Reading the Detectives discussion

Happy New Year to all our group members and welcome to our first group challenge! This year we intend to read all of Dorothy L. Sayers Lord Peter Wimsey novels. There is a link on the home page where you can sign up and if you need any help, then just ask.

Our first book - the January read - is the first ever Lord Peter book, "Whose Body?" first published in 1923.

Everyman kindly posted a link about the book, which I will copy here, as I have just opened this thread:

http://digital.library.upenn.edu/wome...

Although many of us have already read this, others will be meeting Lord Peter for the first time, so please no spoilers, Otherwise, enjoy and I hope that as many of you as possible join in!

So excited to take part in this, Susan - many thanks to you for all your work in setting it up and organising it!

I read Whose Body? years ago but don't remember it very well, so am very glad to reread it. I have it on my Kindle and will get started.

I read it over Christmas, but just had to say I was 'reading' it again, in order to add it to my challenge. A great read and a lovely introduction to Lord Peter and his world.

This is flagged up for me to read next and I can't wait!

I recently started this one. Or, should I say, re-started. I have read it (as well as the others) several times before.

Susan wrote: "Although many of us have already read this, others will be meeting Lord Peter for the first time, so please no spoilers, Otherwise, enjoy and I hope that as many of you as possible join in! "

I fully agree with no spoilers initially, but at some point if we're going to discuss the book seriously we have to talk about content that will be spoilers. May I suggest that you set a date (maybe half way through the month) when we can discuss plot elements that would be spoilers for those who haven't read or finished the book? Or is it okay to post spoilers in the spoiler tag at some point?

Jan C wrote: "I recently started this one. Or, should I say, re-started. I have read it (as well as the others) several times before."

Ditto to all that!

"Oh, damn!" (don't forget the exclamation mark, O Best Beloved) has to be one of the classic opening lines of literature.

I have never figured out how to hide spoilers!

And for 1923, I imagine that "Oh, damn!" would seem a bit risque. Or wouldn't it? I'm not really up on social mores of 1923. But for a peer of the realm to swear in a taxi does seem as though it would raise a few well cultured eyebrows.

I find it interesting that the address Wimsey gives, 110 Piccadilly, is an actual address in London (though apparently not Wimsey's flat, since he says "just beyond," and why that instead of the actual address?).

And the Savile Club is an actual club still in operation.
From their website: "The Savile Club
... was established in 1868 by a group of the most distinguished writers and artists of the time. Its home is a fine 18th Century house in the heart of Mayfair, whose air of elegant exclusivity reflects the uniquely creative ambiance which is preserved in the Savile Club of today. "

From the photo on the home page it seems exactly the sort of place in which Lord Peter would find himself right at home.

http://www.savileclub.co.uk/

For those who love playing imagination games, which would you rather have serving you, if you could afford a personal manservant: Bunter, or Jeeves?

Bunter every time, if everything goes pear shaped I would trust him to get us out of there!

Pear shaped? Not a phrase I'm familiar with. But I assume it means something bad.

Everyman wrote: "Pear shaped? Not a phrase I'm familiar with. But I assume it means something bad."

Ah a very British saying, it means things going down hill rapidly

I take the point about wanting to discuss the end. Perhaps we could do so from halfway through the month and hide the spoilers? I will see what Judy advises, but that would be my suggestion as I don't want us to spoil the book for anyone who hasn't read it.

I used to work near Piccadilly, but I never thought to look where Lord Peter should have lived. There are, however, a number of apartment blocks which would have suited him admirably.

For those of us who have not used spoilers before, if you are typing your reply in the comment box, there are two links above - 'add book/author' and '(some html is ok)'. If you click on the html link it allows you to do various things - from make text bold or written in italics to creating a spoiler alert . I will probably have to experiment with this a bit myself, but it uses a simple text link - (view spoiler)[ (hide spoiler)]

Susan, I think discussing the end from halfway through the month , and hiding the spoilers is a great suggestion - let's do that from around the 15th each month.

For anyone who isn't sure how to hide spoilers, the tags are <"spoiler>...<"/spoiler>, but please remove the " from each tag.

The tags are also in the 'some html is ok' link (next to 'add book/author'), so you can cut and paste them from there if that is easier.

Great minds, Judy! I think your explanation is better than mine though :)

Thanks, Susan! Hopefully we got there between us, but if anyone has a problem when using the tags, just ask. :)

I've also sometimes found it useful to look at 'preview' to check whether tags have worked.

I've put some comments in spoiler quotes though they only refer to the first few chapters, so if you've gotten through Chapter four they won't be spoilers.

(view spoiler)[I thought that Sayers telegraphed that it wasn't Levy who slept in the bed quite clearly, and was surprised that Parker, especially, being a professional policeman and the man assigned to the case, didn't pick up on that sooner. Not clear to me when WImsey picked up on it, but sooner than Parker.

