Skip to content

Sleeps With Monsters: Laurie R King’s The Beekeeper’s Apprentice

14
Share

Sleeps With Monsters: Laurie R King’s The Beekeeper’s Apprentice

Home / Sleeps With Monsters: Laurie R King’s The Beekeeper’s Apprentice
Books Sleeps With Monsters

Sleeps With Monsters: Laurie R King’s The Beekeeper’s Apprentice

By

Published on September 16, 2014

14
Share

The Beekeeper’s Apprentice, or, On the Segregation of the Queen is the first in a series of mystery novels by Laurie R. King, which feature an elderly Sherlock Holmes and a youthful half-American student of theology, one Mary Russell. It was first published in 1994, and has to date seen eleven novel-length sequels. It’s not science fiction or fantasy—I may have felt the need for a wee break from SFF—except inasmuch as it involves Sherlock Holmes, a character frequently beloved of many people who’re also SFF fans—but it is a brilliant book.

I may be the last person in the world to realise that this book existed, and that it was good. But in case there are any other poor benighted souls out there who, like me, somehow escaped hearing about its virtues in the last couple of decades, I propose to tell you about them.Gideon Smith amazon buy link

Between the literary career of Arthur Conan Doyle (beginning with A Study in Scarlet in 1886) and the detective novel boom of the 1920s, the mystery novel as we know it took shape: a genre of timetables and village misunderstandings alongside villains and knives in the dark, peopled with unusually perspicacious investigators. The detective novels of the 1920s and 1930s can be delightful things, but their literary quality is variable, and they’re all too often riddled with the prejudices of their age. It struck me, reading The Beekeeper’s Apprentice, that King has written an extraordinarily playful book, one born of deep affection for the canon that shaped the start of the mystery novel as a genre unto itself—but not blind to its faults.

For King has approached her story with a rather more literary sensibility than one usually finds in mystery novels: as much as anything else, this is the story of a prickly, intellectually demanding, intelligent young woman coming of age in England during and immediately after the Great War, a period before women were admitted as full members of the universities. Mary Russell is an orphan with an inheritance, who will be released from the guardianship of her aunt once she attains her majority. This gives her a certain freedom of action within the narrative, without which the story could not proceed as it does, later… but the second half of the novel, the one that plays more with the tools of the Sherlockian canon, is weaker for me than its beginnings. For when Mary Russell first meets the (semi-retired) Sherlock Holmes, he’s in his late fifties and she’s in her teens, and the sense that King creates is one of two clever but lonely minds discovering that neither of them is as singular as they had supposed, nor do they need to be as lonely. The slow build of their intellectual relationship, in which Holmes engages with Russell first as a mentor and then, gradually, as a teacher who’s accepted the student’s equality in a full professional partnership, is a marvellous story of an intellectual coming-of-age. An intellectual coming-of-age as a woman.

King’s story takes place over the course of years, and incorporates at least three separate mysteries, scaling in levels of urgency and peril until Holmes and Russell are themselves in physical danger from a villain who is more than capable of outwitting Holmes himself. Peril alternates with moments of introspection: King never loses a sense of tension and character all the way through. There is something about her prose, though the narrative is recounted in first person, that reminds me of the later novels of Dorothy L. Sayers: an attention to landscape but also to interiority, and a quiet, understated elegance of description that delights me.

Perhaps I should argue that The Beekeeper’s Apprentice is really science fiction or fantasy anyway, because of the Holmesian conceit, or has the sensibilities thereof: I don’t think I can make this argument, though I do believe that SFF readers will enjoy it. I did, very much.


Liz Bourke is a cranky person who reads books. Her blog. Her Twitter.

About the Author

Liz Bourke

Author

Liz Bourke is a cranky queer person who reads books. She holds a Ph.D in Classics from Trinity College, Dublin. Her first book, Sleeping With Monsters, a collection of reviews and criticism, was published in 2017 by Aqueduct Press. It was a finalist for the 2018 Locus Awards and was nominated for a 2018 Hugo Award in Best Related Work. She was a finalist for the inaugural 2020 Ignyte Critic Award, and has also been a finalist for the BSFA nonfiction award. She lives in Ireland with an insomniac toddler, her wife, and their two very put-upon cats.
Learn More About Liz
Subscribe
Notify of
Avatar


14 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
krad
10 years ago

I always cite these books as an example of why there’s no such thing as a bad idea, that it’s the execution that matters, not the idea.

Because these books are a terrible idea. Just awful. It’s classic Mary-Sue stuff.

