Showing posts with label Unnatural Death. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Unnatural Death. Show all posts

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?

Saturday, October 1, 2022

Murder Most Foul

A Shakespearean ghost brought us the phrase "murder most foul." I'm sure, given that it was spoken in Hamlet, that Shakespeare knew the basic human drive to be enthralled and strive to solve an unnatural death. It's the crux of the play's forward momentum to that gory end. We, as humans, are drawn to puzzles and hunt for clues like they're candy. Murder mysteries can even be comforting. There's a whole subgenre just of cozy mysteries! There's nothing I like better than being transported away from reality by a book, and mysteries tend to transport me more than most because I'm not just enjoying the narrative, I'm trying to pick up all the clues, throw aside all the red herrings, and figure out whodunit before the author actually tells us. Yes, I like to be one step ahead at all times. Of course there are so many different types of whodunits that one could read nothing but mysteries and not even dent the genre. And yet, that doesn't stop us from trying. From devouring one murder after another like they were a big box of chocolates, which thankfully, in this instance, aren't out to poison us. So here's to the mystery genre, to all those murders most foul. Here's to kicking off the holiday season the right way, with a corpse or two.

Friday, July 24, 2015

Book Review - Dorothy L. Sayers's Unnatural Death

Unnatural Death (Lord Peter Wimsey Book 3) by Dorothy L. Sayers
Published by: Harper Torch
Publication Date: 1927
Format: Paperback, 264 Pages
Rating: ★★
To Buy

"Any excuse to read Dorothy L. Sayers!

If I’m being honest, though, before Other Daughter, Unnatural Death was never a re-read for me. I tended to skim over Whose Body, Unnatural Death, and so on and skip straight to Strong Poison and the introduction of Harriet Vane.

But Unnatural Death had been written at exactly the right time and set in the right place—the London of summer 1927. There could be no better guide for daily life, slang, customs, places. It’s all what a professor of mine used to call “accidental evidence”. So I read it. And I read it again. (And I borrowed a block of flats while I was at it.) Sayers is a wonderful mystery novelist, but she’s also a great chronicler of the manners and mores of her time and I’m so very grateful to her for it.

Unnatural Death is now one of my favorite Wimsey mysteries. If you’ve never read Sayers before, it’s an excellent place to start. (And keep an eye out for that block of flats. You’ll know the one I mean.)" - Lauren Willig

One night at dinner Lord Peter and Detective-Inspector Parker are talking and a man at a nearby table overhears them and tells them his sad life story. He was a well placed Doctor, but after the death of an elderly patient with cancer his insistence that it was murder, not natural causes, resulted in his ostracization and his having to leave the small town where he had set up his practice, attempting to reestablish himself in London. The Doctor gives no names, but Lord Peter is so intrigued that he sets off to solve this "crime." Because Lord Peter is sure there is a crime. The only problem is means and motive... but he's sure once he starts poking around he'll find something.

The problem is, that while there were indeed odd goings on in Leahampton, the deceased, Miss Agatha Dawson, died quite awhile back and will or no will, the only person who would inherit was a great-niece, Miss Mary Whittaker. So why would she kill her "Auntie" if she was guaranteed to inherit? Once Lord Peter starts to intervene, secreting an old lady, Miss Climpson, in Leahampton as his agent on the ground, the bodies start to pile up. If the murderer of Miss Dawson had left well enough alone they would have gotten away with it because their was no proof. The ever growing stack of bodies is all the proof Lord Peter and Detective-Inspector Parker needed to know that their suppositions were right. Can they catch a killer before Lord Peter's conscience gets the better of him?

Two summers ago was my "Golden Summer" which I "created" solely with the intent to read all the great Golden Age mysteries which I had been remiss in not reading. I devoured Christie and Sayers, Allingham and Milne, Tey and Berkeley, getting lost in plot twists and dallying with dangerous killers. Some of the books I loved without question, others, others I had problems with. Sayers was one of those authors that was problematical. While reading only three of her books so far is more a sampling then an in-depth analysis, I'm not the biggest fan. Whether the books are parroting her own beliefs or just a product of the times, some of her views are quite racist and that doesn't sit very well with me. Interestingly enough my mother who was a big Sayers fan back in the day re-read the books with me and felt that they didn't retain the magic they had once possessed and that they are rather offensive.

So how do I justify so many people I know who love and admire Sayers? Well, actually it's quite easy. I mentioned in book club the other day that I had just finished a massive re-read of all Michael Crichton's books, to which a resounding why was asked. Because they are special to me because of the time I read them and how they made me love reading. Yes others might look down on them but to me they are sacred, along with the Star Wars novelizations of Timothy Zahn. That's what Sayers is to certain of my friends. A touchstone to a certain time, a certain way of life that they go back to again and again, remembering and loving what is best but glossing over that which might be objectionable to someone reading it for the first time. Certain books are in our DNA, Sayers will never be in mine.

