But… That’s Not in the Book! 1: “Enola Holmes: The Case of the Missing Marquess”

Table of Contents

Introduction

Hey, hey, hey. Today we’re talking about Enola Holmes, the book series recently turned Netflix Original film. Heard about it yet? Because, from what I am hearing, this film has been heading to the top in terms of Netflix popularity. Does this make sense to me? Utterly and completely, but perhaps not for the reasons that you are thinking. Unless, of course, you are thinking it’s because it’s an age-appropriate, modern film filled with woman power, a stand-out cast that makes even the most awkward of scenes work well, gorgeous cinematography, and an attachment to our most beloved high-functioning sociopath, aka Sherlock Holmes… because then, yeah, you’re right. That is why it makes sense to me. Nice deducing (see what I did there?).

However, that’s not why we are here today, because you know me, I have to make everything more complicated than it needs to be, and I find particular attachment to addressing the questions that you are probably not wondering at all. Unless, of course, you are… which might make sense, considering you are here and reading this. Hmm.

Today, we are beginning a new series that I am entitling “But… That’s Not in the Book!,” where I will be taking books and their movie adaptions and doing a little analysis of them to see how well they compare to each other.

This isn’t necessarily a jab against movie adaptations or me saying that movies must stay true to their original sources. I don’t think that’s necessarily the case, but I want to see that if there are deviations from the book, that there is purpose behind it and that the new scenes make more sense for that purpose than the original scenes. As well, I want to feel like the movie does justice to the book. It doesn’t need to be a complete carbon-copy, but I still want it to be a good representation of a book that I love. Does that make sense? In other words, I’m picky but not picky. I’m opinionated but pretty forgiving, too, when it comes to this… but one thing is for sure, I love a good (over-)analysis. So, putting my obsessive and way too detail-oriented tendencies to good (?) use, I decided on this series. So, while I’m planning on going for some heavy classics here soon (mwah hah hah), for the debut of this series, I decided to go with something lighter (look at me being considerate… for now). So, let’s go, let’s go. Enola Holmes: The Case of the Missing Marquess and Netflix’s Enola Holmes (2020): analysis start. As a warning, this article may have spoilers, so… you know, consider ye warned.

The Book

For those who are not familiar with the fact, or who might have just realized it after seeing the credits of the movie (or you know, just through this article), Enola Holmes finds her origin in a six-book series written by Nancy Springer. The first book was written back in 2006, but I can completely understand if this is the first that you have heard about it. In fact, until the movie came out, I was completely unaware of this Holmes tie-in/spin-off, and actually, even worse for my case, even after preparing for this article and buying the first book, I DID NOT realize that not only did I know Nancy Springer, but that I have actually read and loved several of her books in the past (see here for list). I don’t know if I just completely spaced or what, but while I remember her characters and her stories, I didn’t actually remember her (Sorry, Nancy…). I’m going to read this as a testament of her talent and her engaging characters rather than, you know, my failing mush brain or her name just not matching my image of a typical YA writer’s name (which is a thing). Whatever it was, I was pleasantly surprised to find a reminder of my past with her book while also being able to engage with her and revisit her writing as an adult. And I have to say, that I probably appreciate her writing far more today than I did as a kid. 

Looking back and analyzing my bookshelf (to which I still own most of the books that I bought as a 13-year-old), I can very much say that I must have been drawn to strong women characters… and you know, fantasy, but that’s something already known to me. I’ve grown up since then (at least in age, not so much in height or maturity), and while my reading habits and genres of interest have definitely widened, I truly believe I will always have room for well-written YA books with strong women protagonists written by women. This book seems to be the epitome of that, and I’m all for it.  

