Short Reviews for January 2026

A Far Better Thing, M King’s Bodyguard, Cuisine and Empire, Quebec and the Early American Revolution

A Far Better Thing, by H. G. Perry (416 pp; 2025)

Who should read this? Readers who’ve enjoyed Dickens’ Tale of Two Cities, and enjoy the fantasy genre.

When reading Tale of Two Cities, did you ever guess that the reason Charles Darnay and Sydney Carton look the same is because one of them is a fairy changeling?

I got pulled into Perry’s story, and the pace and pull didn’t let up till the end. It isn’t so much a retelling of Dickens’ famous Tale of Two Cities as a new story weaving around that. Carton himself is the narrator, an unwilling servant of the fairies who stole him away as an infant... for a conspiracy woven deeper than we suspected at the beginning. In the end, we see how this rhymes and is interwoven beautifully with the discord and injustice of the human world that’s flowing out in the Revolution.

The chaotic scheming of the fairy realm, and the dark poetry of magic, is done excellently; as is Carton’s broken and desperate character. I’ve seen Perry previously (in Radical Act of Free Magic) struggle somewhat to cover a large-scale plot with justice; here she dives in deep in one arc around Carton and does it very well. What’s more, here, knowing the plot of Tale of Two Cities and knowing what’s coming adds the perfect touch as I try to guess what new things are happening before then, and how we get there.

---

M, King’s Bodyguard, by Niall Leonard (272 pp; 2021)

Who should read this? Mystery fans who like tie-ins with history.

In this historical novel based on a true story, our protagonist, from Scotland Yard, must uncover some anarchist bombers trying to assassinate the Kaiser at Queen Victoria’s funeral - with the help of a mysterious German investigator. It’s a romping thriller adventure through late-Victorian London; not a fair-play mystery but one with fun twists. The setup is from history; our protagonist - a real person - went on to found MI6. But, most of the layers in the conspiracy and investigation were invented.

Leonard has drawn good characters, with interesting ties drawing in additional elements of the world. However, some of his added twists make me feel they fit in too conveniently with modern anti-aristocratic leanings. They’re not impossible, but to me as a history fan they feel unlikely and unrealistic. Though, this’s one blot on an book that’s very fun as a mystery and story; it held my interest throughout.

---

---

Cuisine and Empire: Cooking in World History, by Rachel Laudan (482 pp; 2013)

Who should read this? Foodies who like history, or history fans who like food.

I enjoyed this history of global food and attitudes about food, from the Babylonian Empire through the present. So much was eye-opening: from the interplay of cuisine between nomads and settled regions, to the waves of wheat and rice cuisines in East and South Asia, to the ancient and medieval theories of nutrition which greatly influenced upper-class cuisine. (In retrospect it feels obvious they’d have their own theories and be just as concerned about nutrition as we are - but I hadn’t considered that till reading this!)

As someone who likes very different sorts of food, I feel now how much a privilege it is to live in an age of globalized cuisine, and an age where I can eat most any sort of fruits and vegetables all through the year. But more than that, I’m reminded of how unusual on a historical scale it is to live in an era of such food security. As Laudan reminds us, even though modern cuisine isn’t perfect, it’s given more people more nutrition than we had at any time in the past. And what’s more, it’s done that on a more equal and democratic basis than any time in the past.

---

The Province of Quebec and the Early American Revolution, by Victor Coffin (316 pp; 1896)

Who should read this? People interested in the early history of Canada under British rule.

I started this book to study the 1775 American invasion of Canada, but most of this book (and the best part) discusses British-ruled Canada before that.

When Britain initially conquered Canada during the French and Indian War, it first ruled it by a military government, and then tried to establish a civil government more in tune with the province’s traditions of French law. Coffin analyzes this in detail, both what the government was like and how Canadians responded to it. He argues that the initial British military government was rather well-received by most Canadians, and its subsequent efforts to court favor with upper-class Canadians resulted in its losing favor with the average lower-class Canadians.

This culminated in the Quebec Act of spring 1775, restoring French law and bringing in a council of upper-class Canadians - which, Coffin argues, drove most of the lower class to support the American Revolution when it invaded later that year. He argues the invasion had much broader support than thought, until the ill order of American soldiers (in late winter after the Battle of Quebec), and policies that they felt insulted them, drove Canadian support away.

I think he’s proven his case about the British government, but not about the American invasion losing support. The section on the first point is lovingly detailed; the section on the second point is quite scanty, and takes officers’ grumbling at face value. I came out of it laying better-than-even odds that someone could’ve written the same book about Virginia or Massachusetts! To prove a point specific to Canada, you need to make a better case.

My own suspicions are that lingering Canadian prejudices and confusion at the political issues drove them to effective neutrality. But that’s a tenuous conclusion - all I can say is that Coffin hasn’t come close to proving his case. Regardless, this’s a book well worth reading if you want details on earlier British-ruled Canada.