Holmes would never talk about Watson in a derogatory way. He quips with Watson if he comes to a wrong conclusion, but only as a joke between friends - he knows Watson knows how to take it. In fact, on a few occasions Holmes relies heavily on Watson and acknowledges it. That's part of the charm of their friendship in the original - it is very much mutual respect.
I have been looking at this series but I think any deviation to the original would just tick me off.
I once tried an Agatha Christie book written by Charles Osborne (and approved!!! by her estate) in which Poirot wore tweeds - it had me reeling for months. I'm obviously still not over it. So, engaging in another "tribute" to a favourite character is bound to end badly.
Thank god, I wasn´t entirely wrong about the Holmes-Watson relationship. And now I´m seriously annoyed by this backstapping just for the sake of making look Mary Russell a much more suitable accomplice to Holmes than Watson. I think that´s just a cheap shot.
Well, I have to see how this novel is going to end. And then I will have to pick up Arthur Conan Doyle and get aquainted with the real Holmes.
Oh, exciting! Reading Holmes for the first time....I think you would enjoy it. Some stories are better than others of course. You need to start with A Study in Scarlett as this is where they meet. The story itself is not great - it's longer than most Holmes stories and much of it has nothing to do with Holmes or Watson, but it does have the meeting in it. So, it gets much better after that one.
As for Holmes/Watson, I just had to a quick re-read of some scenes, but does the following sound like something that would fit in with the description of the relationship in the Russel book:
"“Do you know, Watson,” said Holmes as we sat together in the gathering darkness, “I have really some scruples as to taking you to-night. There is a distinct element of danger.”
“Can I be of assistance?”
“Your presence might be invaluable.”
“Then I shall certainly come.”
“It is very kind of you.”
No, unfortunately not. I can give you a sneak peek though, what Holmes says about Watson:
"I work alone. I always have. Even when Watson was me, he functiones purely as another pair of hands, not in anything resembling true partnership."
That is so cruel, oddly misplaced and out of character for Holmes (this is my impression and I only know the tv-series with Benedict Cumberbatch). Right at this point my sympathies lie with Watson, not Mary Russell and certainly not Holmes.
Actually, that's not wrong. Holmes *always* worked alone in deduction. He never counted on Watson for anything beyond another pair of hands, be it for medical or violent (bring your weapon) means, and friendship. He used Watson as a foil to inform the reader, explain how he arrived at the solution to the problem. I've read all the stories at least 3 times and Watson was never an integral part of the deductions. Occasionally he unwittingly provided information, but he was never Holmes' equal.
If you choose to continue reading this book, or any others in the series, you'll find that Mary's opinion of Watson dramatically alters, and he's given credit for his own strengths and contributions.
I think they got it wrong. Holmes does think of Watson as a partner. I agree tho that this does not include when it comes to deduction (that is always Holmes) and only applies to the general investigation.
Here's another one:
"He is a man of the world with a natural turn for diplomacy. I am bound, therefore, to hope that it is not a false scent and that he has some real need for our assistance.”
“Our?”
“Well, if you will be so good, Watson.”
“I shall be honoured.”
“Then you have the hour--4: 30. Until then we can put the matter out of our heads.”
@Murder by Death: Thanks for your opinion :). I guess I can´t form a proper opinion in this matter, simply because I haven´t read the original stories. But your right, now that I think of it, Watson doesn´t help with the deduction-part.
And I have to admit, that the whole matter with the "talking behind ones back" is a sore spot for me and my reaction to this can be quite emotional.
@BrokenTune A Scandal in Bohemia if I'm not mistaken? If I'm not, I'd still argue that Holmes does all the heavy mental lifting here, although Watson plays a much bigger part in this story as an active partner, as he's integral to the diversion; but he never knows why he's doing what he does and follows Holmes blindly. It's only in retrospect that Watson is able to follow Holmes' deductive reasoning.
