Strong Poison by Dorothy L. Sayers

[meganbmoore]

Having watched the trial of Harriet Vane, an authoress accused of murdering her former lover, Wimsey has become convinced that the woman is innocent, and is thrilled when the murder trial results in a hung jury, requiring another trial a month later. Wimsey decides to prove Harriet’s innocence and interviews her, proposing marriage as he does so. Harriet rightly thanks him for his assistance, and even more rightly rejects him. Wimsey isn’t deterred from either goal.

Being locked up in jail the whole time, Harriet isn’t given a lot to do in her first appearance besides stand by her beliefs (strange at a glance, but understandable when you think about them) and say “Well, you seem like a perfectly nice and likable man, and I’m very happy you’re trying to save my life, but I barely know you, so would you mind not proposing to me in jail every time we meet? It’s a bit uncomfortable. Especially given that my last relationship was a man testing my worthiness as his wife.” 

Sayers was clearly having fun with this one, dropping hints by characters who would have no idea what they were saying, and talking about writing mysteries and detectives. There were a lot of really obvious similarities between this and Unnatural Death. Both revolve around an ill person dying in a way that initially appears to be from natural causes, both have an obvious killer almost from the start, and both revolve around the technicalities of a will and inheritance laws. The difference, of course, is that the murder in Unnatural Death only sped up the death by a few months, and in the end, things may have been better off if Wimsey had left things alone. Here, that’s reversed, with a nearly airtight case being presented against an innocent person.

Does Wimsey strike anyone else as being close to becoming unhinged in this book? At one point, he specifically mentions people shooting themselves in the head as a form of suicide and then mentions it in the context of ending his own life, then seems to almost realize he was taking the seemingly flippant comment seriously. At another time, his frustration with the case leads him to have an almost concerning thought about violently shattering a mirror. I can’t help but almost wonder if his believing he’s in love with Harriet (at this point, it strikes me more as deep admiration with some romantic inclinations, but not really "love” just yet) is his way of dealing with his problems before they lead to his coming unhinged. 

Comments

[melengro.livejournal.com]

Peter has shell-shock and comes to view himself as a murderer himself, worse than those he sends to the gallows since he only does it for his own amusement. Sayers apparently said that he really did put arsenic in Urquhart's gelatin treats (or, at least, may have), because he was lashing out at his own insecurities about what he does by doing something that even he knows is disgusting and underhanded. You see this more in Gaudy Night, where it is revealed that Peter actually thinks of himself as an evil person.

[meganbmoore.livejournal.com]

Peter definitely viewed himself as an amoral bastard with the arsenic (were we ever supposed to wonder if he really did that?) he just didn't really care. The reading I get is that he's a detective to keep himself sane, and not having the investigation go his way (especially since he let himself get emotionally invested) was making his problems that much more prominent. (Hence the two pages of his fantasizing about shattering a mirror into tiny pieces, then deciding it wouldn't matter because he could just get a new one, whereas Harriet being executed if he couldn't prove her innocence was an unfixable thing.)

ETA: BTW, while the series has been out for decades and there are certain things that are considered common knowledge, I am trying to stay fairly unspoiled.

[melengro.livejournal.com]

It was supposed to be unclear. He tells Parker he didn't really do it, but he's shown that he's not above lying to those he loves. Like Batman, a desire to do some good in the world is all that distinguishes Peter from Freke or Whitaker or Penberthy or Urquhart.

I'm trying not to spoil you! There is a lot of discussion of Peter's morality in Gaudy Night, though.

[meganbmoore.livejournal.com]

Uhm...yeah, I mostly read that as his not wanting Gunter to know. The scene with Urquhart read as he was so certain that there was no need to bluff.

[melengro.livejournal.com]

So we're back to Peter being like Batman in a way. I've used that comparison a lot because I feel it describes his moral universe perfectly.

[meganbmoore.livejournal.com]

Except that Peter interests me, and Batman kinda bores me(I've always found his sidekicks and girlfriends more interesting than Batman himself.) If we're going the comparison route, though, I'd say that Peter actually has a better way of dealing with his troubles. Batman removes himself from society and tries to operate outside it and away from ties, often treating his connections as tools, while Peter stays firmly planted in the midst of it, and builds a network of connections he values.