And yet, they are absolutely totally brilliant. Just magnificent stuff, beautifully written. No one is better than King at evoking a particular time and place — she’s one of the most immersive writers working today.

—Keith R.A. DeCandido

Avatar
SPC
10 years ago

I just discovered them last year and enjoyed them all thoroughly. Some of my Facebook friends were appalled by them, which surprised me. I think it may come down to whether you see them as Sherlock Holmes stories with an interloper character added, or whether they’re Mary Russell stories with bonus Sherlock Holmes. Beekeeper and O, Jerusalem are my favorites.

stevenhalter
10 years ago

Thanks! I also hadn’t heeard of them, so I guess you were the second to last person :-)
Onto the list they go.

katenepveu
10 years ago

I’ve stopped reading these, and even when I was reading them I was side-eyeing a good deal about them, but _Justice Hall_ (the sixth) more justifies the time I put into them, and, in retrospect, is probably the high point of the series.

Avatar
10 years ago

I’m behind on this series, but oh my yes, I love it so. It’s definitely one of the examples that springs to my mind of how “Mary Sue” does not HAVE to be synonymous with “bad writing”.

Avatar
HelenS
10 years ago

What do you mean they’re not science fiction? They’re set in an alternate universe where decimal currency was introduced by 1915!
‘”Just a minute, Mr. Todd, you’re a shilling short here.” / “Ah, terribly sorry, I must a dropped it.” He laboriously counted out three pennies, a ha’penny, and six farthings.’

Avatar
Mikeinphoenix
10 years ago

I discovered these books ten or fifteen years ago, and have enjoyed them immensely, and I think it is because, not in spite, of the fact that I am a huge Sherlock Holmes fan. King’s ability to introduce Mary Russell to a very canonical Holmes is delightful. Her Holmes is, of necessity, not quite the anti-social personality that Doyle’s (or the very modern and also delightful BBC’s Sherlock) is, but otherwise he is our same beloved Holmes, taking a partner and continuing on. And what a partner! Mary Russell matches wits, stamina and prickliness with Holmes, frequently coming out on top, and does so with the verve and intensity required to stand alongside the venerable detective. Some of the latest books have not been as enjoyable as the early ones, but O, Jeruselam and Justice Hall are remarkable story telling and fine literature. King’s other series, following Detective Kate Martinelli in modern-day San Francisco, are very enjoyable reads as well.

Paul Weimer
10 years ago

Genre elements are not mandatory to my enjoyment of a novel as long as the novel doesn’t pretend to be genre. :)

Avatar
10 years ago

I’ve only read the first one (and not too long ago) but it sounds like I should keep with it at least for five or six more books. Cool.

Avatar
10 years ago

I read several of them early on, and enjoyed them. (I particularly like the one where a certain Lord Peter shows up…….) I also enjoyed King’s modern police detective series- she’s just an excellent writer.

John C. Bunnell
10 years ago

One minor amplification: per some of King’s later writings, the Holmes of The Beekeeper’s Apprentice is almost certainly not in his “late fifties” when he meets Russell in 1915. King’s analysis, based on certain extrapolations from “A Study in Scarlet” and “The Gloria Scott“, puts Holmes’ birth in either 1861 or 1868, making him no older than 54 (and perhaps as young as 47) when the 1915 meeting occurs.

Meanwhile: I have some sympathy for those who have grown disenchanted with the series over time — I wasn’t entirely happy with the Language of Bees/God of the Hive duo, and her tendency to separate Holmes and Russell for large portions of the novels can be frustrating as the series progresses. But I quite liked Pirate King, and Garment of Shadows worked for me despite itself (possibly because King, whether deliberately or accidentally, is more or less channeling Elizabeth Peters’ Amelia Peabody in that one).

And anyone who’s followed the Russell series really ought to pick up The Art of Detection, in which King drops her modern-day series heroine into a Holmesian mystery which looks suspiciously like the back end of a Holmes/Russell case (though the book never quite comes out and says so).

Avatar
eddyozman
10 years ago

@6. Took me a while to work that one out! Great catch.

Avatar
10 years ago

I too love this series. Justice Hall is one of the best novels I’ve ever read.

Avatar
Lisa Conner
7 years ago

I love this series, but the last book probably killed my interest in reading any more of them. What happened at the end of The Murder of Mary Russell just made me furious. Won’t be wasting my money buying the next book as quick as it comes out; I’ll read it in a library first to see if it’s worth bothering any more.