The Monk - Tim Sullivan ****

It’s always satisfying to come across a well-written murder mystery and discover there are several more waiting. In this case I accidentally started with book 5, but have since gone back to the first of Tim Sullivan’s novels featuring DS Cross.

The most interesting feature of the series is that Cross is on the autism spectrum. This gives him some distinctive advantages over his colleagues, while also offering some challenges. On the whole Sullivan handles this well - in this book, almost all of Cross’s colleagues regard him with affection, though we are told that in the past he was treated badly. That is perhaps the most unlikely aspect - it’s hard to imagine that policing has so many suitably thoughtful officers, though I may be resorting too much to stereotype.

The murder victim is a Catholic monk, with much of the action taking place in an abbey - also well handled and providing a neat tie-in to Cross’s enthusiasm for church organs. The monk’s background is unusual, giving opportunity for a suitably twisty plot. One oddity here is that, given the relatively low numbers of Catholics in the UK, a surprising number of the characters in the novel seem to be Catholic or to have ties to that church (not just those involved with the abbey).

Something else relatively unusual is the way that Cross undertakes interviews later in the book, though the approach only really works because he already knows quite a lot about what actually happened, and so can lead the suspects through a web of lies - unlikely though this is, it’s very satisfying. Sullivan brings the key interview with the suspect centre stage, dedicating around the last quarter of the book to this, with the exception of a twist that comes after it. Having since read several other Sullivan books, this is a standard feature of the series.

This isn’t the sort of murder mystery that makes you go ‘Wow!’, but it is very enjoyable and engaging if cosy mysteries are your thing. Occasionally the writing is a touch lazy, and perhaps too much is made of Cross’s colleagues reactions to his autism, but overall I’ll definitely be reading more. One tiny moan, perhaps indicating that laziness, concerns the line ‘the odometer never went over seven miles an hour’ - well no, it wouldn’t, would it, considering what an odometer measures.

See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here

You can buy The Monk from Amazon.co.uk Amazon.com and Bookshop.org

Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you

Comments

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 2010 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 exp

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

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense

Search This Blog