I can't think of much to add either. I think Kate pretty much covered it. I have noticed that quite often in these mysteries, Sayers never writes what happens to the culprit. Peter figures it out or there is a confession, etc, and that's kind of the end. And she knew the law system at the time, so i'm not sure why she didn't give a sum up to what happened, but there you go.
Parker is a fabulous character and we haven't much talked about him, but he is also just fabulous. Very unimaginative and practical, but how i love him too. He becomes an Inspector later on, at least by Strong Poison.
I'm terribly glad that everyone enjoyed this book, and i do believe the books get better as you go on. When are we starting on Prince Caspian, Chris?
Oh, and i'm nearly done with the next one, Clouds of Witness. You get to meet more of Peter's family because his brother, the Duke is arrested for murder!!
People who don't read miss out on so much.
Showing posts with label Whose Body?. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Whose Body?. Show all posts
Sunday, March 16, 2008
The Body in the Bath
Okay, so the end was just the nifty trick of wrapping everything up. Sayers was definitely worth reading (thanks Eden!), and I look forward to reading more of her work in my lifetime (I'm not sure about immediately).
There's not much for me to add. I like her use of names as indicators of personality (whimsy, freak, etc.). I always like it when authors do that; it gives characters a more representative and universal standing in my mind rather than isolated fictions. Also, (not to harp on this) having studied a bit on how WWI affected people--mutism, hysteria, shell shock, etc.--I was really interested in the brief glimpse of that again in Freke's waiting room.
Finally, I was doing a bit of looking at the whole Wimsey series and ran across this, rather nonsensically tied, link on bathing in the U.K. that I found both educational and amusing.
There's not much for me to add. I like her use of names as indicators of personality (whimsy, freak, etc.). I always like it when authors do that; it gives characters a more representative and universal standing in my mind rather than isolated fictions. Also, (not to harp on this) having studied a bit on how WWI affected people--mutism, hysteria, shell shock, etc.--I was really interested in the brief glimpse of that again in Freke's waiting room.
Finally, I was doing a bit of looking at the whole Wimsey series and ran across this, rather nonsensically tied, link on bathing in the U.K. that I found both educational and amusing.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
The End!
Yes! I am alive. Sorry I have been so bad in posting, I was a little late starting reading, and then I didn't have any internet in my apartment for about a month, so it was hard to get somewhere to use the internet. However, today I am getting internet from a new, mysterious source... Anyways, I know we are not supposed to post on the end until tomorrow, so if you have not finished the book yet, wait until Friday to read this! However, I thought I would seize the chance while I actually am getting internet.
I wasn't sure at first about reading a mystery book, especially from the 1920's. I am not so big sometimes on reading "old" books, I like things new (I know, big shock). And I have never really been a fan of mystery novels. I tried some Agatha Christie books and could never get into them. I always had this view of mystery novels being really boring and formulaic. And, to echo all of your posts (which I wanted to comment on, but wasn't sure where to start, so I just thought I'd write my own post and put my comments in here), I totally agree how I started out thinking this book was okay, and then it got amazing. I love the depth in her characters, how they are so human. I love how she started out seeming like any other mystery novel or a knock-off of Sherlock Holmes, which she admits to being influenced by, and then makes it her own by showing the severity of this crime. I have never actually read Sherlock Holmes books, so I don't know if that affects one's view of this book at all, but I really like that we see the depravity of Sir Julian and acknowledge that it is not right to find a naked body in a bath. It is not some bizarre event that happens, it is murder, and it is serious.
I was also really impressed with how brave Lord Peter was to go and confront Sir Julian in his lair. I would not have had the nerve, but I think he had to go and see him for himself, see if he could figure out how his brain worked and what made this horrible genius tick. And when he almost got murdered through the injection, shivers were running down my spine.
It was also interesting how Sayers tried to make this a more sophisticated mystery novel and yet we still got the letter at the end from Sir Julian detailing step by step how he did everything. I know this is probably a little cliche, since how often in real life do we get such a full confession for a murder? Yet, I was secretly glad because I liked knowing everything that was done.
