Yay for me!!!

Or more for Ms. Sayers who writes so wonderfully well. But I am so, so glad that I've picked a book that everyone has enjoyed. Hope Kate does too. Kudos to Lila for buying them for me. Oh, does anyone mind if i give her the link to this site? She was most interested in what we will be saying about Peter Wimsey.

I am not a mystery reader. Other than Bunnicula and the rest of that series by James Howe, i don't think i've read a mystery. Although i suppose a lot of stories have mystery in them, 'how's the book going to end?' I know for a fact I cannot write mysteries, my failed attempt to write a spec script for Veronica Mars is proof of that. And i certainly i'm not about murder mysteries. I'm a bit too squeamish sometimes.

But Ms. Sayers does such a good job of not being too graphic about the dead. Enough is there for the horror of it, but Peter (since he and I are on a first name basis now) looks at it so clinically, just for the facts and details, that I'm not given too much time to ponder the deceased.

I have my ideas about whodunnit and all, but I never really try all that hard to solve the story. i think what i like best about Sayers are her characters. The mysteries are always good, but what makes the stories for me are her characters. The regulars, Peter, Bunter, Parker, The Dowager (Peter's mom) and the dayplayers, Thipps, Mrs. Thipps and much more to come, i'm sure.

The Dowager is one of her best characters. She is whom Peter gets his smarts from but she's a little airheady. She'll talk in circles, but at the end of her diatribe you'll realize that she's right on the money.

Parker had one of the best lines. in chapter 2:

(peter) "...but i've seen the body, and i should say the idea was preposterous upon the face of it. what do you think of the brandy?"

(parker) "Unbelievable, Wimsey -- sort of thing makes one believe in heaven."

Hilarious.

Class is an interesting thing to look at. So is religion. Peter often mentions he's not religious. I asked Lila about that and she said that because church was so much about society and not about faith back then, that that might be why Sayers (a christian herself) does that. might have to look into that.

Personally, we could do the whole series of peter wimsey books and i'd have no problem. Till next week...

I love mysteries!

I do, I love mysteries. I used to devour Nancy Drew when I was a kid and then moved on to Agatha Christie, Sherlock Holmes and much, much more. For the most part I prefer the classics though to a lot of the horror/thriller junk that's out there today, often so loaded with sexual junk that it feels more like those racy novels than a mystery. There are some good ones though. All this to say I am enjoying this book thus far and I have a hard time seeing how I won't enjoy the whole thing. The British language makes me work a little harder to understand everything in the book, but I love it because it feels so much more like a good old authentic mystery that way! Of course I love it all the more because of Bunter! I also really enjoy Lord Peter Wimsey's character. I like that he isn't an actual detective or anything, but presumably he will solve the mystery in the end. It's so much fun that way and makes me feel as if I too can solve this mystery!

As for my theories on the actual case, I have a few thus far. I think it's quite possible that the dead man in the tub was put there to try and make the police think it was the body of Sir Reuben Levy, possibly even by Sir Reuben himself. I think it is also quite possible that the man who got home late the night before Sir Reuben went missing, may not have been Sir Reuben at all. The fact that his habits that night were out of character leads me to believe that someone else dressed up as Sir Reuben or even sneaked in pretending to be him (no one actually saw him). I have no idea why the body was left naked in a stranger's tub or what the pince-nez mean, but I suppose the later will end up being significant or a vital clue or something. I can't wait to find out!

I Guess I'll Go First

I know at least Eden is waiting for someone else to post; I don't know about the rest of you. I guess I'll break the ice then. I'm enjoying the book; I 've always wanted to read some Sayers, so I'm glad for the opportunity/push to do so now.