I do agree that Holmes always treated Watson as a partner and a friend, but I don't agree that Watson was his equal. He was never meant to be Holmes' equal, because Holmes was never meant to have an equal (except for, perhaps, Mycroft).
@Lillelara - no, I get it. I have a sore spot about talking behind people's backs as well. It's been awhile since I read Beekeeper's Apprentice, but I remember the scene you're talking about, I think, and I remember thinking "hey, that's not fair!". But Mary really does realise, after meeting him for herself, that she was unfair and grossly misjudged Watson.
@Murder: I totally agree that Holmes does all the mental work and that Watson is not and was never meant to be his equal. I also agree that Holmes often plays Watson - just look at the Reichenbach Falls scene or The Dying Detective. What I am arguing is that Holmes would not have said anything that would have made Watson look inferior in front of others.
Very, very true. I'd have to look at this book again, but I only remember Russell having a go at Watson. Lillelara would easily be able to clarify whether or not Holmes did as well. It would be sorely out of character if he did.
If you like audiobooks, you might like trying this one on audio. Jenny Sterlin does a brilliant job with the narration; I own all the print books, but I prefer to listen to them because she does such a good job.
HA! I just mentioned this in the review of the book I just finished "The Language of Bees".
I think 'aversion' is a strong word, but putting that aside and addressing the spirit of the question: That was a concern of mine too, as I'm rather unyielding in my belief that Sherlock is bloodlessly objective and lacks all hints of sentimentality. But in King's books, Russell is always treated as an equal and their 'relationship' is never portrayed as more than a partnership (except for the end of...book 3 I think, and that is about one sentence long). In fact it could almost be argued that Holmes shows more affection for Watson in the canon than he does for Russell in this pastiche.
Having said that, there is one, in my opinion, fatal error that King made in regards to Holmes' history and it's the subject of the book I just read. There's no way I can be convinced that this event occurred. Even if she was "that woman".
Without knowing what happens in Language of Bees with respect to "the woman" and without going into any detail (as not to spoil it for Lillelara), I think I can guess what you might be referring to, and if I'm right, I agree with you. That would be somewhat far-fetched.
It only got worse from there: by the end of the book Holmes is an emotional mess. He questions his own decisions, is sentimental about the victims and just... ugh. And I won't get started on what he did to Watson.
Love your discussion :). I went to bed around midnight and look what has happened.
@Murder: Mary has meet Watson right at the beginning and as it is, she is awfully biased, thinking that Watson is of inferior mind. But as soon as she meets him, she changes her opinion about him and now she even calls him "Uncle John". And to give her credit, she never speaks ill of Watson and maybe I´m reading to much into Holmes remarks. He says these things to Russell right after she has done something terribly reckless and he wants to show her that they share the same personality traits and he would have done exactly the same thing in that situation.
Having said that "Watson´s great strenght has always been his utter, dogged dependability" still rubs me thw wrong way. I just can´t help it :).
@Troy: King develops the relationship between Holmes and Russell very well. She is 15 when they meet and Holmes doesn´t immediatly recognize her as a girl. But he recognizes right from the bat her sharp mind, which is equally sharp as his and capable of doing some proper deduction. I guess Holmes is intrigued by her and she just makes his retirement a lot more interesting.
You know what, Troy, Mary Russell is a Mary Sue. The last two chapters were utterly dreadful. She thinks of herself as so "special", I want to gag. And Holmes is acting completely out of character (poor Watson, he doesn´t deserve that kind of treatment).
I´m going to elaborate on these particular chapters in my review, so I´m not going to say anymore about it right now. But my initial thought was: No way!
I just finished "The Language of Bees" yesterday and I'm a fan of this series as well as a rabid fan of the Holmes canon. I've tried other pastiches of Doyle's work, and I've thoroughly hated them (Horowitz, I'm looking at you, sorry.). This series is the one that comes closest to getting Homes' personality right, in my opinion (obviously, others disagree).
But the thing to know going forward is that this series has little to do with Holmes; the main character is always Mary Russell. As much as I like these books, there's never enough Holmes to suit me.
