Showing posts with label Clouds of Witness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Clouds of Witness. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 11, 2026

Season 3 - Clouds of Witness/The Unpleasantness at the Bellona Club (1973-1974)

Love or hate Lord Peter Wimsey and his antisemitic creator Dorothy L. Sayers, if not for them Mystery! would never exist. These adaptations of the Lord Peter Wimsey mysteries were so popular that Mobil suggested underwriting a crime based spinoff of Masterpiece Theatre and thus Mystery! was born. So I say thankee to Lord Peter in his own argot. But being indebted to him doesn't mean I'm willing to unequivocally embrace the adaptations of Sayers's second and fifth books. Even if it's one of my father's favorite television shows of all time. Which of course he prefaced with, remember, it was a different time. Oh, I know, I've read Dorothy L. Sayers and can say the best thing this series did was skip the first book. Whose Body? is as incomprehensible as it is antisemitic. So I saw this series as an opportunity, a chance to fix all the problems and strip out the outmoded and hateful speech, even if it was the seventies and therefore still problematic. And, for the most part, they succeeded, so far, the problem is they started with Clouds of Witness, which is painfully boring. I first read this book over a decade ago and literally when the episode started I went, hang on, is this the one where he wanders around the moors forever? Yes dear reader, it is. Sir Peter wanders around the moors forever and it's just as boring to watch as it is to read. And unlike every other book adapted for this series it was five instead of four episodes. Which means a whole extra moor episode just for me! How did you know this is exactly not what I wanted? And as for his family? They are a group of annoying prigs played by fabulous actors that couldn't escape the morass of the source material. We were all trapped in Peter's Pot without a chance in hell that an extra from Cold Comfort Farm was coming to rescue us. But I was willing to keep an open mind. With The Unpleasantness at the Bellona Club, which for years I thought was the Belladonna Club, I was getting a clean state and a new, inferior Bunter. Don't worry, Bunter number one returns soon enough, much to my father's surprise. He was convinced that the bad Bunter stayed until the end. The Unpleasantness at the Bellona Club is all about an inheritance and finding out which of two siblings died first. Because there were shenanigans with a corpse. And then more shenanigans when there was an inquest. This was a wonderful mystery because it dealt with so many issues from money insecurity with damaged veterans to Bloomsbury artists yet with a light touch that is Lord Peter's trademark. Always help, but do it with a smile, and don't forget your thankees. It also doesn't hurt that he's an honorable and people tend to doff their cap to him. What made this second episode so special to me was it included some of my favorite actors from seventies British television whom I of course refer to by favorite character name or familial connection. So I had Merriman (John Walsh in The Duchess of Duke Street), Dolly Longstaffe (Donald Pickering in The Pallisers), and Emma Thompson's mom (Phyllida Law). It created a wonderfully rounded cast, even if it appears I'm better at interpreting bad art than the characters on this show. Maybe that's what my art degree is useful for? If the show hadn't ended on a note of bygone notions of valor and honor it would have been the perfect mystery.

Wednesday, October 19, 2022

Book Review - Dorothy L. Sayers's Gaudy Night

Gaudy Night by Dorothy L. Sayers
Published by: HarperTorch
Publication Date: 1935
Format: Paperback, 501 Pages
Rating: ★★★
To Buy (different edition than one reviewed)

Harriet Vane's name might be notorious because of a certain murder trial but she has decided that that is in her past and she will no longer allow it to control her future. She has longed to return to her beloved alma mater, Shrewsbury College in Oxford, to catch up with old friends, and therefore accepts the invitation to attend their Gaudy. She is surprised to be so warmly welcomed and falls quickly in love with academia once again. Perhaps she will return and write a book? A serious book, not the mysteries she is known for. On her return home though she finds a nasty and vulgar drawing in her robes. The poison pen message refers to her as a "dirty murderess" and taints her entire return to Oxford. She tries to put it behind her but then the Dean of Shrewsbury reaches out to Harriet. The poison pen letter Harriet received wasn't a one time occurrence. They have been plaguing the staff and students at the school and have escalated into wanton vandalism. As a woman's college they are viewed under a microscope so if word gets out about these attacks they could be ruined. Harriet, no stranger to the poison pen even before the Gaudy, agrees to come back to Shrewsbury and lend a hand. In order to not make it look suspicious she puts it about that she is there to research Sheridan Le Fanu for a biography she means to write, as well as assisting one of the dons on the endless revisions of her book. Alibi firmly in place she heads back into the bosom of Oxford and finds a writhing snake pit. The letters are getting more vicious, the vandalism more destructive. Harriet wonders, what would Lord Peter do? Well, as he's off doing something on the continent, she can guess, but can't get his help. It's up to her to solve this mystery and decide where she's going to go from here. Could she become a serious academic? Or is that only a way to run away from her feelings and the complication of love? And does she love Lord Peter? Will she succumb to his advances and agree to marry him? First she has to make sure she survives before she plans a future.