One of the possible talking points that I noted was the issue of class. In 1923 when this was published, we're between the two World Wars, when the aristocracy is having its last hurrah in terms of significant social hierarchy. (See Evelyn Waugh's works for examples.) On one hand we have Lord Whimsy being portrayed as a jolly sort, who is very friendly with his manservant, as we see he and Bunter drinking and talking together when Parker comes to visit. Whimsy is clearly a likeable fellow, and he's only the second son of a duke, so he doesn't have all the political aristocratic responsibilities that I presume his father and older brother have. Yet, he seems to be positioned as superior, in crime solving as well as social niceties, to the more working class Investigator Sugg*. Phipps's (Fipps?) mother indicates that she is comforted knowing that a gentleman is helping sort out this bathroom incident, simply because he's a gentleman, not because she's aware of any special skills on Whimsy's part (although he does have them).

I know that Sayers and Agatha Christie were writers in the "Golden Age" of Detective fiction, which existed during the 1920s and 30s, and it is interesting to read an early book. It seems to me that this was the time that the genre was becoming clearly defined and developed, and I find genre studies quite interesting. How can a writer follow a formula that a reader expects and wants, while still being innovative and new, which a reader also wants?

Because I can't do anything with out at least a little bit of background reading, I'll share what I found in my research. First, some background on the top three writers of the Golden Age, including Sayers, from a class on crime fiction that has an awful lot of good links for one to explore. Second, a lecture from the same class about the Golden Age and the formation of the genre. These both come from an amazing site that has everything you ever wanted to know in an introduction to crime fiction.

*Is that his name? I can't quite tell from my audio book.

The Importance of Bunter

Before everyone jumps on me for writing before the date of the first post I want to make it clear that this is a pre-book post. I just wanted to say that this book (series) holds personal meaning to me and my family because our first dog, Bunter, was named after Lord Peter Whimsey's manservant, Bunter. As my dad puts it, "Bunter was a gentleman's gentleman and I figured a dog was the closest I'd ever get to having a servant." Bunter's full name on his dog license was actually Hill's Gentleman Bunter. I just wanted to share that with everyone before we read the book.

New Schedule

Okay, so we start posting on the 22nd. 1-3

that good, for everybody?

Schedule for Peter Wimsey

Okay, so I'm thinking that we're doing a book from the 15th to the 15th, right?

Then, you can start posting about chapters 1-3 tomorrow.

Starting the 22nd you can post on chapters 4-6.

The 29th - chapters 7-10

And March 7th (the day after kate's b-day) the final chapters and the little bio of peter at the end.

All good? Let's get to reading.

Oh, and Happy Valentine's Day everyone!!

The end of something

Well I liked the book better after finishing it than I did the first couple of chapters, but I still don't really see the point. Is it supposed to be saying that happiness in love is entirely a matter of chance? That was sort of the feeling I got. If so then I really wonder at the love stories she created. I'm happy that Daniel goes back to Sylvia and I don't mind that Jocelyn and Grigg end up together. I was also happy that Prudie seemed realize just what a gem her husband is. i do however, have trouble with Bernadette ending up with some random person we've never heard of before in the epilogue...although maybe that's where the "chance" thing comes in, but it sort of seems like poor narration to me. I also don't understand how Allegra is suddenly back with her scumbag ex-lover in the epilogue when she had been interested in the nice doctor woman. It seems sort of strange.

I still don't see how any of the characters in any way resemble Austen's actual characters. Chapter 5 had dancing and lots of quotes from P&P so I guess it tied in a little closer than other chapters, but I still didn't see much resemblance. I guess it was still an interesting read, but I feel like I was drawn in on false pretenses. I also couldn't make head nor tails of the narrator by the end either so not so thrilled about that. I guess it makes an ok story, but as a huge Jane Austen fan, I was sorely disappointed in the lack of connection. I'm sort of rambling now, but then, with the way the book turned out...well...ok, I think I'll end and see what others had to say.

The end....

