The Russell paradox: The Mary Russell marriage
as proof of Holmes's homosexuality?

by Min and Clarrie

Dissecting the Russell / Holmes relationship as shown in Laurie R King's Mary Russell books, concentrating mostly on the first 'The Beekeeper's Apprentice' and with comparison to Conan Doyle's original characterisation. - Planned and written by Min and Clarrie

'This case deserves to be a classic'. 1

Every book should be treated as a classic, and every classic should provoke new questions upon each reading. With fiction, as with politics, 'proof' is often merely a matter of opinion. Which is probably what makes them both so enjoyable -

'For a renowned bachelor such as myself, you probably would be more of an embarrassment were you a boy' - The Beekeeper's Apprentice. 2

Thus does Laurie R. King acknowledge one of the most pervasive revisionist 'rumours' about Holmes - that Holmes the misogynist has more than a simple dislike of the 'fairer sex' - that, in fact, his discomfort stems from his homosexual inclinations, which, in their time, would have meant more than merely a little scandal and a brief social exclusion. Discovery would have meant, in theory, a jail term and, for the religious of mind, an eternity in hell.

So, which route do we take with this essay? That of the UK judicial system, innocent until proven guilty? Or that of the US courts, and require that his innocence be proven beyond reasonable doubt? Let's go with the US courts for a while, shall we? Much more fun.

So, Holmes is gay. The reader knows it, the author knows it, dogs know it3. But does Holmes?

'Now, Watson, the fair sex is your department.' 4

It is worth taking a moment here to state our position on any Watson/Holmes pairing - No. That is a notion which will not be entertained in this essay and should be cast from our minds. If we were to use the fact that they were two unattached men living together as proof of homosexuality there wouldn't be a straight man left in popular Victorian fiction. Holmes, by his very nature, was a delicately folded mass of layers, demanding exploration and suppositions. Watson was, to be blunt, not. Watson did not have 'layers' except perhaps in winter when the cold demanded an extra overcoat.

Conan Doyle's Watson marries and, presumably, happily so. (Laurie R. King's Watson. Hmm. Whilst he appears unattached at the time of the Mary Russell stories this may be the result of bereavement. However as her Watson appears to be the result of careful study of the Basil Rathbone B movies rather than the origional text, I rather think that layers may be discounted here, too.)

So a homosexual Holmes. What would lead us to this belief? After all, the opportunity to perform the deed does not necessarily carry across into the inclination.

Holmes is unacquainted with the reality of women. He alternately idealises and demonises woman, but unlike Watson, never just accepts them. The only woman in the entire Canon whom he seems to hold in any sort of regard (indeed, to many, he would seem to have become infatuated with her) is The Woman, Irene Adler - actress, opera singer, adventuress, quite possibly a Diva5...

Although Holmes is in regular contact with his brother Mycroft, this may be due as much to their relative usefulness to each other as professionals rather than any familial affection, indeed there appears to have been either a rift between Holmes and his family at some point or at any rate a gradual drifting apart. In itself of course this is proof of nothing; there are plenty of people who do not get along with the family into which they chanced to be born.

Holmes has a dramatic streak and a love of costume, however, unlike his music, he continually rationalises and seeks to suppress it. There is no doubt that he uses disguise beyond its need.

Whilst Watson may not have been Holmes' companion in any fleshy sense, the incredulity verging on disgust which Holmes shows when his friend announces his intended marriage is beyond that of mere Victorian misogyny, his reaction is that of a man who simply cannot comprehend the idea.

'To this spot a sort of aged philosopher had retired...Being a little weary of interrogating men' - The Beekeeper's Apprentice.

But what of Laurie R. King's Holmes?

And so, we move on from proposing our original scenario to the question at the heart of the discussion: Does the Mary Russell marriage paradoxically confirm Holmes's homosexuality?

Consider the relationship between Russell and Holmes. In moments of drama Russell occasionally becomes 'Russ,' but we cannot claim to recall a single point (in 'The Beekeeper's Apprentice' or 'A monstrous Regiment of Women6' at least) in which Holmes refers to his prodigy as 'Mary' (excepting during her brief spell as 'Mary Todd' which we will cover momentarily).

