Review: _Too Many Magicians_, by Randall Garrett
P. Korda
fantasy-alternate-universe detective stories, featuring the detective
Lord Darcy. The recent "discussion" of the forthcoming Baen reissue
inspired me to read it again. (I last read it so long ago, that I
didn't even remember the solution of the mystery.)
The alternate universe of the Lord Darcy stories is one where King Richard
I of England did not die in 1199, but returned from the Crusades with a
massive personality change, and produced a long line of wise, benevolent
Plantegent kings. Additionally, this is a world where magic works, where,
in fact, the Laws of Magic were formulated centuries before the Laws of
Physics, and society has evolved accordingly. Although the stories are set
in 1966 (or so) of that world, the technology level is more like that of
1866. Because there was no King John, there was, apparently, no Magna
Carta, and the system of governance is a strict monarchy. As far as I can
tell from this book, there seems to be no Parliament or Prime Minister,
just the King, and Dukes, and Lords. Even so, the citizens of the
Anglo-French Empire seem to enjoy some human rights, such as the right to a
fair trial.
The Anglo-French Empire is one of two great Western powers which appear to
dominate the world, much as the United States and the Soviet Union did at
the time the novel was written. The Cold War of Garrett's universe is a
conflict between the good, noble, and just Anglo-French Empire (comprising
much of Western Europe, as well as the Americas) and the nasty, bad, evil
Polish Empire (Eastern Europe and significant parts of western Russia).
Too Many Magicians begins with the murder of a spy who had been part of a
plan to uncover a traitor in the English Navy's intelligence division, who
was trying to sell the plans for England's latest magical secret weapon to
the Poles. Lord Darcy, investigator for the Crown, is called in to find
the murderer. Meanwhile, Darcy's forensic sorcerer, Sean O Lochlainn is in
London, attending a professional convention. Murder strikes at the
convention, as well-- London's leading forensic sorcerer, Sir James Zwinge,
is stabbed in his hotel room, and Master Sean is arrested on suspicion of
having done the deed. Darcy soon discovers that the two crimes are
connected, and so he must find Zwinge's killer, as well.
Zwinge's murder is a "locked room mystery." At the time of his death, he
was alone in his room, with all the doors and windows locked. While that's
not necessarily a problem in a world with magic, the problem is that there
are way too many magicians to suspect!
As a character Lord Darcy is not a very exciting guy. He's modelled
somewhat on Sherlock Holmes, what with spontaneous deductions just to show
how smart he is, and even utters an occasional Holmes-ism:
"I should like to call your attention to the peculiar condition
of that knife."
Master Sean frowned. "But... there was nothing peculiar about the
condition of that knife."
"Precisely. That was the peculiar condition."
However, Darcy lacks the flair and eccenticity which make Holmes fun,
rather than simply insufferable. While he's got better manners than
Holmes, that doesn't help him; it only makes him come off as more of a
stiff. The quasi-Victorian setting plays up the Holmes angle, what
with foggy London, and hansom cabs (although here, the horse-drawn
carriages have pneumatic tires)." No, the meat of this book is not in
its main character.
It's not in the secondary characters, either. It's not that they're
badly-drawn, but there's nothing really interesting about any of them.
Mostly, they just serve as agents to move the plot along. One notable
thing is that several of Garrett's characters are conspicuously
"borrowed" from other works. For example, Sir Lyon Gandolphus Grey is
the leader of the Magicians' Society. He's a bit player, and has no
similarity to Tolkien's Gandalf, beyond the name. More disconcerting
is Garrett's use of Rex Stout's Nero Wolfe and Archie Goodwin as the
Marquis of London and his assistant, Lord Bontriomphe. It's a very
good pastiche, but it resulted in a bit of cognitive dissonance for
me. Bontriomphe and the Marquis aren't perfect duplicates of Goodwin
and Wolfe, so I was disconcerted when they acted "out of character."
For example, Wolfe and Goodwin are always hiding information from the
police. The Marquis and Bontriomphe are the police, and become
unhappy when Darcy keeps information from them.
The strong points of Too Many Magicians are the setting and the plot.
Beyond whatever inherent value it has as an alternate history setting,
the world of Lord Darcy is interesting because of the twist it puts on
the mystery genre. The forensic evidence used in a magical society
is, in many ways, different from that used in our world (for example,
using consecrated smoke to determine the time of death), but similar
in others-- body tissue is very important for them, as it is for us,
but they use the magical "Law of Similarity" to match blood, hair, and
so forth to a person, intstead of a DNA test. Furthermore, the
assumptions made and conclusions drawn are different. Since Zwinge
dies alone, in a locked room, the investigators conclude that he was
killed with Black Magic. In our world, we'd conclude that the killer
had some clever, unknown way to lock the door behind him and returning
the key to the room afterwards.
Given a magical world, it's not easy to write a "fair" mystery. For
all the reader knows, the murderer could have used some magic trick,
such as invisibility or levitation, to accomplish his dirty deed.
