What do you think?
Rate this book
Lord Peter Wimsey/Harriet Vane #3
Attenbury Emeralds, The
In 1936, Dorothy L. Sayers abandoned the last Lord Peter Wimsey detective story. Sixty years later, a brown paper parcel containing a copy of the manuscript was discovered in her agent’s safe in London, and award-winning novelist Jill Paton Walsh was commissioned to complete it. The result of the pairing of Dorothy L. Sayers with Walsh was the international bestseller Thrones, Dominations.
Now, following A Presumption of Death, set during World War II, comes a new Sayers-inspired mystery featuring Lord Peter Wimsey, revisiting his very first case. . . . It was 1921 when Lord Peter Wimsey first encountered the Attenbury Emeralds. The recovery of the gems in Lord Attenbury’s dazzling heirloom collection made headlines—and launched a shell-shocked young aristocrat on his career as a detective.
Thirty years later, a happily married Lord Peter has just shared the secrets of that mystery with his wife, the detective novelist Harriet Vane. Suddenly, the new Lord Attenbury—grandson of Lord Peter’s first client—seeks his help to prove who owns the emeralds. As Harriet and Peter contemplate the changes that the war has wrought on English society—and Peter, who always cherished the liberties of a younger son, faces the unwanted prospect of ending up the Duke of Denver after all—Jill Paton Walsh brings us a masterful new chapter in the annals of one of the greatest detectives of all time.
Now, following A Presumption of Death, set during World War II, comes a new Sayers-inspired mystery featuring Lord Peter Wimsey, revisiting his very first case. . . . It was 1921 when Lord Peter Wimsey first encountered the Attenbury Emeralds. The recovery of the gems in Lord Attenbury’s dazzling heirloom collection made headlines—and launched a shell-shocked young aristocrat on his career as a detective.
Thirty years later, a happily married Lord Peter has just shared the secrets of that mystery with his wife, the detective novelist Harriet Vane. Suddenly, the new Lord Attenbury—grandson of Lord Peter’s first client—seeks his help to prove who owns the emeralds. As Harriet and Peter contemplate the changes that the war has wrought on English society—and Peter, who always cherished the liberties of a younger son, faces the unwanted prospect of ending up the Duke of Denver after all—Jill Paton Walsh brings us a masterful new chapter in the annals of one of the greatest detectives of all time.
MP3 CD
First published January 1, 2010
238 people are currently reading
1142 people want to read
About the author
Jill Paton Walsh
76 books223 followersJill Paton Walsh was born Gillian Bliss in London on April 29th, 1937. She was educated at St. Michael's Convent, North Finchley, and at St. Anne's College, Oxford. From 1959 to 1962 she taught English at Enfield Girls' Grammar School.
Jill Paton Walsh has won the Book World Festival Award, 1970, for Fireweed; the Whitbread Prize, 1974 (for a Children's novel) for The Emperor's Winding Sheet; The Boston Globe-Horn Book Award 1976 for Unleaving; The Universe Prize, 1984 for A Parcel of Patterns; and the Smarties Grand Prix, 1984, for Gaffer Samson's Luck.
Series:
* Imogen Quy
* Lord Peter Wimsey and Harriet Vane
Jill Paton Walsh has won the Book World Festival Award, 1970, for Fireweed; the Whitbread Prize, 1974 (for a Children's novel) for The Emperor's Winding Sheet; The Boston Globe-Horn Book Award 1976 for Unleaving; The Universe Prize, 1984 for A Parcel of Patterns; and the Smarties Grand Prix, 1984, for Gaffer Samson's Luck.
Series:
* Imogen Quy
* Lord Peter Wimsey and Harriet Vane
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 477 reviews
March 8, 2017
Having read all of the Dorothy L. Sayers Lord Peter Wimsey books, I have continued with those written by Jill Paton Walsh. In the two previous novels, she has used writing, or notes, from Sayers herself, but, in this work she steps out on her own. As all fans of Wimsey will know, the Attenbury Emeralds were Lord Peter’s first case, recounted here, to Harriet in 1951, by her husband and Bunter. The case took place during Lord Peter’s first foray into society after WWI, for the engagement party of Lord Attenbury’s daughter and was felt, by Bunter, to be a safe outing for the still fragile Wimsey. His old friend, Freddy Arbuthnot, is also a house guest, along with other friends and family.
During the house party, Lady Charlotte is to wear the famous Attenbury emeralds, when a man turns up, attempting to buy back the largest jewel for the Maharaja of Sinorabad. Later, the jewel goes missing – enter Sugg and also Charles Parker, for the first time. Of course, Lord Peter famously discovered the missing emerald and embarked on the hobby of detecting. However, the novel then continues with a later story concerning the emeralds, as well as a story set in the novel’s present time – as the current Lord Attembury asks for Peter’s help to clarify whether the emerald currently held in the bank is really his.
At this point, the novel embarks on a rather confusing tale of missing, or possibly switched, emeralds, theft, revenge and murder. Along the way, there is a side story concerning the family seat of Duke’s Denver (along with the massive taxes the aristocracy faced after the war) and Paton Walsh cleverly draws parallels between characters in the story of the Attenbury Emeralds and how Harriet has been treated by some members of Lord Peter’s class; notably Gerald’s wife, Helen.
In some ways this is a confusing novel, attempting to cram in every reference to the Attenbury Emeralds, possibly to the detriment of the whole story. However, the author keeps sympathy with her characters and touches on many of the themes that Sayers wrote about in her books – Lord Peter’s regret at the might of the Law being brought against those he proves to be guilty, for instance. Overall, a good read which is almost seamless from the original and brings the characters believably into a more modern age. I will certainly read on.
During the house party, Lady Charlotte is to wear the famous Attenbury emeralds, when a man turns up, attempting to buy back the largest jewel for the Maharaja of Sinorabad. Later, the jewel goes missing – enter Sugg and also Charles Parker, for the first time. Of course, Lord Peter famously discovered the missing emerald and embarked on the hobby of detecting. However, the novel then continues with a later story concerning the emeralds, as well as a story set in the novel’s present time – as the current Lord Attembury asks for Peter’s help to clarify whether the emerald currently held in the bank is really his.
At this point, the novel embarks on a rather confusing tale of missing, or possibly switched, emeralds, theft, revenge and murder. Along the way, there is a side story concerning the family seat of Duke’s Denver (along with the massive taxes the aristocracy faced after the war) and Paton Walsh cleverly draws parallels between characters in the story of the Attenbury Emeralds and how Harriet has been treated by some members of Lord Peter’s class; notably Gerald’s wife, Helen.
In some ways this is a confusing novel, attempting to cram in every reference to the Attenbury Emeralds, possibly to the detriment of the whole story. However, the author keeps sympathy with her characters and touches on many of the themes that Sayers wrote about in her books – Lord Peter’s regret at the might of the Law being brought against those he proves to be guilty, for instance. Overall, a good read which is almost seamless from the original and brings the characters believably into a more modern age. I will certainly read on.
January 18, 2024
Group Buddy Read 2023/24
4.5 stars
I really enjoyed this as a Lord Peter novel, probably the best JPW novel so far. I loved the interplay between Harriet and Peter, as well as Bunter's input. In addition we had the wonderful Dowager Duchess letters, which are always a source of information as well as witty and amusing. It as also interesting to come across the Wimsey children as well as PB (Bunter and Hope's Peter) and hear what they are up to.
The first half of the book is an interesting recap for Harriet, by Lord Peter helped by Bunter, of Lord Peter's first case about the Attenbury emeralds.
The second half of the book is a further investigation into the latest complications with the Attenbury Emeralds. It also has a major moment that affects the whole of the Wimsey community, both family, friends and staff.
A really good read, and now onto the last of the JPW Lord Peter novels.
4.5 stars
I really enjoyed this as a Lord Peter novel, probably the best JPW novel so far. I loved the interplay between Harriet and Peter, as well as Bunter's input. In addition we had the wonderful Dowager Duchess letters, which are always a source of information as well as witty and amusing. It as also interesting to come across the Wimsey children as well as PB (Bunter and Hope's Peter) and hear what they are up to.
The first half of the book is an interesting recap for Harriet, by Lord Peter helped by Bunter, of Lord Peter's first case about the Attenbury emeralds.
The second half of the book is a further investigation into the latest complications with the Attenbury Emeralds. It also has a major moment that affects the whole of the Wimsey community, both family, friends and staff.
A really good read, and now onto the last of the JPW Lord Peter novels.
August 26, 2020
I was pointed to an article about Jill Paton Walsh’s writing process for her DLS rip-offs – er, pastiches - - er, sequels, and it made me angry realize I hadn’t written a review of this thing.
Not. That. Interesting.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is the person with whom the legacy resides. Does anyone have a handkerchief I might borrow, because I think I’m going to cry.
(Nota bene: I cry when I’m angry, too.)
Okay, so what is this thing? It’s a posthumous sequel, taking notes DLS made before she abandoned Peter for Dante and working them up into a complete novel.
As I was writing that sentence I had a sudden vision of this:
Despite Good Intentions, a Fresco in Spain Is Ruined
I remember when the first one, Thrones, Dominations, was announced – I was excited. Of course I was. (I was a little excited when I learned that there would be new Star Trek movies coming out – before I learned, the hard way, that JJ Abrams is the sort of man who likes blowing things up. Like planets. And fandoms.) I love Lord Peter Death Bredon Wimsey. But of course I wasn’t totally stupid, so I was worried, too; the online community I was part of at the time lamented that JPW wasn’t any of the people they would have chosen to try to fill DLS’s pumps. And in the end T,D wasn’t good… It wasn’t awful, but it wasn’t good. (I think I actually kind of liked Presumption of Death, I'll admit it.)
It’s this book that makes me thing of that poor, poor fresco’s “restoration”.
I made a lot of notes as I read, to the extent that I was driven to say “It's not a good sign that I'm compelled to make notes at almost every percent marker so far." I wasn’t exaggerating. I won’t squish all of those down into this review; suffice to say there were a lot of problems, and my notes started to reflect a few patterns.