Reading through the reviews on Goodreads, I can say that Enola Holmes doesn’t LACK a following, but she doesn’t seem to have gone mainstream like Tamora Pierce or Holly Black. This is fine, of course, a mainstream book doesn’t necessarily mean a good book, just as much as a non-mainstream book doesn’t equal trash. But it also seems that Springer’s other books didn’t get as much love as I remember giving them as a kid, and her writing style seems to be the main complaint that people have with her. I do get this; she has a unique style, and while I can’t really remember her writing (hi, mush brain), I do remember that they were quite a bit darker in tone, and she didn’t seem to follow the rules of happily ever after. She seemed more interested in making unique, complex characters than just allowing everything to fall into place. Complex, human characters should, logically, make bittersweet endings sometimes. I was a weird kid, so I loved this. I am a weird adult, and I love it all the more.

Enola Holmes fits well into her collection of writing. The Victorian time period and the setting in low London allow for it to take on a slightly darker, edgier tone, but given that vibe is natural for the setting, it doesn’t feel off-putting. The plot starts off and wraps up bittersweet, so it falls in line with her usual modus operandi. As I said, this is fitting to my taste, but I can understand why some people may be turned off by it. 

Quick Book Summary

So, let’s dive into the specifics of the book a bit. Enola Holmes is about one Enola Holmes who, as the last name suggests, is the sister of Sherlock and Mycroft Holmes, who were originally created by the marvelous Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. For those who it may concern, Enola does not exist in the original Holmes stories but… Mycroft certainly does. I feel like this is something that those who watch the TV series Sherlock would be more apt to know. So, just to clarify, this is a thing. Enola was had late by her

parents, and after their father died, some familial disagreements arose and Enola and her mother were then separated from her brothers and the rest of the outside world. They lived on in their familial house while Sherlock and Mycroft carried on their illustrious lives in London. Enola, which is “alone” spelled backward, lived much of her life in such a state: alone. And when her mother mysteriously disappears, her brothers come back to the Manor and she finds herself at a crossroads: follow her mother’s footsteps by attempting to locate her and seek her own freedom or live under the thumb of her oldest brother.

Having zero-conflict with the thought, Enola sets off for London. While on her way, she encounters a case of a missing marquess (I still can’t say this word correctly…), and although still desiring to find her mother, something new starts stirring within her, and her life as a perditorian, or someone who finds lost things, begins.    

Book Rating and General Impression

Overall, I gave Enola Holmes: The Case of the Missing Marquess by Nancy Springer a 4 out of 5 stars on Goodreads. The first Enola Holmes was a great, quick read that had a powerful message behind it and left me wanting to read the rest of the series, but it wasn’t life-changing. Springer didn’t employ as many of the typical, cheesy YA clichés, which I really appreciated; her suspense writing read like adult fiction while using language that challenges but fits her audience, and overall, there was nothing about it that led me to want to anger-rant. There were several aspects that I loved to which I want to go into detail, but I will discuss that more during the comparison analysis. All in all, the book was an enjoyable, light read that wasn’t pure fluff or hosting crazy-toxic relationships and had some nice balance to it. I’d consider it a regular gem in comparison to some of the YA books that are being put out now, that’s for sure.

The Movie

With all that being said, I began watching the movie with some vague form of hope. Everything that I mentioned at the beginning boded well for positive reception. The suspenseful storyline, witty and strong characters, identity language, amount of suspense and action, and length of book, all spoke to the potential of the film. Holmes’ more recent popularity, too, could play into the movie doing well. Likewise, given that strong female leads with a powerful message have been getting more airing time lately, there was just a lot to work from, I believe. And overall, I wasn’t displeased. Visually, the cinematography of the movie was stunning. The costumes were enjoyable and the acting was superb.

Helena Bonham Carter and Millie Bobby Brown are gems that we must always protect. Also, let’s just pause a sec and mention how cool it is that Brown and her sister produced the movie. I felt like they were actually putting into motion the main themes of empowerment, which just added to its authenticity. I dug it. Having Enola speak to the audience was engaging and participatory, making it reminiscent of reading a book rather than watching a movie, which I loved. The paper cut-out transitions were smart and had another book, old-timey feel to it, which was great and also played into the Victorian feel of the setting. So, the movie as is? I liked it. But, enough of that generalized sweetness, and let’s get to the fun stuff: the analysis.

