What do you think?
Rate this book
Lord Peter Wimsey #2
En sky av vittnen
Lord Peter Wimsey är på utlandsresa men får skynda sig tillbaka till England när hans bror blir anklagad för mord på deras systers fästman. Det är ju trevligt att hålla mysterierna inom familjen, tycker Wimsey som sätter igång med att avslöja både systerns och broderns hemligheter, som alltid med hjälp av Bunter, den extraordinäre betjänten.
242 pages, Mass Market Paperback
First published January 1, 1926
1671 people are currently reading
7387 people want to read
About the author
Dorothy L. Sayers
720 books3,003 followersThe detective stories of well-known British writer Dorothy Leigh Sayers mostly feature the amateur investigator Lord Peter Wimsey; she also translated the
Divine Comedy
of Dante Alighieri.
This renowned author and Christian humanist studied classical and modern languages.
Her best known mysteries, a series of short novels, set between World War I and World War II, feature an English aristocrat and amateur sleuth. She is also known for her plays and essays.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothy...
This renowned author and Christian humanist studied classical and modern languages.
Her best known mysteries, a series of short novels, set between World War I and World War II, feature an English aristocrat and amateur sleuth. She is also known for her plays and essays.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothy...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,903 reviews
October 9, 2023
3.5 rounded up.
Audiobook narrated by Jane McDowell
Clouds of Witness is the 2nd volume in the well known cosy mystery series involving the amateur investigator and lord, Peter Wimsey. This time, his brother is in big trouble as he is investigated for murdering the fiancee of his sister (and Peter's). It was a satisfying mystery peppered with humour and interesting characters. Light and funny.
Audiobook narrated by Jane McDowell
Clouds of Witness is the 2nd volume in the well known cosy mystery series involving the amateur investigator and lord, Peter Wimsey. This time, his brother is in big trouble as he is investigated for murdering the fiancee of his sister (and Peter's). It was a satisfying mystery peppered with humour and interesting characters. Light and funny.
May 24, 2023
Definitely more engaging than the first book.
Thank you to all of the people who encouraged me to keep going with Sayers' Lord Peter Wimsey series.
So this time around Lord Peter's brother is on trial for murder.
What-what? <--you say
Here's a bit of backstory:
While Pete is on a trek to the wilds of...somewhere (I forget, sorry) his brother and sister are hosting an upper-crust hunting party in Yorkshire.
Oh! So. much. fun.
Until things go tits up in a big way.
Lady Mary, the Wimsey brothers' little sister was engaged to marry Captain Denis Cathcart until his untimely death by gunshot at 3 am on the night in question, when she finds her oldest brother leaning over his dead body. <--after a heated argument heard by several people in the house wherein he tells Cathcart to stay away from his sister! All this after the duke receives a letter from a friend that Cathcart is a known cheater at cards (which was apparently a big fucking deal back in the day).
Gerald Wimsey, the Duke of Denver, says he didn't do it, but for reasons of his own refuses to tell Scotland Yard where he was on the night in question.
Gerry is a bit of the pompous sort and doesn't for a moment think he will actually swing for it. Peter isn't so sure.
He knows in his heart that Gerald has an airtight alibi somewhere but he can't convince him to cough it up. But now that he's back from...wherever (again, sorry!) he's on the case and ready to do whatever it takes to save his family.
A fun side story is that Lord Peter's close friend, Inspector Charles Parker, seems to be falling for his sister Mary. <--that looks promising!
While still not an ah-mazing story, it did have a nice twist at the end.
And this time around the story and characters seemed to have a bit more juice. Pizzaz. Something! Whatever it is, it made me want to keep going with the series.
Thank you to all of the people who encouraged me to keep going with Sayers' Lord Peter Wimsey series.
So this time around Lord Peter's brother is on trial for murder.
What-what? <--you say
Here's a bit of backstory:
While Pete is on a trek to the wilds of...somewhere (I forget, sorry) his brother and sister are hosting an upper-crust hunting party in Yorkshire.
Oh! So. much. fun.
Until things go tits up in a big way.
Lady Mary, the Wimsey brothers' little sister was engaged to marry Captain Denis Cathcart until his untimely death by gunshot at 3 am on the night in question, when she finds her oldest brother leaning over his dead body. <--after a heated argument heard by several people in the house wherein he tells Cathcart to stay away from his sister! All this after the duke receives a letter from a friend that Cathcart is a known cheater at cards (which was apparently a big fucking deal back in the day).
Gerald Wimsey, the Duke of Denver, says he didn't do it, but for reasons of his own refuses to tell Scotland Yard where he was on the night in question.
Gerry is a bit of the pompous sort and doesn't for a moment think he will actually swing for it. Peter isn't so sure.
He knows in his heart that Gerald has an airtight alibi somewhere but he can't convince him to cough it up. But now that he's back from...wherever (again, sorry!) he's on the case and ready to do whatever it takes to save his family.
A fun side story is that Lord Peter's close friend, Inspector Charles Parker, seems to be falling for his sister Mary. <--that looks promising!
While still not an ah-mazing story, it did have a nice twist at the end.
And this time around the story and characters seemed to have a bit more juice. Pizzaz. Something! Whatever it is, it made me want to keep going with the series.
August 30, 2017
Published in 1926, this is a terrific murder mystery by Dorothy L. Sayers. At a hunting house party, Denis Cathcart is discovered dead – shot through the chest and apparently dragged from some bushes some distance away to a spot near the conservatory door. Lord Wimsey (Gerald, or Jerry) left the house late at night and trips over the body on his way back to the house around 3:00 a.m. His sister, Lady Mary, also sees him and claims in the inquest that she heard a shot fired around 3:00 a.m. The groundskeeper said he heard a shot at 10 minutes before midnight, but nothing later.
Lord Wimsey had been heard quarrelling loudly with the deceased late that same night. Since Denis Cathcart was engaged to Lord Wimsey’s sister, Lady Mary, Lord Wimsey confronted him regarding some discrediting information which resulted in Denis Cathcart abruptly leaving the house. To make matters worse, the gun was Lord Wimsey’s own – kept in a drawer with the key in the lock. At the inquest, Lord Wimsey refuses to state an alibi for himself, and the mounting evidence indicates he is guilty of murder.
There is a Grand Jury hearing, and the case proceeds. It must now go to The House of Lords for Lord Wimsey to be tried before a jury of his peers. Meantime, Lord Peter (Wimsey’s brother) and his friend from Scotland Yard (Charlie Parker) are chasing down clues and leads in England, in France, and ultimately even in the United States.
Lord Peter may cast an appearance that is frivolous and shallow at times, but no-one can fault him as a brother. Even Lady Mary comes under suspicion when new evidence shows up that showed she lied about certain things in the inquest. Lord Peter does everything he can to get his brother freed from prison and to ensure his sister doesn’t take his place. This includes some frightening moments – being stuck in a bog and nearly losing his life there, not to mention his return flight from the United States when the plane is brought down due to bad weather – fortunately before it can crash into the ocean.
There were several times – at least three or four – where I thought I knew for sure who the killer was. Even when reading books and I do know who dunnit, it is half the fun to figure out how it all happened. This time I was wrong – oh, so very wrong. And that was fun, too!
I enjoyed this book immensely – even the stuffy atmosphere of the trial in the House of Lords was interesting, long concluding speeches and all! I am amazed at the quality of writing in this series and look forward to reading the third one.
Lord Wimsey had been heard quarrelling loudly with the deceased late that same night. Since Denis Cathcart was engaged to Lord Wimsey’s sister, Lady Mary, Lord Wimsey confronted him regarding some discrediting information which resulted in Denis Cathcart abruptly leaving the house. To make matters worse, the gun was Lord Wimsey’s own – kept in a drawer with the key in the lock. At the inquest, Lord Wimsey refuses to state an alibi for himself, and the mounting evidence indicates he is guilty of murder.
There is a Grand Jury hearing, and the case proceeds. It must now go to The House of Lords for Lord Wimsey to be tried before a jury of his peers. Meantime, Lord Peter (Wimsey’s brother) and his friend from Scotland Yard (Charlie Parker) are chasing down clues and leads in England, in France, and ultimately even in the United States.
Lord Peter may cast an appearance that is frivolous and shallow at times, but no-one can fault him as a brother. Even Lady Mary comes under suspicion when new evidence shows up that showed she lied about certain things in the inquest. Lord Peter does everything he can to get his brother freed from prison and to ensure his sister doesn’t take his place. This includes some frightening moments – being stuck in a bog and nearly losing his life there, not to mention his return flight from the United States when the plane is brought down due to bad weather – fortunately before it can crash into the ocean.
There were several times – at least three or four – where I thought I knew for sure who the killer was. Even when reading books and I do know who dunnit, it is half the fun to figure out how it all happened. This time I was wrong – oh, so very wrong. And that was fun, too!
I enjoyed this book immensely – even the stuffy atmosphere of the trial in the House of Lords was interesting, long concluding speeches and all! I am amazed at the quality of writing in this series and look forward to reading the third one.
April 22, 2013
dashing peter wimsey dashes into some more dashing adventures. he's one of literature's greatest detectives. but just as enjoyable is his faithful manservant bunter. peter runs around figuring things out with his clever, clever mind but it is bunter who often gets his hands dirty with rather agreeable tasks like chatting up all the maidservants and various other domestics. tasks he clearly relishes but approaches with suave professionalism. various witnesses never fail to succumb to bunter's charms. he's the man!
the novel was fun. i was never bored, so there's that. but still... well, no need to get into it. maybe i'm just spoiled because whenever i open up another Sayers i'm always expecting a Gaudy Night type experience. alas!
the novel was fun. i was never bored, so there's that. but still... well, no need to get into it. maybe i'm just spoiled because whenever i open up another Sayers i'm always expecting a Gaudy Night type experience. alas!
January 26, 2016
This delightful mystery is the second featuring Lord Peter Wimsey. When his brother, the Duke of Denver, is accused of murder then it is Lord Peter’s job to clear his name. The Duke is found standing over the body of his sister’s fiancé, who he has recently argued with about claims that the victim, Captain Denis Cathcart, was a card sharp. However, when questioned, he refuses to give a reasonable account of why he was wandering around outside, in the middle of the night. Why is he being so secretive and what is their sister, Mary, hiding?
