J is for JUSTIFIABLY EQUAL TO HOLMES?

For this year's challenge, my theme is The Fun in Writing. Each of my 26 posts for April is aimed at
illustrating fun parts of an author's day. A writer doesn't only write.
Creating a story or an essay requires research, revision, editing, and lots and lots of coffee and chocolate.



J is for JUSTIFIABLY EQUAL TO HOLMES?

 

Could my title for today's post be more cryptic? (I'll explain below.) Matching posts to alphabet letters sometime feels like trying to strike a Kama Sutra pose, lots of angling.

The Beekeeper's Apprentice is the 33rd book on my list of 71 books to read by October, 2016. Setting goals is another of those fun activities that writers enjoy.

 

During the writing process, my goal's outline looks something like this:

1. Write 2k words per day
2. Do not edit while writing
3. When falling short on words, reset goal to catch up tomorrow 

My latest reading goal, on the other hand, is much more fun. By setting the goal  to read 71 books in 12 months, I've given myself permission to spend a lot of time reading for enjoyment. The second part of this goal, to "write a review" for each book, helps me to keep writing without running out of ideas.

You won't experience writer's block if you have

several different writing projects in the works.

 

When you're at a loss for words with the novel, skip over to the book review project or the next blog post; or write a poem.

The title of this post refers to Mary Russell, a character in The Beekeeper's Apprentice. The author created Russell with the brain power and deductive reasoning of Sherlock Holmes. I believe the novel proves that Russell is justifiably equal to Holmes. Have you read the book? If so, would you more likely give a negative or an affirmative answer to the "J" question?

 

The Beekeeper’s Apprentice by Laurie R. King

(my review for Goodreads)

Laurie R. King is scheduled to be Toastmaster at the 2017 Left Coast Crime Conference: Honolulu Havoc. During a discussion about the conference and the author, a library assistant at Makiki Community Library in Honolulu recommended The Beekeeper’s Apprentice to me. I was hooked by the “Editor’s Preface” in which King sets an inviting stage. 

The Preface gives the reader an opportunity to transition from the preconceived idea of reading the author’s story to the delightful idea of immersing ones’ self in an early 20^th century memoir. I was eager to suspend disbelief and enjoy the tale as experienced by narrator and co-protagonist, Mary Russell, during her formative years. That those formative years were spent under the tutelage of none other than the inimitable Mr. Sherlock Holmes only emphasizes the sheer pleasure presented to the reader. 

The opening sentence of the synopsis explains the book’s title:

“In 1915, Sherlock Holmes is retired and quietly engaged in the study of honeybees

when a young woman literally stumbles into him on the Sussex Downs.” 

 

The book’s contents are labeled Books One, Two, Three, and Four. The stories cover several years of Mary’s early life and describe her interaction with Mr. Holmes. They collaborate on several cases, including a through-line investigation, after he discovers and is impressed with the intellect of the fifteen-year-old “gawky, egotistical, and recently orphaned girl.” 

The feistiness of this young lady, along with her eccentric thoughts, mode of dress, and sympathetic history, endeared Mary Russell to me from the first chapter. The author’s ability to incite reaction from the reader with succinct emotional description and colorful passages had me laughing, frowning, and cringing in turns.

 

In my opinion, reading such a well-written book as The Beekeeper’s Apprentice is a better learning experience for a writer than participating in a creative writing course. And more fun!

 

Three Fun Reasons I Love to Read

Recently, I attended a reading by Tom Peek, author of the novel Daughters of Fire. As he read, Tom exuded a quiet excitement, revealing the depth of his characters while drawing his listeners into the action and adventure of a world he had created.

 

 

Most people do not need a reason to read, only a justifiable reason to take time out of their busy schedules to sit down, relax, and read. Stephen King, author of innumerable books, all of which I have read (though maybe not the entire text of Danse Macabre), advocates that writers should read at least four hours per day, the same amount of time as they should write. When something becomes “should” however, the fun drains away.