So, now a question, whatever happened to Sir Julian? I think we heard he was arrested and in prison, but did I miss something else? Is he going to be hung? And do we think Lord Peter will honor his requests to have his brain donated to that society? I think I would if I were in his shoes.
So, good pick, Eden. I really, really, really liked it. I think I would read another novel with Lord Peter in it, he was so great. He was my favorite.
I wasn't sure at first about reading a mystery book, especially from the 1920's. I am not so big sometimes on reading "old" books, I like things new (I know, big shock). And I have never really been a fan of mystery novels. I tried some Agatha Christie books and could never get into them. I always had this view of mystery novels being really boring and formulaic. And, to echo all of your posts (which I wanted to comment on, but wasn't sure where to start, so I just thought I'd write my own post and put my comments in here), I totally agree how I started out thinking this book was okay, and then it got amazing. I love the depth in her characters, how they are so human. I love how she started out seeming like any other mystery novel or a knock-off of Sherlock Holmes, which she admits to being influenced by, and then makes it her own by showing the severity of this crime. I have never actually read Sherlock Holmes books, so I don't know if that affects one's view of this book at all, but I really like that we see the depravity of Sir Julian and acknowledge that it is not right to find a naked body in a bath. It is not some bizarre event that happens, it is murder, and it is serious.
I was also really impressed with how brave Lord Peter was to go and confront Sir Julian in his lair. I would not have had the nerve, but I think he had to go and see him for himself, see if he could figure out how his brain worked and what made this horrible genius tick. And when he almost got murdered through the injection, shivers were running down my spine.
It was also interesting how Sayers tried to make this a more sophisticated mystery novel and yet we still got the letter at the end from Sir Julian detailing step by step how he did everything. I know this is probably a little cliche, since how often in real life do we get such a full confession for a murder? Yet, I was secretly glad because I liked knowing everything that was done.
So, now a question, whatever happened to Sir Julian? I think we heard he was arrested and in prison, but did I miss something else? Is he going to be hung? And do we think Lord Peter will honor his requests to have his brain donated to that society? I think I would if I were in his shoes.
So, good pick, Eden. I really, really, really liked it. I think I would read another novel with Lord Peter in it, he was so great. He was my favorite.
Saturday, March 8, 2008
"Cummings has no signs of greatness about him, and his trousers are not what I would wish to see in a man of his profession."
Oh, the trousers. I love all those related to Peter. Except his sister-in-law, who you haven't met yet, but she's awful. Bleh.
I must be getting better at mysteries, or Ms. Sayers just knows how to make me suspicious. Sir Julian is so wrong. Shady to the nth degree. Surgeons are always shady. They know too much about cutting up bodies. :)
I love Bunter's letter to Peter. How he apologizes and cuts out certain parts of the conversation. You couldn't find a better man than Bunter.
Sayers is a genius at sketching characters in only a few lines. I don't know how she does it. There's often like two lines of description (if that), and dialogue and you have a totally clear picture of the character. Brilliant.
She also doesn't berate a point. She just says what needs to be said and trust the reader to be smart enough to pick it up. I don't have an example from this story, but i have one from Strong Poison that i think it amazing.
Peter is investigating a murder and trying to prove Harriet Vane innocent. He has also proposed to Miss Vane the day he visits her in jail. :) He has just found out some interesting things about the victim and some of the suspects. His friend, Marjorie is with him because she knows the slightly artsy types he needs to talk to.
"And you are and I am right and everything is quite all right," said Wimsey.
Marjorie Phelps looked at him and said nothing. She suddenly felt as though something inside her had been put through a wringer. (pg. 105 Strong Poison)
In two sentences, you know that Marjorie loves Peter and that she knows that he loves Harriet. And that's it. It breaks your heart, but Ms. Sayers doesn't go on and on about the heartbreak for Marjorie. It's there, in two lines. Like I said, Brilliant.
I realize that I do a lot of my book analysis as a writer now. It's habit, i have to do it for class. I hope it's interesting to you guys too.
KIND OF SPOILER FOR CHAPTER TEN:
The entire conversation with Piggott (great name) is perfect. Can't remember everything? Just have Peter pull a Socratic conversation with you. Amazing.