One was this: “This is exactly like those tv episodes they put out now and then to save money and pad out a season or for a holiday or something - what are they called, clip shows? - where you've got a bunch of characters sitting around and reminiscing and the screen goes wavy and voila: there's a scene from an old episode. Only I haven't seen this tv series. I don't think I've ever seen a book presented like a clip show before."
They are called clip shows, and … this wasn’t done to save money, but … I don’t know. I’m at a loss as to why exactly this device would be used here – but watch any bad example on television, and you’ll find the similarities are uncanny. It's worse in novel form than it could ever be on television.
The first, and one of the most annoying things I made note of was that this was not the story I was expecting. I guess I had read “Attenbury Emerald” and thought “Yay, the story behind the tale in The Nine Tailors.” Um. No. My bad, actually; that would be the Wilbraham Emeralds. Oops. For some reason I had my mind set that that was Peter's first case. Hmph. All right, that's all on me, but still: it leaves me with a question I noted in media res: "Attenbury asked me to see to Osmanthus's little business with the jewels." Why? Here's Peter, young (31), not experienced with gemstones, not an intimate of the family, certainly not yet a known detective and probably not particularly known for his brains (given his default behavior) - and Attenbury lets him take charge?
Something I found both sad and funny was Harriet’s I-assume-unintended (?) role in the book: what I called a preemptive audience surrogate. Several of the things that raised my eyebrows, about which I was bound to make snarky comment, were – hilariously - addressed by Harriet.
- 'I observe that you have a problem familiar to novelists. A large cast list to be introduced to the audience, and no reason why they should wish to know or remember any of it until the story starts.' (This was irritatingly true – and needed different punctuation.)
- 'It was no moonstone, you mean,' said Harriet. (Though the story was beginning to sound AWFULLY like Wilkie Collins.)
- 'Unless you have been making half of this up, you have an extraordinary memory. How long ago is all this?'
'Thirty years....'
(Always a problem when someone is supposed to be telling a story within a book, especially when it’s the story of something that happened a long time ago: when the tale-teller uses what appear to be word-for-word quotes, rather than saying what a person would actually say when telling a story, something more like “So then we wandered (JPW would probably say "tootled") back to the house, and he told me about the conversation he had had with her, and I had the feeling he was hiding something when he said she wouldn’t tell him about that day”.)
Time after time JPW anticipated my snarky remarks by basically inserting them into Harriet’s mouth. The question being, why didn’t she just avoid the issues in question in the first place? It wasn’t cute; it was annoying. Also annoying was that this was almost Harriet’s only role in the book: Greek chorus.
Bunter seemed out of kilter for much of the book. Not that any of the characterizations were as authentic as I’ve seen in some fan fic– not by a long mark - but Bunter in particular was as off as a haddock in the noonday sun. The rest of the characters were either unique to JPW (excepting notes from DLS which we peons haven’t seen) or felt like caricatures, but Bunter just hurt. There were grammatical errors – and Bunter would as soon appear in his boxers as abuse the English language. At one point he makes a comment about blood and guts – in front of Harriet – and doesn’t excuse himself. I can*not* see that happening.
This is going to sound elitist, or … I don’t know, I’m sure someone will manage to find it objectionable – but the reading level, or the comprehension level in the JPW books is always much lower than anything DLS wrote. As I understand it, DLS didn’t give half a flying fig whether her readers could read French – or Greek – or Latin – or could understand half the allusions she larded into her writing. She wrote it as she wanted, she did not dumb it down, and while I have been known to feel stupid while reading DLS I utterly respect her choice not to pander to the lowest common denominator. JPW … either panders, or is not able to aim higher. Which latter is fine; faking it would be obvious, and a huge mistake. Some of the Jane Austen sequels or *shudder* rewrites have proved exactly how disastrous it can be to invite direct comparison between the writing of one of the greats and someone trying to fill their shoes.
Not that JPW isn't already doing so by trying to write Lord Peter novels in the first place. But perhaps it could be considered a mitigating factor that she doesn't try to ape DLS's style.
Some of the instances of the non-DLSness of the style:
'The Attenbury emeralds were a parure - a complete set of jewels.'
- A) Harriet would have known that.
- B) DLS's audience would have known that.
- C) DLS wouldn't have given half a damn if (B) or not, she wouldn't have explained it.
"'All the girls like pearls', [Peter] said foolishly." - My note: I take it this isn't a quote from anything, which I expected it to be, but just use of the rhyme. I've understood most (all, I think) of the allusions and quotes so far ... Which, when it's supposed to be Lord Peter, is not a good thing. 'But a man may smile and smile and be a villain, and all that.' - Referenced twice. And 'Alas, my love, you do me wrong' forsooth.
There are some unfortunate errors or awkwardnesses sprinkled throughout the book. Example: the hideous Mrs. Duberris castigates Peter for "footling around"; only a couple of pages later, he passes a remark about going to "footle around a bit". I know someone used a derogatory toward me years ago and I haven't used it myself since; I can't see Peter letting this slide off his back so quickly.
Peter says 'I thought Attenbury would bust a gasket.' I wasn't able to pin down an etymology for the phrase, to see if it's period-appropriate, but to me it doesn't really matter. It doesn't feel like something Peter would say. Just like some of what was put into Bunter's mouth. Completely off.
Peter: 'She married one of her trainers, rather late - she must have been in her mid-thirties before she tied the knot.' Er, wasn't Harriet about that when she married Peter?
The worst, the very worst error came at about 7%. "Lord Wimsey". Multiple offenses. My monocle popped right out.
No, actually, and in all seriousness, possibly the worst offense in the book came at about 24%. 'I think, you know, it was the earliest example of that nausea you know all too well....'
'For how long,' said Harriet sternly, 'did you go to bed?'
Okay, now, here too. Peter's revulsion at sending someone to his death, yes. But pulling up a thorough rotter who deserves to serve time? I don't buy into that troubling him. And as for Harriet being "stern" about it... No. Never.
One last quote, and then I'll wrap this up: "To her great annoyance, Harriet felt herself blushing slightly. 'I don't compare with Conan Doyle, or Agatha Christie, or Dorothy Sayers,' she said reproachfully..." This could, perhaps, be author insertion rather than audience insertion. But, sadly, the author doesn't seem to feel that way, nor DLS's estate.
There's already another JPW "LPW" book out. Will I read it? *sigh* Probably. But it's starting to feel like when I was seventeen, a new Trekkie looking for more fuel for the geeky fire, and snapped up every Star Trek novel there was. It took me years and probably fifty books to realize that the vast majority of it all was complete and utter garbage. I am beginning to be of the opinion that no one should ever be given the rights to touch another person's toys. They tend only to break them.
On the phone from her home in Cambridge, the author, age 76, also said that this is likely to be her only flashback Wimsey novel. “I honestly don’t think Peter is that interesting without Harriet – the only exception being The Nine Tailors, which is such a good book it doesn’t really matter whether he’s got a consort or not.
Not. That. Interesting.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is the person with whom the legacy resides. Does anyone have a handkerchief I might borrow, because I think I’m going to cry.
(Nota bene: I cry when I’m angry, too.)
Okay, so what is this thing? It’s a posthumous sequel, taking notes DLS made before she abandoned Peter for Dante and working them up into a complete novel.
As I was writing that sentence I had a sudden vision of this:
Despite Good Intentions, a Fresco in Spain Is RuinedI remember when the first one, Thrones, Dominations, was announced – I was excited. Of course I was. (I was a little excited when I learned that there would be new Star Trek movies coming out – before I learned, the hard way, that JJ Abrams is the sort of man who likes blowing things up. Like planets. And fandoms.) I love Lord Peter Death Bredon Wimsey. But of course I wasn’t totally stupid, so I was worried, too; the online community I was part of at the time lamented that JPW wasn’t any of the people they would have chosen to try to fill DLS’s pumps. And in the end T,D wasn’t good… It wasn’t awful, but it wasn’t good. (I think I actually kind of liked Presumption of Death, I'll admit it.)
It’s this book that makes me thing of that poor, poor fresco’s “restoration”.
I made a lot of notes as I read, to the extent that I was driven to say “It's not a good sign that I'm compelled to make notes at almost every percent marker so far." I wasn’t exaggerating. I won’t squish all of those down into this review; suffice to say there were a lot of problems, and my notes started to reflect a few patterns.
One was this: “This is exactly like those tv episodes they put out now and then to save money and pad out a season or for a holiday or something - what are they called, clip shows? - where you've got a bunch of characters sitting around and reminiscing and the screen goes wavy and voila: there's a scene from an old episode. Only I haven't seen this tv series. I don't think I've ever seen a book presented like a clip show before."
They are called clip shows, and … this wasn’t done to save money, but … I don’t know. I’m at a loss as to why exactly this device would be used here – but watch any bad example on television, and you’ll find the similarities are uncanny. It's worse in novel form than it could ever be on television.
The first, and one of the most annoying things I made note of was that this was not the story I was expecting. I guess I had read “Attenbury Emerald” and thought “Yay, the story behind the tale in The Nine Tailors.” Um. No. My bad, actually; that would be the Wilbraham Emeralds. Oops. For some reason I had my mind set that that was Peter's first case. Hmph. All right, that's all on me, but still: it leaves me with a question I noted in media res: "Attenbury asked me to see to Osmanthus's little business with the jewels." Why? Here's Peter, young (31), not experienced with gemstones, not an intimate of the family, certainly not yet a known detective and probably not particularly known for his brains (given his default behavior) - and Attenbury lets him take charge?
Something I found both sad and funny was Harriet’s I-assume-unintended (?) role in the book: what I called a preemptive audience surrogate. Several of the things that raised my eyebrows, about which I was bound to make snarky comment, were – hilariously - addressed by Harriet.
- 'I observe that you have a problem familiar to novelists. A large cast list to be introduced to the audience, and no reason why they should wish to know or remember any of it until the story starts.' (This was irritatingly true – and needed different punctuation.)
