REVIEW: A Study in Scarlet Women by Sherry Thomas
Dear Ms. Thomas:
I know very little about Sherlock Holmes – I know of the pipe and the deerstalker cap, I’ve heard the phrase, “Elementary, my dear Watson”, and I know that Sherlock was an influential archtype in the development of the modern detective in fiction. I *think* I read The Hound of the Baskervilles in high school, but I remember nothing about it.
All this prefacing is to say that I may not be the ideal audience for an homage to Sherlock Holmes. That said, let’s get started; A Study in Scarlet Women begins with a brief prologue:
Had anyone told the Honorable Harrington Sackville that the investigation into his death would make the name Sherlock Holmes known throughout the land, Mr. Sackville would have scoffed.
We get a few more of Sackville’s thoughts before he exits stage right. Then we continue to Chapter One, where we meet the character of Lord Ingram Ashburton, who as far as I know doesn’t correspond to any character in Arthur Conan Doyle’s world. Ashburton seethes with worry for Sherlock Holmes, to whom he writes an oblique letter, begging Holmes not to go through with some unnamed action. His wife then brings him dire news of “…Holmes. Your Holmes” who is evidently a woman.
The stories switches to the aforementioned Holmes, first name Charlotte, being caught in flagrante delicto with the married Roger Shrewsbury, by his wife and a phalanx of female friends and relatives, the most formidable of which is Shrewsbury’s mother, Lady Shrewsbury. The entire scene seemed extremely unlikely to me from start to finish – from the way Shrewsbury’s wife finds out about his plans to deflower Charlotte, to the idea that a bunch of women would descend upon the scene en masse.
So, we’re just about 3% into the book, and I’m already aggravated; I can’t figure out what’s going on, who is who, and we’ve been given the perspective of three different characters already (none of whom is Sherlock Holmes). We’ll get the perspectives of three more, including such extensive POV musings from Charlotte’s sister Livia that I started to wonder if she was the main character in the book, before we actually get the POV of Charlotte Holmes, otherwise known as Sherlock.
This was where I started to wonder if my lack of familiarity with the Arthur Conan Doyle books was a hindrance – maybe this multiple perspective, all-over-the-place plotting is a hallmark of his style? I didn’t, and don’t, know. I do know that it presented some challenges to me as a reader. I may have mentioned before: I get anxious like a herding dog missing two sheep when I can’t follow a plot. I can tell myself to get through it and things will get clearer (and of course they did) but it’s not my favorite way to start off a book.
So I’m going to have to explain the plot in a linear fashion, because that’s just how my mind works. Charlotte Holmes lives with her parents (awful mother; less overtly awful father), and two of three sisters (the oldest is married): Livia, whom she’s very close to, and Bernadine, who appears to be developmentally disabled in some way. We first see Charlotte through Livia’s eyes, and learn that she didn’t talk until a very late age but when she did her observations were unusually sophisticated. As Charlotte grew, she developed an angelic appearance – blonde ringlets, big limpid eyes and a rounded figure (Charlotte likes to eat; I liked that about her). Her personality is eccentric; like the Doyle Holmes she could be viewed as perhaps being on the autism spectrum. She sometimes appears not to understand or relate well to human emotion, but she’s very, very good with logic.
Charlotte has been helping her childhood friend Lord Ashburton, occasionally giving him insights into cases she hears of; Ashburton passes these tips on to a friend, Inspector Robert Treadles of the Metropolitan Police. But now Charlotte (or “Sherlock”) is lost as a source to Treadles. For reasons too byzantine (and honestly, I thought dumb) to go into, Charlotte has decided to ruin herself with Roger Shrewsbury. She doesn’t plan to get caught, but caught she is and now she’s not just ruined but disgraced. Charlotte leaves the family home in the middle of the night with a plan to get a job and work her way towards an independent life for herself and her sisters Livia and Bernadine. (For someone who was supposed to be a genius, Charlotte really lacked a certain sort of smarts – call it street smarts or simple common sense.)
Anyway, just as Charlotte is finding that life in a boarding house and looking for a job without legitimate references are not all they’re cracked up to be, a series of deaths draws her back into detective mode. Harrington Sackville, Lady Shrewsbury and Lady Amelia Drummond all die within days of each other, seemingly of natural causes. But there are reasons to be suspicious about Sackville’s death, and while Lady Shrewsbury was not young, she was in good health. Further, the fact that she had a public fight with Livia Holmes hours before her death causes tongues to wag. It turns out that Lady Amelia (whose name I had to look up; far, far less time is spent on her death than the other two, to the point that I kept forgetting about her entirely) was an ex-fiancee of Charlotte’s father, and that the two had quarreled right before her death.
