Play Book Tag discussion

I am in a very distinct minority of classic crime fiction readers who has always disliked the Peter Wimsey detective novels of Dorothy L. Sayers. I was irritated by Wimsey, found the plotting and writing weak, especially Wimsey's dialogue which didn't ever strike me as witty or fit the repartee common of his time. These were positively insipid when compared to what Dame Agatha Christie was publishing at the same time.

So why am I reviewing the first now, multiple decades after my last effort (almost 4 decades)? Well, I'm older, far more widely read, especially in the works from the Golden Age of the English Detective Novel, and perhaps I'm a little more forgiving. The truth: I enjoyed this slightly and am not completely negative. I still dislike Wimsey, and I find the writing and plotting even weaker - do we really need to have the villain identified twice and the detailed description of how it was accomplished repeated, once by Wimsey and once by the murderer? Not that the murderer was any sort of surprise. Most of the dialogue with the written lack of vowels and such meant to immitate an accent or mannerism of speech was incredibly aggravating after a couple of sentences.

However, I did actually give this 2.5 stars, though I ultimately rounded down, because of three moments: 1. Bunter his man servant and his scene without Wimsey in the kitchens fingerprinting and photographing evidence while chatting up the servants, 2. the inquest over the mystery body and the Coroner - again no Wimsey present, and 3. The Dowager Duchess - even her scenes with Wimsey. Those 3 scenes/characters might get me to read another in the series. No promises.

BWF - letter only no tag - Extra S

I am biased, as Lord Peter is my literary crush, but even I think this is one of the weakest of the books. The reference to Jews and Blacks are jarring today. I think the best one to start with is Clouds of Witness, the 2nd book, which involves the whole family. But if you don't care for Peter's personality/methods/blather, you might as well skip the series and read something else.

Robin - many of my friends say the same and have for years. I totally believe her writing gets better - that inquest scene more than suggests it - but it is Wimsey himself that kills it for me.

I enjoyed The Nine Tailors for its intricate plot and decidedly different murder method, but my favorite stories involve Harriet Vane with her introspective struggles for self respect and female independence. Those stories feel authentic. I believe some of what Sayers puts in Vane's thoughts may be semi-autobiographical.

You feel about Wimsey as I feel about Poirot, I think. Have always found Poirot too frustrating to bother much with.

Wimsey is also an early literary crush of mine though others have overtaken him over the years. This book is very weak though. I hadn’t read it until earlier this year and spent a lot of time rolling my eyes… Good as an introductory story but not much else to recommend it.

To me, Wimsey’s annoying foppishness and babbling habits are deliberate and part of what makes the mysteries work. You’re meant to want to shake him, I think. That makes what’s under the surface so interesting. And Bunter is such a lovely character contrast!

Jgrace wrote: "I enjoyed The Nine Tailors for its intricate plot and decidedly different murder method, but my favorite stories involve Harriet Vane with her introspective struggles for self respect..."

Funny you mention that. One reason I have thought for a while about trying the series again was for Harriet.

I also have a biography about Sayers herself floating around here somewhere as she was quite a woman! And I read a fictionalized autobiographical armchair travel book a few years ago where Sayers was referenced - the eccentric Aunt Dot traveling from Istanbul to Trebizond with her white camel is based on Sayers - The Towers of Trebizond. I recommend it.

If Bunter and the Dowager Duchess are very present in the next in the series ... I would read them.

KateNZ wrote: "You feel about Wimsey as I feel about Poirot, I think. Have always found Poirot too frustrating to bother much with. ..."

I too did not care for Poirot all that much though I did read a goodly number as a teen. It was David Suchet's performances that finally roped me into the character. Now I am quite enjoying him.

I own The Mutual Admiration Society: How Dorothy L. Sayers and her Oxford Circle Remade the World for Women but haven't read it yet. I agree that Harriet is a stand-in for Sayers. The books with Harriet are my favorites.

I never cared for Poirot because he doesn't change - though neither does Sherlock and I love him. I read lots of Agatha Christie in my 20's and my conclusion after while was that she cheats. Either some information was withheld from the reader, or a character was an Oscar-worthy actor who could fool everyone. But at that time I hadn't read many mysteries so maybe I was just missing clues. My favorites of hers are actually the Tommy & Tuppence ones.

Peter and Harriet do evolve somewhat over the series. There are also authorized sequels. And I think the earliest books are coming into public domain. Peter makes an unidentified cameo appearance in one of the Holmes and Russell books - A Letter of Mary. Because he was still under copyright, he is only identified as their friend Peter who collects books, had a bad time in the war, and plays the piano with his beautiful long fingers. He also speaks in a jocular way, calling Russell "Mrs. Sherlock", for instance. I listened to that book on audio, and I thought, "why does this character seem familiar, was he mentioned earlier in the book?" Suddenly it hit me and I started laughing.

A friend of mine nailed one of the elements of Christie's writing - she is an expert at distracting the reader. I mean, she nearly had me doubting whodunit in And Then There Were None where I knew it without a doubt!

Robin P wrote: "I own The Mutual Admiration Society: How Dorothy L. Sayers and her Oxford Circle Remade the World for Women but haven't read it yet. I agree that Harriet is a stand-in for Sayers. T..."

I think Laurie King also gives a nod to Sayers in The Beekeeper's Apprentice. There's a small bit where Mary is disgusted with her 'all study and no play' life at Oxford and she invites 'Dot' to join her for an evening out. It makes sense that Dorothy Sayers and Mary Russell would be at Oxford at the same time.

Jgrace wrote: "Robin P wrote: "I own The Mutual Admiration Society: How Dorothy L. Sayers and her Oxford Circle Remade the World for Women but haven't read it yet. I agree that Harriet is a stand-..."

I think you are right!