Sidney Chambers and the Shadow of Death, by James
Runcie, is one of those books that I thought I would like, but it left me
cold, and I can’t pinpoint why. It may sound stupid, but I do like to work out
my reasons for not enjoying a book: sometimes it’s easy, when I hate the
subject matter, or can’t relate to the characters, or can’t get along with the
style it’s written in. Whatever the reason, I tend to feel quite strongly about
books I dislike, (just as I do about the ones I love), so it puzzles me when I
come across a book like this that doesn’t evoke any particular emotion. I didn’t
really like it, but I didn’t hate it either: somehow it didn’t quite gel, and I doubt if I’ll
be able to muster up enough enthusiasm to read any of the proposed follow-ups.
This is 1953,
and Canon Sidney Chambers is the 32-year-old Vicar of Grantchester, who finds
himself, somewhat unexpectedly, solving crimes aided, by his friend Inspector
Geordie Keating (who would claim that the vicar is helping him). Sidney is a
gentle soul, who cares for his flock as best he can, has a dog called Dickens, and
enjoys beer, jazz, cricket, Shakespeare and Tolstoy. He’s intelligent, kind and
a bit of a hunk – tall, with dark-brown hair and hazelnut eyes.
He doesn’t
have a great deal of faith in his abilities, as a clergyman, or as an amateur
detective, frequently wishing that he was a better priest, and worrying that he
neglects his true calling while he is engaged in sleuthing. However, other
people have faith in him and they trust him, revealing secrets which they would
never tell the police. Like all good amateur sleuths, Sidney has an excellent
understanding of human nature. However, I found it difficult to understand his
motivation for solving crimes – he’s saddened by evil and wrong-doing, but he
doesn’t seek retribution, and doesn’t seem to be concerned about souls in the
way that Father Brown is. Actually, I’ve never managed to connect with
Chesterton’s crime-fighting priest either. I revisited him after watching some
of the TV programmes (which were not a bit as I remembered them) and didn’t get
along any better than I did first time around.
Anyway, back
to Canon Sidney Chambers. He doesn’t judge people, and is surprisingly tolerant
for a 1950s clergyman, recognising that everyone is a mix of good and bad, and
that people make decisions and take actions for all kinds of reasons. I think
he approaches his investigations as one might approach a crossword – it’s an
intellectual challenge, and he wants to know the answers. So he pieces together
scraps of information, looking at the clues again and again as fresh details
come to light, and considering the facts as dispassionately and rationally as
he can.
At this point
I should add that while Sidney is set on a life of celibacy, he obviously
enjoys the company of women, and there is a love interest of sorts provided by
clever, wealthy Amanda, who his sister’s best friend, and quiet Hildegard, the
German widow of a murder victim.
We learn a lot
about Sidney during the short stories in this book, as he investigates murders,
a stolen ring, and an art forgery, and he ought to be a thoroughly engaging
character, but as far as I was concerned he didn’t quite come to life, and nor
did any of the other characters, which was a shame, because they are carefully
created, the plots are well thought out, and the period detail is good. Another
bonus, from my point of view, is that all the stories in ‘Sidney Chambers and
The Shadow of Death’ are what I would describe
as ‘cosy’ crime, which I normally enjoy – I don’t want to read gory descriptions
of murders or people being beaten up.
Anyway, as I
said to start with, I had a problem with this book because in theory it ticked
all the right boxes, but it remained kind of flat. James Runcie, son of the
former Archbishop of Canterbury, is planning a series of six Grantchester
Mysteries following Sidney’s adventures over a 30-year period, and part of me wonders
if I might warm to him as the series progresses. But on the whole I really don’t
care enough about him to want to read any more.
I felt exactly the same way about this book. Flat is a good way to describe it. I think it was a little too contrived. He ticked all the boxes of cosy English crime but it was a little too obviously calculated for me. I might try the second book but I won't agonise too much about giving up if I want to.
ReplyDeleteIt did tick all the right boxes, which is why I felt I should like it. I think you are right about it being contrived.
DeleteI felt much the same way. It just seemed written to order, and while it wasn't badly done there are better books from and about the period.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad I'm not the only one who reacted the way I did! Lyn said it was contrived, and you say it seemed written order, which is pretty much the same thing.
DeleteIt's a shame you felt like this about the book because it does sound promising. I haven't read it or any of the Father Brown books (nor seen the TV programmes) but maybe it would have been more convincing if Sidney wasn't a clergyman?
ReplyDeleteAnyway your post has interested me enough to have a look at this book, especially if I see it in the library.
It's had really good reviews elsewhere Margaret - most people seem to love it, and a clergyman amateur detective is a good idea in theory, but for some reason I can't quite put my finger on it just didn't work for me. You're much more au fait with the crime genre than I am, so do try it and see what you think.
Delete