So now Charlotte has a strong impetus to solve the crimes (if there were crimes at all, which is in question): in order to save the reputations of her beloved sister and her somewhat less-beloved father. Charlotte’s own fortunes turn when she meets her Watson – Mrs. Watson, a wealthy widow who previously tread the boards as an actress. Charlotte moves in with Mrs. Watson as a companion, but soon the older woman begins to fulfill the traditional Watsonish role of assistant and sounding board to the brilliant Holmes.
The resolution to the mystery was complicated, to the point that I’m not sure I understood every aspect of it. It wasn’t the sort of thing a reader could figure out by following the clues, I don’t think, which may or may not be an annoyance to the average mystery fan.
What I liked: the writing was excellent, as is to be expected from Sherry Thomas. I really liked Charlotte; I loved that her outward appearance was so at odds with her inner personality. I was intrigued by the tense and fraught relationship between Charlotte and Ashburton, which I believe will develop more in the following books in the series. I liked Livia; she was a sympathetic character who truly cares about her sisters and deserves a better life than the one she has stuck at home with her parents, a virtual old maid. I do wonder about her function in future stories because she seems a bit redundant if Holmes has Watson, but perhaps she’ll manage to find her own romantic partner at some point.
What didn’t work for me as well: gosh, this was a complicated story with a lot of characters to keep track of. That may be a plus for some readers but it wasn’t for me. As I noted above, even with some fairly expositiony dialogue on the resolution to the mystery, I think I missed a few things. It also felt odd that though the story was supposed to be about three murders, really only one, the murder of Sackville, is investigated in detail.
Even though I really liked Charlotte, I was a bit disappointed when she displayed un-Sherlock-like characteristics. She was really unrealistic about how easy it would be to move out of her parents’ house and set herself up as an independent woman. She ended up needing a man to rescue her, to a degree. While that’s realistic and believable for 25-year-old sheltered miss Charlotte Holmes, I somehow expect more from the brilliant Sherlock Holmes. I’m hoping she may begin to grow stronger in her Sherlock persona in future books, though.
Though I will continue to read the series and am interested in how the characters develop, my grade for A Study in Scarlet Women is a slightly tepid B-.
Best regards,
Jennie
AmazonBNKoboBook DepositoryGoogle
How funny, I read this last night. Like you, I’m not up on Sherlock Holmes lore and I didn’t realize Mrs. Watson was supposed to be THE Watson till almost the end. I too liked Charlotte and I liked starting out in Livie’s head to see Charlotte from am outside perspective. Since we are not in a love interest’s head, and there really isn’t a love interest per se, I think it was important to see how Charlotte came across to others and Livie was the best one to show that.
I agree with you on the mystery and cast of characters. I’m still not sure I get what happened, who all the characters are, especially the Mayberrys. And it lacked any emotional punch at the end.
I didn’t have any issue with Charlotte striking out on her own, it made sense to me based on how she thinks and her inexperience but I too was disappointed that Lord Ingram was the savior and I would have liked Charlotte to realize she is not infallible and that she can make poor decisions. Lord Ingram and Charlotte’s history was also confusing to me.
Overall though I liked it a little better than you did as the writing was truly grand. Now that the characters have been introduced, I’m hoping the next one flows better.
I am on the fence about this one. However, one thing that confused/bothered me is that Lord Ingram Ashburton was called Lord Ingram throughout the book. Why? Wouldn’t he be Lord Ashburton? I think he is called Ash at some point as well.
@Susan: He is Lord Ingram because he is the third son, his brother Bancroft is second son, they are probably the younger sons of a duke or marquess.
The original Sherlock Holmes stories definitely do NOT present all-over-the-place multiple perspectives plotting. With the exception of a few stories narrated by Holmes himself, they are all first-person narrations by Watson. The story of how Holmes and Watson met and became flatmates is told in A Study in Scarlet, and the discussion near the end of the book about how Livia is going to incorporate a massacre in Utah into her story about Charlotte’s case is a reference to that story.
