In which I eschew actual review for petty irritation

[my_daroga]

I am about 3/4 done with Laurie R. King's latest, The God of the Hive, which is the ninth in her Mary Russell series and follows on directly from the last book. I don't have a review--for some reason, I never feel as inclined/capable about book reviews as film. I don't know why that is.

No, the reason I'm posting today is because I am annoyed, and it is about authors explaining their references. Specifically, after the plane crash, the forest hermit pulls them out and twinkles merrily. King makes some references to Arden, and Midsummer, "Robert Goodman" introduces himself, and then King proceeds to remind us every few pages that "Robert Goodman" might as well be "Robin Goodfellow"! *gasp* I think this has happened at least six times at this point.

Honestly, if I get the reference, then great. If I don't, no harm done. If I do, and then I have it constantly explained, I just feel like the author thinks I'm too stupid to get it, and frankly, if I didn't get it the first time am I going to the fifth? I would have been far easier with the allusion, further, if it had remained less explicit (and it wasn't very subtle to begin with).

Comments

[laughingrat]

Oh Jesus, that would be really irritating. And how the hell does she work this into a Holmes pastiche, really? I mean, that sort of thing is antithetical to the whole genre.

[my_daroga]

I guess because it's the narrator's perception? They're more Mary Russell books than Holmes, really.

[laughingrat]

*nods* Right on. I sort of want to be interested in them, and yet. *dithers* But they must not be too bad; you've made it through the whole series.

[my_daroga]

Well, here's the story: When I was 15, the first novel came out, and it was about a 15-year-old blond girl dressed as a boy who is reading her way across the downs when she virtually trips over a retired Sherlock Holmes. So I was automatically hooked, and Russell provided a very convenient fantasy insert for me. I left of halfway through, and picked up the series again a few years ago when I rediscovered fandom and wanted to take part in something that was ongoing, you know? Not that I've been all that involved. But most of my favorite filmmakers/authors are dead, so I don't have a lot I'm waiting for. I think that's a lot of what's kept me holding on.

I'd still probably really enjoy the first book, though.

[laughingrat]

I hear that--it's nice to have something ongoing that you can anticipate new stories from. And yeah, I would've been hooked too--and maybe still would be. I oughta just read the damn thing and get it over with. :)

[my_daroga]

I think giving the first a go is a good idea. I actually wrote 1/3 of my undergrad thesis on that book. Of course, I can't find it now...

[laughingrat]

Hot damn, that's awesome. Was it on fannishness? I love, love it when people inside fandom write academically about fannishness. It's nifty. :-D

[my_daroga]

Not entirely--it was about the reuse of Holmes through the years to comply with whatever cultural needs there were. The appropriation of the figure of Holmes from ACD to the sensibilities and concerns of the time. Rathbone and the war. Nicholas Meyer and "me" culture (roughly--psychoanalysis and drugs!). Russell and feminism--or as I argue, a muddled attempt at it.

[laughingrat]

Nice! That's very cool, I like that. And I agree.

[my_daroga]

Thank you! I think that is one of my primary critical interests--permutation across the cultural landscape. The "evolution" (meant loosely) of particular figures, like the Beast in Beauty and the Beast stories, or our understanding/use for Shakespeare, or how particular tropes get re-purposed.