The Beekeeper's Apprentice

It occurred to me while reading The Beekeeper's Apprentice by Laurie King that all the stories in the Sherlock Holmes canon are titled as "adventures." They aren't "cases" or "mysteries" (or "satsujin jiken"); they are "adventures." I find the character of Sherlock Holmes obnoxious, and the stories tend to be obvious, trivial, absurd, or lacking anything that could be called deduction (or some combination of the four), so I don't particularly like Sherlock Holmes stories... as mysteries, at least. But maybe they aren't meant to be "mysteries"; maybe they're meant to be "adventures," and should instead be evaluated from that perspective. Or maybe they are meant to be mysteries, which they clearly present themselves as and what they are widely considered to be, and I am simply putting too much stock in a single word.

The Beekeeper's Apprentice made me consider these things because I realized as I was reading The Beekeeper's Apprentice that "adventure" was a much more apt word to describe it than "mystery." As a suspense novel, it might be fine. But as detective fiction, it is certainly not. Even if I do not particularly like the Sherlock Holmes stories, I do think they have a certain charm in presenting situations with flair, but The Beekeeper's Apprentice lacks even that.

That being said, The Beekeeper's Apprentice isn't a total wash. Even if suspense isn't detective fiction, it's still gripping. The writing is great, and the characters touching. While there will definitely be some Sherlockians who object to Laurie King's interpretation of Holmes, I think there will also be a portion that enjoys it... and yet I'm still not sure who this book would be for.

The Beekeeper's Apprentice is the first entry in a series of Sherlock Holmes pastiches. You will likely be able to tell whether you will object to its interpretation of the Holmes canon from the description in the following paragraph:

The novel centers on Mary Russell, a teenage girl who meets and befriends an aged Holmes. While Mary obviously lacks Holmes's training and experience, she matches him in raw intelligence and becomes his protege (or apprentice, if you will). The novel is essentially divided into five sections. The first section introduces Mary, and describes the very beginning of her relationship with Holmes. The next four sections cover the first four cases Mary and Holmes face together, and record Mary's growth to the point where she is acknowledged by Holmes as his equal. While Watson and Mycroft have not been totally cut out from Holmes's life, they play a much smaller role since Holmes has retired to the Sussex countryside with Mrs. Hudson. Holmes's primary partner quickly becomes Mary. Watson's intelligence is insulted or disparaged with some regularity.

In other words, the best way I can describe The Beekeeper's Apprentice is probably as self-insert wish-fulfillment fanfiction. And if you want self-insert wish-fulfillment Sherlock Holmes fanfiction, there's nothing wrong with that! But if you want Holmes to be the star of the show, or enjoyed Watson and Holmes's strong, emotional (and platonic, of course) bond in the original stories, that won't carry over to this book.

As long as I'm describing the book as fanfiction, I might as well also address the fact that Mary looks suspiciously close to a Mary Sue, especially when viewed at certain angles. Heck, her name is "Mary," for crying out loud! Coincidence? Probably.

Mary is brilliant, tall (awkward at first, but grows into her body), athletic, diligent, and well-liked. She overcomes every trial placed in her way with flying colors. (That isn't just my interpretation; it's explicitly stated, by Holmes no less.) Mary has extensive knowledge in a variety of subjects, as well as skill in physical and dexterous activities such as climbing and juggling. To top it all off, she's a rich orphan with a tragic backstory.

I don't think she's a Mary Sue. Yes, she's brilliant. She has raw intelligence and mental fortitude. But that's the entire premise of the story: Holmes finding someone with a mind to match his own to take under his wing. You know who else in the Sherlock Holmes canon is absurdly hypercompetent? Sherlock Holmes. Mary rarely pulls a skill out of thin air; most explicitly come from a prior interest or from Holmes's training. In a normal story a character like Mary would be overbearing, but if I'm being forced to accept one character with the superhuman capabilities of Sherlock Holmes (namely, Sherlock Holmes himself), I see no problem with accepting a second one.

The strength of this novel is undoubtedly its characters and their relationships, especially the one between Mary and Holmes. Doyle's Sherlock was a solitary figure even when working in tandem with his partner Watson, so some Sherlockians may not recognize this Sherlock, who quickly embraces Mary into his life. But that's okay, because this isn't Doyle's Sherlock; this is King's. The novel is presented as Mary's memoirs, and in the introduction she explains that the Sherlock she describes may be different than the one in Watson's stories, as her Sherlock is several years older and she is writing about him from a much different position than Watson. The only person who can perfectly write Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes is Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Some people may resent any other author's Sherlock for not being Doyle's, but I felt this was sufficient in-story justification for any discrepancy in character from the original canon.

The relationship that develops between Mary and Holmes is natural and charming. The number of pages it takes for Holmes to accept and acknowledge Mary might feel a bit low for someone as amazing at Holmes, but the novel takes place over several years, so I do not think it is rushed in-story. The relationship moves in natural steps, as Mary grows increasingly skilled and Holmes grows increasingly reliant on her. The cases, and Mary's role in them, grow in complexity and difficulty until the pair are thrown into the life-and-death game in the finale. The plot summaries of the later books reveal that Mary and Holmes eventually marry, but their relationship in this entry remains platonic.

A warning: the remainder of this review will have SPOILERS for the general shape of the "solutions" of the stories. I use quotes because it's hard to even call them "solutions," but that is what they portend to be. I am writing the review in a manner that I believe will allow you to still enjoy the book, but I am nevertheless providing this warning in case you are wary of any sort of spoiler.