- 'It was no moonstone, you mean,' said Harriet. (Though the story was beginning to sound AWFULLY like Wilkie Collins.)
- 'Unless you have been making half of this up, you have an extraordinary memory. How long ago is all this?'
'Thirty years....'
(Always a problem when someone is supposed to be telling a story within a book, especially when it’s the story of something that happened a long time ago: when the tale-teller uses what appear to be word-for-word quotes, rather than saying what a person would actually say when telling a story, something more like “So then we wandered (JPW would probably say "tootled") back to the house, and he told me about the conversation he had had with her, and I had the feeling he was hiding something when he said she wouldn’t tell him about that day”.)
Time after time JPW anticipated my snarky remarks by basically inserting them into Harriet’s mouth. The question being, why didn’t she just avoid the issues in question in the first place? It wasn’t cute; it was annoying. Also annoying was that this was almost Harriet’s only role in the book: Greek chorus.
Bunter seemed out of kilter for much of the book. Not that any of the characterizations were as authentic as I’ve seen in some fan fic– not by a long mark - but Bunter in particular was as off as a haddock in the noonday sun. The rest of the characters were either unique to JPW (excepting notes from DLS which we peons haven’t seen) or felt like caricatures, but Bunter just hurt. There were grammatical errors – and Bunter would as soon appear in his boxers as abuse the English language. At one point he makes a comment about blood and guts – in front of Harriet – and doesn’t excuse himself. I can*not* see that happening.
This is going to sound elitist, or … I don’t know, I’m sure someone will manage to find it objectionable – but the reading level, or the comprehension level in the JPW books is always much lower than anything DLS wrote. As I understand it, DLS didn’t give half a flying fig whether her readers could read French – or Greek – or Latin – or could understand half the allusions she larded into her writing. She wrote it as she wanted, she did not dumb it down, and while I have been known to feel stupid while reading DLS I utterly respect her choice not to pander to the lowest common denominator. JPW … either panders, or is not able to aim higher. Which latter is fine; faking it would be obvious, and a huge mistake. Some of the Jane Austen sequels or *shudder* rewrites have proved exactly how disastrous it can be to invite direct comparison between the writing of one of the greats and someone trying to fill their shoes.
Not that JPW isn't already doing so by trying to write Lord Peter novels in the first place. But perhaps it could be considered a mitigating factor that she doesn't try to ape DLS's style.
Some of the instances of the non-DLSness of the style:
'The Attenbury emeralds were a parure - a complete set of jewels.'
- A) Harriet would have known that.
- B) DLS's audience would have known that.
- C) DLS wouldn't have given half a damn if (B) or not, she wouldn't have explained it.
"'All the girls like pearls', [Peter] said foolishly." - My note: I take it this isn't a quote from anything, which I expected it to be, but just use of the rhyme. I've understood most (all, I think) of the allusions and quotes so far ... Which, when it's supposed to be Lord Peter, is not a good thing. 'But a man may smile and smile and be a villain, and all that.' - Referenced twice. And 'Alas, my love, you do me wrong' forsooth.
There are some unfortunate errors or awkwardnesses sprinkled throughout the book. Example: the hideous Mrs. Duberris castigates Peter for "footling around"; only a couple of pages later, he passes a remark about going to "footle around a bit". I know someone used a derogatory toward me years ago and I haven't used it myself since; I can't see Peter letting this slide off his back so quickly.
Peter says 'I thought Attenbury would bust a gasket.' I wasn't able to pin down an etymology for the phrase, to see if it's period-appropriate, but to me it doesn't really matter. It doesn't feel like something Peter would say. Just like some of what was put into Bunter's mouth. Completely off.
Peter: 'She married one of her trainers, rather late - she must have been in her mid-thirties before she tied the knot.' Er, wasn't Harriet about that when she married Peter?
The worst, the very worst error came at about 7%. "Lord Wimsey". Multiple offenses. My monocle popped right out.
No, actually, and in all seriousness, possibly the worst offense in the book came at about 24%. 'I think, you know, it was the earliest example of that nausea you know all too well....'
'For how long,' said Harriet sternly, 'did you go to bed?'
Okay, now, here too. Peter's revulsion at sending someone to his death, yes. But pulling up a thorough rotter who deserves to serve time? I don't buy into that troubling him. And as for Harriet being "stern" about it... No. Never.
One last quote, and then I'll wrap this up: "To her great annoyance, Harriet felt herself blushing slightly. 'I don't compare with Conan Doyle, or Agatha Christie, or Dorothy Sayers,' she said reproachfully..." This could, perhaps, be author insertion rather than audience insertion. But, sadly, the author doesn't seem to feel that way, nor DLS's estate.
There's already another JPW "LPW" book out. Will I read it? *sigh* Probably. But it's starting to feel like when I was seventeen, a new Trekkie looking for more fuel for the geeky fire, and snapped up every Star Trek novel there was. It took me years and probably fifty books to realize that the vast majority of it all was complete and utter garbage. I am beginning to be of the opinion that no one should ever be given the rights to touch another person's toys. They tend only to break them.
March 25, 2019
I'd previously read the two Dorothy Sayers books which Jill Paton Walsh finished off, and although I enjoyed them I didn't find them very memorable. For me this one, where she has entirely written her own story, is by far the best - it was almost like finding a new Sayers novel. I liked the way she takes the characters on and allows major things to happen to them.
The story is set many years after the originals, in the 1950s, with Peter, Harriet and their sons and the Bunter family coming to terms with changes in the world. At the beginning, Peter and Bunter recount their very first case to Harriet, so there is a blend between the flavour of the early stories and a more modern atmosphere - then, later, the murder investigation moves into the novel's present day. I found the mystery a bit complicated to follow, but in Sayers' own novels my main interest was always in the characters, and there is plenty to enjoy in that respect here too.
The one weakness is that possibly the novel goes on for a bit too long at the end, after the murderer's identity has been revealed, but it's so enjoyable that I didn't mind. Jill Paton Walsh was one of my favourite authors when I was a child, and I am delighted to rediscover her after all these years - I am now looking forward to reading more of her work.
The story is set many years after the originals, in the 1950s, with Peter, Harriet and their sons and the Bunter family coming to terms with changes in the world. At the beginning, Peter and Bunter recount their very first case to Harriet, so there is a blend between the flavour of the early stories and a more modern atmosphere - then, later, the murder investigation moves into the novel's present day. I found the mystery a bit complicated to follow, but in Sayers' own novels my main interest was always in the characters, and there is plenty to enjoy in that respect here too.
The one weakness is that possibly the novel goes on for a bit too long at the end, after the murderer's identity has been revealed, but it's so enjoyable that I didn't mind. Jill Paton Walsh was one of my favourite authors when I was a child, and I am delighted to rediscover her after all these years - I am now looking forward to reading more of her work.
July 29, 2014
Jill Paton Walsh has her first chance to write a Lord Peter Wimsey novel completely on her own with The Attenbury Emeralds. With Thrones, Dominations, she was finishing a novel abandoned by Dorothy L. Sayers half-finished, and, with A Presumption of Death, Walsh did yeoman’s work converting The Wimsey Papers into a fine novel. But left to her own devices, Walsh fell very short in the further adventures of Lord Peter and his wife, mystery writer Harriet Vane.
The eponymous Attenbury emeralds, comprise a priceless necklace with matching earrings and bracelet, were at the heart of Lord Peter Wimsey’s very first case. In 1921, Lord Peter launched his avocation as an erratic amateur sleuth by besting the conceited but stupid police Inspector Sugg and helping to recover the huge inscribed Indian emerald, the so-called King Stone that perched as the focal point of the necklace. With the first 12 chapters of The Attenbury Emeralds — 40 percent of the novel! — dedicated to filling in Harriet and us on the 1921 case and some subsequent jewel-related capers, the real action takes much too long to get started.
However, once the action shifts to 1951 in chapter 13, the pace picks up a bit — but not enough. At this point, the grandson of the original Lord Attenbury has been elevated to the title but runs into problems of his own related to the troublesome King Stone, and, like his grandfather 30 years earlier, the new Lord Attenbury turns to Lord Peter. Needless to say, Lord Peter, now assisted by Harriet, solves the modern-day crisis and, while doing so, discovers more about that earlier Attenbury emeralds theft. Perhaps I would have enjoyed the modern-day jewel heist more if I hadn’t had to sit through a fireside account of the Attenbury emeralds’ previous history; the tagline on the Audible edition of the book — “A mystery solved, unsolved and resolved” — must have been abridged from “A mystery solved, unsolved and resolved — but only after an interminable amount of exposition.” Because of that, I found Walsh’s effort here not as good as Thrones, Dominations and much less good than A Presumption of Death.
However, one highlight comes in Chapter 20 in which Walsh delivers a scene worthy of any Sayers novel. If only the whole novel rose to that caliber! Walsh redeems herself in that episode and when the action really heats up in the resolution to the mystery. Admittedly, I never guessed the murderer or the denouement, but it wasn’t enough to save The Attenbury Emeralds from being the worst of the Lord Peter mysteries by far. Sayers wasn’t always flawless herself, but even Gaudy Night is much better than this!
That said, my desperate longing for more Lord Peter and Harriet is great enough that The Attenbury Emeralds hasn’t kept me away from buying The Late Scholar.
The eponymous Attenbury emeralds, comprise a priceless necklace with matching earrings and bracelet, were at the heart of Lord Peter Wimsey’s very first case. In 1921, Lord Peter launched his avocation as an erratic amateur sleuth by besting the conceited but stupid police Inspector Sugg and helping to recover the huge inscribed Indian emerald, the so-called King Stone that perched as the focal point of the necklace. With the first 12 chapters of The Attenbury Emeralds — 40 percent of the novel! — dedicated to filling in Harriet and us on the 1921 case and some subsequent jewel-related capers, the real action takes much too long to get started.