Well, let me start with the positives. First, it was nice in the end that she decided to not make the whole book about pissing all over "love". After the first 1-4 chapters, I thought that's where this was heading. In the end, she did show some positive sides to "love". Her plot did get slightly deeper towards the end as well, as she started to integrate more characters into each chapter, rather than the starkness that was, focusing on one character in the earlier chapters. I think that's what I've got for positives for now.

The negatives, well, rather than repeat the quote, I will just reference it in the previous two posts. What a cheesy, and lacking in thought line. Ridiculous! Especially so, for someone who spent the early parts of the books exploring some of the darker sides of "love". I felt like her ending reflected this lack in thought, as she just started throwing people together at the end. Jocelyn and Grigg was very typical, easy to predict, and I didn't particularly have a problem with them getting together. The whole book started with us knowing he would end up with Jocelyn anyway. Daniel coming back? Don't get me wrong, its very feel good and all, and I don't even mind showing progress towards that end. Really though, I wasn't buying the whole scene with him coming back to book club. Jerry Maguire with no emotion. (Which, try to imagine that scene if Cruise had not bothered to put any emotion into it....he would have been murdered). Anyway, I guess to sum up, despite an improvement from beginning to end, I thought this writer showed extreme lack of depth in her plot mostly, but in her characters as well. I agree with Sarah (I think she said something to this effect) that she seems to have relied on us to import a character into each of these, to give them more depth than they deserved based on her writing.

Finally, if ya'll want a laugh, make sure you read through those study questions. Are you kidding me?

Bernadette made the book for me.

So, here's the thing. I don't like comparing the characters to Austen's heroines. It just makes it bleh to me. I like Fowler's characters in their own right. They're mostly interesting and complex on their own. If I think of the Austen match for each other them, it takes away my joy for the characters. I think the coupling between Grigg and Jocelyn was forced, even though i figured it out in Bernadette's chapter.

"We'd let Austen into our lives, and now we were all either married or dating." (Pg. 249) I'm repeating it, sarah, because it made me so mad. So everyone was peachy keen? What kind of ending is that? I enjoyed that Daniel came back, that made me happy. And Bernadette getting married again seemed appropriate. Made me smile. But how like women to think that everyone needed to end up in a relationship??????

Sorry, i know i write romance as a rule, but i expected more from Fowler. I guess she needed Jocelyn to have some sort of arc. Grr.

I loved Bernadette's chapter. Bernadette was fabulous and funny and just so self-assured. I want to be as silly as her when I grow to be her age. Maybe not as many marriages.

Some favorite quotes:

"I hope I've learned a thing or two since. No one with real integrity tries to sell their integrity to you. People with real integrity hardly notice they have it. You see a campaign that focuses on character, rectitude, probity, and that's exactly when you should start asking yourself, What's this guy trying to hide?" (pg. 185)

"Bernadette could tell right off that he hadn't lived long enough to have much to say. His sugar-beet farmer would be thinly drawn." (pg 181)

"But she (Nettie) had herself become invisible, especially to younger men. This had begun back in her fifties, so she was used to it by now. She'd become more audible to compensate." (pg 181)

"(in regards to Mr. Tybald Parker, who picked Nettie up when she wandered from the commune) It was the first time since I'd gone to visit Mattie that I felt God's presence in my life." (pg 190)

Okay, so I just loved Bernadette. She was fun. And I liked Prudie sort of sticking up for her against Mo Bellington the mystery writer.

I'm not sad we read this book. It had some good points. I have no idea how they made a movie of it. But I wanted to know how it ended, which means that there was definitely something to be said for the 'story.' And Fowler writes well, even if her structure is very unorthodox.

The End.

So, the final chapter went a long way towards me liking this book. The final assessment that "We'd let Austen into our lives, and now we were all either married or dating" seems especially contrived and disturbing. Although, more and more as I think about it, I do see the parallels between the character(s) and the book they hosted. Jocelyn is the busy-body match maker like Emma, who after trying to set her friend up (minor confusion ensues) decides to take a man for herself. Sylvia is the quiet one who keeps everything inside, while Allegra is passionate and reckless, like Elinor and Marianne Dashwood. Bernadette, always disheveled like Elizabeth after walking to Netherfield, is an older version of Elizabeth infinitely intriguing and marriageable, though not desperate. An interesting surpising notable turn with Daniel being Anne. Is Grigg then Catherine? And Prudie Fanny?

