Crete ( )

Blood of Honour, the third in James Holland's Jack Tanner series, is probably the most disappointing. I don't mean for that to sound so negative; 'disappointing' is probably the wrong word, as the series remains enjoyable and easy to read. The reason I'm saying it's disappointing is because Holland is just repeating himself. Having read The Odin Mission and Darkest Hour, I found there was nothing in Blood of Honour to surprise me. All the positive and negatives I applied to the first two books also apply here, so in a way this review is difficult to write, as there is little new that I can say.

The books are, by now, routine; the formula, which was never very subtle, is well-worn. A British military campaign gone pear-shaped (always predicted by Sergeant Tanner, who can see things the generals cannot); Tanner and his men forced to use all their (his) wiles to escape; a single German antagonist whose rivalry with the British sergeant develops through some contrived coincidences. Well-paced action scenes, usually resolved by the unflappable and hyper-competent Tanner in the British favour. A disagreement with a superior officer on his own side, with unfortunate consequences. A token love interest in an undercooked romance subplot. Oh, and letting Sykes blow some shit up.

All of these are fine, and make for an enjoyable light read; the literary equivalent of an action B-movie. The problem is not only has this been done before in the previous two Jack Tanner books, but it was done better there. Admittedly, the battle for Crete in 1941 is a good setting for a cack-handed, quintessentially British military campaign. But I have an issue with the ultra-competence of Tanner in relation to his officers and generals. The sergeant's intuitive understanding of military strategy makes you realise that Tanner is a rather clumsy author avatar. In these scenes where Tanner is bemoaning the British strategy or chewing out his superiors, you can just see Holland with his military historian cap on. I am particularly flummoxed by how deferential officers are to this mere sergeant; yes, he knows his stuff, but he's always 'suggesting' plans of action to his superiors – captains, colonels, etc. – with only token gestures of deference to their rank. Tanner seems to operate on a level footing with his captain, Peploe, who always seems to just agree with whatever the sergeant says. The lieutenants in the company are completely bypassed; at times, I forgot they were even there.

The worst thing is, the reader can see opportunities for Holland to introduce something new and interesting into the story, but the writer lacks either the ability or the bravery to go for it. Consider, for example, the antagonisms Tanner must face. Balthasar, the obligatory evil German antagonist, is better than Tanner's previous Teutonic nemeses, as he is in some ways a mirror image of the British sergeant. Hyper-competent, able to anticipate the needs of combat and smell a rat, rather than the more prideful, jumped-up Nazi bullies of The Odin Mission and Darkest Hour. Unfortunately, Holland doesn't make the most of this and Tanner and Balthasar rarely come head-to-head. There's no attempt to make the most of the opportunity of having Tanner come up against an opponent as wily and able as he is.

The other antagonisms are also missed opportunities. The pig-headed superior on his own side who Tanner must endure is, in Blood of Honour, a man from his past who owned the land where Tanner grew up. But Holland neither really seizes the opportunity to delve into Tanner's murky past (he just says I don't want to talk about it", and that's that) or to address the issues of class which the arrival of this officer presents. There is a nice little passage on page 185 about war 'levelling the social divide' but Holland doesn't develop this further; in fact, by the end, the officer Liddell is all but forgotten about and their subplot hurriedly wrapped up with an apology. The same goes for Alopex, the Cretan chieftain Tanner has a blood feud with (the 'blood of honour' of the title). This is again resolved with an apology (although Tanner does have to blow up a town first) and you can't help but think Holland lacks dash and daring in his writing. He doesn't seem to want to throw a cat among the pigeons; an acknowledgement, perhaps, that his formula for the Jack Tanner books is nothing special and perhaps too fragile to survive significant change.

These are all considerable problems, but I still enjoyed Blood of Honour. There are few books as easy to read as the Jack Tanner series, and Holland – more a historian than a novelist – does show good research and an endearing passion for his subject matter. I just wish he would be a bit bolder; I enjoy reading the series but would enjoy it a lot more if I didn't always know what was going to happen next. I will certainly be reading Hellfire, the next book in the series, at some point. By now I, and other readers, know exactly what we're getting from Jack Tanner and most of the time we're OK with that." ( )