The Bones of Paris

bones of parisI’ve been a fan of Laurie King’s Mary Russell/Sherlock Holmes mysteries, as well as her present-day Kate Martinelli series, since 1995. Enjoying those series as much as I do can sometimes mean that I’m initially disappointed when King writes something that doesn’t take me back into Mary Russell’s world. But I have always enjoyed King’s work — even her standalone novels! — and Touchstone, written in 2007, was no exception. That book was a historical mystery-thriller, set just after the first World War in England, and its story and characters touched and engaged me.

The Bones of Paris, Touchstone’s sequel, is set in 1929, three years after the first book’s literally explosive events. The three characters have scattered: Bennet Grey, the human lie detector, to an isolated farm in Cornwall; Sarah Grey to heal her wounds in Paris; Harris Stuyvesant to pick up a private detective’s living here and there across Europe. But when Stuyvesant is asked to find Philippa Crosby, a missing girl who was last seen in Paris, he’s glad enough to have an excuse to see Sarah again as well.

Searching for Philippa, Stuyvesant finds a Paris obsessed with art and death, film and violence, sex and pain. The Grand Guignol alternates scenes of torture and slapstick, and the audience leaves a little more able to deal with their emotions about the Great War. Surrealist films show slashed eyeballs, severed hands. Man Ray takes extreme close-ups of straining muscles and sweating skin, and creates a mural for a Danse Macabre. In this environment, could a girl — or several — just disappear?

This book is darker than most of King’s work. She doesn’t just suggest some of the grisly stuff Stuyvesant sees, she describes it in detail. When is art a healthy way for people to work through their own darkest emotions, and when does it cross the line? When it exploits someone? When it uses a dead body? When it’s real?

Still, as interesting as the crime was — and as interesting as it was to get a glimpse of Paris during the Jazz Age — The Bones of Paris wasn’t one of my favorite King novels. Stuyvesant himself is a boring point-of-view character for me. He has a strong tendency to get drunk and use his fists when he’s frustrated, and in a mystery novel, there’s a pretty high chance you’re going to get frustrated on the regular: by witnesses, by girlfriends, by the case itself. That kind of act wears very thin on me. I prefer Bennett Grey, who is tortured by his extreme shell-shock but who at least doesn’t act like Ernest Hemingway. But we don’t get quite enough of him to please me.

If the sound of this book — Paris, the Jazz Age, encountering Man Ray and Cole Porter and Natalie Barney — entices you, then I suggest you start with Touchstone. King is always worth a read, and Touchstone will tell you whether you want to move on to Paris — the city of light, and also of darkness.

This entry was posted in Fiction, Historical Fiction, Mysteries. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to The Bones of Paris

  1. Lisa says:

    I have really hesitated over reading this one. I didn’t enjoy Touchstone very much.

    • Jenny says:

      I liked Touchstone mostly for Bennett, who I thought and still think is a solid and original character. But overall it didn’t stick with me much. This one wasn’t a favorite of mine, though it’s quite good for atmosphere.

  2. Laurie C says:

    I love the Mary Russell/Sherlock Holmes books, but I read The Bones of Paris without realizing it was a sequel and I didn’t think the characters were developed enough to be interesting. Probably if I had read Touchstone, I’d have been better off, but I like my main characters more intellectual, too!

  3. Teresa says:

    I liked this book a lot, more than I did Touchstone, but it was mostly because of the setting. It was a side of Paris I hadn’t read about before, and King is so great at immersing readers into new and different places. I agree that Stuyvesant isn’t a particularly exciting character. The supporting characters are much better in this series.

    • Jenny says:

      Yes — the setting was really terrific in this one, a character all by itself. I enjoyed that most of all, I think. I wish Stuyvesant’s girlfriend Nancy had been more substantial.

  4. whatsheread says:

    I somehow missed that this was a sequel and read it first. You are right that Stuyvesant tends to get a bit old after a while with his propensity to use his fists and drink himself into a stupor. It fits the time but still. It was my first King too. I liked it. I’m not certain I will continue with reading any of her other stories.

    • Jenny says:

      Allow me to recommend — really recommend with vigor — The Beekeeper’s Apprentice? I am such a lover of the Russell/Holmes stories, and that one (the first in that series) is so good. If you don’t like it, you’ll at least know. But it’s very, very different from these, and I do adore them.

Leave your comment here, and feel free to respond to others' comments. We enjoy a lively conversation!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s