Does it seem improbable to anybody else that the naked body of a man could be lifted to the roof of a building, let down six feet or so, and navigated into the window of a bathroom, by one man or woman? And with no apparent rope marks we've been told about to show that he was tied to and let down with a rope. Wimsey and Parker seem so far to have no hesitation assuming this was the way he got into the bath. I'm dubious. (hide spoiler)]

Everyman, you make some very good points.

(view spoiler)[ I totally agree with you that it seems almost impossible that somebody could carry a body all that way and deposit it in the bath. More to the point, I could not see why somebody would do that, although as Mr Thipps was working for the Duchess it was a good way of bringing Lord Peter into the story. (hide spoiler)]

At least I now know how to do spoilers! If anyone is still not sure, you use the spoiler tag and whatever you type after that will be hidden.

I'm reading online now. :)

I was surprised at how much I enjoyed re-reading this book, even though I had read it before fairly recently. That is really the mark of a great author I think - if they can withstand re-readings; especially at different points in your life.

I've been thinking over which manservant I'd prefer out of Bunter and Jeeves, and can't decide - but I'd probably prefer them both to Campion's Lugg!

I've just finished re-reading Whose Body? and enjoyed it. It's not one of my favourites as I prefer the novels with Harriet Vane in them but I have to admire the plotting and the characters.

Judy wrote: "I've been thinking over which manservant I'd prefer out of Bunter and Jeeves, and can't decide - but I'd probably prefer them both to Campion's Lugg!"

Lugg might be better in a dangerous situation though :-)

Oh, I adore Lugg; he’s so feral! Exposes a side of Campion’s personality that is mostly hidden under the fribble façade. But in general I think of Bunter and Jeeves and Lugg as “Twelfth Night” characters, subverting or upending the social order. A bit like Shakespeare’s wise fools.

Judy wrote: "I've been thinking over which manservant I'd prefer out of Bunter and Jeeves, and can't decide - but I'd probably prefer them both to Campion's Lugg!"

I love Bunter but I think that I would have to pick Jeeves. Bunter is a great aid to Lord Peter in both his sleuthing and his rare books but Jeeves knows almost everything! :)

One of the things that has always struck me about the Lord Peter Wimsey novels is that they are quite modern in a sense, in that he has a network of people around him. Poirot (and I love Poirot) is very much a lone investigator. Sometimes he has Hastings and there is Miss Lemon, but no family or friends.

In this first Wimsey novel, we meet his mother, brother, friend Parker, man servant (who was presumably his batsman in the war) Bunter and are also taken to his family home. Just about every modern character in a crime novel has friends, issues and problems and I wonder whether Dorothy L. Sayers was one of the first authors to give her lead character a background and baggage.

Susan wrote: "One of the things that has always struck me about the Lord Peter Wimsey novels is that they are quite modern in a sense, in that he has a network of people around him. Poirot (and I love Poirot) is..."

That's an interesting point, Susan. I was mentally reviewing the Golden Age authors I've read to try and remember whether they have similar networks. Miss Marple has friends but not really close friends. Patricia Wentworth's Miss Sliver does have some nieces and nephews and a policeman friend. Gladys Mitchell's Mrs Bradley has Laura Gavin and her husband and her son, the barrister and a few nieces and nephews appear in various books.

But Peter Wimsey does have this big network of friends and relatives which is much more like modern detectives in fiction though some of them are very much loners - such as Rebus and Morse.

It seems obligatory for modern detectives to have issues as well and you don't come across many whose lives are issue free. Other Golden Age detectives such as Mrs Bradley, Miss Marple, and Miss Silver seem to be almost issue free - or if they have issues they are all in the past and dealt with.

Not only does Lord Peter have all these people, but he actively engages and uses them during his investigation, doesn't he? I wonder if it is part of his enduring appeal, that he has more depth as a character than many detectives of his time.

I was thinking of Nicholas Blake's character, Nigel Strangeways. I really like those books, but his wife featured in many of the early books and then she is killed during the blitz and it really goes unmentioned, which is very odd! One book she is there and then she vanishes...

Wimsey though, exhibits a lot of personal traits during this novel - he is funny, sometimes a little rude (to Mrs Appleby in particular), quite opinionated and then he is obviously still suffering from shell shock. You get to not only like him as a character, but get to know him.

Susan wrote: "Not only does Lord Peter have all these people, but he actively engages and uses them during his investigation, doesn't he? I wonder if it is part of his enduring appeal, that he has more depth as ..."

I think unfortunately some readers only see Wimsey's silly ass routine and dismiss him as a lightweight but yes there is a lot more to him than that for the reasons you have highlighted.