Comparison Analysis

Speaking very broadly, the movie seemed to have taken the bare-bones outline of the book, added two new plots, and then rearranged some of the events so as to fit both the outline and still have room for the plots. In other words, they had to change and maneuver a great deal in order to make these new plots make sense. These new plots were Enola’s mother’s revolutionary personality and much of Tewkesbury’s story. Each of these seemed to be designed to unify the film under a deeper meaning and purpose, which could probably be wrapped up in the last line of the film: “My life is my own, and the future is up to us” (Parent, Garcia, Mendes, Brown, & Brown, & Bradbeer, 2020, 1:58:26).

Connective Themes and Message

Some of the themes in the book included women empowerment, identity, and living your own life. The movie very much latched on to these and amped them up, modernizing and fleshing them out for today’s viewers. There’s very little that is explicitly stated in the book, where the movie uses explicit key phrases in order to drive the message home, in case the message in the movie was too vague for you, which would be a little hard to believe. The concept of the old passing and the new rising was added to the film, while the themes of not letting anyone decide our future and us being the catalysts for change were easily heard. Overall, very powerful statements directed toward the youth and young adult audience.

I would say that having these messages made the movie more impactful than the book; there was a reason and motive behind why the movie was made, and it was seen in the themes. Most every time that they deviated from the book, I think I could likely argue that it was due to whether the writers thought that it fit with this purpose or not. Enola’s mother’s revolutionary personality, all the changes surrounding Tewkesbury’s father’s death, Tewkesbury’s disappearance, and eventually his role at the end (which were all either not found in the book or were changed beyond recognition) were designed to perpetuate these themes, and for the most part, it works. So, hats off to you, Jack Thorne, for the writing of the screenplay.

Quick side-note: Jack Thorne also wrote for famous British-teen classic, Skins, co-wrote the screenplay for Wonder, and he wrote the script and co-wrote the story for Harry Potter and the Cursed Child. So, if you aren’t familiar with his work, it might be time to get familiar. (“Jack Thorne”)

Enola and Mommy

Several things were changed in order to make room for this, or at least make things more dramatic. Enola and her mother’s relationship changed quite a bit. Book Mother very much leaves book Enola to herself, for the most part. Enola is constantly thinking that she has done something wrong by her or that she herself is wrong or disgraceful, and that that is the reason why her mother doesn’t give her much affection. She is constantly doubting her mother’s love for her at the beginning of the book; although we can see that her mom did love her, she just didn’t seem to express it verbally. This idea in the movie that they were always together and that Enola received a very broad extracurricular education from her mother did not exist in the book. Enola was a voracious reader and enjoyed sketching, but for the most part (at least as far as my memory serves), she didn’t have any other kind of education, particularly not martial arts and science experiments (however cool that would be).

Enola’s deeper affection for her mother, though, and her mother’s deeper affection for Enola, adds to the movie. We, as the audience, are able to care more for both characters due to this more familiar sense of familial affection, and we can see how her mother’s education leads her to become the empowered and capable woman that she is (while also potentially highlighting the power of education). The book, on the other hand, largely has Enola using the wits and capacities that she herself has fostered.

Likewise, book Mother seems to have left because she wanted to be free from the restraints of that time period, thus imposed upon her by her husband’s death and her son’s pretentiousness, and while still a Suffragette, the book doesn’t really go into details about her activities.

Movie Mother, on the other hand, was heavily involved with the Women’s Rights movement, and it’s partly due to her work that she felt like she needed to leave Enola, all so that she could pave a better future for her daughter. In terms of a reason of why you would leave your daughter all alone, this may seem more “reasonable” and acceptable for an audience, instead of leaving it fairly vague, like how it is in the book. 

