fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2594 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2594 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

__________________________________________________

14.

__________________________________________________

15.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 094 secrets from Secret Submission Post #371.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 1 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I'm a Holmes fan and I like them. The Watson thing is softened hardcore in other books, and while I HATE the romance I don't find Mary as much of a Sue as people like to call her. The stories are good and I don't see anywhere that Mary is made out to be a better detective than Holmes.

I think the term Mary Sue applies here. You only have to look at her traits...

* genius at languages and learns all the Sooper Sekrit Detective Skills in a matter of weeks
* tendency to out-detect the world's greatest consulting detective even though she's a teenager (look at the books and see who finds all the major breaks in the case... it ain't Holmes)
* bunches of author self-insert down to the interest in religious studies

Who but a Sue could match Sherlock Holmes, the Stu Icon?

She's an original character in a Holmes pastiche. If she was an original character in another non-Holmes book that would be quite a bit different.

Also, Holmes has a shitton of unglamorized, believable character flaws.

So does Mary Russell - She has a shitton of believable flaws, too, like wanting to believe John Watson meant less to Holmes then he did, just for one example.

She's also the main character of the series, as the author has stated repeatedly. Holmes and everybody else are supposed to be supporting characters, and I think the author has done a pretty good job of showing Holmes as just that.

Except for how Holmes himself explicitly says Watson meant very little to him.

Also, a flaw doesn't count as a flaw if it's not acknowledged by canon as something wrong.

You know, I read most of the Mary Russell series, and my impression of John Watson in the series is somebody who has had to act as a de facto caretaker for Sherlock Holmes for half his life, and sure, he loves him, but he's also pretty damned relieved when Mary turns up and he doesn't have to be almost his only friend in the entire universe anymore.

Like the stories all you please, they are still shit.

Your definition of shit does not match mine.

You're free to think of anything that doesn't match your headcanon as shit, of course, and I'm free to keep on disagreeing with you.

It's not matching actual ACD canon that bothers me more, but if you (and King) want to carry on ignoring that, feel free. Wouldn't be the first time.

That might have something to do with it being an AU story to begin with, I think.

Mary Russell does not appear anyplace in ACD's canon, you know.

That's an interesting headcanon, but there is no basis for this in the books whatsoever.

DA

Things Holmes says about Watson (only in Beekeeper, since you refuse to read the rest of the books)

"Seeing myself reflected in Watson's eyes was useful when contemplating a case that was giving me problems. He taught me a great deal about how humans function, what drives them. He keeps me humble, Watson does. At any rate, as humble as I can be."

"I work alone. I always have. Even when Watson was with me, he functioned purely as another pair of hands, not in anything resembling true partnership."

"It was something Watson could never have done, even discounting his bad leg. Watson's great strength has always been his utter, dogged dependability. His attempts at independent action tend to blow up in my face, so I have never encouraged them"

(when Holmes has been attacked and Mary asks about Watson) "My God, how could I -- [...] Oh, if anything has happened to him through my utter and absolute, boneheaded stupidity..."

(upon Watson then showing up) "I fear my long-time chronicler has taken a few of my lessons to heart, Russell. We have been run to earth."

That's all from the horse's mouth, as it were. Russell/the narration then does a bit about how Watson's not good at lying and playing parts, so had limited use to Holmes, and it must have been hard for him. There are several other places where the narration is admiring of Watson's character and gently dismissive of his sneakiness, but except for the very beginning before she meets him, he's never described as unintelligent (just not in Holmes's league).

She also doesn't learn the detective skills in a couple of weeks, as all the argument about how long Holmes has been 'raising' her should point out. Their first case together comes after several years of association, and Holmes does 90% of the work in it; Mary's big contribution is to climb a telephone pole to confirm what Holmes already suspects. Their second 'case' is at least a couple terms after that, and Holmes stays mostly out of it because it was Mary's idea entirely and it's about a stolen ham, hardly the thing of Holmes's casebooks. Their third, he meant to leave her behind and she bulls in, he's done most of the deduction work already and when they get on-site, he gets all the clues first; she misses several until he prods her. She does indeed get the dramatic finish to the case, but she goes against Holmes's instructions to do it and it's her first independent action, which scares her.

The big case of the book, Mary gets a big early clue to -- because she needs to use the ladies' room. And Holmes says he was already considering whether their opponent was female. She notices the typeface on the note. She breaks the Roman numeral code, largely because the villain of the case went out of their way to drop her a hint beforehand and she finally put it together. She doesn't get the connection, though, and Holmes does. She throws something at the villain to spoil a gun's aim.

Thus, the great detectival accomplishments of Mary Russell after a seven-year apprenticeship. Yep, totally better than Holmes.

That's not a flaw, though. You refer to it like it's some sort of ill-conceived wishful thinking Mary has, but that's not what happened. Yes, she believes Watson wasn't a true partner to Holmes, but this is exactly what Holmes says himself in the books. If Mary believes her mentor and the man who had firsthand experience of Watson, this is just common sense on her part.

(It's terrible characterization on the author's part, but it makes sense for Mary to believe what Holmes has told her.)

Perhaps a super-intelligent woman who doesn't diss Watson and who was within ten or fifteen years of Holmes's age, and has deep-seated negative traits somewhat comparable to Holmes's?

Going by the canonical evidence, I'd say the only woman with a chance would have to be a whole lot like Watson.

[ SECRET POST #2594 ]

no subject

no subject

da

Re: da

Re: da

Re: da

Re: da

Re: da

Your definition of shit does not match mine

Re: Your definition of shit does not match mine

Re: Your definition of shit does not match mine

Re: da

Re: da

Re: da

Re: da

Re: da