I'm a bit baffled by #3. Being a teenager when introduced makes Russell a Mary Sue? Why? It's not like Laurie King was a teenager when she created Russell -- far from it, she's the mother of teenagers -- so it's not a problem with self-insertion.
#4 is also, IMO, a matter of taste and has nothing to do with Mary Sueness in itself. If Conan Doyle had been the one to write a wife for Sherlock Holmes, we wouldn't be accusing him of creating a Mary Sue, would we? And when William Gillette married off Holmes in his stage play (with Conan Doyle's own, quite famous, line of permission "You may marry or murder or do what you like with him"), I doubt the theatre patrons were running around grumbling about Alice being a Mary Sue (or the Edwardian equivalent thereof). They might well have objected to the idea that Holmes would ever fall in love or marry at all, and they might have complained that Alice was not in their opinion the sort of woman who would attract Holmes, but I can't imagine anyone just deciding out of hand that any female character who has a romance with Holmes and/or marries him is a badly drawn, superficial, cliched character (which is, after all, what the epithet "Mary Sue" implies) by default.
I'm also not quite sure about the "equal of hero". More than once Holmes beats Russell to the solution of a case, and/or she ends up on the sidelines while he does the heroic catching-the-villain part. I also get the distinct impression that Russell doesn't have her heart in detecting the way that Holmes does; theology is her first love and she would much rather sneak off in a corner with a pile of books and manuscripts and not be bothered with detective stuff at all.
On the other hand, I agree about the mishandling of Watson -- it's been a long-time complaint among Russell fans, and Laurie has got an earful from us about it. :) But the idea of Holmes working with Russell rather than Watson doesn't bother me, because Watson is in retirement. And the whole idea of the series is the chance to see Holmes through eyes other than Watson's -- feminine eyes for a change -- so it would defeat the purpose if Russell didn't take Watson's place as narrator.
I understand that some readers don't like Russell and don't approve of what Laurie King is doing, and that's fine. Not everything is to everyone's taste. But I don't think the difference between Irene Adler and Mary Russell is the difference between a well-drawn character and a "Mary Sue". In fact, for all that she's ostensibly taken from canon, Irene strikes me as far more idealized and glamourized by her author (which is the thing that pings my personal Mary Sue radar most of all) than Russell. I don't get the sense that Laurie King wishes she were Russell, or that she writes as though everyone ought to love Russell unconditionally; I do get the sense that Carole Nelson Douglas wishes she were Irene, and that anyone in or out of the story who doesn't worship Irene for being so clever and beautiful and witty and chic is wrong. That's really what I meant. But of course, YMMV.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: I haven't read "Chapel Noir"...
Date: 2003-07-14 08:03 am (UTC)#4 is also, IMO, a matter of taste and has nothing to do with Mary Sueness in itself. If Conan Doyle had been the one to write a wife for Sherlock Holmes, we wouldn't be accusing him of creating a Mary Sue, would we? And when William Gillette married off Holmes in his stage play (with Conan Doyle's own, quite famous, line of permission "You may marry or murder or do what you like with him"), I doubt the theatre patrons were running around grumbling about Alice being a Mary Sue (or the Edwardian equivalent thereof). They might well have objected to the idea that Holmes would ever fall in love or marry at all, and they might have complained that Alice was not in their opinion the sort of woman who would attract Holmes, but I can't imagine anyone just deciding out of hand that any female character who has a romance with Holmes and/or marries him is a badly drawn, superficial, cliched character (which is, after all, what the epithet "Mary Sue" implies) by default.
I'm also not quite sure about the "equal of hero". More than once Holmes beats Russell to the solution of a case, and/or she ends up on the sidelines while he does the heroic catching-the-villain part. I also get the distinct impression that Russell doesn't have her heart in detecting the way that Holmes does; theology is her first love and she would much rather sneak off in a corner with a pile of books and manuscripts and not be bothered with detective stuff at all.
On the other hand, I agree about the mishandling of Watson -- it's been a long-time complaint among Russell fans, and Laurie has got an earful from us about it. :) But the idea of Holmes working with Russell rather than Watson doesn't bother me, because Watson is in retirement. And the whole idea of the series is the chance to see Holmes through eyes other than Watson's -- feminine eyes for a change -- so it would defeat the purpose if Russell didn't take Watson's place as narrator.
I understand that some readers don't like Russell and don't approve of what Laurie King is doing, and that's fine. Not everything is to everyone's taste. But I don't think the difference between Irene Adler and Mary Russell is the difference between a well-drawn character and a "Mary Sue". In fact, for all that she's ostensibly taken from canon, Irene strikes me as far more idealized and glamourized by her author (which is the thing that pings my personal Mary Sue radar most of all) than Russell. I don't get the sense that Laurie King wishes she were Russell, or that she writes as though everyone ought to love Russell unconditionally; I do get the sense that Carole Nelson Douglas wishes she were Irene, and that anyone in or out of the story who doesn't worship Irene for being so clever and beautiful and witty and chic is wrong. That's really what I meant. But of course, YMMV.