Murder in the Queen's Armes

In some ways, this is the kind of mystery I normally like very much. The detective is an agreeable academic, to be precise a professor of physical anthropology, who is normally "the smartest man in the room" (as a devoted Holmes fan, I am not fond of bumbling detectives or those who struggle through repeated false theories like Asimov's Elijah Bailey) . In this novel he is enjoying a delightful honeymoon (I am not fond of detectives with tortured private lives) in rural (or at least small-town) Britain (which I love from my experience), though he himself is from the US northwest. On the other hand, on page 13 it had a flagrant historical error, describing Judge Jeffreys and "the Bloody Assize of 1685 when seventy-four of Cromwell's show more royalist opponents had been executed " Considering that Cromwell died in 1658 and King Charles II's Restoration was in 1660, followed by his brother James II's reign starting in 1685, this is an extremely obvious error. In fact , the victims in the Bloody Assize were supporters of the duke of Monmouth's Protestant rebellion against the Catholic James II --ideologically, Monmouth's revels were much closer to Cromwell than the royalist Jeffreys who condemned them. perhaps because I was sensitized by this error, I began to question more significant aspects of the story -- why would Oliver, who is an expert on prehistoric bones, notice obvious defensive injuries on a modern corpse sooner than a pathologist much more experienced with modern victims of violence, injuries that Oliver notes despite the shattered bones being covered with rotting flesh (to which the pathologist is accustomed and Oliver is not) ? (The explanation given, that pathologists neglect the long bones, seems unlikely). Why would an archaeologist noted for his meticulous excavation technique overlook obvious signs that a bone has been "planted" in his dig, signs that Oliver spots immediately? (The explanation, that the find confirms the archaeologist's pet theory, is possible, but goes counter to the plot-important stress on his insistence on meticulous technique elsewhere.) For that matter, why would that one bone still be in the ground weeks after it is discovered, when a the other finds are carefully removed and cataloged? No explanation is given, and this variation in practice is necessary for Oliver to spot the evidence of its being planted, though since he also recognizes it as a famous bone stolen from a museum, the evidence of planting is superfluous. . Why would a young man in about 1985 exhibit the psychological symptoms resulting from being forced to shift from left to right handedness, when this practice has been abandoned in western countries? I think this one is actually more debatable --by the time the book was republished in 2005, the practice of "correction" was outdated, but it might not have been in the 1960s when a young man of 1985 would have been growing up. Overall, I thought the book was enjoyable light reading, but carelessly contrived. I like a genuinely superior detective, not on whose "evidence" is pre-cooked for him to discover. show less

I am a fan of mysteries where the detective has some kind of scientific or technical specialty; Aaron Elkins’ creation, physical anthropologist Gideon Oliver, has therefore always appealed to me. I picked up Murder in the Queen’s Armes thinking it was a new book; it turned out, however, to be one of Elkins’ early works reissued with a new cover. It’s not bad, but clearly not as good as the more recent stories. There’s an error in historical background so egregious that I was sure it would somehow figure in the story:


“It was two hours before they arrived for dinner at the Judge Jeffreys on High Street, an ancient inn with a grim past, having been the lodging of Baron George Jeffreys, the presiding judge at the Bloody Assize show more of 1685, when seventy-four of Cromwell’s royalist opponents had been executed.”


(The error being that the Bloody Assize was after the Monmouth Rebellion; Cromwell had been dead for years).


And a number of punches are telegraphed: when an archeologist is identified as a left-handed former minor league baseball pitcher who rides a chopper, you can bet the poor guy’s going to end up dead so Dr. Oliver can identify the body based on characteristic bone wear; and when Dr. Oliver and his wife encounter an immense half staghound/half mastiff, you can also bet that the creature will end up pursuing them across the Devonshire moors.


Nonetheless, it’s a pleasant read; just the thing for a moderate length airplane flight or a couple of hours outside on a sunny afternoon. show less

Fun one. I really like Abe - any story with him in it is neat. There are several scary bits though - the dog, in particular. I _know_ he gets away (there are lots more books in the series!) but it doesn't feel like he's going to. And why does Gideon never scar? His nose is broken but that was before the first book, and he's had some major damage to his face since then (in this book, among others) but no one ever mentions scars on his face...Also, it's a _very_ convoluted mystery. Motives galore, and the real one shows up very sideways and gets explained very late. Weird and wonderful.

3.5*

I don't know why but I delight in mysteries that involve archeology so Elkins series is a great fit for me. This book was also a good "palate cleanser" for me after several days immersed in upsetting TV news.

While in southern England on his honeymoon, anthropologist Gideon Oliver pays a courtesy call on colleagues at a nearby archaeological dig. The dig's leader hints about a major find, but refuses to reveal any details to Gideon. Several days later, the local police request Gideon's expert assistance in identifying a body recovered from the sea. Gideon begins to suspect a connection between the corpse and the strange goings-on at the dig.

I visited several of the places mentioned in the book during the years I lived in England, and I enjoyed revisiting that part of the world in the pages of this book. The explanation of the mystery was logical, but more convoluted than perhaps it needed to be.

Gideon Oliver is honeymooning in Dorset and pays a visit to an archaeological dig where one of the team has been missing for a few days. He senses that something isn't quite right at the time, and when a body shows up a few days later, Gideon is asked to provide an expert opinion on the bones of the victim since much of the body decomposed or was eaten by fish in the coastal waters. Soon Gideon's sense of something amiss is confirmed as fraud and other irregularities at the dig become evident. This is not the most solid mystery although the solution to it does make sense. The problems lie in manner in which the author wove the story to reach the conclusion. It is still a quite interesting read.

Gideon and Julie are on their honeymoon in this book, the third book in the Gideon Oliver series. Gideon wants to visit a local museum where he notices that an old skull is not what it seems. Then he visits a dig site where a friend is managing a dig site, while the friend is excited with a secret he is waiting to reveal, that the Micenean cultural diffusion to England might be related to an actual landing instead. One of his students is anxious to share some important information with Gideon, after making an appointment with Gideon, he goes missing.

With a missing skull, a missing student and a friend who is possibly about to make a fool of himself and destroy his career, Gideon has to explore the dig site and talk to people about the show more mysteries. Trying to find time for his very understanding wife, he works with the police to find the truth and weave everything together. show less