However, Garrett does an excellent job of writing as fair a mystery as
possible. In order to get around the problem of the characters
knowing fundamental things about the way the world works, of which the
reader is ignorant, he has the brilliant Lord Darcy, or equally
brilliant-in-his-field Master Sean, explain things to other, less
brilliant, characters when such issues arise. Generally, I do not
advocate such "infodumping" as a literary tactic; it tends to bring
the narrative to a screeching halt. In this case, it is not only
warranted, but necessary to keep the mystery fair.
The mystery plot itself could have been tighter; there's a lot of
running about and tracking down suspects who turn out to be innocent,
and moving along to the next guy. For example, I think the whole Tia
Einzig subplot could have been reduced substantially, and the novel
would have not suffered for the loss. But, in the end, it's still a
good mystery. The killer's identity came as a complete surprise to
me, but looking back over the text, it is all laid out for the reader
to see, if one knows what to look for.
Big, mystery-ruining spoilers for Too Many Magicians below:
Garrett really pulled a dirty trick on the reader: the first chapter
is told from the killer's point of view, right after he's committed
the first murder. The presentation is entirely consistent with him
being the murderer, it's just not something a reader expects, so I
immediately dismissed that character as a suspect! On the one hand, I
kind of feel like I was tricked, but on the other, I've got to admire
how skilfully the author set things up so that I would not suspect him
until the time came for his identity to be revealed.
--
Pam Korda
kor2 @ midway.uchicago.edu
Home Page: http://home.uchicago.edu/~kor2/
Book Log: http://home.uchicago.edu/~kor2/booklog/
Mike Beede
> More disconcerting
> is Garrett's use of Rex Stout's Nero Wolfe and Archie Goodwin as the
> Marquis of London and his assistant, Lord Bontriomphe. It's a very
> good pastiche, but it resulted in a bit of cognitive dissonance for
> me. Bontriomphe and the Marquis aren't perfect duplicates of Goodwin
> and Wolfe, so I was disconcerted when they acted "out of character."
> For example, Wolfe and Goodwin are always hiding information from the
> police. The Marquis and Bontriomphe are the police, and become
> unhappy when Darcy keeps information from them.
I greatly disagree. This was the high point of the book for me. I
experienced no dissonance since they acted completely in
character -- once you accepted the premise that they were the
authorities instead of private detectives. And I think that was
forced once Garrett decided that Wolfe and Darcy were related.
In fact, I found the Wolfe and Goodwin characters to be much more
"in character" than the pastiches done by Goldsborough. I suspect
that's because the Darcy books are written in a different dialect
so that I expect the characters to sound different but behave
consistantly. In the Goldsborough books Wolfe is
constantly using sentences that he *just wouldn't use* in
one of Stout's books.
Nice review.
Regards,
Mike Beede
Robert Sneddon
<be...@visi.com> writes
>I greatly disagree. This was the high point of the book for me. I
>experienced no dissonance since they acted completely in
>character -- once you accepted the premise that they were the
>authorities instead of private detectives. And I think that was
>forced once Garrett decided that Wolfe and Darcy were related.
"Bontriomphe" is French for "Goodwin".
Bontriomphe loans Darcy a pistol at one point -- a .36 Heron. I believe
Archie Goodwin drove a 1936 Heron car.
--
Robert Sneddon nojay (at) nojay (dot) fsnet (dot) co (dot) uk
phil hunt
>In article <260520021408253892%be...@visi.com>, Mike Beede
><be...@visi.com> writes
>>I greatly disagree. This was the high point of the book for me. I
>>experienced no dissonance since they acted completely in
>>character -- once you accepted the premise that they were the
>>authorities instead of private detectives. And I think that was
>>forced once Garrett decided that Wolfe and Darcy were related.
>
> "Bontriomphe" is French for "Goodwin".
I wonder if there's a French equivalent of Godwin's Law?
--
<"><"><"> Philip Hunt <ph...@comuno.freeserve.co.uk> <"><"><">
"I would guess that he really believes whatever is politically
advantageous for him to believe."
-- Alison Brooks, referring to Michael
Portillo, on soc.history.what-if
Dan Swartzendruber
ko...@midway.uchicago.edu says...
> Given a magical world, it's not easy to write a "fair" mystery. For
> all the reader knows, the murderer could have used some magic trick,
> such as invisibility or levitation, to accomplish his dirty deed.
Well, no. Garrett goes to great pains (well, Master Sean does I think)
to explain how it couldn't have been "mundane" magic such as levitation,
invisibility, etc...
P. Korda
Right. As I wrote in the very next sentence of my review:
: However, Garrett does an excellent job of writing as fair a mystery
: as possible. In order to get around the problem of the characters
: knowing fundamental things about the way the world works, of which
: the reader is ignorant, he has the brilliant Lord Darcy, or equally
: brilliant-in-his-field Master Sean, explain things to other, less
: brilliant, characters when such issues arise.
