In short, there's simply not
A more congenial spot
For happily-ever-aftering than here
In Camelot.
- Alan Jay Lerne, lyrics from the title song in the musical Camelot
There are a couple of new "Arthuran” historical mystery series out that offer a great example of something I discussed a few weeks back, the problems with most “if you like X you will love Y” recommendations being based on relatively superficial things like setting and protagonist rather than storytelling and writing style.
The one by J. M. C. Blair, which came out first, doesn’t exactly have Richard Burton in tights mooning about in a Disney style castle singing the above lyrics, but it’s definitely much more at the cozy end of the spectrum and closer to the fantasy version without exactly embracing it. The setting isn't wholly fantasy any more than the characters are, but neither do either of them feel believably real. Merlin acts as investigator here, although it’s a non-magical Merlin who is a Da Vinci-ish character—a scholar who is also fascinated by technology and ideas advanced well beyond the times he lives in. There’s also a sort of theatrical effect feel in the way everyone bickers and picks on each other constantly as their basic means of communication. Did I mention that it’s everyone? And that it’s constant? I think some of it’s supposed to be funny, but it got really annoying really fast. I can see the appeal despite its faults to some readers, especially those fascinated by the legendary Arthur. But not really my sort of thing and I've no urge to try another.
Totally at the other end of the spectrum, but still an Arthurian mystery, is Tony Hays’ new series. I just finished the second, and these are very much up my alley despite my not being all that interested in Arthur or his legends. But I am a major history buff and these books ooze with feel for their early medieval setting. They’re based on the so-called historical Arthur of people like Alcock and Ashe, a late Roman or early medieval successful war leader, rather than legends of some glittering figure living out a romantic tragedy in a magical court that is oh so different from the world around it. It was a tough, gritty time of conflicts both military and social, and these are not cozy reads. The publisher’s blurb is more accurate than most such things when it says “Think CSI: Medieval: gritty, powerful…” They're also excellent, with the latest even better than a first book I thought was already very good. Richly drawn characters and setting, with well developed stories using real clue detection and analysis, to justify that CSI comparison. The hero here is himself suitably gritty and conflicted and has nothing to do with legends: a former valued soldier cum military adviser turned drunkard for the reason he also hates Arthur—having lost a hand in battle, he feels useless, less than a man, and that he should have been allowed to die, which Arthur prevented. Not exactly a worshipful observer of a legend in action.
The point really isn’t that I personally liked one series much more than the other, although I could go on at much greater length about that (did I mention annoying incessant bickering and picking on each other in one of them?). It's that there are enough superficial similarities that you could all too easily see someone pairing them up in one of those “if you like X you’ll love Y” comparisons or "if you're into King Arthur you'll love both of these" recommendations, when the reality is that they’re very different in the essentials and unlikely to appeal to many of the same readers because of that. Although if there’s someone out there for whom the word Arthur is enough to capture them, with a taste both for incessant bickering / picking on each other and gritty historical storytelling...