However, once the action shifts to 1951 in chapter 13, the pace picks up a bit — but not enough. At this point, the grandson of the original Lord Attenbury has been elevated to the title but runs into problems of his own related to the troublesome King Stone, and, like his grandfather 30 years earlier, the new Lord Attenbury turns to Lord Peter. Needless to say, Lord Peter, now assisted by Harriet, solves the modern-day crisis and, while doing so, discovers more about that earlier Attenbury emeralds theft. Perhaps I would have enjoyed the modern-day jewel heist more if I hadn’t had to sit through a fireside account of the Attenbury emeralds’ previous history; the tagline on the Audible edition of the book — “A mystery solved, unsolved and resolved” — must have been abridged from “A mystery solved, unsolved and resolved — but only after an interminable amount of exposition.” Because of that, I found Walsh’s effort here not as good as Thrones, Dominations and much less good than A Presumption of Death.
However, one highlight comes in Chapter 20 in which Walsh delivers a scene worthy of any Sayers novel. If only the whole novel rose to that caliber! Walsh redeems herself in that episode and when the action really heats up in the resolution to the mystery. Admittedly, I never guessed the murderer or the denouement, but it wasn’t enough to save The Attenbury Emeralds from being the worst of the Lord Peter mysteries by far. Sayers wasn’t always flawless herself, but even Gaudy Night is much better than this!
That said, my desperate longing for more Lord Peter and Harriet is great enough that The Attenbury Emeralds hasn’t kept me away from buying The Late Scholar.
September 21, 2010
I approached “The Attenbury Emeralds” by Jill Paton Walsh with a great sense of anticipation and eagerness, for I have always shared an affinity with all things “whodunit” and the 1920’s angle further whetted my appetite. I began with a cautious optimism but soon realised I would not be disappointed.
Lord Peter Wimsey was an intelligence officer in the Great War. He returned home shell-shocked, struggling to come to terms with ordering soldiers under his command over the top to a certain death, such was the brutality of World War 1. Such was his condition it would take years before he would be introduced to society.
The aristocratic Wimsey was introduced to us by Dorothy L Sayers in 1923 when she wrote “Whose Body”, Lord Peter investigating a naked body and a financier who appears to be missing under strange circumstances.
In 1998 Jill Paton Walsh, who by now is no stranger to Wimsey’s adventures, won critical acclaim for her completion of Sayers’s unfinished “Thrones, Dominations”. “A Presumption of Death” followed four years later and “The Attenbury Emeralds” is her third novel featuring the amateur sleuth, Walsh taking us back to his very first case in 1921.
Full Blog Review Here
Lord Peter Wimsey was an intelligence officer in the Great War. He returned home shell-shocked, struggling to come to terms with ordering soldiers under his command over the top to a certain death, such was the brutality of World War 1. Such was his condition it would take years before he would be introduced to society.
The aristocratic Wimsey was introduced to us by Dorothy L Sayers in 1923 when she wrote “Whose Body”, Lord Peter investigating a naked body and a financier who appears to be missing under strange circumstances.
In 1998 Jill Paton Walsh, who by now is no stranger to Wimsey’s adventures, won critical acclaim for her completion of Sayers’s unfinished “Thrones, Dominations”. “A Presumption of Death” followed four years later and “The Attenbury Emeralds” is her third novel featuring the amateur sleuth, Walsh taking us back to his very first case in 1921.
Full Blog Review Here
January 21, 2013
I was prepared to make allowances for the author not being the author who originally created the characters. Dorothy Sayers was erudite and had a great command of the English language, so it would be too much to expect that Ms. Walsh would have the same level of finesse in writing.
The book fails for me in other respects. The first part of the book is taken up with recounting the back-story. This is done by Peter and Bunter telling the story to Harriet while they are sitting in various places: the library, the kitchen, etc. I found this lazy and lame. It would have been much more interesting if the author had returned to the period in question and told the story from that point of view.
As well, the plot has several twists that strain credibility, but that I could accept nonetheless. However, there is information concerning the number of jewels which turns up late in the book, and it's just totally unbelievable that this information would not become known earlier on. I groaned out loud when I got to this bit. I was just too much on top of the previous plot contortions.
As a Wimsey fan I wanted to like this, but I've learned my lesson: the character dies with its author!
The book fails for me in other respects. The first part of the book is taken up with recounting the back-story. This is done by Peter and Bunter telling the story to Harriet while they are sitting in various places: the library, the kitchen, etc. I found this lazy and lame. It would have been much more interesting if the author had returned to the period in question and told the story from that point of view.
As well, the plot has several twists that strain credibility, but that I could accept nonetheless. However, there is information concerning the number of jewels which turns up late in the book, and it's just totally unbelievable that this information would not become known earlier on. I groaned out loud when I got to this bit. I was just too much on top of the previous plot contortions.
As a Wimsey fan I wanted to like this, but I've learned my lesson: the character dies with its author!
May 25, 2011
Differences? Of course there are differences; this author is not Sayers, and that should settle it. But the similarities are what make reading Jill Paton Walsh such a delight; those, plus the differences she herself manages to meld rather seamlessly into the work.
If anything, the most notable difference, to me, is also the most welcome: far fewer obscure citations, quotations, and veiled references. I consider myself of average erudition, but with the advent of Google, a few years back, I found understanding Sayers much easier, and the relevance of many finer points in her stories cleared up a lot of things for me! Thankfully, Walsh has managed to weave a fine mystery into the lives of people who seem blessedly familiar, without making it seem so hard to "get" what is actually being discussed! She is deft at handling what Sayers has left to her, and to the rest of us, and I am thankful!
Once I picked it up, I could not put it down. It is THAT good.
If anything, the most notable difference, to me, is also the most welcome: far fewer obscure citations, quotations, and veiled references. I consider myself of average erudition, but with the advent of Google, a few years back, I found understanding Sayers much easier, and the relevance of many finer points in her stories cleared up a lot of things for me! Thankfully, Walsh has managed to weave a fine mystery into the lives of people who seem blessedly familiar, without making it seem so hard to "get" what is actually being discussed! She is deft at handling what Sayers has left to her, and to the rest of us, and I am thankful!
Once I picked it up, I could not put it down. It is THAT good.
June 24, 2012
Where I got the book: purchased on Amazon.
SPOILER WARNING: I can't discuss one particular point without a massive spoiler, so please don't read this if you're intending to read the book. I think this particular plot twist deserves to jump out at you from a dark corner, but I also feel it's important to discuss it.
HORRIBLY LONG REVIEW WARNING: enough said.
Reading this book set me thinking about characters. Writers are always being told that the best books are character-driven, but if you think about it, most books do not contain memorable characters. Casting my mind around I can think of a few examples from past and present: Diana Gabaldon's Jamie and Claire (and arguably Lord John); Rhett and Scarlett; Hilary Mantel's take on Thomas Cromwell; Scrooge; Severus Snape; Gandalf; Amelia Peabody and her various family members; and, of course, Lord Peter Wimsey, Harriet Vane and some (not all) of their supporting characters.
That's my short list, although more examples crowd into my head as I write. It's subjective, of course - I've always found Edward and Bella dreary, but I'll acknowledge that they come alive for many fans. And that's what, imho, produces fan fiction; characters that can and, in our minds, do walk off the page and take up an independent existence in our imagination.
Here we have a peculiar example of sanctioned fan fiction: the Dorothy L. Sayers estate gave Jill Paton Walsh permission to write stories for publication about characters that still enjoy copyright status (if I can say such a thing). Until these books started appearing I, like most Wimsey fans, had LPW and Harriet locked in my head, existing eternally in the eternal sunshine of a vanished world, detecting and writing and never having to worry about doing the washing up.
So now (finally!) we get to my difficulty with the first part of this book. We've jumped ahead maybe 7 or 8 years from A Presumption of Death . WWII is done and dusted, and we are in the sober, gritty years of the post-war period. To be brief, this opening just doesn't work for me. It feels like fan fiction of the worst kind, even if Paton Walsh does write well (although not, as other critics have noted, with Sayers' referential erudition; this is, on the whole, a bad thing even if DLS's later books were a leeeetle bit too quote-sprinkled for my liking).
The most interesting point at the outset of this book is that the characters have caught up with what we, as readers born well after WWII, always knew; that the world of the original Wimsey books is lost and gone forever. Sayers' London is irrevocably altered in this novel; I was touched when one character describes St. Paul's surrounded by ruins in which wildflowers are growing, several years after the War's end. (As a small child in the mid-60s I remember that there were still many traces of the War, in a country which did not have the financial resources to recover quickly; air-raid shelters still stood here and there and I remember being told that what looked like demolition sites were in fact bomb sites, 20 years after the War's end. It was only after I came to live in a country that's never been bombed that the full significance of this percolated into my brain.) A Labor government has set about dismantling the power and wealth of the aristocracy with that most deadly of weapons, death duties, making the great homes of the pre-WWI period into millstone liabilities. I give full credit to Paton Walsh for not just refusing to gloss over these facts of life (it would have been so easy to stick to a fantasy of wealth and privilege) but for making them a part of the fabric of her plot. Not only does the need to pay death duties drive much of the action, but later developments in the book bring the theme of responsibility that's a leitmotiv of Wimsey's existence into sharp focus.
The unfortunate first part of the book revolves around LPW's reminiscences about his first case, the missing Attenbury emeralds. It's the sitting-around-talking-then-wavy-lines-flashback structure that's the joykiller here, although I must admit I'm hard put to imagine how Paton Walsh could have told the story in, as it were, real time because her books are about Peter AND Harriet, and in the early 20s there was no Harriet. Still, I spent much time huffing over the fanfictiony feel of these introductory chapters.
And then, suddenly, by an ENORMOUS COINCIDENCE (seriously, Ms Paton Walsh?) we have a new problem concerning the same emeralds in the book's present day. After I got over snorting about the ENORMOUS COINCIDENCE, I suddenly realized I was enjoying the book. Perhaps if we'd started with the current action and brought in the previous story of the emeralds in short flashbacks, instead of reminiscing over sherry? I don't think it would have been beyond a good writer's brain to do this. From this point on I felt like I was back in Wimsey-world: following up clues, interviewing witnesses, albeit in a clearly altered world. All good.