Anyway, as I described in the introduction, the "mysteries" aren't really mysteries. They feel more like suspense stories, or adventures. There isn't a single satisfying deduction-based solution in the entire book. Consequently, the endings of the stories feel more like "resolutions" than "solutions."

The first story is probably the closest to a proper detective story, but the solution is a fictional and unclued poison. This makes it unfair, and thereby unfun and unsatisfying.

The second story involves a theft of money and hams. The thieves are caught by using a dog to trace the scent of the hams. The resolution is therefore doubly flawed: it doesn't involve deductions at all, and could have been performed by literally anybody!

The third story is a kidnapping. Holmes and Mary follow the girl's physical trail throughout Wales, and eventually perform a daring rescue from the kidnappers' hideout. While this story is better than the previous one, as the tracking relies on subtle traces and does feel like something that would require a skilled detective, it still doesn't involve deduction, and therefore isn't satisfying as a mystery. The "who" and "why" are also left unresolved, further denying a sense of closure (temporarily, at least).

The final story, and longest one by far, features Holmes and Mary facing off an invisible enemy who is attempting to have them killed and appears to be just as intelligent as Holmes. This is probably the best story, and while it does have its highlights, it also has its flaws.

First, the good: the opponent feels like a real challenge. Holmes is a(n intellectual) giant among men, easily shrugging off nearly every problem that comes his way. We usually never see him face off against anyone even remotely close to his level. Yes, there's Moriarty, but we're only told of Moriarty's genius; we never get to actually see it. (...Okay, I guess you could maybe count Irene Adler.) Yet this opponent in The Beekeeper's Apprentice easily, elegantly, and stylishly dances circles around Holmes. It feels like a true challenge for Holmes, and a worthy rival. This is a welcome change of pace from the normally easily stride Holmes can use to overcome cases.

And the bad is... a lot of other stuff.

First, like the other stories, there isn't really a "mystery." There is certainly suspense in how Mary and Holmes catch and overcome their opponent, but there isn't a standard detective fiction mystery. (There are fifteen books and counting in this series, so I won't even pretend there's a question of "if" Mary and Holmes make it through.) Granted, this isn't as much an objective flaw as much of a preference.

Second, the second half of the story is pretty much pointless. The first half of the story covers the opponent's initial assault against Holmes and his acquaintances, while the second half revolves around Holmes and Mary's countermeasures. However, the manner in which the story transitions into the climax essentially invalidates everything that happened in the second half. You could remove the latter half of the story, and it'd basically be the same. Heck, maybe you could take out the first half as well. The climax just sorta happens on its own without any other impetus. Considering detective fiction is supposed to be all about how the detective solves the cases, it doesn't feel satisfying when the ending does not lead from the detective's actions.

Third, the smart characters are not written in a way that makes them appear intelligent in any sort of realistic or meaningful fashion. King does not feel like a dumb writer, but in this book she does not put in the intellectual rigor necessary to have a proper cat-and-mouse stand-off between chessmasters. Holmes and the opponent do not act based on subtle observations and careful deductions. Rather, they're able to anticipate each other because that's what they do and they're always right about it. In other words, King takes the lazy shortcut of having the geniuses pull the answers out of thin air and saying it's because it's just how smart they are, rather than going through the effort of actually forging and laying out the deductions for the reader. (Not that there's much to deduce in this story.)

Fourth, the closest the story gets to being a detective story is a secret code, and it's sub-par. Before revealing the solution, Mary explains three assumptions she relied upon in arriving at the solution... and proceeds to immediately break two of them. Mary says that the key to the code must be something right in front of them that they simply aren't realizing is the key, as otherwise the code would be impossible to solve. Additionally, once the key is applied, the answer must be readily forthcoming; otherwise, it would be difficult to tell that the correct key was actually correct. Despite these assumptions, Mary literally (and I do mean literally) dreams the key, and still needs hours of guesswork even after finding the trick to reveal the message. The code has no technical issues, but it lacks any sort of elegance, wit, or cleverness.

Fifth, the only characters in the book with any sort of significant exposure are Mary, Holmes, Mrs. Hudson, Watson, and Mycroft. And the mastermind is obviously none of them. (There's also a six year old girl with decent screen-time, but she's pretty obviously innocent as well.) While King follows the rule of introducing the culprit before they are revealed as the culprit, the fact that they have so little exposure before the reveal means that the reveal lacks any sort of impact on the reader. Unlike In Spite of Thunder, where the culprit ended up being the suspect who happened to have the smallest amount of screen-time, here there are no viable suspects with any meaningful exposure, meaning the issue was inevitable regardless of who the culprit ended up being.

Finally, the culprit is... uninspired. Given the set-up of the book, the culprit is the most straightforward and obvious choice King could have made. Just from reading the review, you probably have a decent shot of just guessing it.

In the end, I'm not sure there's anybody to whom I would recommend this book. If you're looking for mysteries, you've come to the wrong place. Even if the subsequent books in the series are fantastic detective novels, this one is not, and I suspect it is unnecessary to sufficiently understand the plot of the later entries. If instead you want self-insert wish-fulfillment Sherlock Holmes fanfiction, this book will provide what you're looking for... but I can't help but wonder if you'd better enjoy the other books where Mary and Holmes's relationship blossoms into romance. The Beekeeper's Apprentice has absolutely no appeal as a mystery but not quite enough appeal as self-insert fanfiction, so it's left in an awkward spot where I'm not sure if it's really worth reading for anybody.