The end is near!!
I must be getting better at mysteries, or Ms. Sayers just knows how to make me suspicious. Sir Julian is so wrong. Shady to the nth degree. Surgeons are always shady. They know too much about cutting up bodies. :)
I love Bunter's letter to Peter. How he apologizes and cuts out certain parts of the conversation. You couldn't find a better man than Bunter.
Sayers is a genius at sketching characters in only a few lines. I don't know how she does it. There's often like two lines of description (if that), and dialogue and you have a totally clear picture of the character. Brilliant.
She also doesn't berate a point. She just says what needs to be said and trust the reader to be smart enough to pick it up. I don't have an example from this story, but i have one from Strong Poison that i think it amazing.
Peter is investigating a murder and trying to prove Harriet Vane innocent. He has also proposed to Miss Vane the day he visits her in jail. :) He has just found out some interesting things about the victim and some of the suspects. His friend, Marjorie is with him because she knows the slightly artsy types he needs to talk to.
"And you are and I am right and everything is quite all right," said Wimsey.
Marjorie Phelps looked at him and said nothing. She suddenly felt as though something inside her had been put through a wringer. (pg. 105 Strong Poison)
In two sentences, you know that Marjorie loves Peter and that she knows that he loves Harriet. And that's it. It breaks your heart, but Ms. Sayers doesn't go on and on about the heartbreak for Marjorie. It's there, in two lines. Like I said, Brilliant.
I realize that I do a lot of my book analysis as a writer now. It's habit, i have to do it for class. I hope it's interesting to you guys too.
KIND OF SPOILER FOR CHAPTER TEN:
The entire conversation with Piggott (great name) is perfect. Can't remember everything? Just have Peter pull a Socratic conversation with you. Amazing.
The end is near!!
I hate detective stories...
Okay, not really. However, it is a bit too humbling for my arrogant self to make a proclamation after reading one section and then in the very next section be forced to eat some humble pie. Stupid, doctor! The worst part is, that its not like I picked someone who it was and it turned out to be someone else. We've all done that from time to time. No, I had to pick the one person I knew it wasn't, which provides no glory in being right (I mean how many characters are there who it won't be) and only humiliation when it turns out to be that particular character. I'm still holding out hope that this is a widespread conspiracy with other characters involved, which was the one scenario under which I could see the doctor being involved.
So, now that we know whodunnit, I have to say I'm utterly confused exactly about the big picture. It was kind of cool the paragraph with Peter going through all of the clues in his head. However, despite having it all laid out before me, I still could not come up with "scissors". I'm going to need Sayers to put the letters in order for me unfortunately.
There were a lot of great "scenes" in these 3 chapters. First, I loved the scene with Milligan showing up with his mother. She took it all right in stride and beautifully without giving anything away. My favorite line involved something to the effect of, "She was starting to know her range". I love it, she's settling into the role and even starting to figure out how liberal she can be in playing it. That was just beautiful. I also liked the scene when he was being honest with Parker about the fact that he knew he was being to cavalier about this whole "detective game". That was very introspective of him, and refreshing to see a character be that deep. Not a lot of books can pull that off in such a realistic manner. And finally, how awesome was that letter from Bunter. I cracked each time that Bunter made a comment apologizing about the booze. Especially, his complaints about his own pain in the other servants lack of taste and how painful it was to watch him mix the cigar and the booze. What a great scene.
So, now that we know whodunnit, I have to say I'm utterly confused exactly about the big picture. It was kind of cool the paragraph with Peter going through all of the clues in his head. However, despite having it all laid out before me, I still could not come up with "scissors". I'm going to need Sayers to put the letters in order for me unfortunately.
There were a lot of great "scenes" in these 3 chapters. First, I loved the scene with Milligan showing up with his mother. She took it all right in stride and beautifully without giving anything away. My favorite line involved something to the effect of, "She was starting to know her range". I love it, she's settling into the role and even starting to figure out how liberal she can be in playing it. That was just beautiful. I also liked the scene when he was being honest with Parker about the fact that he knew he was being to cavalier about this whole "detective game". That was very introspective of him, and refreshing to see a character be that deep. Not a lot of books can pull that off in such a realistic manner. And finally, how awesome was that letter from Bunter. I cracked each time that Bunter made a comment apologizing about the booze. Especially, his complaints about his own pain in the other servants lack of taste and how painful it was to watch him mix the cigar and the booze. What a great scene.