Enola and Sherlock

Enola and Sherlock’s relationship is vastly different. Although book and movie Sherlock are a lot softer than what we might remember from the famous detective, movie Sherlock is practically gushing emotion (he’s a gusher). Book Sherlock still maintains a coldness to Enola and specifically says that she isn’t very intelligent (hey, now), which feeds into Enola’s feelings of not being good enough (well, sure) but also fuels her desire to show who she really is, how she is different than her brother, and how those differences will lead her to something great (you go, girl). Movie Sherlock is like a non-decisive teddy bear and is heard saying that he thinks Enola is smart. There is this air that he seems to respect her as a young lady—you know, not enough to do anything to help her until the end but enough to show that he cares. 

Quick side-note: Netflix and Springer actually got bit in the butt due to their portrayal of Sherlock. Arthur Conan Doyle Estate sued Netflix and Springer over copyright infringement due to Sherlock’s abundance of emotions. It turns out the last 10 stories of Holmes, due to a change in heart in ACD, host a more emotional Holmes. In these stories, he actually views Watson as a friend and, you know, a human being. However, these 10 stories are under strict copyright. The Holmes stories before those 10 books, which portray Holmes as more cold and methodical, seem to have more copyright maneuverability. In other words, due to the book and the movie’s choice to have Holmes as more emotional, which was a personality change only present under the copyrighted final 10 books, they are getting sued. (Robertson, 2020)

I found the legality of this fascinating, but the character portrayal choice in general I found to be highly curious. I get that the idea of a loving older brother is sellable, but tying that to Sherlock Holmes never felt right to me for either the book or the movie.

Enola and Mycroft

Enola’s relationship and dissonance with Mycroft are amplified in the movie, as well. While it never happened in the book, her being captured and crying in the carriage all the while being sent to boarding school broke my heart, which I think was a good use of film’s ability to draw out emotion. In fact, the entire boarding school scene and Tewkesbury (spelled “Tewksbury” in the book and nicknamed Tewky) saving her was never in the book. In truth, I was curious about what this brought to the movie. While the movie seemed to be more focused on her being empowered, at least in theory, it was the book that had her never getting caught and never being saved by anyone. Now, I think that I like that the movie shows her as needing people and not being infallible, but I’m curious as to whether the writers and/or audience feel like that is contradicting to the themes. Personally, I don’t think it is, but I’m curious about other viewers’ thoughts. Thoughts?

Enola and Tewkesbury

Enola and Tewky’s (and yes, I will continue to call him Tewky, because that’s less difficult to type than Tewkesbury) relationship is changed in many, many ways. For one thing, they have a relationship. As Enola is 14 in the book and Tewky is 12, there really isn’t a lot of room for romance. And if they had made room within that, that would have been wicked awkward. With them both being around 16 in the movie, the budding romance is actually quite sweet, and I liked how having Tewky in her life actually created her into a more human character.

Book Enola is pretty much alone throughout the entire book (as per her name), and it seems like she is mostly okay with that. She is the actor of her own fate, and she doesn’t really let anything stop her. She just moves forward without anyone around her. Movie Enola doesn’t mind being alone and recognizes that being alone doesn’t mean being lonely (which I love), but she has recognized the worth of having people with her, as well.

Also, I would say that the Enola/Tewky relationship works well with the movie because it adds so much more value to the ending. The lack of the relationship in the book allows Enola to be able to leave Tewky easily and carry on her mission onward into the next book (and she does… like, without even saying good-bye… like, upright disappears on him), where the movie gives us room to be able to pine for the couple a bit. Because they are attached to each other and we got to watch their growing affection, we are more likely to have more affection for them, and that’s fine, because this is the end of the story for the movie, as far as I know. So, for this circumstance, I really approved of this change, as it fits a larger purpose and worked better for film.