A requirement for a fair mystery plot is that the reader must be able
to follow the same line of reasoning as the detective. If the story
takes place in a fantasy world with magic, that is impossible unless
the author explains to the reader how the world works, and why the
obvious magical solutions don't apply. Garrett does so. This is
good. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.
Josh Rehman
news:PFeI8.128$s4.2...@news.uchicago.edu:
> In article <MPG.175b38a8f...@news.supernews.net>,
> Dan Swartzendruber <dsw...@druber.com> wrote:
>>In article <bq8I8.118$s4.2...@news.uchicago.edu>,
>>ko...@midway.uchicago.edu says...
>>> Given a magical world, it's not easy to write a "fair" mystery. For
>>> all the reader knows, the murderer could have used some magic trick,
>>> such as invisibility or levitation, to accomplish his dirty deed.
>>
>>Well, no. Garrett goes to great pains (well, Master Sean does I think)
>>to explain how it couldn't have been "mundane" magic such as levitation,
>>invisibility, etc...
>
> Right. As I wrote in the very next sentence of my review:
>
>: However, Garrett does an excellent job of writing as fair a mystery
>: as possible. In order to get around the problem of the characters
>: knowing fundamental things about the way the world works, of which
>: the reader is ignorant, he has the brilliant Lord Darcy, or equally
>: brilliant-in-his-field Master Sean, explain things to other, less
>: brilliant, characters when such issues arise.
>
Don't you just love it when someone appears to have abruptly stopped
reading your post to protest a point which is modified later? :-)
Good review, BTW. I am niether a fan of Baen or fantasy in general, but
your review was worth reading!
With kind regards,
Josh R.
Dan Swartzendruber
if.you.wan...@visit.my.site.joshbrain.tripod.com says...
I don't love it. Particularly when I'm the offender in question :)
Dorothy J Heydt
Robert Sneddon <no...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "Bontriomphe" is French for "Goodwin".
Yes, but "Goodwin" isn't English for "good victory," it
means "good friend." (AS Godwine.)
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
http://www.kithrup.com/~djheydt
David Johnston
>
>Yes, but "Goodwin" isn't English for "good victory," it
>means "good friend." (AS Godwine.)
His name isn't Godwine. It's Goodwin.
Dorothy J Heydt
It is indeed Goodwin. It's derived from Anglo-Saxon
Godwine. It doesn't mean "good victory."
David Johnston
>Godwine. It doesn't mean "good victory."
Who cares? It's a pun, not a translation.
Paul Andinach
news:GwsqJ...@kithrup.com:
> In article <e0jznLA+...@nojay.fsnet.co.uk>,
> Robert Sneddon <no...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > "Bontriomphe" is French for "Goodwin".
>
> Yes, but "Goodwin" isn't English for "good victory," it
> means "good friend." (AS Godwine.)
Right, and "Einzig" isn't even close to the German word for "Solo".
Who cares?
Paul
--
The Pink Pedanther
Robert Sneddon
<pand...@ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> writes
>
>Right, and "Einzig" isn't even close to the German word for "Solo".
>
>Who cares?
But her Uncle was from Naples.
Leseaux is the French for "Waters", though.
James Zwinge is a famous magician in our worldline, too.
James Burbidge
<no...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <Xns921D244A...@130.133.1.4>, Paul Andinach
><pand...@ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> writes
>>
>>Right, and "Einzig" isn't even close to the German word for "Solo".
>>
>>Who cares?
>
> But her Uncle was from Naples.
>
No, his name was Neapeler. At the time of the story, having escaped
from the Poles with the assistance of a Manxman, he was her Uncle from
Man...
James Burbidge jamesandma...@sympatico.ca
Yukon Jack
<jamesandma...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
Boo - hiss - groan - <bronx cheer>!
I suppose the next thing you'll reveal is that he didn't have any tail!
Thanks for the 23:30 PDT laughs!
-Yukon Jack
Robert Sneddon
The Manxman being Goodman Colin MacDavid.
Maureen O'Brien
>
> In article <e0jznLA+...@nojay.fsnet.co.uk>,
> Robert Sneddon <no...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > "Bontriomphe" is French for "Goodwin".
>
> Yes, but "Goodwin" isn't English for "good victory," it
> means "good friend." (AS Godwine.)
But "Bon Ami" was some kind of cleaning product, wasn't it?
Better to pun for the goal.
Maureen
Timothy A. McDaniel
>or Prime Minister,
"From this book", indeed, so far as I recall too. In another story,
it is mentioned that Parliament elects the King. I think there may be
an Italian Parliament mentioned in "Murder on the Napoli Express", but
I could just be misremembering the "laws are different in Italy"
discussion.
--
Tim McDaniel is tm...@jump.net; if that fail,
tm...@us.ibm.com is my work account.
"To join the Clueless Club, send a followup to this message quoting everything
up to and including this sig!" -- Jukka....@hut.fi (Jukka Korpela)
Kent Coyle
ObNero Wolfe : "Archibald means 'the good', but even so my name is not
Archibald." From _Too Many Cooks_