Oh to write a mystery series that takes place in Medieval England... all under the shadow of Ellis Peters and Brother Cadfael. Not that all the Cadfael stories were 5-star, but they seem to have set the benchmark, haven't they? In Maureen Ash's tales, we have a Templar back from Crusade (so, a fighting monk in place of a Benedictine), Lincoln instead of Shrewsbury, and Ernulf/Roget together playing the part of Hugh Beringar.
So, why do these stories feel more empty than the Cadfael tales? The backdrop, for one. While the height of the Plantagenets is my favorite period, it lacks the oomph (technical term) of the Civil War between Maude and Stephen. The War gave the Cadfael stories extra plot points: ways of temporarily removing characters, opportunities for Cadfael to get away from Shrewsbury, or actual murder motives. So far -- and I'm only 2 books into the series -- King John's reign is only circumspectly part of the plot. Cadfael can not exist in any other time. I'm not sure I feel the same about Bascot de Marins.
Of course how I feel about these characters is just lukewarm. From the outset, I loved Cadfael, I despised Jerome, I felt warmly toward Hugh. With the Templar mysteries, I like Gianni, but I don't really feel strongly about anyone. Emotional commitment seems a requirement if you are asking me to follow these characters through half a dozen or so books.
Why don't I feel more for them? Another reviewer brought up one problem: omniscient point of view. If I know more than the detective, then I am not really solving it with him/her, and I'm not invested in their success or failure. This particular book compounded this problem by letting the reader in on secret conversations that all ended similarly, with "Let me tell you the most shocking part," and then cutting away. One dangling thread is fine; 4 or 5 is obnoxious. Another barrier keeping these characters distant is their 2-dimensionality. Roget is a hard-drinking, wench-loving mercenary; ok, but he must have a dark, unlikable side, so where is it? Gerard Camville is angry... all the time. And, for someone who has gone through as much horridness as Bascot has, my god, he is so boring! Cadfael had fought and loved and then became a monk; his internal struggles focused around missing his former life. Bascot became a Templar, fought a lot, and now he's in a weird pugatory, neither Templar nor civilian. You assume he'll finally leave the Order for good, but it doesn't seem the right outcome. He is not outstanding in an way, no special skills, no particular insight unique to his life experience.
He misses killing people in the name of God. It's hard to feel an emotional connection to someone who has defined themselves as a joyless, chaste killer of "infidels". Is his character historically accurate? Probably, but this is fiction, and we are allowed a bit of suspension of disbelief. Cadfael, the enlightened monk who loves playing Cupid, is not especially believable in his historical context, but he is entertaining. All Bascot seems to be missing is a hair shirt. Good lord, please get this guy drunk or laid, because his only outlet is a fondness for candy.
I am definitely going to read Book 3, because I want to see how Ash resolves this issue of "Will he stay or will he go?" with Bascot, but he needs to lighten up considerably. Even Sister Frevisse knows how to have some fun in Magaret Frazer's series, and Frevisse is a firecracker sometimes. Here's hoping Bascot gets into a bit of trouble or tells someone off or at least learns a skill.