I'm torn between seeing Fowler as being clever or being a plagiarist. I love Bridget Jones's Diary and think Fielding terribly clever, so I guess I need to be fair across the board. (Or maybe Fowler is less clever because she's copying Fielding, not Austen). This paralleling does seem to give a little more point to the story. Perhaps the struggle is that there's too many layers. Each of Austen's heroines is a rich complex character that could deserve a whole update on her own (see BJD) and trying to put them all in one story makes for a lot of breadth and "hey, that's nifty" moments, but provides little depth. Once I'd determined what I see as less and less subtle connections, the more Fowler's characters have very little development of their own and rely on the audience's knowledge/love/appreciation of Austen's characters to be transfered to her own.

In regards to Jocelyn's question (#2), I used to watch Wishbone with one of the boys I babysat in high school. I thought it was awesome. Though I don't remember any Austen adaptations (apparently there are two "Furst Impressions" and "Pup Fiction"), I would certainly love to see them. I doubt Jocelyn would.

Still liking the book...

Alright, I think most has been said and I really need to start writing a post the moment I finish the chapters, cause i think i read this like over a week ago. Shame on me.

I don't really get this book or it's characters, but I am enjoying the simple reading of it. I find the characters a little too quirky to be real, but Prudie and Grigg were my favorites so far. Prudie because I guess I got the thing with her student. :) Big surprise. Grigg because he seemed lovable and interesting, though I don't think we got into his head as much as we do the female characters.

And I don't think Grigg will end up with anybody, Sarah. I just don't think this is that kind of story.

I do want to know the end. If there is an end for this kind of book.

My Thoughts

Okay, because this isn't school, and I don't have to have an order, here are some of my thoughts, in no particular order and devoid of elegant transitions.

1. A quote that I loved from the second chapter, "When happy, she was uncontrollable, when sad, inconsolable, until she changed--fast as a finger snap--long after you'd given up" (45). I just adore the rhythm; it reminds me of Maya Angelou's "Phenomenal Woman."

2. Nope. Two-thirds of the way through the book and I still dislike the narrative structure. "Grigg didn't tell us any of this, because he thought we wouldn't be interested" (126)--awkward, awkward, and more awkward. Of course, if I was writing a paper on this, I'd probably argue that it was a failed attempt at something innovative, and potentially I'd identify a 3rd person narrator position at the outermost level of the story that gives us the character info, and the 1st person plural as a sub-narrator within that narrator that doesn't know the additional information, except that makes the quote wrong, and oh that's right--awkward!

3. I normally love 'fan' books and adaptations (Wuthering High is pretty fun), but this one isn't doing it for me. I'm curious what the author feels about adaptation and Austen. Her characters were rather narrow-minded about the film adaptation of Mansfield Park (if you won't be satisfied with anything less than the exact book, then read the book, don't go see a movie of it), yet Fowler's work is predicated on offering a modern critique of Austen's books, which is exactly what a good adaptation does--offers a reading of the text. She just has her characters talk about it rather than actually doing it (and as we've all learned the best writing shows rather than tells).

4. Some minutiae--I love Grigg's observation that Northanger Abbey was "very pomo" made me laugh, and then the pseudo-narrator's comment that "over at the university, people were paid to worry about such things; they'd soon have it well in hand" (138). I'm a big nerd for the academic fiction (or academic elements to other fiction).

If it's decided...

that I am picking the next book.

I pick Whose Body? by Dorothy L. Sayers.