Friday, March 7, 2008
"Not in those trousers, my lord."
I was highly amused by my picture of Bunter physically blocking Peter from leaving on account of his pants; an actual "lol" situation (rather than the general "qstm" (quietly smiling to myself) that is still called lol).
On a serious note though, the character of Peter took a completely left turn, and my opinion of Sayers as a writer with it. While I was enjoying the book and hero at about this level (picture me holding my hand out), after the scene where Peter was having flashbacks to the Great War--wow, we're here (picture other hand much, much higher). WWI had an intense affect on not just literature but society and Western humanity writ large. To see that reflected in a character written so soon after the end of the war shouldn't have been surprising to me, but it was. I'd almost forgotten about history amidst the fun, but Sayers didn't. Now my heart aches as I see Peter's frivolity as not just emblematic of his class and personality, not just a screen to hide a clever, clever mind, but a coping mechanism to deal with the horrors of what he experienced at war. The layers that adds to his character as well as his and Bunter's relationship is incredible. No longer is it just an affectionate employer/employee mutual respect thing, but they were comrades in arms. I can only imagine how that bonds individuals when they've fought together while witnessing atrocities they can't even speak of. Wow.
On a serious note though, the character of Peter took a completely left turn, and my opinion of Sayers as a writer with it. While I was enjoying the book and hero at about this level (picture me holding my hand out), after the scene where Peter was having flashbacks to the Great War--wow, we're here (picture other hand much, much higher). WWI had an intense affect on not just literature but society and Western humanity writ large. To see that reflected in a character written so soon after the end of the war shouldn't have been surprising to me, but it was. I'd almost forgotten about history amidst the fun, but Sayers didn't. Now my heart aches as I see Peter's frivolity as not just emblematic of his class and personality, not just a screen to hide a clever, clever mind, but a coping mechanism to deal with the horrors of what he experienced at war. The layers that adds to his character as well as his and Bunter's relationship is incredible. No longer is it just an affectionate employer/employee mutual respect thing, but they were comrades in arms. I can only imagine how that bonds individuals when they've fought together while witnessing atrocities they can't even speak of. Wow.
Eden isn't the only one who likes this book!
As you can see, Cassie has also taken a great liking to Lord Peter. She was flipping through the pages with rapt attention for several minutes this afternoon, and it wasn't the first time she'd picked up the book! I too found myself greatly entrenched in the story this afternoon as I read the chapters. Honestly, I didn't want to put it down after chapter 9, but I forced myself to so I could post without giving anything away. (Round of applause for the great discipline this takes...) However, I'm not promising not to finish it tonight or tomorrow!
I was right!! Sir Julien Freke (maybe Freak is a better spelling?!) is involved and it sounds like he my be one sick man...don't know if anyone here knows much about vivisection but cutting up live bodies is something straight out of a horror movie, which is as most of you know, a genre I despise. I haven't figured the whole mystery out, but I think pieces started to come to me even as they were being put forth for us through the mind of Peter.
Speaking of Lord Peter, while he may have been called an arrogant jerk by certain of you, I found his character very endearing during these three chapters. Sayers did a good job with LP's insightful revelation about his hobby of sleuthing. It was very touching to me for him to reveal to Parker that being a detective was a game for him, but when it came down to being the one responsible for sending the criminal away or to his death, he struggled with that. I think I would be the same way given those circumstances, hence a new respect for him. The episode he had with his nerves was also very poignant as was the way "Sergeant" Bunter took care of him. Any chance that Bunter actually served with him in the war, hence the bond that they have and how Bunter got his position?
One final thought on Bunter, whom, of course, I still adore. He may be the manservant and Lord Peter the Lord, but it is clear who is in charge in certain matters, such as the way that Lord Peter dresses. I loved the was Bunter told him in no uncertain terms was he leaving the house for a fancy luncheon dressed in anything less than fresh and immaculate clothes!
