Customer Reviews

A Letter of Mary (Mary Russell Novels)

5 star:		(18)
4 star:		(14)
3 star:		(11)
2 star:		(6)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

"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".

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!

It is the summer of 1923. England is recovering from the First World War, and the Second is not yet on the horizon. Russell and husband Holmes are busy with their various pursuits in the quiet Sussex countryside when an old friend's afternoon visit and subsequent murder get them embroiled in a mystery with lots of red herrings. Mary and Sherlock, assisted by Inspector LetradeJr., Mycroft and Billy of the Baker Street Irregulars, go undercover to investigate suspects. Again, as in earlier instalments, interactions and dialogues between Russell and Holmes are the high points of the book, so their working separately unfortunately limits their time together.

King writes about Holmes in love so delightfully and so plausibly. It's wonderful to think of him having this charming and affectionate relationship with a strong and intelligent woman. Who'd have thought Holmes would become the romantic hero of the 21st century? King has also created a terrific heroine in Mary Russell, with wit and intelligence shining through her turbulent adolescence, her blossoming young adulthood, and now her early marriage and academic career. I look forward to further books in the series, and hope there will be children!

If you demand an intriguing and difficult mystery, you will probably not be satisfied, but if you are a Holmes fan with a heart, you should enjoy this third book in the Mary Russell series.

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.

Laurie King's A Letter of Mary is the third volume in a series of mystery novels that portray an older Sherlock Holmes who is still solving mysteries with his young bride Mary Russell Holmes. The time is 1923, and the couple lives in their country home in Sussex Downs. Mary is studying Theology at Oxford and busily involved in her research.

The couple is visited by Miss Dorothy Ruskin, an amateur archaeologist from Palestine, who has returned to England to seek funding for her work. During the visit she leaves with Russell an antique papyrus letter that appears to be written by Mary Magdalene, an apostle of Jesus. It was given to Ruskin by a Palestinian who claims the document has been in his family for ages. Soon after she leaves, she is hit by a car in London and dies. Holmes and Russell are drawn into what appears to be a murder, but have a devil of a time figuring out who did it.

What I like about this novel is the way that King creates the atmosphere of 1920's England. The old cars and trains, the buildings, the pace of life, and the people are all described in great detail. There is a lovely scene at a party on an old estate where Mary meets and gets help from Lord Peter Whimsey, another fictional detective, that is just filled with details about dress and manners. Another wonderful description is of a woman witness's hair style as Mary interviews her.

However, it is a difficult stretch for me to envision Holmes falling in love with any woman, never mind a young orphan whose parents were killed in an auto accident. And although I feel that King develops and portrays a good partnership between Russell and Holmes (they call each other by their last names!), with each bringing their own strengths to their work together, I find it not believable when they close the door and are intimate together.

Also, the plot is a murder mystery but the book resembles real life more than fiction. There are lots of suspects, and trails that go cold or lead nowhere. I can't fault the author for this bit of realism, but it is an interesting approach to the mystery novel.

Overall, I liked the novel and plan to read the rest of the series. The friendship, based on mutual respect between Russell and Holmes, makes this a wonderful book, not so much as a mystery, but as a model of healthy male-female relationships.

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."

It was just a way of bringing the death to the Holmes' doorstep -- I found it a bit of a letdown. Also thought there was a little too much empathy on the part of Russell in relating her trauma to their lone witness. However, it was fun to meet Lord Peter Wimsey right in the middle of the story. The plot could have been better.

The third in the Mary Russell series. It's a great series - the books are a quick read, and generally touch on some topic in enough detail that your interest is sparked into finding a little more about what you're reading about.

This book lacks a coherent plot, and has an extremely unconvincing ending. The feeling one gets is that the writer suddenly decided that she'd written enough words, and would wrap it up in quick time. I hope Holmes and Russell will start to do some honest detecting again real soon. The great detective deserves a better life!

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.