 comment:

  1. Another review of this book, by Marilyn Stasio: http://www.nytimes.com/1995/09/17/books/crime-480596.html?ref=bookreviews

    ReplyDelete