Skip to main content

Alchemy (Crime/Historical Fiction) - S. J. Parris *****

Two writers shine when it comes to Tudorbethan murder mysteries: C. J. Sansom for his Shardlake books and S. J. Parris (Stephanie Merritt) for her novels with the unlikely figure of Giordano Bruno as detective. For popular science writers, the historical Bruno is a bit of a problem, as he is often portrayed as a martyr for science, but in reality was a mystic whose ideas were unoriginal and whose execution was for common-or-garden heresy, rather than being ahead of his time on cosmology. But as a detective he makes a great character in the loveable rogue with a conscience tradition. Think a sixteenth century version of Lovejoy (the books, not the TV series), but with less of tendency to kill people. Parris makes great use of this in her series of novels.

This latest, Alchemy, is set in Prague in 1588. The setting, with its contrasts of the Emperor's palace and the conditions of the poor is handled excellently. There's a particular opportunity here to explore some of the oddities of the period - and its biases - both in the bizarre work of the alchemists who feature in a big way, the power of the Catholic Church, and the treatment of the Jewish ghetto, which also play a major part. 

As is often the case in Parris's books, Bruno is a reluctant detective, with a whole range of factions vying against him and providing potential suspects - including a form Catholic inquisitor and his Spanish thugs and the various hangers on hoping for the benefaction of the Holy Roman Emperor, who is generally a weak individual but is challenging the church.

What's great about both Parris and Sansom's books is that they give us all the enjoyment of the immersing in the period you get from a quality historical fiction novel, but at the same time provide us with some fun in trying to work out what's happening with the murder mystery - in this case one that is blamed by some on a golem, neatly tying in with the legend attached to the historical character Rabbi Loew. The one disadvantage Parris has in comparison with Sansom, whose detective is fictional, is that we do know Bruno's eventual fate (just as we did with Thomas Cromwell in Hilary Mantel's Wolf Hall books), and there's always a slight frisson of 'will this be the last book?' I had to restrain myself from looking up when Bruno was executed (though Parris has confirmed he will have at least a couple more outings).

The only criticism I have is the book is perhaps a little over long - but I had a great time reading it. Parris gives us an engaging and complex mystery to unravel in a dramatically different world from modern Europe.

See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here
You can buy Alchemy from Amazon.co.uk and Bookshop.org. At the time of writing only the audiobook is on Amazon.com.

Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex
116 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor
24 comments
Read more

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope
23 comments
Read more