I have to say that my first reaction to Unnatural Death was holy time jump Batman! This book starts out with an odd little biographical note that brought confusion galore to me and I had to go look up online to see if I was really reading book three. The thing is the note is written from the future date of 1935 by a Paul Austin Delagardie, a relative of Lord Peter's we've never met... yet. In actuality the book was written in 1927 and takes place in that year. So why was I forced to read all this weird spoilerish information about who Lord Peter marries (though I have always known that) and has a child with and that Parker would eventually succeed in wooing Peter's sister Mary? Gathering from some reviews online, this might be an addition to the book... again, I ask why? As one review I read said "I can't imagine why Sayers would include it in this book since it makes reference to any number of events in the lives of Lord Peter and his friends and family that haven't happened yet." So shame on you Dorothy L. Sayers, I shall now send River Song to beat the shit out of you for trying to mess with the linear narrative of Lord Peter's life.

Now I will get to the actual plot, not the preface of the book. Spinster Sleuths. Or spinsters that are sleuths and occasionally murderers. Apparently this book was originally titled The Singular Case of the Three Spinsters which I think captures the themes in the book far better then Unnatural Death. The question is... who came up with the first spinster who decided to put aside the knitting and start asking some rather pointed questions. I was going back and forth between Sayers and Christie, I mean, this book came prior to Miss Marple, but Miss Marple was based on another character of Chirstie's that came out prior to this book... looking into it, apparently it's neither! Apparently it was an American author named Mary Roberts Rinehart with her book The Circular Staircase. So there goes my theory of rivalling writers. But it's nice to give the spinsters some love. Or at least writers giving the spinsters some love because they aren't getting it elsewhere. Though Sayers seems to kind of hold them in contempt and uses them as a punching bag while viewing their lifestyle as a little too "outre," dropping one too many hints of lesbianism. Which I'm guessing she's against. Sayers has pretty well established her racist card in earlier volumes, so her being a homophobe wouldn't really surprise me.

As for the method of death. Anyone who is anyone will figure out that an undetectable injection that kills has to be an air embolism. I mean, they use this constantly as a trope in fiction, be it television, film, or book. Apparently this was Sayers idea, at least my googling hasn't proved otherwise. Yet critics weren't too kind about this new method of murder. "In Unnatural Death, she had invented a murder method that is appropriately dramatic and cunningly ingenious, the injection of an air-bubble with a hypodermic, but not only, in fact, would it require the use of an instrument so large as to be farcical, but Miss Sayers has her bubble put into an artery not a vein. No wonder afterwards she pledged herself 'strictly in future to seeing I never write a book which I know to be careless'." So, the question is, if this was so unpopular with critics then (and with me now) how did it ever become a trope? Sigh... sometimes I will never understand books.

Yet the nail in the coffin for this book is the fact that everything hinges on obscure British law... didn't I say I hate this? Didn't Dorothy get my memo I sent back with The Doctor? So what that the Law of Property Act of 1925 changed certain inheritances? I DON'T CARE! Yes, it's interesting, mildly, that some law passed by the government would spur a murderer to act, but... really, is it really that interesting? No! But then again, apparently I'm just having many issues with Dorothy L. Sayers that will never be resolved. Why have stupid quotes from books that no one has ever or will ever read at the beginning of each chapter? They don't even relate to the subject material at all! Also, writing it as three parts? Was this supposed to be that "epic" of a story that parts were needed? Still, there's a little bit of irony I love. Lord Peter says, "it isn't really difficult to write books. Especially if you either write a rotten story in good English or a good story in rotten English, which is as far as most people seem to get nowadays." The thing is, Dorothy L. Sayers... neither can be said of you. It's a rotten story in rotten English, I guess it is more difficult to write books then you think. Well, I guess that's pretty obvious by now.

Friday, May 31, 2013

Book Review - Dorothy L. Sayers's Unnatural Death

Unnatural Death (Lord Peter Wimsey Book 3) by Dorothy L. Sayers
Published by: Harper Torch
Publication Date: 1927
Format: Paperback, 264 Pages
Rating: ★★
To Buy

One night at dinner Lord Peter and Detective-Inspector Parker are talking and a man at a nearby table overhears them and tells them his sad life story. He was a well placed Doctor but after the death of an elderly Cancer patient his insistence that it was murder, not natural, resulted in his ostracization and his having to leave the small town and try to reestablish himself in London. The Doctor gives no names, but Lord Peter is so intrigued, that he sets off to solve this "crime." Because Lord Peter is sure there is a crime. The only problem is means and motive... but he's sure once he starts poking around he'll find something.