I guess to sum it up, yay for Peter, yay for Bunter, boo for Sir Freak.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Return from the insanely busy....
Sorry for taking so long to get in on this. Been a crazy time lately. I've actually had the reading done in a timely manner, just didn't get time to put a post out for the first section. To be honest, about the only thing I had to say about the first 3 chapters though was that I can't understand the stinking English accent. Seriously, they need subtitles for these books. Anyway, I'm starting to decipher some of this foreign language, so here are some brief thoughts.
First I don't think the doctor dunnit. The only way I see him being involved is if we find out in the end that this was a humongous conspiracy and everyone conceivable was involved. Sure there was the love interest potential and such, but why is he trying to take pressure off of Thibbs at the inquest, if he's guilty? (Granted there was no chance Thibbs was in trouble anyway, but still, I think the point holds)
To be honest, I think currently I lean towards Levy disappearing quite of his own will, and being either the murderer or co-conspirator in the case of the naked guy. So there you have it, no crime in the Levy disappearance and Levy is the prime criminal in the naked guy case. There very well may be multiple co-conspirators in on things with Levy though, but I'm still working on that.
Oh and for proof....I've got nothing, just my feeling based on reading mysteries a lot in my life. Its a hunch.
Finally, two things, first I find it annoying when books make tongue in cheek marks about their book or genre. I.E. at least twice so far the characters in this book have made comments about how this mystery was not typical of mysteries you might read about. I don't have the exact quote, but there was one in relation to no muddy footprint right after the rain on the roof, as would be found in a mystery novel. Second, I find it annoying that they still don't seem to be deadset on the two crimes being somehow linked. Of course their linked....c'mon now...Okay that's it for now, I'll try to catch on ya'lls posts and make some comments there.
First I don't think the doctor dunnit. The only way I see him being involved is if we find out in the end that this was a humongous conspiracy and everyone conceivable was involved. Sure there was the love interest potential and such, but why is he trying to take pressure off of Thibbs at the inquest, if he's guilty? (Granted there was no chance Thibbs was in trouble anyway, but still, I think the point holds)
To be honest, I think currently I lean towards Levy disappearing quite of his own will, and being either the murderer or co-conspirator in the case of the naked guy. So there you have it, no crime in the Levy disappearance and Levy is the prime criminal in the naked guy case. There very well may be multiple co-conspirators in on things with Levy though, but I'm still working on that.
Oh and for proof....I've got nothing, just my feeling based on reading mysteries a lot in my life. Its a hunch.
Finally, two things, first I find it annoying when books make tongue in cheek marks about their book or genre. I.E. at least twice so far the characters in this book have made comments about how this mystery was not typical of mysteries you might read about. I don't have the exact quote, but there was one in relation to no muddy footprint right after the rain on the roof, as would be found in a mystery novel. Second, I find it annoying that they still don't seem to be deadset on the two crimes being somehow linked. Of course their linked....c'mon now...Okay that's it for now, I'll try to catch on ya'lls posts and make some comments there.
Monday, March 3, 2008
And the Suspects are...
Does anyone else here feel like the suspect list keeps growing while the likelihood of the suspects being guilty becomes more clouded? I am suspicious of Sir Julien for sure, but as I commented, I'm not sure if my suspicions are that he's involved in the murder or if he's involved with Mrs. Levy. I find the fact that he loved her and never married even after she did, highly suspicious. I still suspect Mr. Levy may have had a hand in his own disappearance and now the info coming from Sir Julien about his visit...well, something is going on there.
I also want to say that while the other servants seem to sympathize with Bunter(after all he has to pull all these round the clock tasks for an employer with fanatical crime solving tendencies), I think Bunter really enjoys being a part of it. I think he likes playing the little roles that he does and helping on the forensic side of things. I think it probably makes his life as a gentleman's gentleman far more exciting and extraordinary than most and he realizes and appreciates that.
I also find myself interested in the forensics of the case. They also have me questioning the time and era the book was written in because I'm wondering what type of mystery Sayers writes. Is she a writer who weaves all kinds of vagaries for her reader and then whams them in the end with an unexpected twist we could never foresee? Or is she the kind of writer who leaves subtle clues along the way, allowing us to see and analyze the clues as her characters do and thus giving us a chance to solve the crime as well. Time will tell!