This is a wonderful, Golden Age mystery, with Lord Peter Wimsey and Charles Parker truly collaborating. There are some great, atmospheric scenes, most notably when Wimsey and Bunter are lost on the moors. The scenes in the House of Lords, where the Duke of Denver is tried, are also very interesting. Much of the fun in these books is in Wimsey himself and his light-hearted banter and eccentric behaviour. He is one of the greatest fictional amateur detectives and this is one of his best cases.
This is a wonderful, Golden Age mystery, with Lord Peter Wimsey and Charles Parker truly collaborating. There are some great, atmospheric scenes, most notably when Wimsey and Bunter are lost on the moors. The scenes in the House of Lords, where the Duke of Denver is tried, are also very interesting. Much of the fun in these books is in Wimsey himself and his light-hearted banter and eccentric behaviour. He is one of the greatest fictional amateur detectives and this is one of his best cases.
June 6, 2022
Buddy Read of May 2022
This is a buddy read for the English Mysteries Group in which we are reading all the DLS Lord Peter Wimsey novels, commencing April 2022.
Read of May 2016
I remember many moons ago as a child, my mother used to read these books and i think in my very early teens I read some (about the same time as I started reading Agatha Christie, the question is why have I not read any since as it was really enjoyable. I liked the quintessential Englishness of it, and the era in which they were set. I also remember seeing the programmes on TV (again back in the pre-historic past, starring Ian Carmichael).
Anyway it has certainly made me want to read more, problem is when and how to fit it all in ??
This is a buddy read for the English Mysteries Group in which we are reading all the DLS Lord Peter Wimsey novels, commencing April 2022.
Read of May 2016
I remember many moons ago as a child, my mother used to read these books and i think in my very early teens I read some (about the same time as I started reading Agatha Christie, the question is why have I not read any since as it was really enjoyable. I liked the quintessential Englishness of it, and the era in which they were set. I also remember seeing the programmes on TV (again back in the pre-historic past, starring Ian Carmichael).
Anyway it has certainly made me want to read more, problem is when and how to fit it all in ??
October 4, 2020
I loved the descriptive language, clever dialogue and the intriguing twists and turns of the story. I was engaged by the thoughtful social commentary and felt that the author encouraged me to think beyond the obvious.
One of my favorite descriptions is the scene at the Soviet Club, which Lord Peter Wimsey describes as reming him of "mission teas." He reasons that it may be because "all the members looked as though they cherished a purpose in life, and that the staff seemed rather sketchily trained and strongly in evidence." Then, he muses that it is a democratic establishment and the staff cannot be expected to put on the airs and graces of a club in the posh West End of London, which added another layer of complexity and opportunity for thinking about the class system.
As Wimsey moves to the dining room he observes that "the resemblance to a mission tea was increased by the exceedingly heated atmosphere, the babel of conversation, and the curious inequalities of the cutlery."
Then, there is the delicious description of the dining arrangements. Wimsey and his guest sit at "a rather crumbly table near the serving-hatch" where Wimsey is shoe horned into a tight spot "next to a very large, curly-haired man in a velvet coat, who was earnestly conversing with a thin, eager young woman in a Russian blouse, Venetian beads, a Hungarian shawl, and a Spanish comb, looking like a personification of the United Front of the 'Internationale.'"
One example of clever dialogue is Wimsey's interview with the surly farmer, Mr. Grindthorpe where Wimsey displays and exhausts his considerable wits and communication skills.
Then, one of the most entertaining passages is when Wimsey's mother, described as a "wily old bird" sweeps in, takes charge, accuses her ailing daughter of "naughtiness and hysterics," sorts everything out and gives them all a dressing down for lacking common sense.
When Wimsey tries to give his mother credit for her detective skills, she replies tartly, "My dear child you can give it a long name you like but I am an old-fashioned woman and I call it 'mother wit' and it is so rare for a man to have, that you write a book about it & call it Sherlock Holmes."
Finally, just when Wimsey is feeling powerful at possessing some exclusive knowledge, the author brings him down a peg or two. At an opportune time, he shares this bad news with malicious delight only to discover that his audience was already fully aware and he is not going to get the reaction he wanted. He muses, "Few things are more irritating than to discover after you have been at great pains to spare a person some painful intelligence that he has known it all along and is not so much affected by it as he probably should be."
I truly enjoyed the dramatic narration by Ian Carmichael who played the part of Lord Peter Wimsey in the television dramatizations of the 1970s.
One of my favorite descriptions is the scene at the Soviet Club, which Lord Peter Wimsey describes as reming him of "mission teas." He reasons that it may be because "all the members looked as though they cherished a purpose in life, and that the staff seemed rather sketchily trained and strongly in evidence." Then, he muses that it is a democratic establishment and the staff cannot be expected to put on the airs and graces of a club in the posh West End of London, which added another layer of complexity and opportunity for thinking about the class system.
As Wimsey moves to the dining room he observes that "the resemblance to a mission tea was increased by the exceedingly heated atmosphere, the babel of conversation, and the curious inequalities of the cutlery."
Then, there is the delicious description of the dining arrangements. Wimsey and his guest sit at "a rather crumbly table near the serving-hatch" where Wimsey is shoe horned into a tight spot "next to a very large, curly-haired man in a velvet coat, who was earnestly conversing with a thin, eager young woman in a Russian blouse, Venetian beads, a Hungarian shawl, and a Spanish comb, looking like a personification of the United Front of the 'Internationale.'"
One example of clever dialogue is Wimsey's interview with the surly farmer, Mr. Grindthorpe where Wimsey displays and exhausts his considerable wits and communication skills.
Then, one of the most entertaining passages is when Wimsey's mother, described as a "wily old bird" sweeps in, takes charge, accuses her ailing daughter of "naughtiness and hysterics," sorts everything out and gives them all a dressing down for lacking common sense.
When Wimsey tries to give his mother credit for her detective skills, she replies tartly, "My dear child you can give it a long name you like but I am an old-fashioned woman and I call it 'mother wit' and it is so rare for a man to have, that you write a book about it & call it Sherlock Holmes."
Finally, just when Wimsey is feeling powerful at possessing some exclusive knowledge, the author brings him down a peg or two. At an opportune time, he shares this bad news with malicious delight only to discover that his audience was already fully aware and he is not going to get the reaction he wanted. He muses, "Few things are more irritating than to discover after you have been at great pains to spare a person some painful intelligence that he has known it all along and is not so much affected by it as he probably should be."
I truly enjoyed the dramatic narration by Ian Carmichael who played the part of Lord Peter Wimsey in the television dramatizations of the 1970s.
July 14, 2025
This second book of the Lord Peter Wimsey series is my introduction to Dorothy L. Sayers. As she was considered one of the best detective fiction writers of the Golden Age, I was excited at the prospect of finally reading her. But the novel disappointmented me.
The story started well, engaging the reader and keeping her excited. The dramatic arrival of Lord Peter from abroad provided much humour. Duke of Denver's secret night rendezvous and Lady Mary's peculiar behaviour enhanced the mysterious ambiance that surrounded the murder. These mysteries were soon resolved and the true facts that surrounded the murder-mystery didn't interest me. The final part of the story was just a narrative ramble, making the story dull and insipid.
On the positive side, I liked the whimsical Lord Peter Wimsey, the amateur detective. I find him witty and funny. He, Mr. Bunter, and Inspector Charles Parker make a fitting team.
The flaws I observed may be due to my own peculiarities or the novel being an early one in the series. Nevertheless, my overall impression is that, where there is action, the story is exciting and where there is pure narration, the story is flat.
More of my reviews can be found at http://piyangiejay.com/
The story started well, engaging the reader and keeping her excited. The dramatic arrival of Lord Peter from abroad provided much humour. Duke of Denver's secret night rendezvous and Lady Mary's peculiar behaviour enhanced the mysterious ambiance that surrounded the murder. These mysteries were soon resolved and the true facts that surrounded the murder-mystery didn't interest me. The final part of the story was just a narrative ramble, making the story dull and insipid.
On the positive side, I liked the whimsical Lord Peter Wimsey, the amateur detective. I find him witty and funny. He, Mr. Bunter, and Inspector Charles Parker make a fitting team.
The flaws I observed may be due to my own peculiarities or the novel being an early one in the series. Nevertheless, my overall impression is that, where there is action, the story is exciting and where there is pure narration, the story is flat.
More of my reviews can be found at http://piyangiejay.com/
December 2, 2016
Amateur sleuth Lord Peter Wimsey's family is neck-deep in the soup...the murder soup! (Most delicious!)
The police aren't much help, so with the help of his friend, Chief Inspector Detective Guy Man And Other Words Charles Parker, Wimsey attempts to solve a devilishly difficult case involving his brother, sister and sundry others related and not.
This is all very hoity–toity, upper English society stuff where a spot of murder is nothing next to the accusation of cheating at cards. Bunch of silly asses, if you ask me, but there you have it!
Dorothy Sayers (no relation to Gale, that I know of) was a P.G. Wodehouse fan and her mysteries are very Wodehousian. It's sort of like reading a book in which Bertie and Jeeves solve a murder, so this is right up my alley!
Highly recommended for Agatha Christie fans looking for slightly better developed characters and more of a sense of fun.
The police aren't much help, so with the help of his friend, Chief Inspector Detective Guy Man And Other Words Charles Parker, Wimsey attempts to solve a devilishly difficult case involving his brother, sister and sundry others related and not.
This is all very hoity–toity, upper English society stuff where a spot of murder is nothing next to the accusation of cheating at cards. Bunch of silly asses, if you ask me, but there you have it!
Dorothy Sayers (no relation to Gale, that I know of) was a P.G. Wodehouse fan and her mysteries are very Wodehousian. It's sort of like reading a book in which Bertie and Jeeves solve a murder, so this is right up my alley!
Highly recommended for Agatha Christie fans looking for slightly better developed characters and more of a sense of fun.
January 10, 2022
“But to Lord Peter the world presented itself as an entertaining labyrinth of side-issues”
Clouds of Witness is a Golden Age mystery, book 2 in the Lord Peter Wimsey Series.