Mr. Darcy makes #1

So I know this is a bit of a stretch, but since we are discussing a book in which Austen's works are discussed, Sarah and I agreed I ought to post this for you all to read. Sarah also suggested we should now read these seven books in order for our book club so we can study the ideal man. What do you think, Chris? :)

Chapters 3 and 4

I agreed with the general consensus that I liked chapters 3 and 4 better than the first two. Sad as it seems, I think Grigg is the most likeable character so far, but maybe this is true to Austen who tends to have more defects in her heroines than her heros. Not that I think Grigg is a hero. He just seems like a nice guy, and I also like that he likes science fiction. His chapter seems the most like Austen, since we never actually find out what happens at that party he went to when he was 10, what happened to his dad. Its a bit more suggestive than some of the others coming right out and stating things.

So, is anyone else having trouble finding corrolations between the book they are reading and the person's life described in the chapter? I read the comments on the back, and one was stating how Fowler took all of Austen's works and themes and made them very up-to-date, and I just don't agree with that view, thus far. I guess I can't really make the judgment until I have finished the book.

The Movie?

Did anyone else know this existed? Apparently they've made The Jane Austen Book Club the movie. I watched the trailer and I'm not sure if it gives anything away or just makes some stuff up, but if you don't want to risk any spoilers, I'd wait until after you have read the whole thing. They definitely took some liberties with it though, all the characters are younger and prettier than the ones in the book. You can see this just by following my link to the IMDB page. They also have all their stories happening simultaneously...I guess maybe they had trouble finding a way to make the book into a story with a point? Anyhow, once people have viewed this I'd like to know what they think. I almost feel like we should all see the movie so we can compare...isn't that what Sarah does for a living?! :)

Better than Before

Clearly the author is misguided in including so much sexual content in her book. If she is capitalizing on Jane Austen's name and literature to attract readers, she really ought to consider the audience who like Austen's books. Somehow I don't see many people who enjoy Austen being thrilled by a book full of unromantic and even inappropriate sexual encounters. She would have been better off going for witty banter and scandalous happenings.

Despite that I enjoyed chapters 3 and 4 much better than 1 and 2. Maybe I just liked Prudie and Grigg's stories better, though I think part of it is liking Grigg's character and empathizing somewhat with Prudie. I'm not a school teacher though I've been a sub with some rowdy kids and I haven't lost my mother, though she's been quite sick a couple times, but she draws me in other ways. I feel sorry for the little Prudie who never got to experience anything fun for real as a child, yet I understand so well about sometimes pretending ending up being better than reality. I think of all the times I've blown things up with grand expectation in my head, only to be disappointed by the actual event. There have been days that I look back at and wonder, "Did that actually happen or did I dream it?" My wedding day, which all of you were present for, is one of them, not unlike Prudie's own expereince. Sad as it actually is, I love the idea that reality and fantasy blend into a beautiful, romantic childhood that allowed a little girl with nothing to experience everything. Still, her mother definitely cheated her little girl and took fantasy beyond the limits where it belongs.

As for Grigg, how can you not love his character even more now?! Despite him being babied, I love his three sisters who clearly were better parents than his own. I love that he loves science fiction and Austen and is tasteful (cute little house and appetizers he serves), yet still a guy and that his favorite Jane Austen is Nothanger Abbey, and that he's actually read Udolpho! (Which, by the way I think we all ought to read for the fun of it!) In short, if this guy were real I think he'd be perfect for Sarah.

I'm actually eagerly anticipating seeing where the story goes (I honestly can't remember very much) in the last two chapters. I'm tempted to read them now, but considering I'm writing this post a day early (I'll save it and wait to post until Friday), I figure I should at least give others the courtesy of posting and predicting so I can add my two cents worth before diving into the end and finding out the answers to all of our questions.

Oh and my favorite quote has to be the one in chapter 3 when Prudie says she felt she could watch the kids for suicide and drugs and the like, but that asking her to teach them French on top of that was really too much!