I also want to say that while the other servants seem to sympathize with Bunter(after all he has to pull all these round the clock tasks for an employer with fanatical crime solving tendencies), I think Bunter really enjoys being a part of it. I think he likes playing the little roles that he does and helping on the forensic side of things. I think it probably makes his life as a gentleman's gentleman far more exciting and extraordinary than most and he realizes and appreciates that.
I also find myself interested in the forensics of the case. They also have me questioning the time and era the book was written in because I'm wondering what type of mystery Sayers writes. Is she a writer who weaves all kinds of vagaries for her reader and then whams them in the end with an unexpected twist we could never foresee? Or is she the kind of writer who leaves subtle clues along the way, allowing us to see and analyze the clues as her characters do and thus giving us a chance to solve the crime as well. Time will tell!
Saturday, March 1, 2008
CSI: London
I must say that I'm very intrigued by the amount of forensic work they (well, Bunter) are doing in the case. So often we think of forensics as a very contemporary science, but it's been around for nearly 100 years. I wonder if it will solve the case a la most detective shows nowadays.
My other thought during these chapters is that I hope/imagine that Peter is going to prove to be a genius. Right now he's very much got the lounging, non-active playboy act going for him. While he seems to be lazy and just lucky, I'm hoping that's a bit of an act on his part. And that he'll reveal some sign of activity at the end. I suppose he already did this a little by insinuating to Parker that he was just off to have lunch at a club, when he actually was going to slyly interrogate Levy's business rival (I forget his name, with the red-headed secretary). I get the sense from the fact that his career seems to be in media res (i.e. there are allusions to other cases he's solved previously) he must be clever and not just amusing.
My other thought during these chapters is that I hope/imagine that Peter is going to prove to be a genius. Right now he's very much got the lounging, non-active playboy act going for him. While he seems to be lazy and just lucky, I'm hoping that's a bit of an act on his part. And that he'll reveal some sign of activity at the end. I suppose he already did this a little by insinuating to Parker that he was just off to have lunch at a club, when he actually was going to slyly interrogate Levy's business rival (I forget his name, with the red-headed secretary). I get the sense from the fact that his career seems to be in media res (i.e. there are allusions to other cases he's solved previously) he must be clever and not just amusing.
since no one else is posting...
I'm wondering if perhaps everyone is bogged down in life stuff. Everybody okay? Everyone still want to do this reading and blogging thing?
Well, I just finished chapter 6, so I wanted to post so I could start reading 7-10 next. It's unbearable to read Wimsey so slow, but i must confess it's probably good for me.
I have my doubts about Sir Julian Freke. I would immediately suspect him, but the Dowager seems to like him and she's pretty insightful. But I don't know, he worries me a bit. And the american oil guy. I'm pretty sure it wasn't Thipps maid and her man. :)
My favorite thing about these mysteries is how they (parker and peter in this case) follow up every little thing, even if it's a rabbit trail. And Ms. Sayers writes it so well that you can't really tell what's important to know and what's filler. That's good story telling.
I continued to love it and hope all of you do as well, because well, when you find such a good character you want to share it will everyone you know.
Well, I just finished chapter 6, so I wanted to post so I could start reading 7-10 next. It's unbearable to read Wimsey so slow, but i must confess it's probably good for me.
I have my doubts about Sir Julian Freke. I would immediately suspect him, but the Dowager seems to like him and she's pretty insightful. But I don't know, he worries me a bit. And the american oil guy. I'm pretty sure it wasn't Thipps maid and her man. :)
My favorite thing about these mysteries is how they (parker and peter in this case) follow up every little thing, even if it's a rabbit trail. And Ms. Sayers writes it so well that you can't really tell what's important to know and what's filler. That's good story telling.
I continued to love it and hope all of you do as well, because well, when you find such a good character you want to share it will everyone you know.
Monday, February 25, 2008
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 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!
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
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.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Thursday, February 14, 2008
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!!
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!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)