Jonathan Palfrey
This is an alternative-history story, a fantasy involving magic, and a murder mystery.
The alternative history supposes that Richard I of England survives being hit by a crossbow in 1199 and lives another 20 years, succeeded by his nephew Arthur. The Plantagenet dynasty flourishes and continues into the 20th century, reigning over a powerful Anglo-French Empire that includes North America. The story takes place in the 1960s, when it was written.
The fantasy element supposes that the laws of magic begin to be identified during Arthur's reign (13th century) and are gradually developed over the centuries, so that licensed sorcerers have a respected place in the world. Their magic is a branch of science that can operate only within known laws: sorcerers cannot work miracles. This is my preferred way of treating magic in fiction.
The murder mystery concerns the death of a leading sorcerer, stabbed in a locked room with no-one else present and no use of magic. Lord Darcy, Chief Criminal Investigator for the Duke of Normandy, normally works in France, but the author contrives to involve him in this crime committed in London.
I've read this story many times and always enjoy it, but of course not everyone likes it, and there are various criticisms.
1. Writing style. Randall Garrett was born in 1927, started writing in the 1940s, and this book was published in 1966. The writing style is typical of sf of the 1950s/1960s, which I grew up reading, so I'm accustomed to it and have no problem with it. The sf writers of that period were poorly paid and wrote with typewriters, so the style lacks sophistication and polish. It serves to tell the story.
2. Characterization. You'd be daft to expect deep, subtle characterization from a book like this; but there are plenty of varied characters and they're clearly distinguished from each other. By the standards of the writers he was competing with at the time, I think Garrett did quite well.
3. Murder mystery. I read some reviewer complaining that he identified the murderer early in the story; but I find it hard to sympathize with people who treat a novel as a puzzle, worthless once solved. I've read this book many times, and every time but the first I already knew the identity of the murderer. So what? The mystery is a puzzle for the characters in the story; I enjoy watching them trying to solve it. On first reading, I'm sure I made no attempt to solve it myself. I read a novel to enjoy the story, not to solve puzzles.
4. Plausibility. The magic is relatively plausible, as magic goes; that's what I like about it. The alternative world that Lord Darcy lives in is persuasively described in detail, it lives and breathes as fiction, but it's less plausible in some ways than the magic.
Although the story is set in the 1960s, the world of Lord Darcy seems approximately Victorian—technologically and socially. But of course what we see is not Victorian society: it's the author's own reimagining of it in the context of a different history. In this world, every character seems content with his place in life, and happily and efficiently gets on with his own work, whatever it may be. People of different classes treat each other with respect and consideration, because it's the right thing to do. The Plantagenet monarchs are wise and good. This is all fantasy; but it's a pleasant and comforting fantasy in which to spend a little time, before returning to the real world.
A good story requires tension, conflict, opposition. The main opponent of the Anglo-French Empire is the Polish Empire, which has spread itself all over eastern Europe and would like to spread further. So the main source of tension in Lord Darcy's world is a Polish plot of some kind; although Darcy's official function is to investigate homegrown crimes—which do exist, even in this apparently contented world.
It occurs to me that it would be nice to see a well-made film of this story; but it'll probably never happen. It would be moderately expensive to make (large cast, many sets and locations) and probably wouldn't sell well enough. It includes no sex, no chases, just a couple of small fights, and the three murders necessarily happen offstage (otherwise, no mystery). The alternative world of the magic-using Anglo-French Empire might give it a vaguely Harry-Potter kind of appeal, but I think there isn't enough spectacle in it for film-goers.
This is an alternative-history story, a fantasy involving magic, and a murder mystery.
The alternative history supposes that Richard I of England survives being hit by a crossbow in 1199 and lives another 20 years, succeeded by his nephew Arthur. The Plantagenet dynasty flourishes and continues into the 20th century, reigning over a powerful Anglo-French Empire that includes North America. The story takes place in the 1960s, when it was written.
The fantasy element supposes that the laws of magic begin to be identified during Arthur's reign (13th century) and are gradually developed over the centuries, so that licensed sorcerers have a respected place in the world. Their magic is a branch of science that can operate only within known laws: sorcerers cannot work miracles. This is my preferred way of treating magic in fiction.
The murder mystery concerns the death of a leading sorcerer, stabbed in a locked room with no-one else present and no use of magic. Lord Darcy, Chief Criminal Investigator for the Duke of Normandy, normally works in France, but the author contrives to involve him in this crime committed in London.
I've read this story many times and always enjoy it, but of course not everyone likes it, and there are various criticisms.
1. Writing style. Randall Garrett was born in 1927, started writing in the 1940s, and this book was published in 1966. The writing style is typical of sf of the 1950s/1960s, which I grew up reading, so I'm accustomed to it and have no problem with it. The sf writers of that period were poorly paid and wrote with typewriters, so the style lacks sophistication and polish. It serves to tell the story.
2. Characterization. You'd be daft to expect deep, subtle characterization from a book like this; but there are plenty of varied characters and they're clearly distinguished from each other. By the standards of the writers he was competing with at the time, I think Garrett did quite well.
3. Murder mystery. I read some reviewer complaining that he identified the murderer early in the story; but I find it hard to sympathize with people who treat a novel as a puzzle, worthless once solved. I've read this book many times, and every time but the first I already knew the identity of the murderer. So what? The mystery is a puzzle for the characters in the story; I enjoy watching them trying to solve it. On first reading, I'm sure I made no attempt to solve it myself. I read a novel to enjoy the story, not to solve puzzles.
4. Plausibility. The magic is relatively plausible, as magic goes; that's what I like about it. The alternative world that Lord Darcy lives in is persuasively described in detail, it lives and breathes as fiction, but it's less plausible in some ways than the magic.
Although the story is set in the 1960s, the world of Lord Darcy seems approximately Victorian—technologically and socially. But of course what we see is not Victorian society: it's the author's own reimagining of it in the context of a different history. In this world, every character seems content with his place in life, and happily and efficiently gets on with his own work, whatever it may be. People of different classes treat each other with respect and consideration, because it's the right thing to do. The Plantagenet monarchs are wise and good. This is all fantasy; but it's a pleasant and comforting fantasy in which to spend a little time, before returning to the real world.
A good story requires tension, conflict, opposition. The main opponent of the Anglo-French Empire is the Polish Empire, which has spread itself all over eastern Europe and would like to spread further. So the main source of tension in Lord Darcy's world is a Polish plot of some kind; although Darcy's official function is to investigate homegrown crimes—which do exist, even in this apparently contented world.
It occurs to me that it would be nice to see a well-made film of this story; but it'll probably never happen. It would be moderately expensive to make (large cast, many sets and locations) and probably wouldn't sell well enough. It includes no sex, no chases, just a couple of small fights, and the three murders necessarily happen offstage (otherwise, no mystery). The alternative world of the magic-using Anglo-French Empire might give it a vaguely Harry-Potter kind of appeal, but I think there isn't enough spectacle in it for film-goers.