Some reviewers have said that there are two stories in this book. I'd say there were three. They're linked, but the linkages are not, to my mind, made with quite the structural firmness that would have really satisfied me. It's a well-written book (from the point of view of readability) and probably worth reading again, so I'm giving it 4 stars; but they're a weak 4, more like a 3.6.
SPOILER WARNING: I can't discuss one particular point without a massive spoiler, so please don't read this if you're intending to read the book. I think this particular plot twist deserves to jump out at you from a dark corner, but I also feel it's important to discuss it.
HORRIBLY LONG REVIEW WARNING: enough said.
Reading this book set me thinking about characters. Writers are always being told that the best books are character-driven, but if you think about it, most books do not contain memorable characters. Casting my mind around I can think of a few examples from past and present: Diana Gabaldon's Jamie and Claire (and arguably Lord John); Rhett and Scarlett; Hilary Mantel's take on Thomas Cromwell; Scrooge; Severus Snape; Gandalf; Amelia Peabody and her various family members; and, of course, Lord Peter Wimsey, Harriet Vane and some (not all) of their supporting characters.
That's my short list, although more examples crowd into my head as I write. It's subjective, of course - I've always found Edward and Bella dreary, but I'll acknowledge that they come alive for many fans. And that's what, imho, produces fan fiction; characters that can and, in our minds, do walk off the page and take up an independent existence in our imagination.
Here we have a peculiar example of sanctioned fan fiction: the Dorothy L. Sayers estate gave Jill Paton Walsh permission to write stories for publication about characters that still enjoy copyright status (if I can say such a thing). Until these books started appearing I, like most Wimsey fans, had LPW and Harriet locked in my head, existing eternally in the eternal sunshine of a vanished world, detecting and writing and never having to worry about doing the washing up.
So now (finally!) we get to my difficulty with the first part of this book. We've jumped ahead maybe 7 or 8 years from A Presumption of Death . WWII is done and dusted, and we are in the sober, gritty years of the post-war period. To be brief, this opening just doesn't work for me. It feels like fan fiction of the worst kind, even if Paton Walsh does write well (although not, as other critics have noted, with Sayers' referential erudition; this is, on the whole, a bad thing even if DLS's later books were a leeeetle bit too quote-sprinkled for my liking).
The most interesting point at the outset of this book is that the characters have caught up with what we, as readers born well after WWII, always knew; that the world of the original Wimsey books is lost and gone forever. Sayers' London is irrevocably altered in this novel; I was touched when one character describes St. Paul's surrounded by ruins in which wildflowers are growing, several years after the War's end. (As a small child in the mid-60s I remember that there were still many traces of the War, in a country which did not have the financial resources to recover quickly; air-raid shelters still stood here and there and I remember being told that what looked like demolition sites were in fact bomb sites, 20 years after the War's end. It was only after I came to live in a country that's never been bombed that the full significance of this percolated into my brain.) A Labor government has set about dismantling the power and wealth of the aristocracy with that most deadly of weapons, death duties, making the great homes of the pre-WWI period into millstone liabilities. I give full credit to Paton Walsh for not just refusing to gloss over these facts of life (it would have been so easy to stick to a fantasy of wealth and privilege) but for making them a part of the fabric of her plot. Not only does the need to pay death duties drive much of the action, but later developments in the book bring the theme of responsibility that's a leitmotiv of Wimsey's existence into sharp focus.
The unfortunate first part of the book revolves around LPW's reminiscences about his first case, the missing Attenbury emeralds. It's the sitting-around-talking-then-wavy-lines-flashback structure that's the joykiller here, although I must admit I'm hard put to imagine how Paton Walsh could have told the story in, as it were, real time because her books are about Peter AND Harriet, and in the early 20s there was no Harriet. Still, I spent much time huffing over the fanfictiony feel of these introductory chapters.
And then, suddenly, by an ENORMOUS COINCIDENCE (seriously, Ms Paton Walsh?) we have a new problem concerning the same emeralds in the book's present day. After I got over snorting about the ENORMOUS COINCIDENCE, I suddenly realized I was enjoying the book. Perhaps if we'd started with the current action and brought in the previous story of the emeralds in short flashbacks, instead of reminiscing over sherry? I don't think it would have been beyond a good writer's brain to do this. From this point on I felt like I was back in Wimsey-world: following up clues, interviewing witnesses, albeit in a clearly altered world. All good.
Some reviewers have said that there are two stories in this book. I'd say there were three. They're linked, but the linkages are not, to my mind, made with quite the structural firmness that would have really satisfied me. It's a well-written book (from the point of view of readability) and probably worth reading again, so I'm giving it 4 stars; but they're a weak 4, more like a 3.6.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
November 11, 2010
I was fortunate to win an ARC of this through GoodReads. Fortunately it arrived at a time when I didn't have any other fiction to read, so I read it straight off and am very glad I did.
First, some background: I am a rereader, and I have read literally all of Sayers' detective fiction countless times (literally). So it was with both trepidation and excitement that I read Ms. Paton Walsh's completion of Thrones, Dominations when it came out several years ago. When A Presumption of Death was published I read that as well. The Attenbury Emeralds is better than the latter.
I am also an historian; reading historical fiction is not something I do lightly or easily. There are only a a few very specific time periods about which I can read fiction, and frankly, The Attenbury Emeralds does not fall into the usual categories. However, from an historical point of view, I think Ms. Paton Walsh handles the inter- and post-war class shifts in Britain authentically; she also makes this tension an interesting part of the background to her story.
Her portrayals of Peter and Harriet are rather like looking at the portraits drawn of what missing people might look like after the passage of time - we cannot know if this is how Ms. Sayers might have articulated Peter and Harriet as they grew older together, but Ms. Paton Walsh's versions are sufficiently like what I think Ms. Sayers would have done for me to be comfortable with reading the story. (What a hideous way to put that - what I mean is, if I thought Ms. Paton Walsh had run the characters off the rails from what Ms. Sayers might have done, I'd have thrown the book against a wall, a la Dorothy Parker.)
Like several of Ms. Sayers' stories involving Lord Peter, this is a nice balance of light and dark. Denver's death and Peter's subsequent attainment of the title, as well as his reminiscences of the period immediately following WW1 shroud the story in somber moods. Peter's "piffle" of old is not here.
The plot itself is perhaps slightly unnecessarily complex: several generations' worth of large families make the characters hard to keep sorted, and the business of the stones themselves is also easy to lose the thread of. However, this was not so severe as to spoil the book as a whole, and may in fact lessen on future on rereads.
For me, the historical context and the character portrayals are the most critical parts, and Ms. Paton Walsh has done well on both counts as far as I am concerned.
I am very glad to have had the chance to read this ARC - I would have been hard-pressed to wait for publication!!
First, some background: I am a rereader, and I have read literally all of Sayers' detective fiction countless times (literally). So it was with both trepidation and excitement that I read Ms. Paton Walsh's completion of Thrones, Dominations when it came out several years ago. When A Presumption of Death was published I read that as well. The Attenbury Emeralds is better than the latter.
I am also an historian; reading historical fiction is not something I do lightly or easily. There are only a a few very specific time periods about which I can read fiction, and frankly, The Attenbury Emeralds does not fall into the usual categories. However, from an historical point of view, I think Ms. Paton Walsh handles the inter- and post-war class shifts in Britain authentically; she also makes this tension an interesting part of the background to her story.
Her portrayals of Peter and Harriet are rather like looking at the portraits drawn of what missing people might look like after the passage of time - we cannot know if this is how Ms. Sayers might have articulated Peter and Harriet as they grew older together, but Ms. Paton Walsh's versions are sufficiently like what I think Ms. Sayers would have done for me to be comfortable with reading the story. (What a hideous way to put that - what I mean is, if I thought Ms. Paton Walsh had run the characters off the rails from what Ms. Sayers might have done, I'd have thrown the book against a wall, a la Dorothy Parker.)
Like several of Ms. Sayers' stories involving Lord Peter, this is a nice balance of light and dark. Denver's death and Peter's subsequent attainment of the title, as well as his reminiscences of the period immediately following WW1 shroud the story in somber moods. Peter's "piffle" of old is not here.
The plot itself is perhaps slightly unnecessarily complex: several generations' worth of large families make the characters hard to keep sorted, and the business of the stones themselves is also easy to lose the thread of. However, this was not so severe as to spoil the book as a whole, and may in fact lessen on future on rereads.
For me, the historical context and the character portrayals are the most critical parts, and Ms. Paton Walsh has done well on both counts as far as I am concerned.
I am very glad to have had the chance to read this ARC - I would have been hard-pressed to wait for publication!!
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
May 23, 2015
While some writers hate fan fiction based on their writing, others allow it, considering fiction derived from their stories and heroes the best sort of flattery and a good PR. It’s easier to write fan fiction for a long-dead writer – nobody is left to comment. That’s why there is an explosion of new versions of fairy tales, Shakespearean dramas, Greek myths, etc. in modern literature.
This book is fan fiction too, based on Dorothy L. Sayers’ hero Peter Wimsey. It’s authorized by the holders of the original author’s copyright and has a stamp of approval from the publisher, but for all those august licenses, it’s still fan fiction, and not the best kind. Sayers’ books are much better.
I adore Peter Wimsey, my favorite fictional sleuth. I suppose it’s easier to give your character a recognizable name and build a plot around him than to invent your own protagonist from scratch. No characterization is required; people would pick up the book and read it as soon as they see the familiar name in the blurb. I did. But for all that, the Peter Wimsey of this writer doesn’t really resemble the original. He is a bland copy of the real Peter’s deliciously sparkling personality, and so is this novel a pale imitation of Sayers’ books.
The infamous Peter’s banter doesn’t work. The writing is mediocre. The mystery is so-so. The pacing limps. And the story structure – I think every writing teacher would give it a scathing critique.
The most serious problem of this novel is that the first 40% of the story is an info dump. The time of the novel is the earlier 1950s. The book starts with Peter telling Harriet about his first case – the Attenbury Emeralds. They are mentioned in Sayers’ books, so I was curious to know about them. But then Peter keeps telling the story during dinner and strolls in the park, at night in bed and the next day, while visiting friends. It drags on and on.