One might like to point out to those who view this as a paragon, a classic of mystery fiction, that perhaps three hundred pages of exposition was unnecessary. But then again, as one member of my book club put it,"I had the thought today of going back to count every single proper noun that was dropped... at a guess: 82? If she expected me to remember anything about any of these people, well, she misunderestimated my attention span." More than an editor this book also needed a dramatis personae. But I feel like I'm getting ahead of myself here. Gaudy Night was to be the bellwether as to my final decision on Dorothy L. Sayers. This was her proving ground. I had earlier read the first three adventures of Lord Peter Wimsey, Whose Body?, Clouds of Witness, and Unnatural Death (which had a nice callback here) and basically hated them. There's no beating around the bush with my dislike of the books and her obvious hatred of Jews. I was shocked to see that she was actually against Hitler. But EVERYONE said Gaudy Night was a must read. So read it I must. But I kept putting it off. And off again. I even left it out and yet I couldn't bring myself to pick it up. So my solution was to make my book club read it. I feel slightly bad... maybe? But not really when I think of some of the things they've made me read. In fairness we don't mean to choose bad books, it just seems to turn out that way. Most people cite this book as their favorite Dorothy L. Sayers because it cements the relationship of Harriet Vane and Lord Peter. I wanted to read it because I love Oxford. I was let down on both accounts. The overt specificity with regard to Oxford down to specific turns at specific cobbles in the streets made it too hard for the Oxford enthusiast but not the aficionado to enjoy. As for Harriet and Peter, the aforementioned three hundred pages of exposition means that until Peter actually showed up there wasn't much of a book. I SO wanted Harriet Vane to solve the crime on her own, but sadly, it's Lord Peter who not only solves the crime, but makes the book bearable. Which is really Dorothy L. Sayers letting the sisterhood down. A college full of smart women and they can't catch the culprit in their midst? Yeah, that really supports women's rights. Grumble grumble. So the question becomes, did this book make me actually want to read the rest of the series? No, yes, I don't know. Give me a few years and maybe I'll pick up another one? Maybe. Just tell me she translates the Latin this time?

Wednesday, May 29, 2013

Book Review - Dorothy L. Sayers's Clouds of Witness

Clouds of Witness (Lord Peter Wimsey Book 2) by Dorothy L. Sayers
Published by: Harper Torch
Publication Date: 1926
Format: Paperback, 288 Pages
Rating: ★★
To Buy (different edition than one reviewed)

Lord Peter is taking some time off in Corsica. He has been incommunicado for some time. Therefore it is quite a surprise to him on arriving in Paris to find his older brother's name splashed across the front of the papers. Gerald has been arrested for murder! For once Lord Peter can show Gerald that his "lurid hobby" might be of some use to the family. Rushing back to England Lord Peter is fighting against the passing of time and the fact that the inquest has already happened. The family was in Riddlesdale, Yorkshire, where Gerald had rented out a lodge for hunting. Peter and Gerald's younger sister Mary was playing hostess and her fiance, Denis Cathcart was the victim of foul play.

Yet the motive for Gerald killing Cathcart is absurdly flimsy. Supposedly Gerald found out about Cathcart being a cardsharp and told him to leave. Why this should result in murder makes no sense. But Gerald is being obdurate. He will not tell where he was or what he was doing that night. The fact that Mary is also lying soon becomes obvious. With his own family obfuscating the truth, Lord Peter takes many a wrong turn, some into very boggy situations, before he heroically saves the day.

Me and Lord Peter have come to a bit of an understanding with this latest volume. Firstly, I didn't at any time want to hurl it across the room and I would only grumble about the stupid title every hour or so, not constantly. Clouds of Witness is one of those awkwardly titled books, I keep wanting to say "Clouds of Whiteness"... because, clouds, generally speaking, are white. If the title actually was the line used in the book "cloud of witnesses" that might have worked better, but still, awkward and will forever be a title I mangle. Back to me not hating Peter so much. Sure, most of the problems of the previous volume still proliferated, but the crime itself was far more interesting. In fact, I might have said I actually liked this book if the end of it hadn't gotten so bogged down in Gerald's trial that I was lost in a morass of legalese of outmoded British laws. If there is only one thing British I could be said to hate it's outmoded British courtroom dramas, this being the second worse perpetrator, P.D. James being the queen with Death Comes to Pemberley.

What I don't get is Sayers's weird way of setting up the crime in this case. It is odd that we arrive with Peter after the crime is committed. Almost as if we where the police brought in after some time to get to the bottom of things. Usually when you have a traditional country house murder that is very familial you're there every step of the way. Here it's a very different and novel approach. I personally was left a little cold by it. By not being on the ground and in the trenches as it happened, I was unable to get a connection to these other characters. They were literally just people I read about not cared about, which is the difference between a so-so book and a great book. Also, if she was going to take this tack of following Peter, why does Sayers let Peter wander off and leave is in the dark? She contradicts herself by changing her narrative style, especially at the end when Peter dramatically enters the House of Lords and lays out the case. If she had stayed true to the earlier half of the book we could have followed Peter and then curtailed the drawn out court case... just saying...

My big complaint of the previous volume was that you can't really tell one character from another, them all having, basically, the same voice. She seemed to have gotten this criticism at the time as well because she laboriously tries to make the Yorkshire natives "real" with a weird dialect that doesn't really work. I mean, yes, it's kind of funny because it's Jeeves and Wooster meets Wuthering Heights... but it just came across as not quite right and just another thing slightly wrong that made the book less whole. I also think I understand why Lord Peter annoys me. The way he's written he talks like he's speaking gibberish, like a 1920s version of Doctor Who. Sure it can be funny, and far more enjoyable if you picture Matt Smith as Lord Peter, but in the end, it's tiring trying to pick out the important bits of information from his verbal diarrhea. A forty minute show is one thing, and 300 page novel is another. Once again I shall lament the need for editors and move onto another book... hopefully this one without an author who assumes the reader is fluent in French... a common misconception of writers at the time... damn you Sayers and Mitford!

Older Posts Home