Murder at the Monastery - Richard Coles ***

This is by far my least favourite of Richard Coles 'Canon Clement mysteries'. Let's get the negatives out of the way first. Coles has never been a great mystery writer - his success, particularly with A Death in the Parish (his best so far), was in his engaging description of village and church life in an old-fashioned 1980s parish, which is beautifully observed. But this entry in the series has the weakest murder plot so far - there really is no sense of trying to solve the mystery alongside the detective. Everything is hidden from the reader until the solution is revealed, while the motive and opportunity are both weakly conceived.

The limited mystery content is usually compensated for by the excellent village/church life aspect - but here the main character has retreated (both literally and metaphorically) to the monastery where he was previously a novice, so the social aspects are much more bitty as Coles swaps between what's going on amongst the brethren, general village life, and the activities of the village gentry (plus the main character's mother). As a result nothing much develops in the village. We do see a fair amount of the monastic life, which is the most interesting part of the book - but it's hard not to compare this negatively with Ellis Peters' Cadfael novels which equally give a good feel for the cloistered life (if in a different period) while providing both satisfying mysteries and some history.

All in all it just didn't come together for me - it felt a bit like a 'the other two have been successful, let's rush another one out' book. Hopefully, Coles will develop the inevitable successor rather more effectively than this one.

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

You can buy Murder at the Monastery 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