However, overall, I think they did a massive disservice to Tewky’s character in the movie. From what I could perceive, it seemed like the writers were attempting to create this contrast between Tewky and Enola: Tewky being the brattish, ungrateful snob-prat (yeah, you heard me), and Enola being the rough, independent, capable young woman. This was so different from the book and something that I had a major issue with.

Tewky in the book is young, strong, and rebellious, but he is kind. He is still a 12-year-old, but he is grateful and considerate toward Enola from the beginning. In this way, their connection is largely based on similarities rather than their differences. They were able to commiserate together about their difficult lives and the difficulties of the society that they live in, about being forced into a life that they didn’t want. It wasn’t a matter of who was in the worse situation or how one’s case was rougher than the other’s. Their connection wasn’t based on how society forced more difficult and unmanageable rules on women than men (which I’m not arguing is or is not the case), but rather, that they both were in a tough strait and both were wanting to get out of it. When reading the book, I so, so, so appreciated this, and I think it’s unfortunate that the contrast was potentially thought more important than the treatment of the character (if that was the thought behind it).    

Now, movie Tewky gets so much better really, really quickly (which I also had an issue with, in terms of character growth progression, but ah well), so I’m happy to like him and the story more as it goes on, but I have to admit I felt that the contrast at the beginning had an anti-men aspect to it

that didn’t show up at all in the book. The book did a fantastic job of showing the power and positive strengths of women without diminishing the positive strengths of men, even for a moment. Movie Tewky’s growth (although sudden) makes up for it (sort of), and his willingness to help use his power with the vote at the end shows his spunk and strength… I just don’t get why they needed to have him be so contrasting to Enola at the beginning. I certainly didn’t need it.

Mixed Messages: Enola’s Initiative

Some of the rearrangings of the events really messed with me, as well, in terms of relationships and the purpose behind the movie. In the book, Enola goes to London to search for her mother; that is scene one. Once closer to London, she sees a newspaper that is talking about the missing Tewkesbury. Intrigued by this and hoping to show her deductive prowess, she goes to Tewkesbury’s residence and seeks to help out in the investigation. She immediately finds out that he has run away and that he will be found at the docks in London. Seeing it as “on her way” anyway, she sets off to look for him. The villain of the book (who is different than in the movie) overhears Enola saying where he is and attempts to take action to kidnap Tewky and make bank. Enola carries on her way to London, and she herself gets kidnapped by the villain’s accomplice, who hadn’t realized that the main villain had already found and kidnapped Tewky.

In the book, it is entirely of Enola’s volition to search for Tewky; however, in the movie, he just kinda falls into her lap. His actions disrupt her plan, rather than her making a decision to be a part of his story. Eventually, this is rectified by her making the decision halfway into the movie to find him again, but the chronology of that scene almost made the movie feel like it’s suddenly going backward rather than moving forward, and I was unsure if this fit the overall message of Enola.

Simple Story with Complicated Sub-plots

I get that due to the new plots and themes, they chose to have a different ending, therefore it makes sense that the events leading up to that ending would have to be different, but with so much of the story still overlapping with the book, it felt a little convoluted and disjointed. The book was a lot simpler than the movie, so I can understand the difficulty. In the book, Tewky’s initial disappearance was by his own doing, by his own initiative, and yet, only after he had already disappeared was his life at risk due to the villain. There are no familial plots and murders or huge political votes and seats in the book. Tewky’s father is still living. The big villain has no personal relation to Tewky or Enola at all and is in it for the money. It’s all pretty simple.

In the movie, Tewky runs away due to a “life-changing event,” which leads him to realize that he wasn’t living his best life. We find out that this near-death experience was actually an attempt on his life, but he doesn’t know that at first and that seems to have nothing to do with his decision to leave. So, his life was actually in danger before he ran away, and him running away is a bit of a pickle for those who want him dead, because they now have to find him and kill him before the vote, not realizing that their attempt to kill him would actually lead him to an epiphany. There is a hidden and complex plot behind it all.