With guests at his country estate for hunting, Peter’s brother, the Duke of Denver, finds the corpse of his sister’s fiancé and is accused of the murder. Of course, Peter swoops in to lead the investigation only to find a tangle of falsehoods that must be sorted before the situation can be resolved.
After reading negative reviews for this book, I wasn’t sure how I would like it. And I wanted to read the series in sequence, so I did not miss Peter’s arc. So, I went with the audio format. The narration by Ian Carmichael was excellent. It was a great way to experience the book.
While the mystery was layered and I did not guess the outcome early, portions of the book were tedious to endure. In chapter one, for instance, most of it was a play-by-play inquiry of the facts presented by witnesses. I was nearly asleep before the story narrative resumed. And a couple of times later had the same feel. It was like having the story interrupted by commercials.
As I said, the mystery wasn’t easy to guess, and I thought it was clever. But the red herrings were a bit excessive. When Lord Peter mentioned the “labyrinth of side-issues,” it must have been a backhanded comment to Sayers for the dead ends she wove in the story.
I had a couple more minor quirks. There were many words in French that were not explained, but that wouldn’t matter to readers who know the language. The audio did a wonderful job with the accent though. I missed the humor. It was so prevalent in the first book that I had expected the same jovial tone here. This one was just neutral.
Overall, it was an okay mystery. Not bad. Not as great as book one. Although I enjoyed the dynamic of Peter and Bunter, I had hoped for more character arc about Peter. I’ve read that the books get better further into the series. I sure hope it happens starting with Unnatural Death.
Clouds of Witness is a Golden Age mystery, book 2 in the Lord Peter Wimsey Series.
With guests at his country estate for hunting, Peter’s brother, the Duke of Denver, finds the corpse of his sister’s fiancé and is accused of the murder. Of course, Peter swoops in to lead the investigation only to find a tangle of falsehoods that must be sorted before the situation can be resolved.
After reading negative reviews for this book, I wasn’t sure how I would like it. And I wanted to read the series in sequence, so I did not miss Peter’s arc. So, I went with the audio format. The narration by Ian Carmichael was excellent. It was a great way to experience the book.
While the mystery was layered and I did not guess the outcome early, portions of the book were tedious to endure. In chapter one, for instance, most of it was a play-by-play inquiry of the facts presented by witnesses. I was nearly asleep before the story narrative resumed. And a couple of times later had the same feel. It was like having the story interrupted by commercials.
As I said, the mystery wasn’t easy to guess, and I thought it was clever. But the red herrings were a bit excessive. When Lord Peter mentioned the “labyrinth of side-issues,” it must have been a backhanded comment to Sayers for the dead ends she wove in the story.
I had a couple more minor quirks. There were many words in French that were not explained, but that wouldn’t matter to readers who know the language. The audio did a wonderful job with the accent though. I missed the humor. It was so prevalent in the first book that I had expected the same jovial tone here. This one was just neutral.
Overall, it was an okay mystery. Not bad. Not as great as book one. Although I enjoyed the dynamic of Peter and Bunter, I had hoped for more character arc about Peter. I’ve read that the books get better further into the series. I sure hope it happens starting with Unnatural Death.
August 20, 2020
Jolly confounded story, old bean, what?
Oh My, but was this book tedious, melodramatic and disappointing, not a patch on a pleasantly entertaining Book #1.
If it wasn't for Ian Carmichael's excellent reading, I probably would not have finished at all.
The concept of the the crime was interesting, but it was very badly done. It might have worked as a short novella, but was just too thin for a complete novel.
All the red herrings thrown in and eventually leading nowhere just screamed *FILLER* and I found them utterly pointless and boring.
Oh My, but was this book tedious, melodramatic and disappointing, not a patch on a pleasantly entertaining Book #1.
If it wasn't for Ian Carmichael's excellent reading, I probably would not have finished at all.
The concept of the the crime was interesting, but it was very badly done. It might have worked as a short novella, but was just too thin for a complete novel.
All the red herrings thrown in and eventually leading nowhere just screamed *FILLER* and I found them utterly pointless and boring.
September 10, 2025
__________________________
“Tea, Crumpets, a Corpse and a Bit of Wimsey.
Murder provides Lord Peter Wimsey with a great deal of pleasure. Well, no, he doesn’t commit murders, but he absolutely joyous when he discovers a nice engaging homicide he can horn in on. He likes the challenge of solving them in the same way that other people like doing Sudoku or jigsaw puzzles.
In Clouds of Witnesses, Lord Pete learns that his brother the Duke has been indicted for murder. On one hand Pete was delighted—here was an intriguing mystery for him to solve. On the other hand, he was concerned that he might be taking family game night too far.
The body of the Duke’s sister’s fiancé has been found outside of the Duke’s door in the middle of the night. He was shot with the Duke’s revolver, and the Duke is standing next to the body. The Duke says he is innocent, but he refuses to reveal his alibi, even to his lawyer or his mystery solving brother.
Because justice was swift in Great Britain in those days, Lord Wimsey only has a short time to find out what happened that dark night to save his brother from Jack Ketch’s long drop.
Surprisingly, there was SEX in 1926 when this book was first published. Who would have thought? I was convinced that Sex was invented in the 1960s, but live and learn. Yes, the proof is right here in this book--Well, not the howling, moaning, sweaty, wall-pounding sex in the Motel-8 room next to yours at 2 in the morning you might curse, but the general concept is mentioned here. I did a little research, and apparently the author, Dorothy Sayres, was a moderate hedonist and feminist who thought everyone deserved some pleasure in life—even women--and she was a nascent feminist with knee-length skirts and drop waisted dresses. Again, no explicit sex, but who knew such a thing even existed then or that women of that era actually had legs.
🌟🌟🌟🌟 Stars. Sayers's novels featuring Lord Peter Wimsey are renowned for their intricate plotting, richly developed characters, and thoughtful exploration of social and philosophical themes.
“Tea, Crumpets, a Corpse and a Bit of Wimsey.
Murder provides Lord Peter Wimsey with a great deal of pleasure. Well, no, he doesn’t commit murders, but he absolutely joyous when he discovers a nice engaging homicide he can horn in on. He likes the challenge of solving them in the same way that other people like doing Sudoku or jigsaw puzzles.
In Clouds of Witnesses, Lord Pete learns that his brother the Duke has been indicted for murder. On one hand Pete was delighted—here was an intriguing mystery for him to solve. On the other hand, he was concerned that he might be taking family game night too far.
The body of the Duke’s sister’s fiancé has been found outside of the Duke’s door in the middle of the night. He was shot with the Duke’s revolver, and the Duke is standing next to the body. The Duke says he is innocent, but he refuses to reveal his alibi, even to his lawyer or his mystery solving brother.
Because justice was swift in Great Britain in those days, Lord Wimsey only has a short time to find out what happened that dark night to save his brother from Jack Ketch’s long drop.
Surprisingly, there was SEX in 1926 when this book was first published. Who would have thought? I was convinced that Sex was invented in the 1960s, but live and learn. Yes, the proof is right here in this book--Well, not the howling, moaning, sweaty, wall-pounding sex in the Motel-8 room next to yours at 2 in the morning you might curse, but the general concept is mentioned here. I did a little research, and apparently the author, Dorothy Sayres, was a moderate hedonist and feminist who thought everyone deserved some pleasure in life—even women--and she was a nascent feminist with knee-length skirts and drop waisted dresses. Again, no explicit sex, but who knew such a thing even existed then or that women of that era actually had legs.
🌟🌟🌟🌟 Stars. Sayers's novels featuring Lord Peter Wimsey are renowned for their intricate plotting, richly developed characters, and thoughtful exploration of social and philosophical themes.
December 1, 2024
Not my favourite Wimsey but still a vast improvement on Whose Body? Works well as far as plot goes, and the evolving Wooster/Jeeves dynamic between Wimsey and his faithful manservant Bunter is very entertaining. But this one suggests Sayers was still feeling her way with Wimsey's character: puzzling out who he is and what she wants to do with him. There's more than a hint of Wimsey as an action hero here, the kind of figure found in the ripping yarns and spy stories of the day. I much prefer the later Wimsey still quippy but more analytical, more grounded than this earlier incarnation.
February 5, 2021
Somewhere between 2.5 and 3 stars - I did 100% like this one better than the first book in the series. I found the writing quite beautiful in places and I felt less like it was novel that should have been a short story. I still just don't know about this as a mystery and I like the characters more in concept than in actuality. It just isn't hitting the spot for me the way I hoped it might. I will keep going in the series for now, but sadly... this may just not be fore me
March 24, 2022
This isn't my favorite of the Lord Peter novels – but as I'm sure I've said somewhere, that's like being my least favorite chocolate or my least favorite Beatle. And this does have some of my favorite Peter-Bunter scenes, and gave me the name for one of my blogs (Bompstable Cat, for the record).
This isn’t so much a review as gathered musings on a book, a cast of characters, and an author near and dear to my heart.
Peter is thirty-three in this book. At the very beginning it mentions "he had followed Sir Julian Freke's advice and taken a holiday":
From Whose Body?:
"Ah! Your nerves are not all they should be. ...Nothing to be alarmed about, but you must exercise care while undergoing this strain, and afterwards you should take a complete rest. How about a voyage in the Mediterranean or the South Seas or somewhere?"
The man may have been a murderer, and probably a psychopath, but he knew his field. Dorothy L. Sayers wasn’t afraid to make her murderer someone you didn’t really want to see in that role; I don’t remember my first reading of this, but I think there is, for a while, a genuine concern on the reader’s part along with Peter’s that Gerald might actually have dunnit.
Among other things, Lord Peter Wimsey is known for blather. For nonsense. For, as Harriet Vane said, piffle.
"Mester!"
"Yes, old, thing?" said Peter affably, returning.
"Happen he'll set dog on tha."
"You don't say so?" said Peter. "The faithful hound welcomes the return of the prodigal. Scene of family rejoicing. 'My own long lost boy!' Sobs and speeches, beer all around for the delighted tenantry. Glees by the fireside, till the rafters ring and all the smoked hams tumble down to join in the revelry. Good night, sweet Prince, until the cows come home and dogs eat Jezebel in the portion of Jezreel when the hounds of spring are on winter's traces. I suppose," he added to himself, "they will have finished tea."
In the seventy-six words of the above piffle (not counting the sensible first and last sentences), there are hits on the Bible (the prodigal son, and Jezebel; interesting she should come into the picture right here), and Shakespeare (Hamlet, "Good night, sweet Prince"), though the cows are a separate entity, inspired, one imagines, by the setting, and possibly a poem called “Edessa” ('My own long lost boy!'), and “The hounds of spring are on winter’s traces” is from the poem Atalanta in Calydon (1865)". I believe the hams are from Peter's own head, riffing off something, I have no doubt.
It's nonsense – goodness knows what all jumbled together in a stream of consciousness irruption. From another character, another author, something like this might cause my back to go up and/or my eyes to roll, or other physical manifestations of annoyance. Peter is, the reader is told shortly, "a respectable scholar in five or six languages, a musician of small skill and more understanding, something of an expert in toxicology, a collector of rare editions, an entertaining man-about-town, and a common sensationalist". He has had an upper-class turn-of-the-century classical education, and is well able to process reams upon reams of poetry and prose in Latin, Greek, French, English, and I'm not sure what other languages – from nursery rhymes and music hall tunes to Plato and Voltaire – and in other hands than DLS’s I don't but doubt I might inform such a character or author where they might insert their classical education, and then I'd go hang out with Harry Dresden. (My version of a modern Lord Peter would produce piffle largely based off yes, Shakespeare, but also Doctor Who. And would without doubt say at some point "I swear by my pretty floral bonnet".) But Peter's piffle isn't meant to intimidate or put down a reader, or Peter's interlocutor, I don't believe. It's just Peter. It's Peter's Rube Goldberg mind that takes a warning about a farmer setting the dog on him: dominos fall, and a marble rolls down a channel, and a pulley slips down a string, and a bucket fills and tips and sends a little toy monkey waddling mechanically forward clapping cymbals which hit a switch, and at the end a flag goes up. Or something. But in a way it's the same kind of thought process, the same kind of association game that might be found in the head of anyone who has packed his brain for a long and rich lifetime journey. Only Peter vocalizes.
He uses well-aimed piffle to confuse the hell out of people, and to make himself look harmless, and to make himself to look like an idiot – and just because. Maybe this example falls into the category of "making himself look harmless"; the farmhand is perhaps less likely to set the dogs on Peter after his exclamations, making him appear too effete and insubstantial to even worry about.
I thought it interesting that both Peter and Parker think to buy their sisters (well, Peter's sister-in-law) crêpe de Chine scanties. It's perfect: Charles wanted to please his spinster sister with something pretty and rare which she would probably never buy for herself, which she could take sensual delight in wearing under her sensible clothing and no one else would ever know about it. (There's such a pathos to that "no one else".) Meanwhile, Peter wanted to shock his prudish sister-in-law by announcing in front of her guests that he planned to buy her something pretty and rare which she would probably never buy for herself, which she would disdain as frivolous and bohemian and for women of another, need I say lower, class altogether and wants to make sure everyone knows she would never wear such a thing. She irks him so thoroughly, and all he wants to do is blowtorch a hole in that frigidity. Scoring a hit in front of others would be perfect.
I love that Parker is well able to conduct inquiries in France on his own. His French is not perfect – he is uncertain about his accent, and intimidated about the lingerie shop (though he goes for it anyway, bless him). And he flatters himself, pleased, that his accent is improving. I can just imagine a salesgirl taking him under her wing and thinking him totes adorbs. (Wait, that’s not French, is it?) I love Charles Parker.
Though not as much as I love Bunter, and especially Peter. Their relationship is wonderful in this book.
For one thing, there is this line:
"Lord Peter stretched out his hand impulsively, but Mr. Bunter was too well trained to see it."
It's easy to go in all sorts of directions with that line, and – to me – the obvious direction (shipping) is astoundingly stupid. This occurs right after Bunter reveals a bit about himself that Peter never knew – and realizes he has never looked into: Bunter's family. In all the years they've known each other, and Bunter has served him, Peter never inquired about his past. "Your mother, Bunter? I didn't know you had one. I always imagined you were turned out ready-made so to speak." That is – as per usual – flippant, but I think a moment later Peter's conscience smites him and he feels a need for Bunter's forgiveness. Friends don't neglect to ask after friends' mothers; friends don't fail to ascertain whether friends' mothers are in fact living or dead. Friends know how many siblings friends have. And these two are friends, despite the class divide and the fact that one is in the other's employ – they have been through the proverbial thick and the metaphorical thin together, and saved each other's skins, and owe each other a great deal. And Peter didn't know Bunter's mother was "seventy-five, my lord, and an extremely active woman for her years". I have to say I'm a little surprised at this; I would have said it's not like him. Perhaps it's simply that Bunter is so much a part of his life, a part of him, that he honestly never thought about his existence before the War. Bunter did arrive fully formed into his life, has never been so gauche as to intimate he has any other existence, and is always there. For the most difficult part of Peter’s life – most, in fact, of his adult life – Bunter has always been there, and as such a fixture in Peter's landscape has no separate reality: there was no Bunter before there was a Bunter-and-Peter. He's not the type, Mervyn Bunter, to chatter, and with six other siblings has no need to take time away from a job he loves to go and tend to his mother. Bunter's former home life has never been thrust into Peter's range of vision before.
Also, I came across an really excellent online conversation which, in this, concentrates on that word "was": "I was one of seven." [ETA: What a pity - my link goes to a Livejournal blog which has been deleted and purged. That sounds pretty final.] They posit that the use of the past tense indicates that at least some of the siblings have died – of influenza, or in the War. I'm not sure about that – it could simply be "I was one of seven at home" or "I was one of seven children she bore" without the more sober connotation. It's a very good theory – I like mine better, though: Peter puts out his hand in supplication, wanting to apologize for his ignorance about something he should have known. And Bunter, whatever was in his head, refrained from officially noticing; whether that means all is forgiven, or Peter didn't have to ask, or all is not forgiven… well, that's another set of speculations. When he leaves the room Peter is in high spirits, at least, so perhaps it can be inferred that whatever Bunter's mien and posture was as he ignored the outstretched hand, it was not a rebuff.
And can I just say that this is one of the reasons I love DLS so much. There just aren't so very many authors in my experience (especially those best known as mystery authors) whose books spark that much thought over one line of text, and for whom such speculation is so rewarding.
This Open Road text reads as a nice edition of the book, although peppered (as usual) with punctuation and transcription errors – but in checking text in another I find that it is sorely lacking in one thing: "This re-issue of CLOUDS OF WITNESS (which has received some corrections and amendments from MISS SAYERS) has for a Preface a short biography of Lord Peter Wimsey, brought up to date (May 1935) and communicated by his uncle PAUL AUSTIN DELAGARDIE." This edition has the brief bio and heraldic information, but not the essay from Uncle Paul. It's a crime that this is left out.
And of course I love the following so very much that I named a blog after it. In fact, let me go see if the name is available elsewhere … I’m not much of a cat person, but bompstable cats? Oh my yes.
But now he had really got the formula he wouldn't forget it again. The connection was just there - close, thick, richly coherent.
"The glass-blower's cat is bompstable," said Mr. Parker aloud and distinctly.
"I'm charmed to hear it," replied Lord Peter, with a friendly grin. "Had a good nap, old man?"
"I--what?" said Mr. Parker. "Hullo! Watcher mean, nap? I had got hold of the most important train of thought, and you've put it out of my head. What was it? Cat--cat--cat----" He groped wildly.
"You said 'The glass-blower's cat is bompstable,'" retorted Lord Peter. "It's a perfectly rippin' word, but I don't know what you mean by it."
"Bompstable?" said Mr. Parker, blushing slightly. "Bomp - oh, well, perhaps you're right - I may have dozed off. But, you know, I thought I'd just got the clue to the whole thing. I attached the greatest importance to that phrase. Even now - No, now I come to think of it, my train of thought doesn't seem quite to hold together. What a pity. I thought it was so lucid."
And, not to be repetitive, I love this:
Parker's eyes wandered to the photographs. "I don't believe it," he said obstinately. "I'm damned if I'm going to believe a word of it."
Woop – there goes Charles, I believe.
This isn’t so much a review as gathered musings on a book, a cast of characters, and an author near and dear to my heart.
Peter is thirty-three in this book. At the very beginning it mentions "he had followed Sir Julian Freke's advice and taken a holiday":
From Whose Body?:
"Ah! Your nerves are not all they should be. ...Nothing to be alarmed about, but you must exercise care while undergoing this strain, and afterwards you should take a complete rest. How about a voyage in the Mediterranean or the South Seas or somewhere?"
The man may have been a murderer, and probably a psychopath, but he knew his field. Dorothy L. Sayers wasn’t afraid to make her murderer someone you didn’t really want to see in that role; I don’t remember my first reading of this, but I think there is, for a while, a genuine concern on the reader’s part along with Peter’s that Gerald might actually have dunnit.
Among other things, Lord Peter Wimsey is known for blather. For nonsense. For, as Harriet Vane said, piffle.
"Mester!"
"Yes, old, thing?" said Peter affably, returning.
"Happen he'll set dog on tha."
"You don't say so?" said Peter. "The faithful hound welcomes the return of the prodigal. Scene of family rejoicing. 'My own long lost boy!' Sobs and speeches, beer all around for the delighted tenantry. Glees by the fireside, till the rafters ring and all the smoked hams tumble down to join in the revelry. Good night, sweet Prince, until the cows come home and dogs eat Jezebel in the portion of Jezreel when the hounds of spring are on winter's traces. I suppose," he added to himself, "they will have finished tea."
In the seventy-six words of the above piffle (not counting the sensible first and last sentences), there are hits on the Bible (the prodigal son, and Jezebel; interesting she should come into the picture right here), and Shakespeare (Hamlet, "Good night, sweet Prince"), though the cows are a separate entity, inspired, one imagines, by the setting, and possibly a poem called “Edessa” ('My own long lost boy!'), and “The hounds of spring are on winter’s traces” is from the poem Atalanta in Calydon (1865)". I believe the hams are from Peter's own head, riffing off something, I have no doubt.
It's nonsense – goodness knows what all jumbled together in a stream of consciousness irruption. From another character, another author, something like this might cause my back to go up and/or my eyes to roll, or other physical manifestations of annoyance. Peter is, the reader is told shortly, "a respectable scholar in five or six languages, a musician of small skill and more understanding, something of an expert in toxicology, a collector of rare editions, an entertaining man-about-town, and a common sensationalist". He has had an upper-class turn-of-the-century classical education, and is well able to process reams upon reams of poetry and prose in Latin, Greek, French, English, and I'm not sure what other languages – from nursery rhymes and music hall tunes to Plato and Voltaire – and in other hands than DLS’s I don't but doubt I might inform such a character or author where they might insert their classical education, and then I'd go hang out with Harry Dresden. (My version of a modern Lord Peter would produce piffle largely based off yes, Shakespeare, but also Doctor Who. And would without doubt say at some point "I swear by my pretty floral bonnet".) But Peter's piffle isn't meant to intimidate or put down a reader, or Peter's interlocutor, I don't believe. It's just Peter. It's Peter's Rube Goldberg mind that takes a warning about a farmer setting the dog on him: dominos fall, and a marble rolls down a channel, and a pulley slips down a string, and a bucket fills and tips and sends a little toy monkey waddling mechanically forward clapping cymbals which hit a switch, and at the end a flag goes up. Or something. But in a way it's the same kind of thought process, the same kind of association game that might be found in the head of anyone who has packed his brain for a long and rich lifetime journey. Only Peter vocalizes.
He uses well-aimed piffle to confuse the hell out of people, and to make himself look harmless, and to make himself to look like an idiot – and just because. Maybe this example falls into the category of "making himself look harmless"; the farmhand is perhaps less likely to set the dogs on Peter after his exclamations, making him appear too effete and insubstantial to even worry about.
I thought it interesting that both Peter and Parker think to buy their sisters (well, Peter's sister-in-law) crêpe de Chine scanties. It's perfect: Charles wanted to please his spinster sister with something pretty and rare which she would probably never buy for herself, which she could take sensual delight in wearing under her sensible clothing and no one else would ever know about it. (There's such a pathos to that "no one else".) Meanwhile, Peter wanted to shock his prudish sister-in-law by announcing in front of her guests that he planned to buy her something pretty and rare which she would probably never buy for herself, which she would disdain as frivolous and bohemian and for women of another, need I say lower, class altogether and wants to make sure everyone knows she would never wear such a thing. She irks him so thoroughly, and all he wants to do is blowtorch a hole in that frigidity. Scoring a hit in front of others would be perfect.
I love that Parker is well able to conduct inquiries in France on his own. His French is not perfect – he is uncertain about his accent, and intimidated about the lingerie shop (though he goes for it anyway, bless him). And he flatters himself, pleased, that his accent is improving. I can just imagine a salesgirl taking him under her wing and thinking him totes adorbs. (Wait, that’s not French, is it?) I love Charles Parker.
Though not as much as I love Bunter, and especially Peter. Their relationship is wonderful in this book.
For one thing, there is this line:
"Lord Peter stretched out his hand impulsively, but Mr. Bunter was too well trained to see it."
It's easy to go in all sorts of directions with that line, and – to me – the obvious direction (shipping) is astoundingly stupid. This occurs right after Bunter reveals a bit about himself that Peter never knew – and realizes he has never looked into: Bunter's family. In all the years they've known each other, and Bunter has served him, Peter never inquired about his past. "Your mother, Bunter? I didn't know you had one. I always imagined you were turned out ready-made so to speak." That is – as per usual – flippant, but I think a moment later Peter's conscience smites him and he feels a need for Bunter's forgiveness. Friends don't neglect to ask after friends' mothers; friends don't fail to ascertain whether friends' mothers are in fact living or dead. Friends know how many siblings friends have. And these two are friends, despite the class divide and the fact that one is in the other's employ – they have been through the proverbial thick and the metaphorical thin together, and saved each other's skins, and owe each other a great deal. And Peter didn't know Bunter's mother was "seventy-five, my lord, and an extremely active woman for her years". I have to say I'm a little surprised at this; I would have said it's not like him. Perhaps it's simply that Bunter is so much a part of his life, a part of him, that he honestly never thought about his existence before the War. Bunter did arrive fully formed into his life, has never been so gauche as to intimate he has any other existence, and is always there. For the most difficult part of Peter’s life – most, in fact, of his adult life – Bunter has always been there, and as such a fixture in Peter's landscape has no separate reality: there was no Bunter before there was a Bunter-and-Peter. He's not the type, Mervyn Bunter, to chatter, and with six other siblings has no need to take time away from a job he loves to go and tend to his mother. Bunter's former home life has never been thrust into Peter's range of vision before.
Also, I came across an really excellent online conversation which, in this, concentrates on that word "was": "I was one of seven." [ETA: What a pity - my link goes to a Livejournal blog which has been deleted and purged. That sounds pretty final.] They posit that the use of the past tense indicates that at least some of the siblings have died – of influenza, or in the War. I'm not sure about that – it could simply be "I was one of seven at home" or "I was one of seven children she bore" without the more sober connotation. It's a very good theory – I like mine better, though: Peter puts out his hand in supplication, wanting to apologize for his ignorance about something he should have known. And Bunter, whatever was in his head, refrained from officially noticing; whether that means all is forgiven, or Peter didn't have to ask, or all is not forgiven… well, that's another set of speculations. When he leaves the room Peter is in high spirits, at least, so perhaps it can be inferred that whatever Bunter's mien and posture was as he ignored the outstretched hand, it was not a rebuff.
And can I just say that this is one of the reasons I love DLS so much. There just aren't so very many authors in my experience (especially those best known as mystery authors) whose books spark that much thought over one line of text, and for whom such speculation is so rewarding.
This Open Road text reads as a nice edition of the book, although peppered (as usual) with punctuation and transcription errors – but in checking text in another I find that it is sorely lacking in one thing: "This re-issue of CLOUDS OF WITNESS (which has received some corrections and amendments from MISS SAYERS) has for a Preface a short biography of Lord Peter Wimsey, brought up to date (May 1935) and communicated by his uncle PAUL AUSTIN DELAGARDIE." This edition has the brief bio and heraldic information, but not the essay from Uncle Paul. It's a crime that this is left out.
And of course I love the following so very much that I named a blog after it. In fact, let me go see if the name is available elsewhere … I’m not much of a cat person, but bompstable cats? Oh my yes.
But now he had really got the formula he wouldn't forget it again. The connection was just there - close, thick, richly coherent.
"The glass-blower's cat is bompstable," said Mr. Parker aloud and distinctly.
"I'm charmed to hear it," replied Lord Peter, with a friendly grin. "Had a good nap, old man?"
"I--what?" said Mr. Parker. "Hullo! Watcher mean, nap? I had got hold of the most important train of thought, and you've put it out of my head. What was it? Cat--cat--cat----" He groped wildly.
"You said 'The glass-blower's cat is bompstable,'" retorted Lord Peter. "It's a perfectly rippin' word, but I don't know what you mean by it."
"Bompstable?" said Mr. Parker, blushing slightly. "Bomp - oh, well, perhaps you're right - I may have dozed off. But, you know, I thought I'd just got the clue to the whole thing. I attached the greatest importance to that phrase. Even now - No, now I come to think of it, my train of thought doesn't seem quite to hold together. What a pity. I thought it was so lucid."
And, not to be repetitive, I love this:
Parker's eyes wandered to the photographs. "I don't believe it," he said obstinately. "I'm damned if I'm going to believe a word of it."
Woop – there goes Charles, I believe.
April 2, 2012
Where I got the book: purchased on Kindle. A re-read.
One thing I always appreciate about the Wimsey stories is that each book has a distinct character. In Clouds of Witness the pace is fast and frenetic, with a wildly confusing murder mystery at the center, and yet Sayers does more to develop her characters here than in some of the other books. The mystery itself almost takes second place to the doings of Wimsey's family, placing Wimsey himself very firmly in a distinct social setting, his home turf where he seems more real than in many of the other books. He doesn't show off nearly as much when he's in the countryside, either; I can't help feeling that, titles aside, this is a depiction of the sort of society Sayers was raised in before she went off to London.
I also enjoy the sketch of Wimsey's sister Lady Mary Wimsey, who turns up in later novels but only as a cardboard cutout (his brother Gerald never gets his character developed, which is a great shame). Watching Parker go all chivalrous and defensive of her is always amusing, albeit out of character. Mary is real in this book: later on, the Wimsey family becomes more and more a caricature of a noble English household, and Mary becomes a boring housewife, alas.
Plenty happens to Wimsey in this book: he gets chased by dogs, shot, falls into a bog, and flies across the Atlantic (in the 1920s that was a noteworthy adventure). I have never seen a bullet wound heal with such great speed and thoroughness.
There is an absolutely priceless little cameo of two writers talking about the trends of the day, something Sayers is able to pick up in the later novelsonce she writes herself in as Wimsey's love interest when Harriet Vane comes along.
I absolutely zipped through this novel (which was supposed to be strictly a post-workout cool down read but ended up as a Main Book) despite having read it several times before. And that really defines the enduring success of the Wimsey novels; they're downright entertaining, and despite (or because of?) being set so firmly in a lost era, never seem to age.
Since I'm not reading the short stories as stated in the GR series listing (they are interesting, but they're potboilers served up by Sayers to satisfy her public and I'll read the collected edition at the end of this exercise) the next one is The Unpleasantness at the Bellona Club.
One thing I always appreciate about the Wimsey stories is that each book has a distinct character. In Clouds of Witness the pace is fast and frenetic, with a wildly confusing murder mystery at the center, and yet Sayers does more to develop her characters here than in some of the other books. The mystery itself almost takes second place to the doings of Wimsey's family, placing Wimsey himself very firmly in a distinct social setting, his home turf where he seems more real than in many of the other books. He doesn't show off nearly as much when he's in the countryside, either; I can't help feeling that, titles aside, this is a depiction of the sort of society Sayers was raised in before she went off to London.
I also enjoy the sketch of Wimsey's sister Lady Mary Wimsey, who turns up in later novels but only as a cardboard cutout (his brother Gerald never gets his character developed, which is a great shame). Watching Parker go all chivalrous and defensive of her is always amusing, albeit out of character. Mary is real in this book: later on, the Wimsey family becomes more and more a caricature of a noble English household, and Mary becomes a boring housewife, alas.
Plenty happens to Wimsey in this book: he gets chased by dogs, shot, falls into a bog, and flies across the Atlantic (in the 1920s that was a noteworthy adventure). I have never seen a bullet wound heal with such great speed and thoroughness.
There is an absolutely priceless little cameo of two writers talking about the trends of the day, something Sayers is able to pick up in the later novels
I absolutely zipped through this novel (which was supposed to be strictly a post-workout cool down read but ended up as a Main Book) despite having read it several times before. And that really defines the enduring success of the Wimsey novels; they're downright entertaining, and despite (or because of?) being set so firmly in a lost era, never seem to age.
Since I'm not reading the short stories as stated in the GR series listing (they are interesting, but they're potboilers served up by Sayers to satisfy her public and I'll read the collected edition at the end of this exercise) the next one is The Unpleasantness at the Bellona Club.
February 7, 2016
This is the best Sayers I have read to date!
I found the beginning a little tiresome, but as soon as Lord Peter started his investigation my interest was engaged.
Sayers writes with a dry wit that had me chuckling out loud in places, and reflecting on the social changes that have taken place in less than one hundred years. If anyone said "I wouldn't suggest such a thing to a woman, my lord. It goes to their heads, if I may say so." in these times, they would no doubt find themselves in court on harassment or sexual discrimination charges!....and "Ladyships don't boil water!"
And talk about keeping it all in the family! Lord Peter's sister's fiancée, Cathcart, is found dead outside the conservatory of Riddlesdale Lodge, the family retreat, in the early hours of the morning. His elder brother Gerald, stands accused of the murder. And Lord Peter has the feeling that his sister Mary knows more than she is letting on.
Aided by his friend in the police, Parker, and his irreplaceable valet Bunter, Lord Peter sets out to prove his brother's innocence and bring the true murderer to justice.
'But what was #10 blackmailing Cathcart about? Who hid a suitcase in the conservatory? And what was Gerald doing in the garden at 3am?'
This is a cracking good read in the best English Murder Mystery style.
My favourite quote (amongst many that I enjoyed) from this book : "Seems to me there's an extra allowance of fools in my family."
I found the beginning a little tiresome, but as soon as Lord Peter started his investigation my interest was engaged.
Sayers writes with a dry wit that had me chuckling out loud in places, and reflecting on the social changes that have taken place in less than one hundred years. If anyone said "I wouldn't suggest such a thing to a woman, my lord. It goes to their heads, if I may say so." in these times, they would no doubt find themselves in court on harassment or sexual discrimination charges!....and "Ladyships don't boil water!"
And talk about keeping it all in the family! Lord Peter's sister's fiancée, Cathcart, is found dead outside the conservatory of Riddlesdale Lodge, the family retreat, in the early hours of the morning. His elder brother Gerald, stands accused of the murder. And Lord Peter has the feeling that his sister Mary knows more than she is letting on.
Aided by his friend in the police, Parker, and his irreplaceable valet Bunter, Lord Peter sets out to prove his brother's innocence and bring the true murderer to justice.
'But what was #10 blackmailing Cathcart about? Who hid a suitcase in the conservatory? And what was Gerald doing in the garden at 3am?'
This is a cracking good read in the best English Murder Mystery style.
My favourite quote (amongst many that I enjoyed) from this book : "Seems to me there's an extra allowance of fools in my family."
February 20, 2016
Sayers may be the perfect mystery writer for me - she combines the plotting of Christie with the wit of Heyer & I get the wonderful Golden Age setting from all of them!
Everything is improved (other than Bunter, he was already wonderful!) from
Lord Peter while still insouciant is no longer Bertie Wooster playing at detectives. His is a well rounded character who lives a life filled with varied interests as well as his work as an amateur sleuth.
So many witty quotations - I've added a couple to the GR data base!
The detective story was very well done - I didn't guess the solution. My only criticisms are that a few things seem to be pulled out of thin air and that Gerald was such a bonehead!
Everything is improved (other than Bunter, he was already wonderful!) from
Lord Peter while still insouciant is no longer Bertie Wooster playing at detectives. His is a well rounded character who lives a life filled with varied interests as well as his work as an amateur sleuth.So many witty quotations - I've added a couple to the GR data base!
The detective story was very well done - I didn't guess the solution. My only criticisms are that a few things seem to be pulled out of thin air and that Gerald was such a bonehead!
October 4, 2025
incredibly fortunate to fall ill after right discovering a new blorbo...i may be a one-woman mucus factory but at least i have A Little Guy™ to look forward to <3
for me this book falls somewhere between 4 and 5 stars, but i'll stick to 4 because i have every hope of being even more wowed by ms sayers in future instalments. here is a non-chronological list of my impressions:
- we immediately start off strong with scenes of peter and bunter having a hot girl summer in corsica. a very pleasant thing to imagine.
- instead of unfortunate period-typical antisemitism we have hillarious period-typical anti-French sentiment. genuinely hysterical how much everyone thinks all the French can do is cheat and fuck. it is truly difficult to convey how funny this is to read.
- peter the hereditary yapper <333 dowager duchess of denver you are a diva.
- gerald being thee poster boy for a certain kind of honourable but not too bright well-bred Englishman...Archie Curtis behold your noble forefather.
- peter finally having a private conversation with gerald and upon walking out asking bunter "is my manner truly that offensive to people" and bunter saying "to stupid people i guess <3"
- not a fan of how silly all the socialists were portrayed? but in the grand scheme of things, not to many shots taken (hah!)
- mr charlie parker IMMEDIATELY falling in love w mary wimsey lmaoo what a silly rabbit (ily parker <3)
- SIR IMPEY BIGGS I REPEAT SIR IMPEY BIGGS. last book we had SIR JULIAN FREKE who was A FREAK, now we have IMPEY BIGGS (?!?!?!) who is, you guessed it....BIG! dorothy sayers i rlly hope you have already been reincarnated as a lotus flower for your contributions to the written word
- re: SIR IMPEY BIGGS (cannot stop writing his name in capital letters), i rlly thought he would be our guy on the weird name and hotness factor alone (sir julian freke was also described as a total hottie and yet...), but it turned out to be a red herring. we did however get the scene of peter strolling into court and addressing the lawyers (Sir Impey Biggs for the defense and a man named Sir Wigmore Wrinching for the prosecution) by singing a little song about "Biggy and Wiggy". LOTUS FLOWER, I AM TELLING YOU
- speaking of red herrings!!! a regular pond of them in this one! very twisty!
- i wonder what the experience of reading this book would have been like if i was in any way familiar with the plot of manon lescaut! we'll never know
- bunter saving lord peter's life!!! ships have sailed on less!!
- "of course one couldn't think properly in paris - it was so uncomfortable and the houses were central heated" - you see the way the french are catching strays by merely existing...spectacular stuff
- i love the sheer number of new words (mostly adjectives but also archaic nouns) i've come across in this book, but by far my favourite is the phrase "to knock somebody up", meaning to knock on someone's door and awaken them. somehow in this book the only people being knocked up are men and most of the people doing the knocking up are women. ms sayers no wonder i first heard of you in a queer discord server
- peter being surprised bunter had a mother bcs he always assumed bunter sprang fully formed from the ground... the jeeves of it all... the athena springing from zeus's forehead of it all...
- "Sir Impey Biggs is the handsomest man in England, and no woman will ever care a twopence for him." what did u mean by this dowager duchess????
- this book is so hysterically funny and the whole concept of sir peter whimsey is SOOOO 2010s tumblr sexyman that i presume that the lack of recent adaptations is a sign of criminal neglect and/or a conspiracy on the part of her estate. imagine in your mind's eye john hannah in the mummy. now imagine him as a brilliant but slightly ridiculous amateur sleuth who composes little ditties on the fly. do you see what riches we could have had. we could have had it alllllll (rolling in wimseeeeeyyyyy)....
for me this book falls somewhere between 4 and 5 stars, but i'll stick to 4 because i have every hope of being even more wowed by ms sayers in future instalments. here is a non-chronological list of my impressions:
- we immediately start off strong with scenes of peter and bunter having a hot girl summer in corsica. a very pleasant thing to imagine.
- instead of unfortunate period-typical antisemitism we have hillarious period-typical anti-French sentiment. genuinely hysterical how much everyone thinks all the French can do is cheat and fuck. it is truly difficult to convey how funny this is to read.
- peter the hereditary yapper <333 dowager duchess of denver you are a diva.
- gerald being thee poster boy for a certain kind of honourable but not too bright well-bred Englishman...Archie Curtis behold your noble forefather.
- peter finally having a private conversation with gerald and upon walking out asking bunter "is my manner truly that offensive to people" and bunter saying "to stupid people i guess <3"
- not a fan of how silly all the socialists were portrayed? but in the grand scheme of things, not to many shots taken (hah!)
- mr charlie parker IMMEDIATELY falling in love w mary wimsey lmaoo what a silly rabbit (ily parker <3)
- SIR IMPEY BIGGS I REPEAT SIR IMPEY BIGGS. last book we had SIR JULIAN FREKE who was A FREAK, now we have IMPEY BIGGS (?!?!?!) who is, you guessed it....BIG! dorothy sayers i rlly hope you have already been reincarnated as a lotus flower for your contributions to the written word
- re: SIR IMPEY BIGGS (cannot stop writing his name in capital letters), i rlly thought he would be our guy on the weird name and hotness factor alone (sir julian freke was also described as a total hottie and yet...), but it turned out to be a red herring. we did however get the scene of peter strolling into court and addressing the lawyers (Sir Impey Biggs for the defense and a man named Sir Wigmore Wrinching for the prosecution) by singing a little song about "Biggy and Wiggy". LOTUS FLOWER, I AM TELLING YOU
- speaking of red herrings!!! a regular pond of them in this one! very twisty!
- i wonder what the experience of reading this book would have been like if i was in any way familiar with the plot of manon lescaut! we'll never know
- bunter saving lord peter's life!!! ships have sailed on less!!
- "of course one couldn't think properly in paris - it was so uncomfortable and the houses were central heated" - you see the way the french are catching strays by merely existing...spectacular stuff
- i love the sheer number of new words (mostly adjectives but also archaic nouns) i've come across in this book, but by far my favourite is the phrase "to knock somebody up", meaning to knock on someone's door and awaken them. somehow in this book the only people being knocked up are men and most of the people doing the knocking up are women. ms sayers no wonder i first heard of you in a queer discord server
- peter being surprised bunter had a mother bcs he always assumed bunter sprang fully formed from the ground... the jeeves of it all... the athena springing from zeus's forehead of it all...
- "Sir Impey Biggs is the handsomest man in England, and no woman will ever care a twopence for him." what did u mean by this dowager duchess????
- this book is so hysterically funny and the whole concept of sir peter whimsey is SOOOO 2010s tumblr sexyman that i presume that the lack of recent adaptations is a sign of criminal neglect and/or a conspiracy on the part of her estate. imagine in your mind's eye john hannah in the mummy. now imagine him as a brilliant but slightly ridiculous amateur sleuth who composes little ditties on the fly. do you see what riches we could have had. we could have had it alllllll (rolling in wimseeeeeyyyyy)....
June 22, 2024
Clouds of Witness was published in 1926 and is Sayers' second novel in her series featuring Lord Peter Wimsey. In this one, Wimsey's brother, The Duke of Denver, is accused of murdering Captain Denis Cathcart, the fiancé of their sister Lady Mary. Mary who was trying to leave the house at 3 am finds Denver kneeling over Cathcart's body who was shot in the chest. Denver is arrested after it is found that his revolver was used to kill Cathcart and after he admits quarreling with him when he finds out Cathcart was cheating at cards. Wimsey arrives to investigate along with his friend from Scotland Yard, Inspector Parker, who is assigned to the case. So is Denver guilty? If not, who had motive to kill Cathcart?
I enjoyed this novel and felt it was a step up from the first in the series, Whose Body? which I read just prior to this one. There was quite a bit of humor in the first part of the novel even though the family was in dire straits with the murder hanging over the Duke's head. Sayers also fleshed out the family of Wimsey along with all their eccentricities and foibles. There were also a lot of red herrings and coincidences in the story which made it a fun ride to try and figure out who may have killed Cathcart. The characters were also portrayed very well including some of the supporting characters. This was especially true for a most unpleasant local farmer named Grimethorpe who had a beautiful wife who he was very jealous of. He suspected she had been seeing someone on the side and at one point when Peter first meets him Peter asks about his daughter saying "I thought the charmin' little girl might be yours." Grimethorpe replies, "And if I thought she weren't, I'd strangle the bitch and her mother together. What hast got to say to that?" Of course, Wimsey was taken aback by this remark but didn't let it phase him.
There was also a lot of adventure for Wimsey and his man, Bunter, in this one trying to find and interview witnesses. At one point they are lost in a bog in the fog at night and Wimsey almost didn't make it out. The story also takes the characters to other locales including Paris and New York. Wimsey almost doesn't make it back from New York when the airplane he is in gets engine trouble due to bad weather. (I was somewhat surprised that Wimsey could fly across the Atlantic as part of this novel since it took place in the early 1920s. Lindbergh's solo flight was not until 1927 but there were earlier flights dating back to 1919.) And I was also quite surprised by the novel's ending and how Cathcart was killed. I look forward to reading more in this series.
I enjoyed this novel and felt it was a step up from the first in the series, Whose Body? which I read just prior to this one. There was quite a bit of humor in the first part of the novel even though the family was in dire straits with the murder hanging over the Duke's head. Sayers also fleshed out the family of Wimsey along with all their eccentricities and foibles. There were also a lot of red herrings and coincidences in the story which made it a fun ride to try and figure out who may have killed Cathcart. The characters were also portrayed very well including some of the supporting characters. This was especially true for a most unpleasant local farmer named Grimethorpe who had a beautiful wife who he was very jealous of. He suspected she had been seeing someone on the side and at one point when Peter first meets him Peter asks about his daughter saying "I thought the charmin' little girl might be yours." Grimethorpe replies, "And if I thought she weren't, I'd strangle the bitch and her mother together. What hast got to say to that?" Of course, Wimsey was taken aback by this remark but didn't let it phase him.
There was also a lot of adventure for Wimsey and his man, Bunter, in this one trying to find and interview witnesses. At one point they are lost in a bog in the fog at night and Wimsey almost didn't make it out. The story also takes the characters to other locales including Paris and New York. Wimsey almost doesn't make it back from New York when the airplane he is in gets engine trouble due to bad weather. (I was somewhat surprised that Wimsey could fly across the Atlantic as part of this novel since it took place in the early 1920s. Lindbergh's solo flight was not until 1927 but there were earlier flights dating back to 1919.) And I was also quite surprised by the novel's ending and how Cathcart was killed. I look forward to reading more in this series.
June 11, 2014
I've been a Dorothy L Sayers fan ever since I borrowed Strong Poison from the school library when I was about fifteen. Sayers was a woman ahead of her time and not a typical writer of crime fiction. In 1912 she won a scholarship to Oxford University, achieving first class honours in French in 1915. Women could not be awarded degrees at that time, but Sayers was in the first group of women to be finally awarded their degree in 1920. She was a published poet and had worked in a publishing house, as a teacher, a translator and an advertising copywriter by the time the first of her Peter Wimsey novels was published in 1923. Later, Sayers moved away from writing novels and forged a new career writing essays and liturgical drama. Later still she embarked on what she considered her life's work: a translation of Dante's "Divine Comedy".
Sayers brought fierce intelligence and uncompromising artistic integrity to all of her writing, including her crime fiction. She avoided the formulaic and consequently, even in the context of writing what turned out to be a series of novels featuring Lord Peter Wimsey, she didn't write the same novel twice. And unusually for a Golden Age British crime fiction writer, Sayers allowed her central character to develop over time.
In this novel, the second in the series, Lord Peter's investigation is focussed on exonerating his brother, who has been charged with murder. In its set-up, it's a typical manor house mystery, of a kind now seen as old-fashioned, although when Sayers wrote the book there was nothing that old-fashioned about it. There are the expected twists and turns and a satisfying resolution, conveyed in Sayers' intelligent and witty prose.
I re-read this novel with my friend Jemidar. I don't usually re-read mysteries, but such is my love for Sayers' writing so much that even knowing ow it turns out didn't lessen my enjoyment of the exercise.
December 7, 2022
Dorothy Sayers is without a doubt my favorite Golden Age mystery author - after Dame Christie, of course. There is always that spark of intelligence behind Wimsey’s wit and that is sometimes missing in other authors of the era. And generally a bit of social conscience in this book.
As I read this I couldn’t help but be reminded of the 10 commandments of the Detection Club, most notably that the murderer had to be someone introduced fairly early in the book, and that the detective must not withhold anything he or she knows. All the more fun trying to figure out “who done it” when you know it’s not hidden too deeply.
As I read this I couldn’t help but be reminded of the 10 commandments of the Detection Club, most notably that the murderer had to be someone introduced fairly early in the book, and that the detective must not withhold anything he or she knows. All the more fun trying to figure out “who done it” when you know it’s not hidden too deeply.
March 27, 2018
"Wimsey would be one of the finest detectives in England if he wasn't lazy"
This should give you a feel for the kind of cozy mystery series that is Lord Peter Wimsey. It is more slap stick than Agatha Christie and more "pip pip, old boy, good-o" English than her too.
With the first book I kind of struggled a bit to get engaged, whereas this one I found myself more invested in the story early on. I didn't really enjoy how it all resolved, but it was still a fun ride through to the end ;)
This should give you a feel for the kind of cozy mystery series that is Lord Peter Wimsey. It is more slap stick than Agatha Christie and more "pip pip, old boy, good-o" English than her too.
With the first book I kind of struggled a bit to get engaged, whereas this one I found myself more invested in the story early on. I didn't really enjoy how it all resolved, but it was still a fun ride through to the end ;)
November 29, 2022
Great fun, as Dorothy L. Sayers always is.
January 19, 2016
Clouds of Witness is wonderful. I was in the mood for a lovely mystery. This one seemed to fit the bill perfectly.
I've decided to read these in order they appear on Goodreads. I liked Lord Peter Wimsey in Whose Body? and I loved him here. Not much has changed in this book. His quirks work so well in his world.
In Clouds of Witness he is trying to save his brother (the Duke) who has been accused of murder. From their estate to Paris and back, from England to somewhere very far away, through the dangers of the moor and strange situations involving unexpectedly violent farmers, the Duke's side has their hands full. Lord Peter Wimsey, Bunter and Parker tirelessly work to find what exactly happened that night. The resolution is perfect.
I found Peter's sister annoying as hell, but I guess certain things can be forgiven under the circumstances.
Beside Lord Peter Wimsey, Bunter and Parker, one of my favourite characters ever is the Dowager Duchess.
I've decided to read these in order they appear on Goodreads. I liked Lord Peter Wimsey in Whose Body? and I loved him here. Not much has changed in this book. His quirks work so well in his world.
In Clouds of Witness he is trying to save his brother (the Duke) who has been accused of murder. From their estate to Paris and back, from England to somewhere very far away, through the dangers of the moor and strange situations involving unexpectedly violent farmers, the Duke's side has their hands full. Lord Peter Wimsey, Bunter and Parker tirelessly work to find what exactly happened that night. The resolution is perfect.
I found Peter's sister annoying as hell, but I guess certain things can be forgiven under the circumstances.
Beside Lord Peter Wimsey, Bunter and Parker, one of my favourite characters ever is the Dowager Duchess.
'My dear child, you can give it a long name if you like, but I'm an old-fashioned woman and I call it mother-wit, and it's so rare for a man to have it that if he does you write a book about him and call him Sherlock Holmes.'I'll avoid quoting half of the book, but its greatest strength is the humour. Some of it is profound, some ordinary, but it is never dull.
August 5, 2018
This one sets Peter Lord Wimsey's birth family into their core characteristics. The case is seated in their very midst. His brother Lord Denver is arrested on murder charges. Did he kill their sister's fiance?
I loved it. The first half is slow and also, IMHO, quite humorous considering the dire straits for all the family. And you get the first senses of their mother's deep character now, too. Dowager Duchess of Denver (is there a better title that sings itself with all that alliteration!) never blinks, common sense and practical applications as stalwart as ever.
Lord Wimsey and Bunker are all over the place and nearly end their existences in a bog, within a fog.
There's tons of dialect in this one and at least 1/2 of the copy seems in "sound" English rather than proper standard English. But it's delicious. There's a monster mean husband abuser and all kinds of lying going on. The sister Mary- from the beginning. And we also see the future of this naive social warrior idealist despite her terrible taste in men- taking a possible turn for marrying down, instead of just marrying bad.
It also has a top notch ending. Not all of these series have endings that go BANG. This one absolutely does.
Reading it after some of the much later, I have to admit that this is one that gives you much pivotal exact family member character and core. Enough that you get full nuance for/ in the future sensibilities or awareness factors between the main 6 or 8 central characters in this series. I'd have understood some of the much later novels in Lord Wimsey count to a clearer, unspoken onus degree to trusting or doubting relationship, if I'd have read this one previously.
Sayers had a unique way to do "flip" conversations. Even her dying or in humongous distress people can sound "funny".
I loved it. The first half is slow and also, IMHO, quite humorous considering the dire straits for all the family. And you get the first senses of their mother's deep character now, too. Dowager Duchess of Denver (is there a better title that sings itself with all that alliteration!) never blinks, common sense and practical applications as stalwart as ever.
Lord Wimsey and Bunker are all over the place and nearly end their existences in a bog, within a fog.
There's tons of dialect in this one and at least 1/2 of the copy seems in "sound" English rather than proper standard English. But it's delicious. There's a monster mean husband abuser and all kinds of lying going on. The sister Mary- from the beginning. And we also see the future of this naive social warrior idealist despite her terrible taste in men- taking a possible turn for marrying down, instead of just marrying bad.
It also has a top notch ending. Not all of these series have endings that go BANG. This one absolutely does.
Reading it after some of the much later, I have to admit that this is one that gives you much pivotal exact family member character and core. Enough that you get full nuance for/ in the future sensibilities or awareness factors between the main 6 or 8 central characters in this series. I'd have understood some of the much later novels in Lord Wimsey count to a clearer, unspoken onus degree to trusting or doubting relationship, if I'd have read this one previously.
Sayers had a unique way to do "flip" conversations. Even her dying or in humongous distress people can sound "funny".
February 3, 2019
I am an outlier, grading grande dame Dorothy Sayers with two stars. I am stunned this is a favourite for some folks and imagine fandom comes into it. I have specific points of criticism. However, I have collected the works. I found the beginning boring, a transcript of Gerald’s sentencing and Peter’s drunk ending was arbitrary. However I warmed up to him, his family, and friends and began to enjoy myself in the middle.
I loved their lawyer’s humour and impeccable vocabulary, which always delights me. I got Peter’s humour and ease with people. I no longer think he is vain, even if the idea of Bunter living in-house, pouring baths bothers me. We acquaint Peter’s family and nothing beat the triumph of an abused woman freed. It was odd that no child was mentioned when she left. I don’t imagine how an airplane trip was dangerous in 1926 and why elements would reach passengers. However, I was impressed with the legwork Peter, Bunter, and Charlie did in England and Paris and loved the French. Better than scattered phrases, we were treated to a grammatically-perfect French letter, translated for those who needed it.
My triple issues with “Clouds Of Witness” are these. We rank Dorothy with the early greats. She must have preceded the “Show, don’t tell” advice. Seldom is action played out for us, nor do we experience how the characters feel; except Bunter pulling Peter from a bog. Emotions not driving this novel is the second issue. Books are not screenplays, with emphasis on external antics. Finally, one pet peeve is a disproportionate chunk of time dwelling on things that could be curbed and robbing readers of scenes we’d like to savour, or grasp more clearly. I am certain the best is to come and will read on.
I loved their lawyer’s humour and impeccable vocabulary, which always delights me. I got Peter’s humour and ease with people. I no longer think he is vain, even if the idea of Bunter living in-house, pouring baths bothers me. We acquaint Peter’s family and nothing beat the triumph of an abused woman freed. It was odd that no child was mentioned when she left. I don’t imagine how an airplane trip was dangerous in 1926 and why elements would reach passengers. However, I was impressed with the legwork Peter, Bunter, and Charlie did in England and Paris and loved the French. Better than scattered phrases, we were treated to a grammatically-perfect French letter, translated for those who needed it.
My triple issues with “Clouds Of Witness” are these. We rank Dorothy with the early greats. She must have preceded the “Show, don’t tell” advice. Seldom is action played out for us, nor do we experience how the characters feel; except Bunter pulling Peter from a bog. Emotions not driving this novel is the second issue. Books are not screenplays, with emphasis on external antics. Finally, one pet peeve is a disproportionate chunk of time dwelling on things that could be curbed and robbing readers of scenes we’d like to savour, or grasp more clearly. I am certain the best is to come and will read on.
June 13, 2017
Dorothy Sayers works seem to me to be perfect for anyone who enjoys the writing of Agatha Christie and P.G. Wodehouse. Sayers imparts an acerbic edge that keeps things from getting too twee. She manages to make sharp observations on both the gentry and the socialists, sometimes at the same time. I’ve recently been cataloguing the works of H.G. Wells, who wrote a lot about socialism in the early 20th century, and I find Sayers’ insights on the complicated societal changes of this time period to be spot on.
She isn’t gentle with her fellow authors either. I loved the following exchange, heard by Lord Peter while dining at the Soviet Club:
The authoress was just saying impressively to her companion: '-ever know a sincere emotion to express itself in a subordinate clause?'
'Joyce has freed us from the superstition of syntax,' agreed the curly haired man.
'Scenes which make emotional history,' said Miss Heath-Warburton, 'should ideally be expressed in a series of animal squeals.'
'The D.H. Lawrence formula,' said the other.
Poor old Lawrence, maligned again for trying to express what he considered to be real emotions and realistic human behaviour in his novels.
For some reason, it made me think of Dilbert, when his pointy-haired boss decrees that, “starting today, all passwords must contain letters, numbers, doodles, sign language, and squirrel noises.”
Being unable to express my review in either animal squeals or squirrel noises, I must tell you in English that this series is worth trying.
She isn’t gentle with her fellow authors either. I loved the following exchange, heard by Lord Peter while dining at the Soviet Club:
The authoress was just saying impressively to her companion: '-ever know a sincere emotion to express itself in a subordinate clause?'
'Joyce has freed us from the superstition of syntax,' agreed the curly haired man.
'Scenes which make emotional history,' said Miss Heath-Warburton, 'should ideally be expressed in a series of animal squeals.'
'The D.H. Lawrence formula,' said the other.
Poor old Lawrence, maligned again for trying to express what he considered to be real emotions and realistic human behaviour in his novels.
For some reason, it made me think of Dilbert, when his pointy-haired boss decrees that, “starting today, all passwords must contain letters, numbers, doodles, sign language, and squirrel noises.”
Being unable to express my review in either animal squeals or squirrel noises, I must tell you in English that this series is worth trying.
November 8, 2024
In my latest reread (2024) I enjoyed the book even though I remembered much of the plot. The quality of Sayer's writing makes it enjoyable and I had forgotten how humorous she can be at times. The Dowager Duchess's ramblings are amazing! Below is my review from last time round:
This is the second book in the Lord Peter Wimsey series, and much better than the first one. This novel casts light on Wimsey's family relationships, as his elder brother, Gerald, the Duke of Denver, is accused of murdering the fiancé of their sister, Lady Mary.
Peter tries to remain as lighthearted as ever while joining forces with his friend, Inspector Parker, to investigate the killing. But it's clear that, below the sparkling surface, he is worried about his family, determined to clear his brother and bewildered as to what secrets both Gerald and Mary are hiding. So already in this second book the character of one of the greatest Golden Age amateur detectives is starting to deepen.
The mystery has many twists along the way and certainly kept me guessing, with a great finale where Denver is tried by his peers in the House of Lords before the truth finally emerges. I found the amount of dialect used for some of the characters a bit distracting at times, but in general thoroughly enjoyed this reread - and didn't remember the solution to the mystery!
This is the second book in the Lord Peter Wimsey series, and much better than the first one. This novel casts light on Wimsey's family relationships, as his elder brother, Gerald, the Duke of Denver, is accused of murdering the fiancé of their sister, Lady Mary.
Peter tries to remain as lighthearted as ever while joining forces with his friend, Inspector Parker, to investigate the killing. But it's clear that, below the sparkling surface, he is worried about his family, determined to clear his brother and bewildered as to what secrets both Gerald and Mary are hiding. So already in this second book the character of one of the greatest Golden Age amateur detectives is starting to deepen.
The mystery has many twists along the way and certainly kept me guessing, with a great finale where Denver is tried by his peers in the House of Lords before the truth finally emerges. I found the amount of dialect used for some of the characters a bit distracting at times, but in general thoroughly enjoyed this reread - and didn't remember the solution to the mystery!
December 8, 2023
2023 Review
I enjoy re-reading these early Lord Peter Wimsey stories (and they make good audio books too!) It is particularly fun to see all the characters I love at work...Lord Peter's mother, Freddy Arbuthnot, Inspector Parker. It is like accidently stumbling on a photo of old friends before you realized they would become your friends. A little weird but also gratifying.
2015 Review
Ooooh quite a fun, entangled mystery for Lord Peter Wimsey. Intersecting story lines and coincidences make this one quite fun to read...and unravel!
I enjoy re-reading these early Lord Peter Wimsey stories (and they make good audio books too!) It is particularly fun to see all the characters I love at work...Lord Peter's mother, Freddy Arbuthnot, Inspector Parker. It is like accidently stumbling on a photo of old friends before you realized they would become your friends. A little weird but also gratifying.
2015 Review
Ooooh quite a fun, entangled mystery for Lord Peter Wimsey. Intersecting story lines and coincidences make this one quite fun to read...and unravel!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,903 reviews