meganbmoore (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
meganbmoore) wrote2008-02-25 02:33 am
meganbmoore) wrote2008-02-25 02:33 am
Entry tags:
Whose Body by Dorothy L. Sayers
Sayers's Lord Peter Wimsey books is a series I've been meaning to read for some time. I've seen a BBC production of one of the books (involving, IIRC, Wimsey's sister's fiance being murdered and both her and their brother being suspects) but never read one.
Peter Wimsey is an upperclass gent in 1920s England, and a war veteran. At first glance, he comes across as (as I believesmillaraaqworded it to me a few days ago) "a superscilious upper-class fool." I think my personal description would be "overly-absorbed, facetious twit." This does, however, seem to largely be a surface personality, and the "real" Peter Wimsey is a determined, observant investigator who often aids Scotland Yard, dragging his valet, Bunter, along with him. Most fans of the series I know seem to be fans primarily for later books in the series (which is also one of the draws for me, but I mustmustmust start series at the beginning) but this book stands up well on it's own.
Mostly a straightforward "whodunnit?" murder mystery, Wimsey is made aware of a body found in a bathtub wearing nothing but an expensive pince-nez, at the same time a prominent financier goes missing. While there is an obvious conclusion to be drawn, and one Scotland Yard's investigator eagerly jumps at, Wimsey has his suspicions, though, and lauches his own investigations into the matter.
Mixed in, though, are hints and references to Wimsey's past, indicating that the war caused a mental breakdown of some sort, including a scene where he hallucinates that he's back in the war. Perhaps I've simply encountered it too much in fiction and am jumping to conclusions, but I am assuming that Bunter is a war buddy of some sort, who entered Wimsey's service after the war. (If so, it's a setup I typically find interesting.)
I have a confession to make, though: I often got distracted from the plot by the excellent, witty dialogue, and had to reread some parts because of that. And I probably still missed something...
Peter Wimsey is an upperclass gent in 1920s England, and a war veteran. At first glance, he comes across as (as I believe
smillaraaqworded it to me a few days ago) "a superscilious upper-class fool." I think my personal description would be "overly-absorbed, facetious twit." This does, however, seem to largely be a surface personality, and the "real" Peter Wimsey is a determined, observant investigator who often aids Scotland Yard, dragging his valet, Bunter, along with him. Most fans of the series I know seem to be fans primarily for later books in the series (which is also one of the draws for me, but I mustmustmust start series at the beginning) but this book stands up well on it's own.Mostly a straightforward "whodunnit?" murder mystery, Wimsey is made aware of a body found in a bathtub wearing nothing but an expensive pince-nez, at the same time a prominent financier goes missing. While there is an obvious conclusion to be drawn, and one Scotland Yard's investigator eagerly jumps at, Wimsey has his suspicions, though, and lauches his own investigations into the matter.
Mixed in, though, are hints and references to Wimsey's past, indicating that the war caused a mental breakdown of some sort, including a scene where he hallucinates that he's back in the war. Perhaps I've simply encountered it too much in fiction and am jumping to conclusions, but I am assuming that Bunter is a war buddy of some sort, who entered Wimsey's service after the war. (If so, it's a setup I typically find interesting.)
I have a confession to make, though: I often got distracted from the plot by the excellent, witty dialogue, and had to reread some parts because of that. And I probably still missed something...
no subject
And in the 80~ years since, it became one of the biggest romance novel cliches ever, especially for Regency era romances.
"and as I was mentioning in Cho's journal the other day, Peter suffered from a severe case of shell-shock. (Nothing terribly spoilery about this, this background is mostly just referred to in bits and pieces throughout the series without ever being a real plot point.)"
Yeah, the shell shock isn't really a spoiler, just clarifying something fairly obvious. I only vaguely skimmed your comments to Cho(well, the parts that looked spoilery) since I knew I'd be reading within the week.
"I fell in love with these, and have reread them many times over the years, for the dialog and characters and literary and philosophical ramblings, not the plots. Without looking up references, I'd stand a better chance telling you which stories have passages going on about Bach fugues, or wine, or artistic temperaments, or the timelessness of ducks, rather than who got killed and whodunit."
Well, honestly, that's the truth with most whodunnits. The murder mystery is there to give the interesting character something to do and a chance to show off his stuff, not the main focus.
I understand the Carmichael-Petheridge thing. I was introduced to Poirot via the Peter Unistov versions, but that was in junior high or so, and now that I've read a few of the books and seen all the David Suchet stuff, I can't imagine anyone but Suchet as Poirot.
As far as reading order goes...I'll likely go and get as many as I can find at the bookstore, find out what order they go in, order whatever I didn't find, then read them all once I have them all. Unless the short stories are mentioned in the books, I'll likely save them until after I've read all the books.
no subject
And I think the Sayers rec in Cho's journal was fairly spoiler-free, aside from the "Harriet finally says yes" bit which I know I've already mentioned in your journal anyway...
Unless the short stories are mentioned in the books, I'll likely save them until after I've read all the books.
Not off the top of my head, they aren't -- at the very least even if they're referred to, it's just the random-comment-in-passing sort of thing that should neither ruin the stories for later reading or make the books incomprehensible without reading the stories first. Really, except for the Harriet Vane books, I don't think these would really suffer if you had to read a few of these out of order. The Harriet subseries do build strongly on the events of previous books, but the more straightforward mysteries are much more free-standing sorts of tales.