Eventually I got bored. I wanted something to happen, and it finally did – on page 155 of 380 pages (my book is Large Print). The emeralds were stolen again, and the action started at last.
The remainder of the novel is an average mystery, a bit tedious, with no glamor that exists in every Sayers’ book. It was OK, and I would’ve given it higher rating, if the book was 40% shorter. The entire first part, all this interminable storytelling of Peter’s could’ve been reduced to a couple of pages without the story suffering. In fact, it would’ve read better.
There is a reason I dislike fan fiction.
This book is fan fiction too, based on Dorothy L. Sayers’ hero Peter Wimsey. It’s authorized by the holders of the original author’s copyright and has a stamp of approval from the publisher, but for all those august licenses, it’s still fan fiction, and not the best kind. Sayers’ books are much better.
I adore Peter Wimsey, my favorite fictional sleuth. I suppose it’s easier to give your character a recognizable name and build a plot around him than to invent your own protagonist from scratch. No characterization is required; people would pick up the book and read it as soon as they see the familiar name in the blurb. I did. But for all that, the Peter Wimsey of this writer doesn’t really resemble the original. He is a bland copy of the real Peter’s deliciously sparkling personality, and so is this novel a pale imitation of Sayers’ books.
The infamous Peter’s banter doesn’t work. The writing is mediocre. The mystery is so-so. The pacing limps. And the story structure – I think every writing teacher would give it a scathing critique.
The most serious problem of this novel is that the first 40% of the story is an info dump. The time of the novel is the earlier 1950s. The book starts with Peter telling Harriet about his first case – the Attenbury Emeralds. They are mentioned in Sayers’ books, so I was curious to know about them. But then Peter keeps telling the story during dinner and strolls in the park, at night in bed and the next day, while visiting friends. It drags on and on.
Eventually I got bored. I wanted something to happen, and it finally did – on page 155 of 380 pages (my book is Large Print). The emeralds were stolen again, and the action started at last.
The remainder of the novel is an average mystery, a bit tedious, with no glamor that exists in every Sayers’ book. It was OK, and I would’ve given it higher rating, if the book was 40% shorter. The entire first part, all this interminable storytelling of Peter’s could’ve been reduced to a couple of pages without the story suffering. In fact, it would’ve read better.
There is a reason I dislike fan fiction.
December 14, 2011
I have read all three of Jill Paton Walsh's books dealing with Dorothy L. Sayers' detective Lord Peter Wimsey, and I have to say, she gets better with each book. With The Attenbury Emeralds the author did a far better job with the banter and character of not only Lord Peter, but also with his beloved wife, mystery novelist, Harriet Vane and Lord Peter's faithful manservant, Bunter. This book reads much more like a Dorothy L. Sayers book than Jill Paton Walsh's other two Lord Peter books, and in fact the author also follows Ms Sayers' lead in using her detective fiction as social commentary. Social commentary of post-WWII Britain, however, it still rings true (why do the British aristocracy delegate so much responsibility to their servants, when as soon as anything goes wrong they firmly thrust all suspicion in the direction of those supposedly trustworthy souls?). Dorothy L. Sayers' Lord Peter books were amusing and Ms Paton Walsh manages to be amusing in The Attenbury Emeralds as well. My favorite scene happens when Lord Peter is praising his wife as Britain's greatest detective fiction writer, and Harriet responds that she is no, "Arthur Conon Doyle, Agatha Christie, or Dorothy L. Sayers".
This book begins with Lord Peter and Bunter, describing Lord Peter's first detective case (involving the theft of the famed Attenbury Emeralds) to Harriet, after which Lord Peter is immediately thrown into yet another mystery involving the Attenbury Emeralds. I actually prefered the narrative involving the older cases to the action of the new case. Jill Paton Walsh, also took on the rest of Lord Peter's family with success in this book. She brings Lord Peter's mother, Honoria, Dowager Dutchess of Denver into the story, his sister Mary Parker, wife of his close friend (and police officer) Charles Parker, as well as Lord Peter's odious sister-in-law, Helen - and she does a great job with all the characters. This book takes place a long time after the Dorothy L. Sayers' books, but I thought it was a great addition to the Lord Peter canon, and I found I believed that this was the direction Dorothy L. Sayers would have taken Lord Peter and his family, had she not given up on them so very long ago.
This book begins with Lord Peter and Bunter, describing Lord Peter's first detective case (involving the theft of the famed Attenbury Emeralds) to Harriet, after which Lord Peter is immediately thrown into yet another mystery involving the Attenbury Emeralds. I actually prefered the narrative involving the older cases to the action of the new case. Jill Paton Walsh, also took on the rest of Lord Peter's family with success in this book. She brings Lord Peter's mother, Honoria, Dowager Dutchess of Denver into the story, his sister Mary Parker, wife of his close friend (and police officer) Charles Parker, as well as Lord Peter's odious sister-in-law, Helen - and she does a great job with all the characters. This book takes place a long time after the Dorothy L. Sayers' books, but I thought it was a great addition to the Lord Peter canon, and I found I believed that this was the direction Dorothy L. Sayers would have taken Lord Peter and his family, had she not given up on them so very long ago.
March 3, 2018
I am always hesitant to read sequels to classics, written by someone totally new, but this one really does work on every level. I really liked the character development and the insights into post war Britain: a time of enormous social upheaval, hardship and suffering across society. The way in which the story of Lord Peter’s first case was unpacked and laid before the reader really was a masterclass in storytelling I thought. I love the relationship between Harriet, Peter and Bunter; Jill Paton Walsh wrote a detailed, nuanced exploration of a multi-layered relationship. The children in contrast, were mere shadows in comparison. To paraphrase my friend Susan in NC, these will not necessarily convert sceptics to Golden Age detective stories but for existing aficionados - delightful! Now I need to go back and catch up with the ones written by Dorothy L Sayers that I have not yet encountered. I am really looking forward to them!
November 14, 2023
Dorothy Sayers is my favorite mystery writer from the *golden age* of English mysteries, and I've been leery of Jill Paton Walsh's continuation of the series. But the Attenbury case as any Wimsey aficionado knows was Lord Peter's first and previously unrecorded case and I couldn't resist that title. A fun read with familiar characters 15-20 years after the events of Busman's Honeymoon.
Nov. 2023 — Revisiting via audiobook read by Edward Petherbridge
Nov. 2023 — Revisiting via audiobook read by Edward Petherbridge
November 30, 2023
I am loving Paton Walsh's books. The stories are involved with multiple threads all beautifully woven together. She's also done a fabulous job of continuing the lives of the characters so creditably. Is it sacrilegious to say I think her books might even be better than Sayers' own??
August 11, 2011
I loved how this one started out, but then it seemed that Paton Walsh lost her way towards the end. I didn't mind too much though, because Peter and Harriet were still fairly true to character and they were the reason I wanted to read the book anyway.
July 23, 2019
It's hard to put my finger on what bothered me about this book. I love the characters so much, it excuses a lot of flaws. Most of the Dorothy Sayers books I've read multiple times, not because of the mystery, but because the writing was so damn good. I won't be re-reading this one.
July 13, 2022
The titular Attenbury Emeralds have been the focus of mystery for quite some time. In 1921 Wimsey, just making his entrance back into society in his recovery effort after the war, is involved with the hue and cry that goes up when the famous large stone of the set goes missing. It is his maiden venture into the realm of amateur detecting and his handling of it and the publicity around the recovery of the gem launches him into the career that serves as the most efficacious cure for his shell-shocked nerves. He relays this story of his first case to Harriet in the opening chapters.
Years later, after the Second World War, another crisis arises with emerald and the newest Lord Attenbury asks Wimsey to investigate. With all the changes after the war, most immediately the heavy death duties he faces on the passing of his father, the new lord would like to sell the emerald and save his estate. But a claimant has popped up--asserting that the emerald held in the bank vault is not Attenbury's at all, that somehow it has been switched. The bank will not allow Attenbury to remove the stone for sale until proof can be supplied that it is, indeed, the family's property. Wimsey with the assistance of Harriet and Bunter must track down the crucial moment when the stones may have been switched....but the case takes a more diabolical turn when they discover that each time the emerald was removed from the vault a death followed.
I first read this a bit closer to its original publication date and I have reused my synopsis from the time. My full review from that reading may be found
Volume issues aside, I will say that when I could hear everything well, Petherbridge made this new Wimsey story much more appealing than my previous reading. Perhaps, since I picture him as Wimsey he helps to lend credence to the story as a Lord Peter Wimsey story. ★★★ for the audio version (two stars previously)
First posted on my blog My Reader's Block. Please request permission before reposting portions of review. Thanks.
Years later, after the Second World War, another crisis arises with emerald and the newest Lord Attenbury asks Wimsey to investigate. With all the changes after the war, most immediately the heavy death duties he faces on the passing of his father, the new lord would like to sell the emerald and save his estate. But a claimant has popped up--asserting that the emerald held in the bank vault is not Attenbury's at all, that somehow it has been switched. The bank will not allow Attenbury to remove the stone for sale until proof can be supplied that it is, indeed, the family's property. Wimsey with the assistance of Harriet and Bunter must track down the crucial moment when the stones may have been switched....but the case takes a more diabolical turn when they discover that each time the emerald was removed from the vault a death followed.
I first read this a bit closer to its original publication date and I have reused my synopsis from the time. My full review from that reading may be found
Volume issues aside, I will say that when I could hear everything well, Petherbridge made this new Wimsey story much more appealing than my previous reading. Perhaps, since I picture him as Wimsey he helps to lend credence to the story as a Lord Peter Wimsey story. ★★★ for the audio version (two stars previously)
First posted on my blog My Reader's Block. Please request permission before reposting portions of review. Thanks.
