HEAD FOR POISONING (Hardcover)

Geoffrey is the product of a mega-dysfunctional family and he's spent years surving in the Holy Lands as a Crusader. He's in his thirties and as as far as I know (after two books) he doesn't even know what sex is. Even Cadfael had an affair. Also, Beaufort's 21st Century ruminations about the morality of the Crusades are getting a bit old. The author is an historian, but as nearly as I can tell from my reading, hisorians disagree about the Crusades. At least one school says the West would be a very different place if the Jihad had succeeded. Call me sentimental, but I much prefer Ellis Peters views of the Crusades via Cadfael. I am aware the Crusades mostly failed, but I think the one Cadfael and Mappestone participated in was at least motivated by good intentions. I know Constantinople was sacked by Crusaders later on--probably why it eventually fell and that the Albigensians were destroyed. However, the infidels who wreaked havoc on the Byzantine Empire--including the Levant were not "good" guys. And, the eye-for-an-eye, slavery, and enshrouded women still exist in the Middle East.

My biggest objection to this book, however, is it's failure to be a good mystery. Writers like Penman, Peters, and Candice Robb write historical mysteries that sometimes 'modifiy' the truth--whatever that is--but they never subvert their tale by constantly dropping in value laden judgments concerning the times which tend to get the reader "off story." Peters novels contain comments about the futility of war, especially civil war, but she doesn't take sides with Stephen or Maude and she doesn't beat the reader over the head. Why shouldn't Mappestone take a similar objective stance about the Crusades. He can certainly have a moral center and engage in acts of kindness without constantly harping about pillaging knights.

Second, Beaufort's plot itself is a bit thick. There are so many false starts (not red herrings) one cannot reconstruct what happened--even after Mappestone explains it. A good mystery writer lays a trail the reader can follow, so that step by step you think you're getting somewhere. Sometimes you even work out the story a step before the detective. Each new plot twist Beaufort introduces seems to force Geoffrey--and the reader--to backtrack and start over again. A certain amount of that is expected or the story is dull and boring, but I was exhausted by the end of this book.

I think a mystery must start with a central question for which an elementary answer is provided. Veteran readers know the initial answer is always (well usually) wrong. Bits of information are added as the investigator goes about his business and determines what is relevant (or seems to be, but mostly is) and what is not. A good tale often has several subplots, but they must come together in a logical way when the investigator finally unravels the mystery. The best authors work in subtle red herrings that may or may not be explained. Some plot elements are so obvious both the investigator and the reader fall over them together but they should never be so obtuse that the reader cannot say at the end with a slap on the forehead, "Why didn't I get that! " or "Wow, am I smart, I figured that out!"

Thirdly, a reader is willing to accept a certain amount of 'suspension of disbelief' but this is a mystery after all, not science fiction. One of the reasons some mysteries are better is because you learn something while you have fun. I don't want to learn blatent lies. Did anyone really understand lead was poisonous until modern times--if so, why not put that in the historical footnote. Did Geoffrey learn about chemicals in the Holy Land the way Cadfael came to understand the properties of herbs from Miriam?

On my scale of historical mystery writers, Beaufort is a 4, Robb is a 6, Penman and Peters are 8's and Colin Dexter a 10 (an historical novel set in the 19th century that Morse solves--from his hospital bed).