My three fun reasons for loving to read

are what always keep me reaching for that next book

 1. From the time I started selecting my own reading material, books have taken me to ‘another world’, that proverbial place where one is able to travel without the expense of air fare, car rental, or 20% tipping. To this day, I dream of taking a steamboat ride down the mighty Mississippi River. During my first and subsequent readings of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, I smelled the fresh air while bobbing along the rippling surface of the rapidly-flowing water, heard the incessant chirping of birds under the willows, marveled at a catfish “big as a man”, watched furry-pelted creatures scurry along the river bank. The morning breeze cooled me as it tousled my short-cropped, river-washed hair.

2. In my teen years, I read my way through the Sherlock Holmes cases of Arthur Conan Doyle, Nero Wolfe’s investigations as penned by Rex Stout, and the court scenes of Perry Mason by Erle Stanley Gardner. Finally, I exhausted the local library’s supply of Agatha Christie’s Miss Marple and Hercule Poirot. Only years later did I consciously come to the realization that I loved the “mystery series.” Each story kept me reading, but I returned to the series, book after book, to read about the adventures of a particular person. Even though the word ‘protagonist’ didn’t enter my spoken vocabulary until years later, I loved revisiting my new-found friends within the pages of those novels. These friends were often eccentric, loud, or “foreign”; they were knowledgeable in their field of expertise; at times, they were confused or befuddled or even angry; but always, they were exciting to read about and fun to know.

3. Robert Ludlum’s novels changed my outlook on reading. Now my time was often spent reading for sheer pleasure and entertainment. I settled back while the story flowed over me, excited, tantalized, mesmerized, enlightened, and enthralled me. Through the decades, I devoured: all of Stephen King’s novels, stories painted exquisitely with descriptive phrases, especially his Dark Tower series with Roland Deschain; Sue Grafton’s ABC mysteries; John Sandford’s Prey series; Tess Gerittson’s medical thrillers; all of the works by Michael Connelly, Mary Higgins Clark, Clive Cussler, Janet Evanovich, and JK Rowlings. (Raise your hand if you enjoyed the parallels between the Lord of the Rings, Dark Tower, and Harry Potter series.) 

In summary, three of the fun reasons I love to read include the desire to:

1. Venture into an imaginative other-world;

2. Experience the development of a unique, stimulating, sometimes humorous, always thought-provoking personality from the perspective of its author, including protagonists Kinsey Millhone, Lucas Davenport, Harry Potter, Dirk Pitt, Stephanie Plum, and Harry Bosch;

3. And immerse myself in the sheer pleasure and entertainment that lurks behind all those colorfully illustrated and telling front covers.  

 

 

Watson, Doctor Watson

Sidekicks, partners, bosom buddies, and dastardly duos are often found in literature and movie format. So many famous crime-fighting twosomes come to mind:

Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra’s Don Quixote de la Mancha and his squire, Sancho Panza

Tarzan and the Apes (later, Jane) in Edgar Rice Burroughs’s graphic novels (weren’t the bad guys always trying to capture the chimpanzee?)

Batman and Robin; Attila and the Huns; Gene Autry and Gabby Hayes;

Genghis Khan and grandson Kublai (generations apart but both riveted on world domination)

 Rizzoli & Isles; Stephanie Plum & Lula; Simon and Simon; Hart to Hart; ah, the list goes on.

Sherlock Holmes has his ‘man Friday’ (reference to Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe intentional.) Dr. Watson, the quintessential sidekick to Arthur Conan Doyle’s famous detective, is narrator of Sherlock Holmes’s adventures. Watson does not fill the role of leg-work man like Nero Wolfe’s Archie or the “muscle” of Stephanie Plum’s Lula. When he attempts to detect, in the presence or unexpected absence of the detective, the efforts fall short with, in his own words, “indifferent success.”

Did Dr. Watson remain with Mr. Holmes all those years, even after he married, for the exhilaration of knowing the game was afoot?