December 1, 2010
I won this book through Goodreads giveaways. Thank you! I had only read one of Dorothy L. Sayers's Lord Peter Wimsey books (Murder Must Advertise) and it was a couple of years ago, so I decided to read the one other book I had at the house in the series prior to reading this one. It was Gaudy Night and it was a long, but very good story. And as I am not very familiar with the series, I'm not sure how deeply some of her earlier stories go into Harriet and Peter's relationship, but Gaudy Night is the one where they finally get engaged. So, I started this book, where they are much older, married, and with children, with fresh eyes on how they came together and I will look forward to reading more in between the two.
The story is fascinating and the characterization is very thorough and detailed. As I have mentioned, I am no expert on Lord Peter Wimsey and Harriet Vane, but I feel as though this author has captured the essence of Dorothy L. Sayers in her writing and is true to the rarified and aristocratic characters.
I appreciated Harriet and Peter's (yes, I am being rather familiar with them) style, unpretentiousness, respect and sophistication. And I noticed a couple of references to the story Gaudy Night, which made me very glad to have read it first. One funny note in that regard: after all these years have passed, is Harriet still working on her book on Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu? (p. 99) Although I didn't recognize references to other Lord Peter Wimsey books, I am sure there were at least a few and I hope to recognize them as I read more of the books; perhaps I will read them in order now. I also liked the nod to Dorothy L. Sayers herself on p. 86, lumping her together with other famous authors as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Agatha Christie. One error I spotted: on p. 158, Peter mentions that he "didn't meant to cast nasturtiums at her work..." I think perhaps it should read instead "didn't mean to cast aspersions at her work..."
Overall, this story spanned several decades and was quite involved with numerous characters and familial grudges, financial hardships and drama. It was an entertaining tale and I am so glad that I won it on Goodreads!
new words: trug, secateurs, parure, chiaroscuro, baize, purdah, alarum, pelf, wrack, bounden, sprat, gewgaws, suborning, blether, lubricious, incunabula, louche, antimacassars, chinwag, redound, palaver, delectation, purlieus, bursaries
The story is fascinating and the characterization is very thorough and detailed. As I have mentioned, I am no expert on Lord Peter Wimsey and Harriet Vane, but I feel as though this author has captured the essence of Dorothy L. Sayers in her writing and is true to the rarified and aristocratic characters.
I appreciated Harriet and Peter's (yes, I am being rather familiar with them) style, unpretentiousness, respect and sophistication. And I noticed a couple of references to the story Gaudy Night, which made me very glad to have read it first. One funny note in that regard: after all these years have passed, is Harriet still working on her book on Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu? (p. 99) Although I didn't recognize references to other Lord Peter Wimsey books, I am sure there were at least a few and I hope to recognize them as I read more of the books; perhaps I will read them in order now. I also liked the nod to Dorothy L. Sayers herself on p. 86, lumping her together with other famous authors as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Agatha Christie. One error I spotted: on p. 158, Peter mentions that he "didn't meant to cast nasturtiums at her work..." I think perhaps it should read instead "didn't mean to cast aspersions at her work..."
Overall, this story spanned several decades and was quite involved with numerous characters and familial grudges, financial hardships and drama. It was an entertaining tale and I am so glad that I won it on Goodreads!
new words: trug, secateurs, parure, chiaroscuro, baize, purdah, alarum, pelf, wrack, bounden, sprat, gewgaws, suborning, blether, lubricious, incunabula, louche, antimacassars, chinwag, redound, palaver, delectation, purlieus, bursaries
May 8, 2021
We've jumped to 1951. The world is changing, class barriers are being broken down and Peter and Harriet's son goes to school with Bunter's son, who is probably even brighter than Peter's son.
Told partially as Peter and Bunter relating the events of 1921 to Harriet and partially in the present day, the story revolves around the Attenbury Emeralds. Back in 1921 Peter was a guest at the Attenbury's country house to celebrate their daughter's engagement. On the night when the engagement was due to be announced the famous Attenbury Emeralds go missing and only Lord Peter can find out where they went.
Thirty years later the new Lord Attenbury comes to Peter for help, he has tried to retrieve the Attenbury Emerald from the bank to pay death duties, only to be told that it is not entirely clear whether the stone held by the bank actually belongs to Lord Attenbury.
Since this book was published over a decade ago I have no scruples about expressing my issues with the plot, although I will put it in spoilers.
Also, what I really loved about the original books was the glimpses of that period between the wars, frankly the 1950s has never appealed to me as an era in the UK and there are some terrible blows to the Wimsey family in this book, some losses that I felt almost like the death of one of my own family.
Told partially as Peter and Bunter relating the events of 1921 to Harriet and partially in the present day, the story revolves around the Attenbury Emeralds. Back in 1921 Peter was a guest at the Attenbury's country house to celebrate their daughter's engagement. On the night when the engagement was due to be announced the famous Attenbury Emeralds go missing and only Lord Peter can find out where they went.
Thirty years later the new Lord Attenbury comes to Peter for help, he has tried to retrieve the Attenbury Emerald from the bank to pay death duties, only to be told that it is not entirely clear whether the stone held by the bank actually belongs to Lord Attenbury.
Since this book was published over a decade ago I have no scruples about expressing my issues with the plot, although I will put it in spoilers.
Also, what I really loved about the original books was the glimpses of that period between the wars, frankly the 1950s has never appealed to me as an era in the UK and there are some terrible blows to the Wimsey family in this book, some losses that I felt almost like the death of one of my own family.
December 19, 2010
A Lord Peter Wimsey story, based on the characters by Dorothy L. Sayers.
The mysteries written by Dorothy Sayers were the second English language series I discovered, after Agatha Christie. It was also a series suggested to me by my mother, who owned a few of he books and happily provided me with the ones I didn't have.
The fact that they came so highly recommended by my mother, is only one of the reasons I like the books and the characters so much. Another reason is that Mrs. Sayers wrote good mysteries, with characters who interested me and I found easy to like.
And, I'm still enjoying spending time with Lord Peter, his wife Harriet, his servent Bunter and all the other characters.
This books is set after WW II. Lord Peter and Harriet have three sons, Bunter is married and has a son of his own, and the world is in the middle of huge changes as far as the aristocratic lifestyle is concerned.
Lord Peter tells his wife about his very first case, one he conducted shortly after the first world war and which concerned the disappearance of The Attenbury Emeralds.
Shortly after, the new Lord Attenbury comes to the Wimsey's asking for help, again with regard to the Attenbury Emeralds. Somebody is claiming that the Emerald kept by Attenbury's bank, is not actually his emerald, and he needs Lord Peter to find out if this is true, and if it is, what happened to the original Emerald.
Lord Peter, with the assistance of the very reliable Bunter and Harriet has to investigate events which happenend over the past 30 years and discovers that the Emerald seems to have left a trail of misfortune, death and destruction. He also has to deal with a personal tragedy and major upheaval in his own life.
I enjoyed another visit with these characters. I'm not sure that Mrs. Walsh is quite as good at presenting Wimsey and his world as I remember Sayer's being, but she is more than good enough to make me a happy reader.
The mysteries written by Dorothy Sayers were the second English language series I discovered, after Agatha Christie. It was also a series suggested to me by my mother, who owned a few of he books and happily provided me with the ones I didn't have.
The fact that they came so highly recommended by my mother, is only one of the reasons I like the books and the characters so much. Another reason is that Mrs. Sayers wrote good mysteries, with characters who interested me and I found easy to like.
And, I'm still enjoying spending time with Lord Peter, his wife Harriet, his servent Bunter and all the other characters.
This books is set after WW II. Lord Peter and Harriet have three sons, Bunter is married and has a son of his own, and the world is in the middle of huge changes as far as the aristocratic lifestyle is concerned.
Lord Peter tells his wife about his very first case, one he conducted shortly after the first world war and which concerned the disappearance of The Attenbury Emeralds.
Shortly after, the new Lord Attenbury comes to the Wimsey's asking for help, again with regard to the Attenbury Emeralds. Somebody is claiming that the Emerald kept by Attenbury's bank, is not actually his emerald, and he needs Lord Peter to find out if this is true, and if it is, what happened to the original Emerald.
Lord Peter, with the assistance of the very reliable Bunter and Harriet has to investigate events which happenend over the past 30 years and discovers that the Emerald seems to have left a trail of misfortune, death and destruction. He also has to deal with a personal tragedy and major upheaval in his own life.
I enjoyed another visit with these characters. I'm not sure that Mrs. Walsh is quite as good at presenting Wimsey and his world as I remember Sayer's being, but she is more than good enough to make me a happy reader.
August 18, 2014
After being very disappointed with A Presumption of Death, I never planned to read any of Jill Paton Walsh's Peter Wimsey books. However, after seeing a positive mention of this one from a goodreads (and real life) friend, I decided to give this author another chance. I am glad I did.
This time I opened the book just looking for a good mystery taking place in the world Dorothy Sayers describes. Jill Paton Walsh is not Dorothy Sayers. Her characters seem different somehow. But just take them for what they are and enjoy the ride.
The mystery takes place a few years after WWII with a number of flash backs to earlier times. The changing lives of the upper class are important to the plot. Having just read Capital in the Twenty-First Century which has descriptions of how changes in inheritance laws affected English life, it was particularly interesting to see this issue treated in fiction.
This time I opened the book just looking for a good mystery taking place in the world Dorothy Sayers describes. Jill Paton Walsh is not Dorothy Sayers. Her characters seem different somehow. But just take them for what they are and enjoy the ride.
The mystery takes place a few years after WWII with a number of flash backs to earlier times. The changing lives of the upper class are important to the plot. Having just read Capital in the Twenty-First Century which has descriptions of how changes in inheritance laws affected English life, it was particularly interesting to see this issue treated in fiction.