My particular favourite of Wimsey's friends is Miss Climpson but of course she doesn't appear I think until Unnatural Death.

Ngaio Marsh's Roderick Alleyn does have his wife helping him in some books - though not in others.

I have only read a couple of Nicholas Blake's - I really must read some more :-)

Oh, I LOVE Miss Climpson :)

I found it interesting that Wimsey appears quite his typical self in his first book. It seems that Sayers thought out what she'd like to detective to be and to act and pretty much kept him the same from the very start, personality- and detecting-style-wise.

Damaskcat wrote: "I think unfortunately some readers only see Wimsey's silly ass routine and dismiss him as a lightweight but yes there is a lot more to him than that for the reasons you have highlighted."

Yes. He is very much an extremely intelligent and astute man. We'll see much more of this as our year of reading Sayers proceeds.

I've been finding more 'silly ass' in this than I'd remembered - I think I tend to remember the later books better, by which time he has probably become a bit more serious. I was also a bit surprised to see an early mention of Sir Peter not being good looking - I have a feeling that changes later on in the series, so will try to remember to watch out.

To go off at a tangent, I've been wondering why Sayers picked the name Bunter for Wimsey's valet, since the Billy Bunter stories were coming out at this time and were very popular - it seems a bit odd! I don't think this Bunter is supposed to be fat and am not sure if any comments about Billy are made at any point...

I have read the later books, Judy, so will be interested to see how his character changes.

Billy Bunter? It's a thought!

I was surprised to see that the fingerprinting in this book doesn't seem to be a very exact - Peter and Parker are currently peering at various finger and thumbprints and trying to work out which ones look like others.

I thought the police had brought in scientific methods of fingerprinting by this time - but maybe it's because Bunter did the printing rather than the police!

Personally, I think their methods are more fun. I also love the way that Bunter does his best to humorously deride Lord Peter in front of other servants and then gleefully tell him about it - I sense it is a bit of an in joke between them!

I'm only about 20% through and this is my first ever Dorothy L Sayers book. I agree re the silly ass bit, it seems to jar so far with the idea of him being a very clever person noticing things re the dead body the police haven't.

I think in my head I have Poirot who isn't a silly ass and Jeeves and Wooster because of the gentleman and valet set up and Wooster is a fool, a lovely, funny one but a fool nonetheless. So perhaps for me it's the things that he reminds me of or should be (like Poirot) that are jarring with me.

But the silly songs and rhymes don't sit well!

At the moment I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt but I hope it isn't something that continues like this,or if it does that it sits better with the character. At the moment it seems like a character of two halves that have no relation to each other; one razor sharp with a forensic eye and the other a buffoon.

I've just started the re-read of this one. I've read it before and know the story quite well. Nevertheless, it is interesting to dive in to Sayer's first Lord Peter novel (and first mystery, I assume.)

The Bunter and Wimsey relationship is quite interesting, as has been noted earlier here. We find more about how they got together in the book Clouds of Witness, so I'll leave that for now.

As the books go on Lord Peter's character does grow, and I have found it interesting to start from the beginning as I generally read The ones with Harriet and The Nine Tailors and Murder Must Advertise!

Judy wrote: "I was surprised to see that the fingerprinting in this book doesn't seem to be a very exact - Peter and Parker are currently peering at various finger and thumbprints and trying to work out which o..."

I think that many of the fingerprints were not in fact prints but smudges or marks made with gloved hands, which meant that they were reduced to looking at their comparative widths etc.. Plus of course they didn't have access to Levy to be able to take his prints for comparison. In later books I think we see Bunter and Peter looking at fingerprints scientifically.

I'd forgotten how much the Dowager Duchess features in this book. She's one of my favourite characters in the Peter Wimsey books.

I wonder whether Peter noticed how effective her apparently dotty, random conversational style was, and adopted a variation of it to disguise his brilliance? Being very bright was probably as unpopular then as it is now, especially in his class.

HJ, thanks, that makes sense about the fingerprints - I had seen that they were smudges but hadn't quite taken that aspect in.

Michelle, I've read all the books in the past but had forgotten quite how silly Peter is at the start of this one! I think characters who put on a light exterior to hide a sharp brain and serious purpose can work brilliantly - for instance the Scarlet Pimpernel - and I had remembered this being the case with Peter too.

But in this first book, at the start anyway, I think it does grate that he makes jokes and sings a song about the body's discovery... though maybe this is gallows humour from the war? And I was also irritated by him and Freddy Arbuthnot being so rude to the waiters on their evening out, complaining about the food etc. I have a feeling Wimsey wouldn't do this later on!

I've read on a bit, though, and Peter now seems to be more focused on the murder case, and I'm becoming more gripped by the story.

I am just always amazed at how much characters in books of this period quote - they must have learned endless poetry by heart!