This is complicated and I’m not sure I would call it perfectly cohesive, but it does actually make sense for the film. The new villain and ending have a personal connection with Tewky, and as we and Enola have more connection with Tewky in the movie than in the book, there is more impact and emotion behind these scenes. And reminding ourselves of the themes, the reason why the new villain is acting in such a way fits well with the idea of the old fighting the new and the new winning. The book does not have that deeper relationship, cannot have that deeper relationship between the two of them, and the movie is set on having a more modern, progressive message, so I would say that the book ending is fitting for the book and the movie ending is fitting for the movie.

Enola’s London Escape

For the most part, the script decisions of what they picked and didn’t pick from the book make sense for what they are trying to accomplish, but sometimes, I wondered why they just didn’t go ahead with how it was originally written. We can see this with Enola’s escape. This is maybe a minor issue, but something that bugged me was the fact that we missed out on how Enola got to the train station in the movie.

Enola leaves for London a day after she is told that she will be sent to boarding school in the movie. In the book, Enola has five weeks to plan and get everything arranged. This is when she gets her dresses made and amplified so that she can stuff all of her provisions (which is just so clever). From there, she carefully plans the day that she will leave and sets out on her bicycle to a train station far enough that Sherlock won’t be able to find her. Springer walks us through her entire thought process on each move that she is making, and there is so much intelligence to it. In the movie, it’s extremely rushed. Enola just arrives at the train station in her boy’s garb, as if that was enough to get her there, fool her brothers, and keep them off her trail, which is very convenient. And at the beginning of the movie, she specifically says that she isn’t good at cycling, which is fine, because it’s been found unnecessary for that plot in the movie, but it’s definitely a brash difference from the book, and it makes me wonder why that was necessary. Perhaps they just wanted to start off the movie with her being bad at something (to be shown as more lovable… because who doesn’t love a bit of a klutz?) considering we don’t see that very often from that moment.

Unfortunate Clichés

In the process of shifting things around, as well, the movie fell into some YA clichés that the book had been without. When reading the book, I was overjoyed to find that Enola never once dresses up in menswear. Enola never denies or disguises her sex, thus showing that it doesn’t take a young girl becoming a man in order to succeed. Springer allows Enola to always remain a girl and never forces her into the quirky, tomboy trope that can drive me crazy. In fact, the book did an amazing job of showing how her knowledge of being a woman is what solved the case, and while being a young woman is just one attribute to her personhood, it is a powerful one.

Now, I’m not saying that she lost her womanhood by dressing like a man in the movie, and I’m sure that aspect of equality was present in that she was just as much herself in men’s garb that she was in women’s garb, but it was just so refreshing in the book to not have Enola disguise herself as a boy in order to get what she wanted and do what she wanted. I could possibly understand the meaning behind it in the movie, and I don’t hate it, but it’s frustrating that they fell into a cliché in the process. 

Likewise, Springer held onto the time period better, having book Enola be far more modest and aware of what was “proper” for the times. When first coming across her mother’s “backside amplifier,” she asks one of the male servants in the house what it is. She is then horrified and deeply embarrassed when he explains to her its purpose. Movie Enola, on the other hand, has no qualms whatsoever in walking into a room where her brothers are present in just her undergarments. Although I get that Enola is supposed to be separate from the world within the Manor and that her mother was all for pushing against norms, it still makes more sense for the time period that she would at least be taught a sense of mild modesty, if not by her mother than at least by the housekeeper. I mean, not having gloves and not liking to put a hat on is one thing, and that was within both the movie and the book, but even while Enola was perfectly comfortable foregoing the discomfort of a hat, she still was conscious of herself as a lady and maintained some form of modesty.