'He straightened, pushed his old fashioned cap back on his greying hair, and looked at me with tired eyes. "Young man I..."' - The Beekeeper's Apprentice.

Thus goes the first meeting between Holmes and his future wife. Whom he mistakes for a man. During the entire course of Laurie R. King's first Holmes book 'The Beekeeper's Apprentice,' from this first meeting on the Sussex hillside to the events of Jerusalem, Miss Russell spends almost her entire time either actually disguised as a man (whilst escaping Oxford, Jerusalem) or merely dressed in male clothing for sake of comfort and convenience. Indeed, of the two incidents in 'The Beekeeper's Apprentice' in which she appears 'groomed and coiffured7' without even the excuse of a disguise, the first sends Holmes into an apopleptic seizure from which Watson is forced to revive him. 8

'I know that from that first day he tended to treat me more as a lad than as a girl and seemed in fact to solve any discomfort my sex might cause him by simply ignoring it: I was Russell, not some female...'

Russell admits that she is not the most feminine (in appearance) of women, or in thought and deed and indeed, it seems to be true that Holmes does not regard her as female at all.

We referred previously to the time Russell spends as 'Mary Todd.' Their brief spell disguised as gypsies in the Welsh countryside is the only time during which Holmes appears to accept Russell's femininity, except, of course, that he doesn't. It is noticeable from his attitude that, to Holmes, Russell's skirts are just as much of a disguise on her as they would be on Watson (albeit a rather more effective one) and he seems to regard the whole situation as rather amusing.

'My attitudes, my choice of clothing, even the shape of my body combined to protect him from having to acknowledge my nature' - The Beekeeper's Apprentice.

So, we have Russell, a masculine/androgynous young woman, who assumes that her androgyny has merely protected her until it was 'too late,' that the Trojan horse has secured her entry into his affection and in time will be replaced by a respect for her intrinsic femininity. Is this so, however? Or does Holmes see in her something else? A socially acceptable way of living in a 'male' relationship, perhaps?

'I think I can honestly say, that particular destination would not have been my first choice. Greece, Morocco yes. Even Egypt, but Palestine?' - The Beekeeper's Apprentice.

It is, very possibly, a coincidence that the first three destinations mentioned by Holmes were traditionally popular homosexual holiday destinations until the late twentieth century. But worth noting nonetheless.

So, we return to our original conjecture. Does Holmes's affection for Russell stem from the discovery of an 'almost male' with whom he can have a relationship in his winter years without fear of reprisal? Let us begin again with Russell's 'attitudes,' taking as our first example a single exchange.

'I asked Mrs. Hudson once why she thought you wore your hair so long. She said it was a vestige of femininity'... 'Is it true?' - The Beekeeper's Apprentice.

To which Russell replies:

'I think not. I find short hair too much fuss, always needing combing and cutting. Long hair is much easier, oddly enough.'9 - The Beekeeper's Apprentice.

Satisfied with this answer, Holmes sleeps and no more is said. But what if Russell had not given such a practical answer? What if, in fact, Russell had replied. 'Yes, yes she's quite right. Long hair is an admission of my womanhood, I would rather run risk of discovery by pinning it under a cap whilst dressed as a boy than cut it off - incidentally, I quite like rainbows and fluffy kittens too...' Would Holmes have balked at this? Would an outright admission of her non-maleness have burst the bubble of self-deception that he had built up sufficiently to prevent the events of Jerusalem and, as an eventual result, the wedding of two years later?

'Reminders of my femininity always took him by surprise.' - The Beekeeper's Apprentice.

Let us consider, for a moment, two more examples in which Holmes displays his extraordinary capacity for deceiving himself as to Russell's sex. It is wearisome, I know, but sheer weight of evidence compels us.

At first, a mild breach of etiquette.

'When I walked into the room, Mycroft immediately scraped back his chair, stood up, and went to pull out a chair for me. Holmes watched him for a moment, looked at me, laid his serviette upon the table and slowly stood, smiling curiously.' - The Beekeeper's Apprentice.

As I said, a mild breach. However, we see interesting echoes of Holmes's attitude during the 'Mary Todd' time here. He is amused at his brother's instinctive response to Russell's presence, and, when he stands, it is with a distinct air of 'playing along.' 'This not a female, Mycroft!' Is the unspoken statement in his smile, 'This is Russell, he can fetch his own damn chair.'

Interesting, but a mild breach none the less. However, whilst Russell is being disguised in order that she may leave the Diogenes club in safety...

'"Now, I'll tear up some of these blankets while you tape yourself to reduce your height. Take off your shirt, Russell."... So matter-of-fact was his command that I had my hand on my shirt collar when Mycroft cleared his throat gently behind us.

"What?" Holmes looked up... and realised what had happened.' - The Beekeeper's Apprentice.

This, especially in the time in which the book is set (1915-19) is, I think we can safely say, not a mild breach. Even if we take into account the stress of the situation, Holmes's natural unconventionality and his familiarity with Russell. That they strip to the waist whilst in a room with three men (one of whom is, at the time, a near stranger to Russell) is not something which Holmes would have asked of, say, Mrs. Hudson or a female client. Yet it isn't until his brother actually points out the impropriety of his suggestion that he realises what he has asked, and even then it takes a moment.

And thus, to Jerusalem. This section of the book took, we admit, deserves some study.

The prose in this section of the book becomes almost sensual. A haze of heat and dust overlaying the brief description of events tinted by the exotic. As they near Jerusalem (regarded by Russell, a Humanistic or Reconstructionist Jew and theology student, as the land not just of her heritage, but as a land of history which is at once hers, yet also impersonal enough to have been untainted by the tragic events of her adolescence.) Russell grows more confident, and, it seems, more comfortable with herself and her tutor. 11

HOWEVER. It should not be inferred from this that Russell has, so to speak 'let her slip show.' She remains throughout in the guise of a boy, although clearly, in this remote land, she could have passed as anything from a female relative to a serving girl. Yet it is shown throughout that she is unfamiliar with her own femininity. There is mention of no entanglements whilst she is away at University, and it is evident that the sole consistent male from whom she is able to draw a perception of the 'male female relationship' is Holmes. Note here the wording, that I do not restrict this to romances. Holmes aside Russell appears to have no adult male female relationships to draw upon. Patrick is an employee, her Aunt is single, her father and brother are dead, Watson12 is absent, her tutors and classmates are women - the only model she has for a 'male female' relationship is the 'male male' situation she and Holmes are in. Rather dangerously, her whole idea of social interaction on an intimate level has been allowed to be shaped by a single relationship.

But back to Jerusalem.

It is here that the closeness between Russell and Holmes, exaggerated by the shared sense of danger and the freedom afforded by anonymity, looks set to spill over into the physical. Indeed, for a long time our perception was that it had, during the night spent at Mount Megiddo following what a dear friend of ours insists on mockingly referring to as the 'sexy chess.'

'The moves lengthened, slowed, as our two diminutive armies clashed. Pieces fell and were removed from the field of battle. The first stars emerged unnoticed...

"Regina redivivus."'13 - The Beekeeper's Apprentice.

Gosh.

But, in the end chess is all it is, however 'sexy.' We are not ill-bred; however, we do not insist that the honeymoon sheets be displayed to the scrutiny of the village. But, it must be said, hair stroking aside, physical contact of any kind is something lacking from 'The Beekeeper's Apprentice.'

Which leads us, of course, to 'A monstrous Regiment of Women.'

'"Yes I am... But only just."' - A monstrous Regiment of Women.

'A Monstrous Regiment' is a completely different animal than 'The Beekeeper's Apprentice.' If 'The Beekeeper's Apprentice' were a book about Holmes and Russell which, incidentally, was narrated by Russell, then 'A Monstrous Regiment' is Russell's book. Events and, more importantly, characters, are seen through Russell's eyes. And it is in 'A Monstrous Regiment' that we see a new aspect to the relationship. Here we gain our first glimpse of Russell the pursuer. It has been assumed, in as far as it has been considered at all, that throughout Russell and Holmes' rather complicated male female male male relationship, Holmes is the dominant 'Alpha' partner, with Russell (although almost imperceptibly at times) still the more submissive 'beta' partner. But here we have Russell the pursuer and Holmes, well, Holmes the absolute bitch.

'"Do you imagine that I might succumb to the dictates of social norms and marry you in order to stop tongues from wagging when we go off together? Or perhaps you imagine that the pleasures of the wedding bed might prove irresistible?"' - A Monstrous Regiment of Women.

Meow.

But what of it? Well, let us consider for a moment Russell, and the changes which have affected within her during the two years since the night at Ar Megiddo.

Mention was made earlier in this piece of Russell's lack of adult male female relationships in 'The Beekeeper's Apprentice' from which to draw perspective in her dealings with Holmes. By 'A Monstrous Regiment,' however, this situation has, it appears, been remedied somewhat. There is Duncan, the 'gangling young baronet with the passion for Einstein', Reggie, and of course the young man 'possessed of a quick mind, a wry sense of humour, an inexplicable persistence and an automobile' who is the cause of the 'only just' caveat mentioned above. Not to mention the 'large numbers of mature young men' that the post war years had brought into Oxford, at least some of whom presumably called her Mary.

And how does this relate to Holmes's behaviour in 'A Monstrous Regiment'?

Consider that Holmes is, albeit perhaps unconsciously with regards to Russell, a master in manipulation. He is also proverbial in his capabilities for observation. In the two years since we last met them he has watched as she has formed outside interests and relationships and inevitably begun to interpret her own ideas as to what constitutes 'femininity.' Russell will never be a 'girlie girl', but she seems to have had at least some of her corners smoothed out. Tellingly, she still retreats to her father's suits when going to meet Holmes, but it is almost an afterthought, part of her 'kicking back the traces' after the rigours of her paper on feminism in Judaism. 14

'Tutors with disturbingly male characteristics...' - A Monstrous Regiment of Women.

Despite this sentence however it is in 'A Monstrous Regiment of Women' that we see Holmes the maiden aunt, Holmes the bitch, Holmes the coquette, Holmes the housefrau, Holmes indeed, running the gamut of 'female' behaviour. Russell, in her discomfort, overlooks that throughout the events of 'A Monstrous Regiment' it is Holmes who adopts the 'female' role, manipulating by what is not said, by what is left undone15 Consider this - when confronted by Holmes's 'feminine' behaviour, what does Russell do? On a conscious level, of course, she doesn't even register it, but importantly, in reaction, she begins to take on more of the 'male' role.

So, we start the book with Holmes indulging in a little recreational cab driving, in the guise of Basil Josephs, with his companion in 'Amatoor dramatics.'

'"I admit that one or two of the areas we've been through I've never seen before."

Holmes, the maiden aunt. Forcibly, Russell is reminded that she is female, that no matter how much she thinks herself above such things, she has begun to buy into the idea of femininity, which inevitably forces her to act in the exact opposite manner. 'Damn the man, he knew me far too well.'16

'"It's nice Holmes. Cosy."

Holmes, the housefrau. An advertisement for domestic bliss, following the reinforcement of Russell's femininity in the initial scenes of the book we have here Holmes as almost a parody of the wife/mother figure. Preparing a hot bowl of soup for her 'husband,' returning after a hard night's work out in the cold and rain. A disarming tactic, intended to blur Russell's still unsure ideas of 'feminine' and 'masculine' behaviour.

'He rested one hand briefly on the back of my chair as he went around it to the ventilation shaft, and one long finger brushed my shoulder....' - A Monstrous Regiment of Women.

Holmes, the coquette. Well, it may be that 'coquette' is a little too strong a term, but Holmes is certainly flirting. It is minimalist, intensely reserved flirting, but it exists. This behaviour continues in 'Dominic's' - Holmes is eager only to speak of Russell's business, he defers, he proposes trips to Paris17 (and expresses disappointment when Russell turns him down).

And it would appear that it works. Like it or not, we are all familiar with the ending of 'A Monstrous Regiment' complete with exploding boats, buckling knees, 18 et al.

But, in the midst of all this, two facts stand out, that it is Russell who instigates the first kiss at the dockside and that she is sufficiently astute to ponder the significance of Holmes' remark about wanting to 'do that since the first moment I laid eyes upon you.'19 It is a tribute to Russell's affection for Holmes that she accepts his joke about 'some minutes of deep consternation.'

Now, it could be that Holmes speaks the truth when he claims that on first sight, without even a cursory conversation with her/him, he was entranced with Russell. Or that on the dockside, subconsciously, he was perhaps 'over egging the pudding' in his haste to reassure Russell.

So, in conclusion, we are left with two possibilities.

In the first, Holmes, throughout the entire six years prior to his marriage to Russell, is unconsciously 'grooming' her to be mentally male, and is able to overlook the fact that she is not physically so. That he is, if such a thing can be labelled, a psychological homosexual, and that his resultant marriage to Mary Russell proves this.

Or, if we take his words at face value, we are faced with the idea that Holmes, a man of thought and logic, lost his heart to a fifteen year old girl before he could ever have known what her mental capacity was...

Damn.

1 The Adventures of the Priory School -Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, (Wordsworth paperback).

2 The Beekeeper's Apprentice - Laurie R. King, Harper Collins 1996. ISBN 0 00 6514340

3 Original quote: 'You're gay, I know it, your wife knows it, dogs know it.' - Brain Candy, paramount studios, 1996.

4 The Adventure of the Second Stain - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, (Wordsworth paperback).

5 If you think that this is tenuous proof, then you are clearly new to the world of Holmesian essays; be grateful we didn't use an acrostic...

6 A Monstrous Regiment of Women, 1995, St. Martin's Press, ISBN 0 553 57456 6.

7 Upon Mrs. Hudson's guidance, 'It was she who took me to the London dressmakers and hairdressers so that when I came home from Oxford on my eighteenth birthday I could inflict on Holmes a case of apoplexy with my appearance.' - The Beekeeper's Apprentice.

8 'I was very glad for the presence of Dr. Watson on that occasion. Had I killed Holmes with my dressing up I should surely have thrown myself into the Isis by the end of term.' - The Beekeeper's Apprentice.

9 Silly as it sounds, this is in fact true - Clarrie, whose hair, despite this, is indeed a vestige of femininity.

10 This being a study of the Holmes/Russell relationship based on the texts 'A Beekeeper's Apprentice' and 'A Monstrous Regiment of Women.' At the time of writing the authors had not read 'O Jerusalem.'

11 I refer of course to Holmes rather than to Patricia Donleavy.

12 And is, it seems, regarded as something of a child by both Holmes and Russell.

13 One wonders whether second hand is quite the way one would wish to be described personally, especially as this is certainly a thing NOT true of Russell. Perhaps we had better interpret this as a pun with the more usual 'reused' in the sense of 'having found a new use for' or 'reinvented/reborn.'

14 At least this seems to be more or less the topic, women in the Judeo-Christian religious tradition perhaps?

15 *ahem* that is *cough* things not done, rather than buttons and such...

16 The Moor: A Mary Russell Novel, 1998, Bantam, ISBN 0553579525 (a good read, unrelated to our essay however).

17 Albeit to secure a statement from a witness on the run from drug dealers, he must be true to their essential natures, after all...

18 Clarrie must be given her reign here, lest she explode in a shower of bitterness - 'I can accept many things about the Holmesian world, many of which may be contradictory or downright ridiculous, but whenever I have to read of someone being knocked out for their own protection I come dangerously close to screaming. Being knocked unconscious is A CONCUSSION people! It may not leave any lasting damage, but then again, it may, and it is impossible to know, when dealing the blow, how badly concussed one's victim will be upon regaining consciousness. There is a saying 'there's no such thing as mild concussion' in my opinion a new saying is also needed: 'there's no such thing as knocking someone out for their own protection.' Overcome by emotion or not overcome by emotion, Holmes is not an ape, for God's sake, and I cannot accept his behaving like one.' Thank you, we now return you to your regularly scheduled essay *g*'

19 Must... analyse... written word... only in relation to topic... Cannot... touch upon... way in which this sentence negates the message of entire book... Gnargh...