A Study in Scarlet Women worked okay for me as a stand-alone (although I agree the beginning was a bit confusing), but it did not work at all for me as Holmes pastiche or homage. It doesn’t have any of the tone or feeling of the original stories, which depend a lot, I think, on Watson’s first-person narration. Also, you really can’t have a Victorian-era Sherlock Holmes story without the word “singular” (as in, “a most singular occurrence”) appearing at least once or twice. I thought it was clever to have “Watson” be the widow of Dr. John Watson — although I’m a little confused by the end. She actually isn’t Dr. Watson’s widow after all, but Lord Ingram’s father’s mistress, right?
@etv13: She is both. She married medic John Watson who died in Afghanistan and was also mistress to the Duke, Ingram’s father when she was younger. She was eleven years older than Watson.
@mel burns I wonder if most of the historicals I’ve read used courtesy titles to refer to 2nd, 3rd, etc. sons. The referring to him by his first name seemed odd to me for some reason. Thanks!
So Ingram is his first name? I totally missed that. But again, Lord Ingram in general was not fleshed out well enough for me so everything about him confused me.
@Issa: Yes, I agree; I feel like without the distraction of introducing the characters the next one should be a little easier to follow.
@Issa: Yes, his first name, though it was so unusual as a first name that I got confused by it several times.
I definitely enjoyed this more than you did! One thing that really struck me was the way Charlotte’s status as an unmarried woman altered the Watson/Sherlock dynamic, and made it more equal. I agree, though, it was surpremely annoying to discover that whole relationship was set up by Lord Ingram!
I am a Sherlock Holmes devotee and a Sherry Thomas devotee and I thought this was OUTSTANDING! Charlotte is very definitely on the autism spectrum, hence her “Sherlockian” abilities and lack of common and social sense. Since autism can run in families, sister Bernadine is much less functional, remaining in her room fascinated by things that spin. Charlotte and Ingram were childhood friends (hence her calling him “Ash”) SPOILER who discovered too late that they were in love. He was smitten by a fortune hunter who was disappointed by the size of his fortune and by the fact that his mother was actually Mrs. Watson. END SPOILER So Ashburton was concerned about Charlotte because he understands her lack of sophistication due to her protected upbringing, he was aware of the limitations her autism placed upon her, and he knew she was living in a rather seedy part of town due to her lack of funds. So I didn’t really see it as a “set-up”; he just cared for both Charlotte and Mrs. Watson and brought them together to their mutual benefit. The Utah massacre reference was the “Mountain Meadows Massacre” in which a wagon train of settlers was killed by a group of Mormon militia disguised as Indians (as it were). All settlers over the age of seven were killed during a five-day battle, approximately 120 total. The children left were adopted into LDS families. This is still controversial in Mormon history as to whether Brigham Young or any Church officials ordered, condoned, or knew of the action. In “A Study in Scarlet”, Sherlock Holmes deduced that revenge for the massacre was the motive for the mystery he was hired to solve. I understand this is to be the first in a series; I certainly can’t wait!
@Sue the Non-Practicing Librarian: I didn’t get that! Ash is Mrs. Watson’s son? I under stood her daughter was the Dukes, but Ash? I am going to have to go back, cause I totally missed it. It seems illogical.
You are entirely correct. I know I was reading at least one other book at the time with which I could have conflated it, plus I was rewarding myself for making it 50% through “Last of the Mohicans”, which I was reading for a “Classics Book Discussion Group. So there were several centuries, lots of plots, and hundreds of characters running through my brain! Thanks for keeping me more-or-less on track!
I’m not a Sherlock fan but I love Sherry Thomas books so I guess I will read this one some time in the future. What it’s unclear for me – is this a romance novel in any sense? I mean, is there aybody falling in love and having a happy ending or is it just a historical mystery?
I’m a big Sherry Thomas fan as well, and I came to her through her romances. I read an interview in which she said that there is a romance arc that will continue through the series (and it’s pretty intense, though not acted upon in this book). But the series is definitely mystery, not romance!
I can’t say enough about the creativity of Sherry Thomas. I love her historicals and her YA series knocked me off my feet, it was breathtaking! Sherlock in the very beginning stunned me a little, I thought “oh I’m not going to like this”, but after the initial explanations I was hooked. It’s a good first book and I know the next one will be even better, because hey, it’s Sherry Thomas!