In this way, it seems like the movie chose to incorporate modern thought into the movie, in order to give current commentary to that time’s beliefs and society, rather than writing true to the time period. That being said, while I understand that there are many arguments to be made about modesty and society’s role in molding what is considered “modest” and “proper,” I don’t know if modesty should be made out to be the villain, and therefore, struck from the movie. This happens in YA books these days, to some degree, and I’ve never quite been for it, so while I wasn’t angry about it in the movie, I was just disappointed that they didn’t keep something that feels much more inclusive to various forms of woman power to me. That’s just my opinion, though. I’d love to hear varying opinions about this.

The Lost Perditorian

Another thing that did not make the cut was that book Enola fashioned herself to be something called a perditorian, which is a finder of lost things. She finds herself separate from her famous consulting detective brother in this way. Now, I’m not angry at this. I think the word “perditorian” would have flown over a lot of heads (particularly on film, where words can get lost without helpful subtitles), and in the end, is it really that much different than a detective? Isn’t Springer just stretching it so that Enola can be different than Sherlock? But in the end, I wish they would have found something that did separate her from her brother and not just make her out to be a better detective than him, as that does a disservice to Sherlock’s already-formed character as genius and expert in his field. 

Empathetic Enola

As well, I had really enjoyed that the book made Enola out to be such an empathetic and hopeful person. For sure, movie Enola has the lamb sequence but that seemed to have been more tied to her finding “lost items” than being empathetic. And she does go back to save Tewky, but  she was already attached to him at that point. In the book, after seeing the distressing scene of low London and the diseased women who begged on the streets, Enola disguises herself as a nun and seeks to help them. She has no personal connection to them, just a desire to help due to empathetic concern. I missed this aspect of her personality in the movie, as they had her a bit more self-centered. There is nothing wrong with finding and taking care of yourself, but I missed the more well-rounded personality she had in the book and the message that sent. Tewky, as well, was aware of his privilege in the book, and even showed empathy towards the needy, which didn’t show up for his character in the movie, as far as I could see. Although, him using his power for the benefit of society at the end could be seen as an example of his awareness.

A Success? A Conclusion

In terms of its success as an adaptation, I would say that it was relatively successful. But that would also depend on your definition of success. For this movie, they took the outline of the book, remained true to the main themes and feel of the book, but modernized it to fit this generation in a fun, entertaining, and impactful way, using beautiful cinematography and wonderful acting. There was usually relative meaning behind deviation from the original, and most of the time, I could see that the original wouldn’t work as well for what they were going for.

While I tend to want movies to stay as close to the original as possible, there were even some times that I preferred the way the movie did it (le gasp). The relationship between Enola and Tewky, for example, was far more enjoyable in the movie, and the ending had more impact. While the ending in the book is fine for a first book of a series, I remember feeling a bit let down that Enola never meets with her mom. She grows to understand her more, but she is still alone. In the movie, she gets to at least see her mom, hear her apologize, and she still has Tewky (which is adorable). In the end, although she’s moving on her own path, she’s not by herself anymore. While this aspect of the movie may contradict the repeated line, “You’ll do very well on your own, Enola” (Springer, 2006), I’m just happy for it for Enola’s sake. 

So, yep. I really wasn’t angry at the film for the most part, like how I was for Artemis Fowl’s movie adaptation (don’t even get me started). I liked it as a movie, and I liked it as a movie adaptation, so consider me decently content with how I spent my time. I’d love to hear your perspective on the movie, and to those who read the series, how you feel it compares. So please comment below, and let’s chat!

Peace, and peace out. 

References

  • Parent, M., Garcia, A., Mendes, A., Brown, M. B., & Brown, P. (Producers), & Bradbeer, H. (Director). (2020). Enola Holmes [Motion Picture]. Retrieved from https://www.netflix.com

Note: The official court case is linked to inside Robertson’s (2020) article.

  • Springer, N. (2006). Enola Holmes: The case of the missing marquess.

Enola Holmes Links

More by Springer (That I Have Read)

Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply