What do you think?
Rate this book
Documents In The Case
The grotesquely grinning corpse in the Devonshire shack was a man who died horribly -- with a dish of mushrooms at his side. His body contained enough death-dealing muscarine to kill 30 people. Why would an expert on fungi feast on a large quantity of this particularly poisonous species. A clue to the brilliant murderer, who had baffled the best minds in London, was hidden in a series of letters and documents that no one seemed to care about, except the dead man's son.
272 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1930
About the author
Dorothy L. Sayers
939 books3,130 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 281 reviews
February 1, 2018
I love Dorothy L. Sayers, Lord Peter Wimsey’s novels, so was keen to try this stand alone story. “The Documents in the Case,” literally tells the story of a crime through a collection of letters, between a cast of characters, as well as written statements, newspaper clippings and other documents.
Our story begins in 1928, when a young artist, Harwood Lathom, and an aspiring novelist, John Munting, take the flat upstairs from the Harrisons. Mr Harrison is an engineer and amateur painter, with a passion for cooking; particularly with fungi gathered in the wild. His second wife, Mrs Harrison, is younger, emotional and bored. Her middle aged companion, Agnes Milsom, is highly strung and enjoys crafts. At the beginning of the book, it mainly Agnes voice we hear, as she pours out her interest about the two young men who have moved upstairs and the change it brings into the Harrisons lives.
However, of course, this is a crime novel, and, with a love affair, comes a motive for murder. The second half of the book involves Mr Harrison’s son from his first marriage, Paul, who returns from working abroad to try to get to the bottom of the crime.
This is an unusual, and original, read. We get to know the characters almost from a distance and all of the petty annoyances of neighbours, living together, marital life and family relationships are brought under the microscope. I found this a very enjoyable mystery and enjoyed Sayers voice and characters, as she deftly unveiled the story. She really is one of the best crime writers of all time and this is every bit as good, in my opinion, as her Wimsey novels.
Our story begins in 1928, when a young artist, Harwood Lathom, and an aspiring novelist, John Munting, take the flat upstairs from the Harrisons. Mr Harrison is an engineer and amateur painter, with a passion for cooking; particularly with fungi gathered in the wild. His second wife, Mrs Harrison, is younger, emotional and bored. Her middle aged companion, Agnes Milsom, is highly strung and enjoys crafts. At the beginning of the book, it mainly Agnes voice we hear, as she pours out her interest about the two young men who have moved upstairs and the change it brings into the Harrisons lives.
However, of course, this is a crime novel, and, with a love affair, comes a motive for murder. The second half of the book involves Mr Harrison’s son from his first marriage, Paul, who returns from working abroad to try to get to the bottom of the crime.
This is an unusual, and original, read. We get to know the characters almost from a distance and all of the petty annoyances of neighbours, living together, marital life and family relationships are brought under the microscope. I found this a very enjoyable mystery and enjoyed Sayers voice and characters, as she deftly unveiled the story. She really is one of the best crime writers of all time and this is every bit as good, in my opinion, as her Wimsey novels.
December 23, 2017
This is not your usual Dorothy Sayers: no Lord Peter Wimsey, no Lord Peter’s idiosyncratic butler, no Harriet Vane. It does not even appear among the novels listed on her Wikipedia biography (though it does crop up on Wikipedia’s “List of Works by Dorothy L Sayers” page). This may be because she shared authorship (on the title-page, if not always the cover—publishers presumably wouldn’t risk hurting sales?) with Robert Eustace, who apparently sorted out the scientific complexities that loom large in solving the mystery toward the end. Although Sayers judged the book a flop (interestingly enough), it nevertheless seems to have sold well—my yellowing, 30-year-old paperback had been through 9 printings since 1964, and the original 1930 edition, through 11, apparently.
It has the air of a literary experiment: 130 pages of documents, chiefly letters in which characters with various axes to grind, aberrant psychologies to act out, and misdeeds to disguise, offer their own spins on the facts (or alternative facts) of the story. Ninety pages of “analysis” follow, still largely in the form of letters by characters from part 1, determined (or reluctant) to sort out what really happened.
We come to know the characters exclusively through what they say about themselves and others in all these writings—a lot of it between the lines. And it offers little of the wit and lively repartee one expects of the Peter Wimsey crowd, though some characters work very hard at being clever. The author(s) seem less concerned than usual with creating a very likeable or sympathetic bunch (less troubling to publishers in 1930 than today?).
Readers intrigued by the underlying premise, ardent admirers of Sayers’ literary gifts, and academic narratologists may like it most. Others may wonder uneasily if Dorothy Sayers got it right.
It has the air of a literary experiment: 130 pages of documents, chiefly letters in which characters with various axes to grind, aberrant psychologies to act out, and misdeeds to disguise, offer their own spins on the facts (or alternative facts) of the story. Ninety pages of “analysis” follow, still largely in the form of letters by characters from part 1, determined (or reluctant) to sort out what really happened.
We come to know the characters exclusively through what they say about themselves and others in all these writings—a lot of it between the lines. And it offers little of the wit and lively repartee one expects of the Peter Wimsey crowd, though some characters work very hard at being clever. The author(s) seem less concerned than usual with creating a very likeable or sympathetic bunch (less troubling to publishers in 1930 than today?).
Readers intrigued by the underlying premise, ardent admirers of Sayers’ literary gifts, and academic narratologists may like it most. Others may wonder uneasily if Dorothy Sayers got it right.
November 2, 2013
Ellery Queen said: “Sayers has done more to add literary tone to crime fiction than most of her contemporaries.” This is undoubtedly true. Sayers writes better English than most of her contemporaries, and her literary erudition simply shines through her stories. They are sometimes more slow-moving than conventional whodunits, but if you take the time to savour the prose and the way the narrative is constructed, it can be a rewarding experience.
There is usually no “rabbit-out-of-the-hat” ending in novels by Sayers, when the detective assembles all the possible suspects and picks out the least likely one as the murderer. Her stories are usually more mundane and down to earth: we come to know the likely suspects halfway through the story. The mystery is exactly how the murder was committed – the method, the opportunity, the unbreakable alibi. This novel is no different in that sense. However, it does have major differences in the fact that it does not contain Lord Peter Wimsey, and is written almost totally in epistolary format.
George Harrison, amateur cook who dabbles in the use of unusual material to prepare his dishes, is found dead in “The Shack”, a remote country cottage in the village of Manaton in Devon. Apparently, it is an accident: he has eaten the poisonous Amanita muscaria, or “Fly Agaric”, in place of the edible Amanita rubescens (“Warty Caps”) – a common enough mistake as the fungi grow in the same area. He has been alone in the cottage for three days when the accident happened, so any question of foul play is ruled out.
But his son, Paul Harrison, is not convinced. He knows his dad too well to know that he won’t make a silly mistake like that. And when he comes to know that his young stepmother Margaret is having an intrigue with the painter Harwood Lathom who has been sharing their building, and this Lathom was staying with the unsuspecting Harrison at “The Shack” a couple of days before the death, his worst suspicions are aroused: he is sure it’s murder. But the problem is, Lathom has a cast-iron alibi, as though he knew in advance it would be needed. How Paul unravels exactly how George was poisoned forms the heart of the story.
Sayers has structured the novel in two parts: “Synthesis”, leading up to the crime, and “Analysis”, showing how the mystery is unravelled. It is presented in the form of a dossier prepared by Paul Harrison to Sir Gilbert Pugh, Director of Public Prosecution, comprising various letters in chronological order and statements from Harrison himself and John Munting, Lathom’s friend who is a bestselling author, to fill in the gaps. The letters are written by Agatha Milsom (Margaret Harrison’s companion) to her sister; John Munting to his bride-to-be; George Harrison to his son and Margaret Harrison to Harwood Lathom. The beauty of this format is that every one is an unreliable narrator!
Agatha Milsom, whose letters opens the narrative, is by her own confession “undergoing a difficult phase” and seeing a psychiatrist – the lady obviously has a severe case of hysteria, and a dangerous repressed sexuality. She sees George Harrison as a boor who is terrorising his poor wife. In the letters Munting writes to his wife, however, Harrison is shown in more favourable light as a traditional middle-aged husband who is played upon by a drama-queen wife. George’s letters to Paul (who is an engineer, away in Africa on an assignment), however, show us an indulgent if somewhat old-fashioned husband. The crux of the story comes when Agatha Milsom encounters a man on the staircase landing in the night during Harrison’s absence from the house: she is sure it is in John Munting, come down to steal her chastity, and creates an uproar. Harrison thinks it is Munting all right, but the target is his wife; and duly throws him out. The fact is that it was Lathom wearing Munting’s dressing gown, out for a midnight assignment with Margaret. Munting, in the true tradition of the gentleman, takes the rap for his friend by keeping his mouth shut.
The misunderstanding is cleared up to a certain extent after Agatha Milsom is institutionalised – George Harrison is willing to dismiss the whole episode as a figment of the companion’s diseased imagination. Lathom keeps up his affair with Margaret (her true nature is revealed in the letters she writes to Lathom, which are included here) as well as his friendship with the cuckolded husband: he gets so chummy with the latter so much as to stay for extended periods with him at his village hideaway. One day, he forces Munting to accompany him there against the better counsel of his conscience – to find Harrison having met his end in Agony.
The second part is mostly narrated by Paul Harrison and Munting, with brief letters and reports from the inquest inserted in between, and is the conventional amateur murder investigation. However, there is no detective with his brilliant intellect here, and the detection mostly consists of painstaking legwork. The solution, when it comes, is through fortuitous chance which nevertheless is entirely believable.
This is a very fast read: a good mystery, though not outstanding: and contains some brilliant characterisation. Sayers’ capability to write in four different voices must be commended. The opposing viewpoints presented in the juxtaposed letters wrong-foots the reader, not allowing the formation of an opinion on any of the characters. This forces one to keep an open mind until about midway in the book.
Extremely enjoyable.
Review also up on my BLOG .
There is usually no “rabbit-out-of-the-hat” ending in novels by Sayers, when the detective assembles all the possible suspects and picks out the least likely one as the murderer. Her stories are usually more mundane and down to earth: we come to know the likely suspects halfway through the story. The mystery is exactly how the murder was committed – the method, the opportunity, the unbreakable alibi. This novel is no different in that sense. However, it does have major differences in the fact that it does not contain Lord Peter Wimsey, and is written almost totally in epistolary format.
George Harrison, amateur cook who dabbles in the use of unusual material to prepare his dishes, is found dead in “The Shack”, a remote country cottage in the village of Manaton in Devon. Apparently, it is an accident: he has eaten the poisonous Amanita muscaria, or “Fly Agaric”, in place of the edible Amanita rubescens (“Warty Caps”) – a common enough mistake as the fungi grow in the same area. He has been alone in the cottage for three days when the accident happened, so any question of foul play is ruled out.
But his son, Paul Harrison, is not convinced. He knows his dad too well to know that he won’t make a silly mistake like that. And when he comes to know that his young stepmother Margaret is having an intrigue with the painter Harwood Lathom who has been sharing their building, and this Lathom was staying with the unsuspecting Harrison at “The Shack” a couple of days before the death, his worst suspicions are aroused: he is sure it’s murder. But the problem is, Lathom has a cast-iron alibi, as though he knew in advance it would be needed. How Paul unravels exactly how George was poisoned forms the heart of the story.
Sayers has structured the novel in two parts: “Synthesis”, leading up to the crime, and “Analysis”, showing how the mystery is unravelled. It is presented in the form of a dossier prepared by Paul Harrison to Sir Gilbert Pugh, Director of Public Prosecution, comprising various letters in chronological order and statements from Harrison himself and John Munting, Lathom’s friend who is a bestselling author, to fill in the gaps. The letters are written by Agatha Milsom (Margaret Harrison’s companion) to her sister; John Munting to his bride-to-be; George Harrison to his son and Margaret Harrison to Harwood Lathom. The beauty of this format is that every one is an unreliable narrator!
Agatha Milsom, whose letters opens the narrative, is by her own confession “undergoing a difficult phase” and seeing a psychiatrist – the lady obviously has a severe case of hysteria, and a dangerous repressed sexuality. She sees George Harrison as a boor who is terrorising his poor wife. In the letters Munting writes to his wife, however, Harrison is shown in more favourable light as a traditional middle-aged husband who is played upon by a drama-queen wife. George’s letters to Paul (who is an engineer, away in Africa on an assignment), however, show us an indulgent if somewhat old-fashioned husband. The crux of the story comes when Agatha Milsom encounters a man on the staircase landing in the night during Harrison’s absence from the house: she is sure it is in John Munting, come down to steal her chastity, and creates an uproar. Harrison thinks it is Munting all right, but the target is his wife; and duly throws him out. The fact is that it was Lathom wearing Munting’s dressing gown, out for a midnight assignment with Margaret. Munting, in the true tradition of the gentleman, takes the rap for his friend by keeping his mouth shut.
The misunderstanding is cleared up to a certain extent after Agatha Milsom is institutionalised – George Harrison is willing to dismiss the whole episode as a figment of the companion’s diseased imagination. Lathom keeps up his affair with Margaret (her true nature is revealed in the letters she writes to Lathom, which are included here) as well as his friendship with the cuckolded husband: he gets so chummy with the latter so much as to stay for extended periods with him at his village hideaway. One day, he forces Munting to accompany him there against the better counsel of his conscience – to find Harrison having met his end in Agony.
The second part is mostly narrated by Paul Harrison and Munting, with brief letters and reports from the inquest inserted in between, and is the conventional amateur murder investigation. However, there is no detective with his brilliant intellect here, and the detection mostly consists of painstaking legwork. The solution, when it comes, is through fortuitous chance which nevertheless is entirely believable.
This is a very fast read: a good mystery, though not outstanding: and contains some brilliant characterisation. Sayers’ capability to write in four different voices must be commended. The opposing viewpoints presented in the juxtaposed letters wrong-foots the reader, not allowing the formation of an opinion on any of the characters. This forces one to keep an open mind until about midway in the book.
Extremely enjoyable.
Review also up on my BLOG .
February 13, 2026
Of all the things of which I am not fond there are two that apply here: epistolary novels and mushrooms. To me epistolary novels are books which have too many tiny chapters making the plot difficult to follow and, as for mushrooms, I simply do not like them and I never have. You can compare me to George Bush and broccoli - but don't push me on it. They're not animal, they're not vegetable and they seem to thrive on anything in the living world that is decaying or dying - and you want me to eat the fucking stuff!
Never mind - I've calmed myself. This is the story of George Harrison, a man with an amateur devotion for his own uninspiring art and a passion for fungi and he has a wife with a passion for anyone other than George Harrison. In comes John Munting, a literary figure, and his friend, the young talented artist, Harwood Lathom, to the maisonette next door. Things happen. Portraits are painted, friendships made. Then Mr. Harrison goes on holiday to a lonely cottage in Devon without his wife - something he often does - but this time he invites Mr. Lathom to accompany him. Tragedy ensues. One night, while alone in the cottage, Mr. Harrison dies a lonely and distressful death after consuming a dish of his own devising made from edible mushrooms. Was it an accident?
That is the crux of the story and where the authors allow the plot to turn into a detective murder mystery. Is there enough evidence to show foul play or did Mr. Harrison's belief in his own expertise lead him to mistake Amanita rubescans (Warty Caps) with Amanita muscaria (Fly Agaric) or the poisonous muscarine? Then again, did someone else change the fungi before Mr. Harrison cooked them?
Despite the tiresome epistolary format it becomes a fascinating crime novel and well worth reading.
Never mind - I've calmed myself. This is the story of George Harrison, a man with an amateur devotion for his own uninspiring art and a passion for fungi and he has a wife with a passion for anyone other than George Harrison. In comes John Munting, a literary figure, and his friend, the young talented artist, Harwood Lathom, to the maisonette next door. Things happen. Portraits are painted, friendships made. Then Mr. Harrison goes on holiday to a lonely cottage in Devon without his wife - something he often does - but this time he invites Mr. Lathom to accompany him. Tragedy ensues. One night, while alone in the cottage, Mr. Harrison dies a lonely and distressful death after consuming a dish of his own devising made from edible mushrooms. Was it an accident?
That is the crux of the story and where the authors allow the plot to turn into a detective murder mystery. Is there enough evidence to show foul play or did Mr. Harrison's belief in his own expertise lead him to mistake Amanita rubescans (Warty Caps) with Amanita muscaria (Fly Agaric) or the poisonous muscarine? Then again, did someone else change the fungi before Mr. Harrison cooked them?
Despite the tiresome epistolary format it becomes a fascinating crime novel and well worth reading.
June 9, 2016
Is this the only Sayers mystery novel not to showcase Lord Peter? I'm not sure but it marks a whole other direction that Sayers could have taken in her writing.
Made up of 'the documents in the case': primarily letters, reports and a couple of witness statements, there is no overall narrator who pulls the whole story together and yet the reader is intriguingly drawn into not just the murder but the lives, inner and outer, of the characters involved.
Very much of its time, this gives an intriguing view of London in the 1930s when artists were still Bohemian and therefore morally suspicious, when the whole-food/healthfood/natural food thing was just absurd and ridiculous, and when there was a huge intellectual ferment over quantum theory/chaos theory and what that means for religion and life. I'm making this sound incredibly intellectual and dull but trust me it isn't: these themes are woven very skillfully into the narrative, but this is fundamentally a story of the clash of people and the resulting murder.
The characters were well drawn, if stereotypical: the slightly mad spinster with an obsession with sex, the modern young novelist with his intellectual theories, the beautiful but dim wife married to an engineer much older than her, the morally dubious but brilliant artist... and yet while we read the book we believe in these people.
If you want a slap-bang murder on page 1 with lots of blood and gore, then this probably isn't the book for you; but if you want a light, yet entertaining read, with an ingenious murder at the heart of it, then I recommend this.
Made up of 'the documents in the case': primarily letters, reports and a couple of witness statements, there is no overall narrator who pulls the whole story together and yet the reader is intriguingly drawn into not just the murder but the lives, inner and outer, of the characters involved.
Very much of its time, this gives an intriguing view of London in the 1930s when artists were still Bohemian and therefore morally suspicious, when the whole-food/healthfood/natural food thing was just absurd and ridiculous, and when there was a huge intellectual ferment over quantum theory/chaos theory and what that means for religion and life. I'm making this sound incredibly intellectual and dull but trust me it isn't: these themes are woven very skillfully into the narrative, but this is fundamentally a story of the clash of people and the resulting murder.
The characters were well drawn, if stereotypical: the slightly mad spinster with an obsession with sex, the modern young novelist with his intellectual theories, the beautiful but dim wife married to an engineer much older than her, the morally dubious but brilliant artist... and yet while we read the book we believe in these people.
If you want a slap-bang murder on page 1 with lots of blood and gore, then this probably isn't the book for you; but if you want a light, yet entertaining read, with an ingenious murder at the heart of it, then I recommend this.
August 28, 2016
Brilliant mystery .
Very cleverly done by letters .
Was it suicide or was Harrison murdered ?
Beautifully written with suspense!
Very cleverly done by letters .
Was it suicide or was Harrison murdered ?
Beautifully written with suspense!
January 30, 2012
Considering this was in the 1001 Books to Read Before You Die list, I was not struck with its uniqueness. Telling a story entirely in documents and letters is not groundbreaking now, although in 1930 it may have been. Having just read a book of letters, these come across as far too verbose and writerly, and the statements filled with asides and inner thoughts just seem unlikely.
However, Sayers has the gift of subtlety and quiet humour that infuse her characters with definite qualities - likeable or unlikeable - and allow us to get really stuck into the story. The awful Miss Milsom, the unpleasant Mr Harrison and his equally prejudiced son, the cheeky and opinionated Mr Munting, all these characters are beautifully drawn and the kind of characters of whom definite opinions can be formed; this is a blessed relief in a world where character is being sacrificed for plot ever more frequently and ambivalence about characters has become the norm.
Mrs Harrison presents a problem - Sayers as a woman writer in the 20s and 30s must have come across rampant sexism on a daily basis, in newspapers and in publishing and in simple everyday conversation. It is problematic to me that she wrote this book from an all-male perspective, as I can't tell where the quietly comic digging at the male ego ends and the internalised women-as-subordinate attitude begins. The catalyst for the crime is never clearly pronounced - did the faithless wife plant the seed of malice in her lover's heart? Or was she too passive and reflective? Considering Sayers' unsympathetic portrayal of the husband, was she justifying the affair? Or condemning the faithlessness of women? Perhaps the perspective indicates her impression of the overall perspective of men - that women may be the cause of all woe in their lives, but aren't important enough to have clearly resolved motives or stories.
All in all, I would much rather read a Harriet Vane-centric story; now there was a female voice worth reading!
However, Sayers has the gift of subtlety and quiet humour that infuse her characters with definite qualities - likeable or unlikeable - and allow us to get really stuck into the story. The awful Miss Milsom, the unpleasant Mr Harrison and his equally prejudiced son, the cheeky and opinionated Mr Munting, all these characters are beautifully drawn and the kind of characters of whom definite opinions can be formed; this is a blessed relief in a world where character is being sacrificed for plot ever more frequently and ambivalence about characters has become the norm.
Mrs Harrison presents a problem - Sayers as a woman writer in the 20s and 30s must have come across rampant sexism on a daily basis, in newspapers and in publishing and in simple everyday conversation. It is problematic to me that she wrote this book from an all-male perspective, as I can't tell where the quietly comic digging at the male ego ends and the internalised women-as-subordinate attitude begins. The catalyst for the crime is never clearly pronounced - did the faithless wife plant the seed of malice in her lover's heart? Or was she too passive and reflective? Considering Sayers' unsympathetic portrayal of the husband, was she justifying the affair? Or condemning the faithlessness of women? Perhaps the perspective indicates her impression of the overall perspective of men - that women may be the cause of all woe in their lives, but aren't important enough to have clearly resolved motives or stories.
All in all, I would much rather read a Harriet Vane-centric story; now there was a female voice worth reading!
June 30, 2022
This is her only novel written with a collaborator.
Lord Peter Wimsey series:
4* Whose Body? (Lord Peter Wimsey Mysteries, #1)
3* Clouds of Witness (Lord Peter Wimsey Mysteries, #2)
5* Unnatural Death (Lord Peter Wimsey Mysteries, #3)
3* Lord Peter Views the Body (Lord Peter Wimsey Mysteries, #4)
4* The Unpleasantness at the Bellona Club (Lord Peter Wimsey, #5)
3* Strong Poison (Lord Peter Wimsey, #6)
3* Five Red Herrings (Lord Peter Wimsey, #7)
4* Have His Carcase (Lord Peter Wimsey, #8)
4* Murder Must Advertise (Lord Peter Wimsey, #10)
3* The Nine Tailors (Lord Peter Wimsey, #11)
4* Gaudy Night (Lord Peter Wimsey, #12)
4* Busman's Honeymoon (Lord Peter Wimsey, #13)
3* Striding Folly (Lord Peter Wimsey, #15)
TR Hangman's Holiday: A Collection of Short Mysteries (Lord Peter Wimsey, #9)
TR In the Teeth of the Evidence (Lord Peter Wimsey, #14)
TR The Wimsey Papers
4* The documents in the case
Lord Peter Wimsey series:
4* Whose Body? (Lord Peter Wimsey Mysteries, #1)
3* Clouds of Witness (Lord Peter Wimsey Mysteries, #2)
5* Unnatural Death (Lord Peter Wimsey Mysteries, #3)
3* Lord Peter Views the Body (Lord Peter Wimsey Mysteries, #4)
4* The Unpleasantness at the Bellona Club (Lord Peter Wimsey, #5)
3* Strong Poison (Lord Peter Wimsey, #6)
3* Five Red Herrings (Lord Peter Wimsey, #7)
4* Have His Carcase (Lord Peter Wimsey, #8)
4* Murder Must Advertise (Lord Peter Wimsey, #10)
3* The Nine Tailors (Lord Peter Wimsey, #11)
4* Gaudy Night (Lord Peter Wimsey, #12)
4* Busman's Honeymoon (Lord Peter Wimsey, #13)
3* Striding Folly (Lord Peter Wimsey, #15)
TR Hangman's Holiday: A Collection of Short Mysteries (Lord Peter Wimsey, #9)
TR In the Teeth of the Evidence (Lord Peter Wimsey, #14)
TR The Wimsey Papers
4* The documents in the case
February 26, 2024
Could Dorothy Sayers write a good mystery without any of her usual sleuths? Yes, and then some.
January 20, 2026
4-1/2 Stars
May 16, 2011
1930, Dorothy L. Sayers & Robert Eustace
Epistolary novel concerning a possible murder, and the lengths a son goes to, to find out what really happened; slow-moving classic tale, not one of Sayers' best - three-and-one-half stars.
Told from a variety of viewpoints via letters and court documents, this is the sad tale of a mis-matched married couple, and the neighbors who turn their lives upside down. Mr. and Mrs. Harrison are a nice suburban couple - he rather older than she, and neither understanding the other's point of view much. Mr. Harrison is set in his ways, and his much younger second wife is finding it hard going living with him, but things seem to be ambling along in their lives fairly decently, until two young men move in upstairs - a moody would-be novelist, and a charismatic young painter. Together they, and the Harrison menage, get very mixed up and upset concerning "relationships", and the end result isn't good for Mr. Harrison.
We get to see the four main characters through the eyes of each of them via correspondence with the others and some court documents, and of a couple of the peripheral characters as well, beginning with the loopy "companion/help" for Mrs. Harrison - she's a middle-aged, quite repressed spinster lady with peculiar ideas about romance. Although she manages to stir up a great deal of trouble, she and Mrs. Harrison get on very nicely, and it's her account of the young men that we first see. Her perceptions of the situation from her quite partisan viewpoint sets the tone for what evolves into a rather peculiar story, extremely slow-moving and moody, but interestingly constructed nonetheless.
Near the end of the novel Ms. Sayers spends one enormous chapter expostulating on The Meaning of Life, Spirituality, Chemistry, and The Universe" amongst several academics and one of the main protagonists, and this is stultifyingly boring. It's meant to show an important clue to the solution of the mystery, but is so complexly set out that it's entirely bewildering. I gleaned the intent from the later information in the story, and wish she'd mostly eliminated that chapter - it was very wearing!
Anyway, various odd things happen in the inter-relationships between Mr. and Mrs. Harrison, the companion, the artist, and the novelist, and later with Mr. Harrison's son Paul, who questions his father's peculiar death. Beautifully plotted, and mostly smoothly written, this is still awfully boring - tremendously boring in spots, particularly the medical/biological information necessary the authors felt necessary to solve the mystery is obscure and convoluted (presumably this was Mr. Eustace's contribution to the book). It really drags the pace (and the plot) down, and almost sinks the book.
It's an interesting attempt at a different sort of story for Sayers, and almost works, but not quite. Perhaps it seemed a better story when epistolary novels were rather more popular? I am admittedly not much of a fan of them (excepting Dracula, of course). DOCUMENTS is somewhat entertaining, in a mild and quietly interesting way, but not anywhere near Sayers' best work.
Epistolary novel concerning a possible murder, and the lengths a son goes to, to find out what really happened; slow-moving classic tale, not one of Sayers' best - three-and-one-half stars.
Told from a variety of viewpoints via letters and court documents, this is the sad tale of a mis-matched married couple, and the neighbors who turn their lives upside down. Mr. and Mrs. Harrison are a nice suburban couple - he rather older than she, and neither understanding the other's point of view much. Mr. Harrison is set in his ways, and his much younger second wife is finding it hard going living with him, but things seem to be ambling along in their lives fairly decently, until two young men move in upstairs - a moody would-be novelist, and a charismatic young painter. Together they, and the Harrison menage, get very mixed up and upset concerning "relationships", and the end result isn't good for Mr. Harrison.
We get to see the four main characters through the eyes of each of them via correspondence with the others and some court documents, and of a couple of the peripheral characters as well, beginning with the loopy "companion/help" for Mrs. Harrison - she's a middle-aged, quite repressed spinster lady with peculiar ideas about romance. Although she manages to stir up a great deal of trouble, she and Mrs. Harrison get on very nicely, and it's her account of the young men that we first see. Her perceptions of the situation from her quite partisan viewpoint sets the tone for what evolves into a rather peculiar story, extremely slow-moving and moody, but interestingly constructed nonetheless.
Near the end of the novel Ms. Sayers spends one enormous chapter expostulating on The Meaning of Life, Spirituality, Chemistry, and The Universe" amongst several academics and one of the main protagonists, and this is stultifyingly boring. It's meant to show an important clue to the solution of the mystery, but is so complexly set out that it's entirely bewildering. I gleaned the intent from the later information in the story, and wish she'd mostly eliminated that chapter - it was very wearing!
Anyway, various odd things happen in the inter-relationships between Mr. and Mrs. Harrison, the companion, the artist, and the novelist, and later with Mr. Harrison's son Paul, who questions his father's peculiar death. Beautifully plotted, and mostly smoothly written, this is still awfully boring - tremendously boring in spots, particularly the medical/biological information necessary the authors felt necessary to solve the mystery is obscure and convoluted (presumably this was Mr. Eustace's contribution to the book). It really drags the pace (and the plot) down, and almost sinks the book.
It's an interesting attempt at a different sort of story for Sayers, and almost works, but not quite. Perhaps it seemed a better story when epistolary novels were rather more popular? I am admittedly not much of a fan of them (excepting Dracula, of course). DOCUMENTS is somewhat entertaining, in a mild and quietly interesting way, but not anywhere near Sayers' best work.
July 25, 2023
Good grief, Dorothy L Sayers is the ultimate bore. She has both class and intellectual snobbery down to a fine art. In this book she excels herself, managing to waffle on for page after page about Einstein and philosophy and the perils of marriage, none of which have the slightest thing to do with the plot (assuming there is a plot) but which she clearly thinks make her look intellectually superior. They don't - we can all read articles in magazines and then paraphrase them. Parrots can spout big words too. Imagine going to dinner with her - it must have been purgatory.
I only attempted to read this because it's one of Martin Edwards' choices in his The Story of Classic Crime in 100 Books, but I'm afraid I cannot share his appreciation for this tedious person who clearly thinks that she's writing the Great Novel of her time when she's not even managing to write an average mystery novel. Worse even than her ultra-snobbish Wimsey horrors. Never again. Never again.
I only attempted to read this because it's one of Martin Edwards' choices in his The Story of Classic Crime in 100 Books, but I'm afraid I cannot share his appreciation for this tedious person who clearly thinks that she's writing the Great Novel of her time when she's not even managing to write an average mystery novel. Worse even than her ultra-snobbish Wimsey horrors. Never again. Never again.
June 3, 2025
What a fascinating way to write a mystery through letters, statements and without a detective. No Wimsey in this unusual story.
Two young men move into a house in the maisonette upstairs. Harrison the owner has a young wife who is bored. Munting’s the author shares the flat with Lathom an artist. Harrison is an engineer, amateur painter and collector and cook of exotic mushrooms. I learnt a lot about muscarine. The story follows the events leading up to the apparent accidental death of Harrison in his shack from a poisoned mushrooms.
I think Lathom was a little mad and Harrison’s wife through her ambiguous letters influenced his actions. Munting also said while they were at school together he did bizarre things. Morale of the story do not keep love letters from your mistress.
SPOILERS AHEAD
In a nutshell Lathom and Harrison’s wife were having an affair. She refused to divorce him and Lathom poisoned Harrison. His mistake was he used synthetic muscarine which can be identified as synthetic and so he was caught and hanged.
Two young men move into a house in the maisonette upstairs. Harrison the owner has a young wife who is bored. Munting’s the author shares the flat with Lathom an artist. Harrison is an engineer, amateur painter and collector and cook of exotic mushrooms. I learnt a lot about muscarine. The story follows the events leading up to the apparent accidental death of Harrison in his shack from a poisoned mushrooms.
I think Lathom was a little mad and Harrison’s wife through her ambiguous letters influenced his actions. Munting also said while they were at school together he did bizarre things. Morale of the story do not keep love letters from your mistress.
SPOILERS AHEAD
In a nutshell Lathom and Harrison’s wife were having an affair. She refused to divorce him and Lathom poisoned Harrison. His mistake was he used synthetic muscarine which can be identified as synthetic and so he was caught and hanged.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Read
May 13, 2018Glavna mana ovog romana čak i nije u tome što nema lorda Vimzija (mada bi on svakako popravio stvar) nego prosto u tome što Doroti Sejers nije bila sigurna da li želi da napiše krimi-roman ili društveni roman ili malo da propoveda o bolestima savremenog društva i čovekovom odnosu prema Bogu. I na kraju smo tako dobili nezadovoljavajući krimić u kome samo pokušavamo da saznamo kako je zločin izveden jer znamo i ko i zbog čega, i nekoliko podužih digresija na razne teme od religije do biohemije koje su u romanima o Vimziju mnogo bolje uklopljene i srazmernije dužine, i sporedne ličnosti koje takoreći preotmu pola knjige jer se Doroti baš nameračila da nam pokaže užasne efekte psihoanalize na zlobne usedelice i... tako. E da, simpatični likovi su ovde dati baš na kašičicu i nažalost su prilično bledi.
November 3, 2010
interesting, unusual entry in the dorothy sayers mystery cannon, one that surprisingly does not feature peter wimsey, harriet vane, or, alas, bunter. basically a series of letters, the mystery unfolds amongst much light satire and amusing character bits. it is intriguing to see how the various letters often contradict one another, rashoman-style.
May 20, 2014
A very clever mystery!
"The Documents in the Case" is well-written and slowly played out to reveal the interplay of personalities. The author's sympathy at first is engaged by reading letters written by the major characters of the book. Slowly the personalities emerge and the reader is pleasurably encouraged to change their own perspectives of the characters as their individual idiosyncrasies, temptations and motives are revealed.
For instance, take a look at Miss Milsom:
"Miss Milson has always seemed to me a very tiresome woman, and lately she has been getting altogether above herself. She consults these psycho-analytical quacks, who encourage her to attach an absurd importance to her whims and feelings, and to talk openly at the dinner-table about things which, in my (doubtless old-fashioned) opinion, ought only to be mentioned to doctors. Besides, she is very lazy and untidy, and, instead of putting her mind to the housework, she litters the place with wool and bits of of paper which she calls "art materials," and she borrows my paints and forgets to return them. There is no harm, of course, in her doing needlework and making calendars, if it does not interfere with her duties, but she has frequently been very impertinent when I have had occasion to speak about the unsatisfactory cooking.
Lathom has been painting a picture of her - a very clever thing, certainly, but it seems to have turned her head completely."
(How clever this portrayal of a character is done within the context of a letter!)
Suspense is slowly drawn out as the reader begins to question, along with Mr. Harrison's son, whether murder did in fact occur, and exactly how it could have been possible. Could Mr. Harrison, an expert with fungi, have mistakenly added poisonous mushrooms to his stew? With a clear motive (that is gradually unfurled) present, but no opportunity, did in fact, murder take place?
Suspense is slowly drawn out as the reader begins to question, along with Mr. Harrison's son, whether murder did in fact occur, and exactly how it could have been possible.
"I looked through the instrument. Dead blackness. But if the thing had shown all the colours of the rainbow, I should have been in no state to draw any conclusions from it. I sat stunned while somebody switched on the lights, extinguished the Bunsen burner and locked all the apparatus up again.
Then I found myself straggling after the other two, while they talked about something or the other. I had an indea that I came into it, and presently Waters turned back and thrust his arm into mine.
"What you want," he said, "is a double Scotch, and no soda."
I don't very well remember getting home, but that, I think, was not due to the double Scotch, but to the bewilderment of mind. I do remember waking my wife up and blurting out my story in a kind of confused misery, which must have perplexed and alarmed her. And I remember saying that it was quite useless to think of going to bed, because I should never sleep. And I remember waking this morning very late, with the feeling that someone was dead."
My interest wanted somewhat in the middle, but I persevered and was so glad I did as the mystery began to be revealed in developed in the final third of the book.
Sayers, once again, has proven herself a master of the mystery genre. If you are new to Dorothy Sayers, I would recommend beginning with her "Strong Poison" to get a feel for her writing and creativity before tackling this one.
"The Documents in the Case" is well-written and slowly played out to reveal the interplay of personalities. The author's sympathy at first is engaged by reading letters written by the major characters of the book. Slowly the personalities emerge and the reader is pleasurably encouraged to change their own perspectives of the characters as their individual idiosyncrasies, temptations and motives are revealed.
For instance, take a look at Miss Milsom:
"Miss Milson has always seemed to me a very tiresome woman, and lately she has been getting altogether above herself. She consults these psycho-analytical quacks, who encourage her to attach an absurd importance to her whims and feelings, and to talk openly at the dinner-table about things which, in my (doubtless old-fashioned) opinion, ought only to be mentioned to doctors. Besides, she is very lazy and untidy, and, instead of putting her mind to the housework, she litters the place with wool and bits of of paper which she calls "art materials," and she borrows my paints and forgets to return them. There is no harm, of course, in her doing needlework and making calendars, if it does not interfere with her duties, but she has frequently been very impertinent when I have had occasion to speak about the unsatisfactory cooking.
Lathom has been painting a picture of her - a very clever thing, certainly, but it seems to have turned her head completely."
(How clever this portrayal of a character is done within the context of a letter!)
Suspense is slowly drawn out as the reader begins to question, along with Mr. Harrison's son, whether murder did in fact occur, and exactly how it could have been possible. Could Mr. Harrison, an expert with fungi, have mistakenly added poisonous mushrooms to his stew? With a clear motive (that is gradually unfurled) present, but no opportunity, did in fact, murder take place?
Suspense is slowly drawn out as the reader begins to question, along with Mr. Harrison's son, whether murder did in fact occur, and exactly how it could have been possible.
"I looked through the instrument. Dead blackness. But if the thing had shown all the colours of the rainbow, I should have been in no state to draw any conclusions from it. I sat stunned while somebody switched on the lights, extinguished the Bunsen burner and locked all the apparatus up again.
Then I found myself straggling after the other two, while they talked about something or the other. I had an indea that I came into it, and presently Waters turned back and thrust his arm into mine.
"What you want," he said, "is a double Scotch, and no soda."
I don't very well remember getting home, but that, I think, was not due to the double Scotch, but to the bewilderment of mind. I do remember waking my wife up and blurting out my story in a kind of confused misery, which must have perplexed and alarmed her. And I remember saying that it was quite useless to think of going to bed, because I should never sleep. And I remember waking this morning very late, with the feeling that someone was dead."
My interest wanted somewhat in the middle, but I persevered and was so glad I did as the mystery began to be revealed in developed in the final third of the book.
Sayers, once again, has proven herself a master of the mystery genre. If you are new to Dorothy Sayers, I would recommend beginning with her "Strong Poison" to get a feel for her writing and creativity before tackling this one.
September 14, 2024
2.5 stars- Wow, this is such a change from other selections by Ms. Sayers. I was expecting another story involving her main character, Lord Peter Wimsey. He is a clever, somewhat unconventional amateur sleuth. This book however did not have anything to do with the Wimsey series, at all.
This was a story told through the use of letters written by several of the characters in the book. They are used to document how a death came about, and the victim's son is putting them together to try to come up with some proof that his father was actually murdered.
I did not care for this style of story-telling and only continued hoping somewhere Wimsey would step in and solve the mystery as only he knows how.
Very disappointing read IMO
This was a story told through the use of letters written by several of the characters in the book. They are used to document how a death came about, and the victim's son is putting them together to try to come up with some proof that his father was actually murdered.
I did not care for this style of story-telling and only continued hoping somewhere Wimsey would step in and solve the mystery as only he knows how.
Very disappointing read IMO
Read
October 17, 2008I didn't realize, before I started, that this is not a Peter Wimsey mystery. Actually, I really enjoyed it, after I'd figured out the difference. It's a collaboration between Sayers and one Robert Eustace—does anybody know anything about the nature of the collaboration? I found the intelligent, talented, but above all middle class (for want of a better term) characters quite refreshing and engaging, even the whacko ones. I also found the conceit of the novel's construction, as a collection of documents, kind of compelling—while it was impossible to read without bias, you did feel that you were a participant in a way that conventional first or third person narration doesn't allow.
I kept worrying that there would be a horrible twist turning my favorite character into the villain and was quite relieved when he got to the end with a clean conscience (apart from what he perceives to be treachery in narcing on his obnoxious friend). Wish I'd seen more of Elizabeth, too, as I quite liked her.
On a not-entirely-relevant note, I loved the conversation between the scientists and the creationists near the end, where the tangential Hoskyns manages an elegant balance of both:
"…all you people talk so cheerfully about Matter, as if you know what it was. I don't, and it's more or less my job to know. Go back again, go past your colloids and your sea-water. Go back to the dust of the earth and the mass of rotating cinders which was before the ocean even began. Go back to the sun… Go back to the nebula. Go back to the atom. Do some of the famous splitting we hear so much about. Where is your Matter? It isn't. It is a series of pushes or pulls or vortices in nothingness… Even your heredity-business is fortuitous. Why one set of chromosomes more than any other? Your chain of causation would only be a real one if all possible combinations and permutations were worked out in practice. Something is going on, that is as certain as anything can be—that is, I mean, it is the fundamental assumption we are bound to make in order to reason at all—but how it started or why it started is just as mysterious as it was when the first thoughtful savage invented a god to explain it." (pp 207-208)
I never know how seriously to take her science (is all that "optically active/inactive" stuff true?), and this was originally published in 1930, but I believe Hoskyns.
--------------------------
OK… I just looked this up on Wikipedia here and my questions are answered very briefly; "Robert Eustace" is Eustace Barton, who suggested Sayers use the polariscope to differentiate between organic and inorganic matter. The article says that "As a practising Christian, she was pleased with the religious-scientific theme offered to her by "Robert Eustace", which was based on the idea that the asymmetry of living molecules was an indication of the hand of God in creation.
"[The idea] touches the very key note of the mystery of the appearance of Life on this planet. There seems no escape from the conclusion that at some wonderful moment in the evolutionary process a Directive Force-From-Without entered upon the scene of Life itself."
— Dorothy L Sayers, Dorothy L Sayers: Her Life and Soul. Barbara Reynolds, Hodder & Stoughton 1993 , chapter 15
But also, the author of the article that Sayers wanted to make a much bigger impact with these very themes that struck a chord with me in the novel, and felt that she had failed to do so.
I kept worrying that there would be a horrible twist turning my favorite character into the villain and was quite relieved when he got to the end with a clean conscience (apart from what he perceives to be treachery in narcing on his obnoxious friend). Wish I'd seen more of Elizabeth, too, as I quite liked her.
On a not-entirely-relevant note, I loved the conversation between the scientists and the creationists near the end, where the tangential Hoskyns manages an elegant balance of both:
"…all you people talk so cheerfully about Matter, as if you know what it was. I don't, and it's more or less my job to know. Go back again, go past your colloids and your sea-water. Go back to the dust of the earth and the mass of rotating cinders which was before the ocean even began. Go back to the sun… Go back to the nebula. Go back to the atom. Do some of the famous splitting we hear so much about. Where is your Matter? It isn't. It is a series of pushes or pulls or vortices in nothingness… Even your heredity-business is fortuitous. Why one set of chromosomes more than any other? Your chain of causation would only be a real one if all possible combinations and permutations were worked out in practice. Something is going on, that is as certain as anything can be—that is, I mean, it is the fundamental assumption we are bound to make in order to reason at all—but how it started or why it started is just as mysterious as it was when the first thoughtful savage invented a god to explain it." (pp 207-208)
I never know how seriously to take her science (is all that "optically active/inactive" stuff true?), and this was originally published in 1930, but I believe Hoskyns.
--------------------------
OK… I just looked this up on Wikipedia here and my questions are answered very briefly; "Robert Eustace" is Eustace Barton, who suggested Sayers use the polariscope to differentiate between organic and inorganic matter. The article says that "As a practising Christian, she was pleased with the religious-scientific theme offered to her by "Robert Eustace", which was based on the idea that the asymmetry of living molecules was an indication of the hand of God in creation.
"[The idea] touches the very key note of the mystery of the appearance of Life on this planet. There seems no escape from the conclusion that at some wonderful moment in the evolutionary process a Directive Force-From-Without entered upon the scene of Life itself."
— Dorothy L Sayers, Dorothy L Sayers: Her Life and Soul. Barbara Reynolds, Hodder & Stoughton 1993 , chapter 15
But also, the author of the article that Sayers wanted to make a much bigger impact with these very themes that struck a chord with me in the novel, and felt that she had failed to do so.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
January 22, 2022
This book was decent, but nothing amazing. The Documents in the Case is Dorothy L. Sayers' only novel (co-written with Robert Eustace) that is not part of the Lord Peter Wimsey series. I was mostly a fan of that series, but even those books were hit or miss for me. I loved about half of them, and found some of the others to be mediocre or just meh. It's been I think at least a decade since I read any of her books, and for some reason I had a desire to come back to her. This book is told in an epistolary format, and the tone is very similar to the Wimsey books- humorous and perhaps a bit satirical. The book is pretty short, but it took quite a while for me to get into it- maybe about 1/3 of the way in. I don't regret reading it or anything, but I would say I don't think you're missing much if you're a Wimsey fan and choose to skip it.
March 12, 2018
I gave this one 3 stars because Sayers is one of my all-time favorite authors. Honestly, I simply do not know how I feel about this story. There was definitely some drama which kept me turning the pages and it was an interesting premise - a series of letters from different POVs to tell a story. The ending was (to use this word again) interesting.
October 15, 2026
I loved it ..told through a series of letters leading up to the crime!!! Very clever and beautifully written in language/ period the novel set in 1929-30 ...only fault was the sudden ending...would recommend if like a who done it!
June 13, 2025
*chef's kiss*
By far the most unique murder mystery I've read in a while, due to its fascinating delivery, which is a series of letters written to and from the characters, bare dialogue from court hearings, and character statements (hence the title). I would also say that this book is all about how the death happened and proving that it wasn't an accident, since we're only presented with one option for the possible perpetrator - it's much less of a whodunit and more of a "did he actually do it?" This is definitely not your normal detective novel, and I'm not mad about it.
By far the most unique murder mystery I've read in a while, due to its fascinating delivery, which is a series of letters written to and from the characters, bare dialogue from court hearings, and character statements (hence the title). I would also say that this book is all about how the death happened and proving that it wasn't an accident, since we're only presented with one option for the possible perpetrator - it's much less of a whodunit and more of a "did he actually do it?" This is definitely not your normal detective novel, and I'm not mad about it.
July 31, 2021
A Sayers novel without her sleuth Lord Peter Wimsey. A noted expert on fungi is found dead after digesting poisonous mushrooms. Is it suicide or murder? The answer is found in a series of letters and statements by those closest to the victim.
October 7, 2016
This mystery novel is a departure from the usual Sayers fare. There is no Lord Peter Wimsey or Bunter to be found and the story is told almost entirely through letters and written statements from witnesses. When Paul Harrison, whos has been working on bridges in Africa, receives word of his father's death, he returns to England to find that the coroner's inquest has returned a verdict of Accidental Death. It has been determined that George Harrison accidentally killed himself with poisonous toadstools. Paul isn't having any of it. His father was an expert on edible plants and would never have picked, let alone eaten the Fly Agaric (Amanita muscaria) in mistake for the Warty Cap (Amanita rubescens). He is convinced that either his father had realized that his wife no longer loved him and wanted to marry another and committed suicide or that his step-mother and/or her lover decided to remove the obstacle to their happiness.
The difficulty is proving it. Harrison was alone all day at "The Shack"--the cabin where he stayed when on one of his wildlife rambles. He had invited Lathom--his supposed friend and his wife's lover--to spend the holiday with him, but Lathom had gone up to town early in the morning. A local villager had seen Harrison alive and well...and hunting mushrooms well after. And Lathom appears to have an alibi. Not that alibi are all that useful in cases of poisoning--one doesn't necessarily have to be on the spot when the victim swallows the deadly brew.
Paul gathers letters written by the deceased, by Lathom's roommate John Munting, and (most stealthily) by his step-mother to Lathom, as well as depositions from various witnesses and tries to piece together what happened in the months leading up to his father's death. He convinces Munting to help him and it is Munting who helps him discover just exactly occurred on the day George Harrison died. A little bit of scientific magic gives him the evidence needed to prove how his father could be poisoned by muscarine without having made a mistake in his mushrooms.
This is an interesting alternative novel in the Sayers oeuvre. The use of the various documents allows the reader to view each character and incident from numerous points of view. It underlines how not just beauty, but also truth is in the eye of the beholder. Picking out the bits of essential truth from the personal animosities and prejudices of each character's version of the events is the task of Paul Harrison and the reader if we are going to get to the truth of George Harrison's tragic death.
The story is also an examination of marriage--of what can go wrong, especially when two people are so very mismatched. There is very little understanding between Paul Harrison and his second wife. He expects her to be the little angel of the house that his first wife was and she wants him to be more demonstrative of his affection and to share interests with her rather than giving "little lectures" on his pet subjects--painting and bizarre edibles. Neither are willing to give an inch to reach an understanding. He goes his way--thinking she'll be happy at home. And she finds someone who she believes appreciates her more. Such misalliances don't always lead to murder, but they do lead to a great deal of unhappiness. Sayers allows murder to solve the unhappiness problem, while we (the reader and Paul) have to worry at the problem of how to solve the murder.
I found this to be highly enjoyable...to a point. The letters were very interesting, giving insight into all the characters and handing us clues when we weren't necessarily paying attention. I also enjoyed the small portion of the actual investigation that Paul Harrison and John Munting do. Where it falls down on the job is just at the point where the story ought to be picking up speed--when we head into the home stretch of figuring it all out. Sayers, for reasons that are inexplicable to me decides to dump a whole chapter on the "meaning of life, chemistry, the universe and everything" (apologies to Douglas Adams) which is meant (I think) to clear the path to the solution but is just plain deadly dull. I mean, yes, I see how it gets Munting to where he needs to be in order to ask certain questions of a certain specialist--but ye gads. Surely we could have gotten there by a less philosophically dense route. As it is we come into the finish feeling rather flat. ★★★ (a better ending would have boosted the rating.)
First posted on my blog My Reader's Block. Please request permission before reposting portions of review. Thanks.
The difficulty is proving it. Harrison was alone all day at "The Shack"--the cabin where he stayed when on one of his wildlife rambles. He had invited Lathom--his supposed friend and his wife's lover--to spend the holiday with him, but Lathom had gone up to town early in the morning. A local villager had seen Harrison alive and well...and hunting mushrooms well after. And Lathom appears to have an alibi. Not that alibi are all that useful in cases of poisoning--one doesn't necessarily have to be on the spot when the victim swallows the deadly brew.
Paul gathers letters written by the deceased, by Lathom's roommate John Munting, and (most stealthily) by his step-mother to Lathom, as well as depositions from various witnesses and tries to piece together what happened in the months leading up to his father's death. He convinces Munting to help him and it is Munting who helps him discover just exactly occurred on the day George Harrison died. A little bit of scientific magic gives him the evidence needed to prove how his father could be poisoned by muscarine without having made a mistake in his mushrooms.
This is an interesting alternative novel in the Sayers oeuvre. The use of the various documents allows the reader to view each character and incident from numerous points of view. It underlines how not just beauty, but also truth is in the eye of the beholder. Picking out the bits of essential truth from the personal animosities and prejudices of each character's version of the events is the task of Paul Harrison and the reader if we are going to get to the truth of George Harrison's tragic death.
The story is also an examination of marriage--of what can go wrong, especially when two people are so very mismatched. There is very little understanding between Paul Harrison and his second wife. He expects her to be the little angel of the house that his first wife was and she wants him to be more demonstrative of his affection and to share interests with her rather than giving "little lectures" on his pet subjects--painting and bizarre edibles. Neither are willing to give an inch to reach an understanding. He goes his way--thinking she'll be happy at home. And she finds someone who she believes appreciates her more. Such misalliances don't always lead to murder, but they do lead to a great deal of unhappiness. Sayers allows murder to solve the unhappiness problem, while we (the reader and Paul) have to worry at the problem of how to solve the murder.
I found this to be highly enjoyable...to a point. The letters were very interesting, giving insight into all the characters and handing us clues when we weren't necessarily paying attention. I also enjoyed the small portion of the actual investigation that Paul Harrison and John Munting do. Where it falls down on the job is just at the point where the story ought to be picking up speed--when we head into the home stretch of figuring it all out. Sayers, for reasons that are inexplicable to me decides to dump a whole chapter on the "meaning of life, chemistry, the universe and everything" (apologies to Douglas Adams) which is meant (I think) to clear the path to the solution but is just plain deadly dull. I mean, yes, I see how it gets Munting to where he needs to be in order to ask certain questions of a certain specialist--but ye gads. Surely we could have gotten there by a less philosophically dense route. As it is we come into the finish feeling rather flat. ★★★ (a better ending would have boosted the rating.)
First posted on my blog My Reader's Block. Please request permission before reposting portions of review. Thanks.
January 8, 2026
Not everyone enjoys epistolary novels, which inevitably spend a lot of time on things that are important to the characters in the moment they write letters to each other, but not to the overarching plot that they're unaware of. To me, though, that's part of their charm, and one of the great strengths of the epistolary style is the development of character, voice, and viewpoint that it enables, or even demands.
I will say that the discussion of books, thinkers and ideas current in the late 1920s (the book is set in 1928-30 and was published in 1930) was less interesting to me, both because I've not read the books or, in many cases, heard of the people, and because the ideas, vitally interesting at the time, are now nearly a century out of date, and have either become commonplace or, in most cases, been dismissed as inaccurate and unhelpful. One character is writing a biography of a 19th-century mathematician at the start of the book, and finding the research into the Victorian way of thinking heavy going, and that's also how the passages of 1920s thinking felt to me. At the same time, I'm sure I'm missing nuance because of not being immersed in the contemporary zeitgeist and the books and ideas. At one point, for example, a recent play by Somerset Maugham is mentioned, and when I looked it up on Wikipedia, the plot has close parallels with what's happening in this book at the time.
The letter-writers are a wonderfully mixed bunch. There's an outwardly cynical and modern poet/novelist (the one writing the biography). In his letters to his fiancée, far from wanting a superficial free-love relationship of the kind he probably depicted in his work, he reveals his complete devotion to her and his worry that their relationship will be damaged by the jealousy and other faults he observes in the Harrisons, a couple who live downstairs from his flat. There's the paid companion of Mrs Harrison, a woman in poor mental health. There's Mrs Harrison herself, a self-involved and self-justifying woman who is always breaking down in tears because her husband treats her rudely and unkindly, even though to the novelist he conveys the impression that he loves her deeply and just lacks the ability to express it. There's Mr Harrison, too, writing genially to his son and giving an impression at complete variance with what the others are observing. A large part of the strength of the book is that it portrays the utterly different perspectives these people have on the same events and people, including each other. And the voices are just right for who they are. The novelist is prolix and worries too much about abstractions; Mrs Harrison is silly and emotional; Harrison's engineer son from a previous marriage is pragmatic, systematic, and has no time for the novelist's meanderings. They read like completely different people are writing their letters, and that's hard to do.
The novelist's flatmate is a painter, who paints a portrait of Mrs Harrison that gives away more than either of them realize. At the halfway point of the book, the painter is holidaying in a shack in a remote part of England with Mr Harrison, who has kept up a friendship with him even though he no longer lives in the flat in the same building. The painter goes up to London for some business and convinces his friend the novelist to come back to the shack with him, and when they arrive, they find Harrison dead, poisoned by mushrooms - on which he was an expert. Events leading up to that point have made the painter a clear suspect for murdering Harrison, inasmuch as he has a strong motive. But did he have means? Opportunity? And even if he did, can anybody prove it?
The solution is clever (as was the crime), and we get the full emotional impact of it because we see it through the eyes of the novelist, who's the best among the cast at talking about his feelings. Overall, a fine piece of work, and though it isn't a traditional mystery novel, it's something better than that in many ways. Sayers' books were always at their best when she wasn't writing a conventional mystery anyway.
I will say that the discussion of books, thinkers and ideas current in the late 1920s (the book is set in 1928-30 and was published in 1930) was less interesting to me, both because I've not read the books or, in many cases, heard of the people, and because the ideas, vitally interesting at the time, are now nearly a century out of date, and have either become commonplace or, in most cases, been dismissed as inaccurate and unhelpful. One character is writing a biography of a 19th-century mathematician at the start of the book, and finding the research into the Victorian way of thinking heavy going, and that's also how the passages of 1920s thinking felt to me. At the same time, I'm sure I'm missing nuance because of not being immersed in the contemporary zeitgeist and the books and ideas. At one point, for example, a recent play by Somerset Maugham is mentioned, and when I looked it up on Wikipedia, the plot has close parallels with what's happening in this book at the time.
The letter-writers are a wonderfully mixed bunch. There's an outwardly cynical and modern poet/novelist (the one writing the biography). In his letters to his fiancée, far from wanting a superficial free-love relationship of the kind he probably depicted in his work, he reveals his complete devotion to her and his worry that their relationship will be damaged by the jealousy and other faults he observes in the Harrisons, a couple who live downstairs from his flat. There's the paid companion of Mrs Harrison, a woman in poor mental health. There's Mrs Harrison herself, a self-involved and self-justifying woman who is always breaking down in tears because her husband treats her rudely and unkindly, even though to the novelist he conveys the impression that he loves her deeply and just lacks the ability to express it. There's Mr Harrison, too, writing genially to his son and giving an impression at complete variance with what the others are observing. A large part of the strength of the book is that it portrays the utterly different perspectives these people have on the same events and people, including each other. And the voices are just right for who they are. The novelist is prolix and worries too much about abstractions; Mrs Harrison is silly and emotional; Harrison's engineer son from a previous marriage is pragmatic, systematic, and has no time for the novelist's meanderings. They read like completely different people are writing their letters, and that's hard to do.
The novelist's flatmate is a painter, who paints a portrait of Mrs Harrison that gives away more than either of them realize. At the halfway point of the book, the painter is holidaying in a shack in a remote part of England with Mr Harrison, who has kept up a friendship with him even though he no longer lives in the flat in the same building. The painter goes up to London for some business and convinces his friend the novelist to come back to the shack with him, and when they arrive, they find Harrison dead, poisoned by mushrooms - on which he was an expert. Events leading up to that point have made the painter a clear suspect for murdering Harrison, inasmuch as he has a strong motive. But did he have means? Opportunity? And even if he did, can anybody prove it?
The solution is clever (as was the crime), and we get the full emotional impact of it because we see it through the eyes of the novelist, who's the best among the cast at talking about his feelings. Overall, a fine piece of work, and though it isn't a traditional mystery novel, it's something better than that in many ways. Sayers' books were always at their best when she wasn't writing a conventional mystery anyway.
December 23, 2022
this book was simply incredible, and, although that would usually be due to the mystery itself, that wasn't the case with this book. the mystery was quite intriguing, in all honesty, but it's not what made me appreciate this book so much.
one of the main aspects that i really like about this book is how detailed every little thing is. i know that that's one of the reasons that people don't like sayers' books, but it's the reason that i found one of them to be quite admirable. it makes the characters realistic, and it's not entirely unrelated to the mystery. it gives the opportunity for the reader to be confused about relevant information; there's a lot that's given about the characters, figuring out which of it would be relevant is its own mystery.
this brings me to the next point, which is sayers' character writing. because ive read a lot about sayers' life, i know that she included a decent bit of her personal opinions and her personality within her characters, and the fact that it's so noticeable is very fascinating. she put quite a bit of herself into her characters, and it's just really enjoyable to see that. her characters are very interesting people; not a single one of them is inherently good, actually. they could be a bit unreliable with the information they're mentioning, actually, and the reasons for that are just as fascinating as the characters themselves. something else that i liked is that you can see a bit of their personalities and their personal lives. they're more than just puppets or actors being involved in a mystery; they each have their personal lives beyond that and expanding on that aspect, even though it might be considered pointless, is something that i, personally, really liked.
the mystery itself is interesting, but only in one aspect. it's sort of like a locked-room mystery, but not quite. what i found to be most intriguing, and it's also the reason why i read this book in the first place, actually, was the method of murder. it's poisoning, but not the typical type. i won't expand further, because then i would be spoiling, but it's simply incredible. what's more incredible, as a matter of fact, is that all the scientific facts relating to the murder are true. sayers wrote this book with the help of a specialist, so most, if not all, of the facts included here are accurate, which is simply brilliant.
overall, i can confidently say that this book was incredible and that im looking forward to reading more of sayers' works. her way of writing and her meticulousness is something that's simply mind-blowing. id recommend this book to those who want to read more "golden age" mysteries, or just a mystery in general.
one of the main aspects that i really like about this book is how detailed every little thing is. i know that that's one of the reasons that people don't like sayers' books, but it's the reason that i found one of them to be quite admirable. it makes the characters realistic, and it's not entirely unrelated to the mystery. it gives the opportunity for the reader to be confused about relevant information; there's a lot that's given about the characters, figuring out which of it would be relevant is its own mystery.
this brings me to the next point, which is sayers' character writing. because ive read a lot about sayers' life, i know that she included a decent bit of her personal opinions and her personality within her characters, and the fact that it's so noticeable is very fascinating. she put quite a bit of herself into her characters, and it's just really enjoyable to see that. her characters are very interesting people; not a single one of them is inherently good, actually. they could be a bit unreliable with the information they're mentioning, actually, and the reasons for that are just as fascinating as the characters themselves. something else that i liked is that you can see a bit of their personalities and their personal lives. they're more than just puppets or actors being involved in a mystery; they each have their personal lives beyond that and expanding on that aspect, even though it might be considered pointless, is something that i, personally, really liked.
the mystery itself is interesting, but only in one aspect. it's sort of like a locked-room mystery, but not quite. what i found to be most intriguing, and it's also the reason why i read this book in the first place, actually, was the method of murder. it's poisoning, but not the typical type. i won't expand further, because then i would be spoiling, but it's simply incredible. what's more incredible, as a matter of fact, is that all the scientific facts relating to the murder are true. sayers wrote this book with the help of a specialist, so most, if not all, of the facts included here are accurate, which is simply brilliant.
overall, i can confidently say that this book was incredible and that im looking forward to reading more of sayers' works. her way of writing and her meticulousness is something that's simply mind-blowing. id recommend this book to those who want to read more "golden age" mysteries, or just a mystery in general.
February 7, 2010
I picked this book for several reasons. I like mysteries, I have always wanted to read something by Dorothy L. Sayers, it fit into a challenge I was doing, and the premise looked interesting. As it turns out, I was a bit disappointed as the book is completely different from what I expected. The book is a mystery told through documents that were submitted to the police for review. This method is interesting as it gives the points of view of several different characters who were involved to some degree in the events, however, it made for a somewhat choppy story. In addition, the actual death and mystery surrounding the death play second fiddle to the real point of the book, which is a discertation on the theories of creation and evolution. In fact, the discussion soon turns to theorizing on whether science will ever be able to manufacture life or not, and why the various characters feel the way that they do on this subject. A lot of the discussion is filled with technical data regarding cloning, physics, the manufacture of organic compounds using inorganic compounds, and a whole lot of stuff that my son (who is a bioengineering major) would understand, but went over my head! What I did find was interesting, was the fact that they were discussing the pros and cons of cloning life as far back as the 1930s.
I would recommend this book more for people interested in that discussions of creationism vs evolution, and the possibilities of bioengineering, rather than mystery fans. I thought the mystery storyline itself was weak. It was easy to figure out who did it and why, the real mystery was how/whether they would be caught.
I gave it three stars because of the interesting discussions on life.
I would recommend this book more for people interested in that discussions of creationism vs evolution, and the possibilities of bioengineering, rather than mystery fans. I thought the mystery storyline itself was weak. It was easy to figure out who did it and why, the real mystery was how/whether they would be caught.
I gave it three stars because of the interesting discussions on life.
January 27, 2008
The plot of this book is so smart that it actually figured as a problem in one of my organic chemistry textbooks in college! One of those musty dusty tomes but still!!!
The brilliance of the science aside, it is truly an excellent book! Dorothy Sayers is a master at creating three dimensional characters that live and breathe. The book is written in an epistolary format and most incidents come across from two or more points of view, each so consistent and complete by itself that that alone would be reason enough to read this book. How does she get the characters, their voice, what they say and think and feel so right every time?
You can see what's coming from the start of course but that will in no way impair your enjoyment of the book, at least not unless you are looking for nothing more or less than a whodunit. Like all of Dorothy Sayers' novels, this is a book that does not see why it shouldn't be a 'real book' (in Lord Peter Wimsey's words) just because it is a mystery novel.
Great read.
The brilliance of the science aside, it is truly an excellent book! Dorothy Sayers is a master at creating three dimensional characters that live and breathe. The book is written in an epistolary format and most incidents come across from two or more points of view, each so consistent and complete by itself that that alone would be reason enough to read this book. How does she get the characters, their voice, what they say and think and feel so right every time?
You can see what's coming from the start of course but that will in no way impair your enjoyment of the book, at least not unless you are looking for nothing more or less than a whodunit. Like all of Dorothy Sayers' novels, this is a book that does not see why it shouldn't be a 'real book' (in Lord Peter Wimsey's words) just because it is a mystery novel.
Great read.
June 10, 2011
Yet another book confirming my very high opinion of Dorothy Sayers. This is her take on an epistolary novel, although it's not composed of letters only. As the title suggests, the novel consists of a range of documents which together form a prosecution brief. As is so often the case with Sayers, the mystery is only a part of what the book is about. While there is a mystery, the point of it is the "how" rather than the "who". The novel is also a dissertation on creation and the origin of life. I will freely admit that the science largely went over my head, but it actually didn't matter. I understood enough to be impressed. And then there was the wit, the passion and that fierce intelligence which characterises Sayers. In short, I loved it.
May 3, 2016
After reading this book I feel like there are no smart people left in the world. I also feel like the internet has killed my (and everyone elses) attention spans and we no longer sit around having actual conversations. This is the first of Sayer's work that I have read and it was enthralling even though I had to concentrate extra hard to focus because the dialogue wasn't super fast and choppy and the reader has to actually think hard about what is happening. Great book and I'm looking forward to reading more of her work.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 281 reviews