January 25, 2011
I won't bother with a synopsis as that is provided above; but if you are a Peter Wimsey/Sayers fan like me, you will be thrilled to see another novel in the wonderful series by Jill Paton Walsh. It helps to be a fan of the whole genre of Golden Age British Mysteries (Christie, Allingham, Sayers, Marsh, Heyer, etc.), and I collect and treasure all of those authors. I read an Amazon review that very wisely pointed out that if you are NOT a fan of the slower-paced, more conversational mysteries of that era, this book will not convert you; I agree wholeheartedly! But I enjoyed revisiting beloved characters and seeing how they fared after the war. The mystery dragged for me a bit in places, but again, I read and reread these mystery authors as much for their characters, dialogue and recreation of a different time and place as much for the mystery, so that doesn't bother me. I have enjoyed Paton Walsh's previous efforts to bring Lord Peter back to life, and I hope this isn't the last in the series!
May 31, 2011
I was torn between 3 and 4 stars, and finally decided on 4 because I am happy to have Peter and Harriet at all, even with limitations. This is a quirky books- almost the entire book is exposition, with Peter and Bunter telling Harriet about a case that happened in the early 20s. The present in the book is 1951. I enjoyed the book nonetheless but it was an odd choice. It is also the first book Walsh claimed as sole author without a credit to Sayers, and I will say that the lack of Sayer's plotting is noticeable and puts the lie to those who says Sayers couldn't plot a mystery. I was a bit confused once the current day plot rolled out. There are some surprises, and Walsh does make the characters consistent, so it's a good read for the Wimsey-starved.
January 24, 2011
The problem with these Lord Peter books written by Jill Paton-Walsh (this is the 3rd) is that I keep expecting them to be just as good as the originals by Dorothy L. Sayers. They are not, and I am bitterly disappointed every time. I suppose it's not really JPW's fault that she's not Dorothy Sayers, and that her Lord Peter and Harriet and Bunter are not as engaging as the originals. And she doesn't write as well as DLS. Oh well. I guess I'll re-read "The Nine Tailors" now to satisfy the Lord Peter Wimsey craving.
October 3, 2014
Mostly seamless voice inherited from Dorothy L. Sayers, but I found it a bit heavy handed with allusions to "Dorothy L. Sayers" and "Virginia Woolf."
I regret the whole transition to Harriet and Lord Peter becoming parents; it makes me cringe. I did like the way the death of Gerald was handled, and their installation as the new Duke and Duchess. But for my money, I wish the series had never progressed to WWII; I would have preferred them to remain timeless between the two wars. So speaks this Fan.
I regret the whole transition to Harriet and Lord Peter becoming parents; it makes me cringe. I did like the way the death of Gerald was handled, and their installation as the new Duke and Duchess. But for my money, I wish the series had never progressed to WWII; I would have preferred them to remain timeless between the two wars. So speaks this Fan.
September 7, 2016
I just could not put this down. It's a tribute to Jill Paton Walsh that she could take Dorothy Sayers' fulky fledged characters and write them a new story without missing a beat. The feel of the piece is faultless capturing period and characters faultlessly.
April 14, 2024
I liked this book a great deal, to my surprise.
It works if you have suspected sometimes, as I have, that Lord Peter in his creator's hands is somewhat a bit much--a bit much affected early in his published career, a bit much of the perfect lover in Gaudy Night, showing a bit more anguished emotional sophistication in Busman's Honeymoon than the early books would have set us up to believe was possible from him.
JPW's Lord Peter and Harriet are still distinct but closer to realistic humans. They swap quotations, but from English language poets (Milton--Whitman [gasp]) not Latin classics. Their affection for each other glows like old deep coals, not flares as if hosed by intellectual gasoline. It is a nice thought to think that DS's Lord Peter and Harriet would have ended up like these lovely witty affectionate content people.
It works if you have suspected sometimes, as I have, that Lord Peter in his creator's hands is somewhat a bit much--a bit much affected early in his published career, a bit much of the perfect lover in Gaudy Night, showing a bit more anguished emotional sophistication in Busman's Honeymoon than the early books would have set us up to believe was possible from him.
JPW's Lord Peter and Harriet are still distinct but closer to realistic humans. They swap quotations, but from English language poets (Milton--Whitman [gasp]) not Latin classics. Their affection for each other glows like old deep coals, not flares as if hosed by intellectual gasoline. It is a nice thought to think that DS's Lord Peter and Harriet would have ended up like these lovely witty affectionate content people.
January 24, 2011
Back in 1921 the return of the missing Attenbury Emeralds was Lord Peter Wimsey's first case. Reference was made to the case over the years in Dorothy L Sayers' mysteries but until now we didn't know the whole story. And quite a story it is.
This story, which takes place in 1951, is another which entails restoring the king stone of the Attenbury emeralds to the family, which badly needs the stone in order to pay death duties, which the Labor government after the war raised to prohibitive rates. (Aside: this led to thousands of English country houses being torn down or abandoned to fall down, which I consider an historical tragedy - a country abandoning its architectural legacy. We tear down our architectural history daily in the US but one would expect more sense of its importance in the Old Country.)
As the story opens, Lord Peter tells Harriet about his very first case, locating the king stone for Lord Attenbury when it went missing at a house party in 1921. Complicating that puzzle was the existence of a second stone with a continuation of the Persian love verse engraved on the back of the Attenbury family emerald. This second stone was shown to Lord Peter by Nandine Osmanthus (yes, I know, but Lord Peter doesn't do any gardening), a representative of an Indian maharaja whose family sold the stone now owned by the Attenburys to feed their people in a time of famine 300 years before. The maharaja wants to reunite them but the Attenburys won't sell in 1921.
Now they must sell, but when the current Lord Attenbury goes to the bank to claim the stone they have kept there for more than 30 years he finds someone else is claiming this stone is theirs and they have the paperwork to prove it. He of course goes to Lord Peter to help him out. Peter follows the story of the stone over the years every time it was taken from the bank, to secure a loan in 1929, to be worn at a costume party in 1941, and to be examined by a historian of jewelry after the war.
This book, for followers of the Lord Peter series, has some exciting and unexpected surprises. Our favorite characters reappear, Freddy Arbuthnot, the dowager duchess, Helen, and of course Bunter, now married and with a son who goes to Eton with Bredon, the Wimseys' son. Life has changed a great deal in England by 1951 but Lord and Lady Peter have adjusted and continue to lead their charmed life.
I was so enthusiastic to again read a Lord Peter story that I bought (for only 99 cents on my Kindle!) the first of the mysteries, Whose Body?, which you will recall begins with a quiet little man finding a corpse in his bathtub, which was wearing nothing but a pince nez. A review of that will be along soon.
2011 No 14
This story, which takes place in 1951, is another which entails restoring the king stone of the Attenbury emeralds to the family, which badly needs the stone in order to pay death duties, which the Labor government after the war raised to prohibitive rates. (Aside: this led to thousands of English country houses being torn down or abandoned to fall down, which I consider an historical tragedy - a country abandoning its architectural legacy. We tear down our architectural history daily in the US but one would expect more sense of its importance in the Old Country.)
As the story opens, Lord Peter tells Harriet about his very first case, locating the king stone for Lord Attenbury when it went missing at a house party in 1921. Complicating that puzzle was the existence of a second stone with a continuation of the Persian love verse engraved on the back of the Attenbury family emerald. This second stone was shown to Lord Peter by Nandine Osmanthus (yes, I know, but Lord Peter doesn't do any gardening), a representative of an Indian maharaja whose family sold the stone now owned by the Attenburys to feed their people in a time of famine 300 years before. The maharaja wants to reunite them but the Attenburys won't sell in 1921.
Now they must sell, but when the current Lord Attenbury goes to the bank to claim the stone they have kept there for more than 30 years he finds someone else is claiming this stone is theirs and they have the paperwork to prove it. He of course goes to Lord Peter to help him out. Peter follows the story of the stone over the years every time it was taken from the bank, to secure a loan in 1929, to be worn at a costume party in 1941, and to be examined by a historian of jewelry after the war.
This book, for followers of the Lord Peter series, has some exciting and unexpected surprises. Our favorite characters reappear, Freddy Arbuthnot, the dowager duchess, Helen, and of course Bunter, now married and with a son who goes to Eton with Bredon, the Wimseys' son. Life has changed a great deal in England by 1951 but Lord and Lady Peter have adjusted and continue to lead their charmed life.
I was so enthusiastic to again read a Lord Peter story that I bought (for only 99 cents on my Kindle!) the first of the mysteries, Whose Body?, which you will recall begins with a quiet little man finding a corpse in his bathtub, which was wearing nothing but a pince nez. A review of that will be along soon.
2011 No 14
February 14, 2011
As an American fan of Lord Peter Wimsey, I was all aflutter when I read (on Edward Petherbridge's website) about the release of Jill Paton Walsh's newest update on the Wimsey line. I decided I should not have to wait until the USA release and, so, ordered it from Amazon UK. Initially, I thought I'd be disappointed when I realized the story was to be told in recollections. However, by the time I'd finished the first disc, I had renewed my love affair with Wimsey and Bunter and their circle. Of course, recollections are only a part of the way the story is told; the present comes in to play very nicely. I'm smack in the middle of the 8 cd set and can hardly go to bed at night for staying up listening. I don't even bother to pretend to be doing household chores now; I just sit on the sofa and listen. The history of Peter is as enthralling as ever. I still feel so fond of the Dowager Duchess. Harriet has warmed and mellowed in the light of Peter's love. They are still sharp, funny, respectful of each other and their regard for Bunter has only grown over the years. These are dear old friends, family, really. The mystery of the emeralds is circuitous enough to keep me interested in the outcome. The characters are all sympathetic and their recounting of the war years is deeply moving. The Greatest Generation meets the thoughtful skill of Peter Wimsey, whose place in the changing world has moved slightly more into the commonplace. But, he is still "My Lord" to Harriett, and, to me.
My first notes after receiving the cds from England: Just came in the mail from England...Petherbridge's Wimsey is 60 now; mellow and a little tired, but still Wimsey. I like the "reminiscence" technique Walsh uses. On CD 3...
My first notes after receiving the cds from England: Just came in the mail from England...Petherbridge's Wimsey is 60 now; mellow and a little tired, but still Wimsey. I like the "reminiscence" technique Walsh uses. On CD 3...
Displaying 1 - 30 of 477 reviews