The problem is, that while there where indeed odd goings on in Leahampton, the deceased, Miss Agatha Dawson, died quite awhile back and will or no will, the only person who would inherit was a great-niece, Miss Mary Whittaker. So why would she kill her "Auntie" if she was guaranteed to inherit? Once Lord Peter starts to intervene, secreting an old lady, Miss Climpson in Leahampton as his agent on the ground, the bodies start to pile up. If the murderer of Miss Dawson had left well enough alone they would have gotten away with murder because their was no proof. The ever growing stack of bodies is all the proof Lord Peter and Detective-Inspector Parker needed to know that their suppositions were right. Can they catch a killer before Lord Peter's conscience gets the better of him?

Holy time jump Batman! I have to say, that was my first reaction to Unnatural Death. This book starts out with an odd little biographical note that brought confusion galore to me and I had to go look up online to see if I was really reading book three. The thing is the note is written from the future date of 1935 by a Paul Austin Delagardie, a relative of Lord Peter's we've never met... yet. In actuality, the book was written in 1927 and takes place in that year. So why was I forced to read all this weird spoilerish information about who Lord Peter marries (though I have always known that) and has a child with and that Parker would eventually succeed in wooing Peter's sister Mary? Gathering from some reviews online, this might be an addition to the book... again, I ask why? As one review I read said "I can't imagine why Sayers would include it in this book since it makes reference to any number of events in the lives of Lord Peter and his friends and family that haven't happened yet." So shame on you Dorothy L. Sayers, I shall now send River Song to beat the shit out of you for trying to mess with the linear narrative of Lord Peter's life.

Now I will get to the actual plot, not the preface of the book. Spinster Sleuths. Or spinsters that are sleuths and occasionally murderers. Apparently this book was originally titled The Singular Case of the Three Spinsters which I think captures the themes in the book far better then Unnatural Death. The question is... who came up with the first spinster who decided to put aside the knitting and start asking some rather pointed questions. I was going back and forth between Sayers and Christie, I mean, this book came prior to Miss Marple, but Miss Marple was based on another character of Chirstie's that came out prior to this book... looking into it, apparently it's neither! Apparently it was an American author named Mary Roberts Rinehart with her book The Circular Staircase. So there goes my theory of rivalling writers. But it's nice to give the spinsters some love. Or at least, other writers giving the spinsters some love. Sayers seems to kind of hold them in contempt and as a punching bag and views their lifestyle as a little too "outre" and she drops one too many hints of lesbianism. Which, I'm guessing she's against. Sayers has pretty well established her racist card in earlier volumes, so her being a homophobe wouldn't really surprise me.

As for the method of death. Anyone who is anyone will figure out that an undetectable injection that kills has to be an air embolism. I mean, they use this constantly as a trope in fiction. Apparently this was Sayers idea, at least my googling hasn't proved otherwise. Yet critics weren't too kind about this new method of murder. "In Unnatural Death, she had invented a murder method that is appropriately dramatic and cunningly ingenious, the injection of an air-bubble with a hypodermic, but not only, in fact, would it require the use of an instrument so large as to be farcical, but Miss Sayers has her bubble put into an artery not a vein. No wonder afterwards she pledged herself 'strictly in future to seeing I never write a book which I know to be careless'." So, the question is, if this was so unpopular with critics then (and with me now) how did it ever become a trope? Sigh... sometimes I will never understand books.

Yet the nail in the coffin for this book is the fact that everything hinges on obscure British law... didn't I say I hate this? Didn't Dorothy get my memo I sent back with The Doctor? So what that the Law of Property Act of 1925 changed certain inheritances? I DON'T CARE! Yes, it's interesting, mildly, that some law passed by the government would spur a murderer to act, but... really, is it really that interesting? No! But then again, apparently I'm just having many issues with Dorothy L. Sayers that will never be resolved. Why have stupid quotes from books that no one has ever or will ever read at the beginning of each chapter? They don't even relate to the subject material at all! Also, writing it as three parts? Was this supposed to be that "epic" of a story that parts were needed? Still, there's a little bit of irony I love. Lord Peter says, "it isn't really difficult to write books. Especially if you either write a rotten story in good English or a good story in rotten English, which is as far as most people seem to get nowadays." The thing is, Dorothy L. Sayers... neither can be said of you. It's a rotten story in rotten English, I guess it is more difficult to write books then you thing. Well, I guess that's pretty obvious by now.

Older Posts Home