I hope you try reading some of the original Doyle stories and let us know what you think. :)
I have been looking at this series but I think any deviation to the original would just tick me off.
I once tried an Agatha Christie book written by Charles Osborne (and approved!!! by her estate) in which Poirot wore tweeds - it had me reeling for months. I'm obviously still not over it. So, engaging in another "tribute" to a favourite character is bound to end badly.
Well, I have to see how this novel is going to end. And then I will have to pick up Arthur Conan Doyle and get aquainted with the real Holmes.
As for Holmes/Watson, I just had to a quick re-read of some scenes, but does the following sound like something that would fit in with the description of the relationship in the Russel book:
"“Do you know, Watson,” said Holmes as we sat together in the gathering darkness, “I have really some scruples as to taking you to-night. There is a distinct element of danger.”
“Can I be of assistance?”
“Your presence might be invaluable.”
“Then I shall certainly come.”
“It is very kind of you.”
"I work alone. I always have. Even when Watson was me, he functiones purely as another pair of hands, not in anything resembling true partnership."
That is so cruel, oddly misplaced and out of character for Holmes (this is my impression and I only know the tv-series with Benedict Cumberbatch). Right at this point my sympathies lie with Watson, not Mary Russell and certainly not Holmes.
If you choose to continue reading this book, or any others in the series, you'll find that Mary's opinion of Watson dramatically alters, and he's given credit for his own strengths and contributions.
Here's another one:
"He is a man of the world with a natural turn for diplomacy. I am bound, therefore, to hope that it is not a false scent and that he has some real need for our assistance.”
“Our?”
“Well, if you will be so good, Watson.”
“I shall be honoured.”
“Then you have the hour--4: 30. Until then we can put the matter out of our heads.”
And I have to admit, that the whole matter with the "talking behind ones back" is a sore spot for me and my reaction to this can be quite emotional.
I do agree that Holmes always treated Watson as a partner and a friend, but I don't agree that Watson was his equal. He was never meant to be Holmes' equal, because Holmes was never meant to have an equal (except for, perhaps, Mycroft).
I think 'aversion' is a strong word, but putting that aside and addressing the spirit of the question: That was a concern of mine too, as I'm rather unyielding in my belief that Sherlock is bloodlessly objective and lacks all hints of sentimentality. But in King's books, Russell is always treated as an equal and their 'relationship' is never portrayed as more than a partnership (except for the end of...book 3 I think, and that is about one sentence long). In fact it could almost be argued that Holmes shows more affection for Watson in the canon than he does for Russell in this pastiche.
Having said that, there is one, in my opinion, fatal error that King made in regards to Holmes' history and it's the subject of the book I just read. There's no way I can be convinced that this event occurred. Even if she was "that woman".
@Murder: Mary has meet Watson right at the beginning and as it is, she is awfully biased, thinking that Watson is of inferior mind. But as soon as she meets him, she changes her opinion about him and now she even calls him "Uncle John". And to give her credit, she never speaks ill of Watson and maybe I´m reading to much into Holmes remarks. He says these things to Russell right after she has done something terribly reckless and he wants to show her that they share the same personality traits and he would have done exactly the same thing in that situation.
Having said that "Watson´s great strenght has always been his utter, dogged dependability" still rubs me thw wrong way. I just can´t help it :).
@Troy: King develops the relationship between Holmes and Russell very well. She is 15 when they meet and Holmes doesn´t immediatly recognize her as a girl. But he recognizes right from the bat her sharp mind, which is equally sharp as his and capable of doing some proper deduction. I guess Holmes is intrigued by her and she just makes his retirement a lot more interesting.
I´m going to elaborate on these particular chapters in my review, so I´m not going to say anymore about it right now. But my initial thought was: No way!
But the thing to know going forward is that this series has little to do with Holmes; the main character is always Mary Russell. As much as I like these books, there's never enough Holmes to suit me.
I hope you try reading some of the original Doyle stories and let us know what you think. :)