A question of Wimsey

[freenarnian.livejournal.com]

Happy near year, Sounisians!

I was recommending Dorothy Sayers (as one does), this time to an_english_girl, when she posed a very reasonable but perplexing question: In what order should one read the Lord Peter Wimsey books?

Now, I recall asking this very question, and I was told to begin with the short stories. In hindsight, I think I would have understood and enjoyed those more had I read the novels first. The novels can be read sequentially, of course, but the difference in quality and tone varies significantly, with many people favoring her later books. (I suppose it depends on how one feels about the addition of Harriet Vane to the cast of characters.) So where should one begin, if one wants to dip one's toe into the waters to get a feel for the series overall?

I know there are Sayers fans hereabouts, and so I put the question to Sounis. Anyone have suggestions?

Comments

[ibmiller.livejournal.com]

I read them as I could find them, starting with Five Red Herrings (do NOT recommend that as a starting book) and Murder Must Advertise (which I actually would). I'd say start with Clouds of Witness for one of the best of the first five books to get a flavor of those, and then try Strong Poison (I'm a weird Lord Peter/Harriet fan because I read Gaudy Night I believe first of the three, and found Strong Poison and Have His Carcase much less enjoyable than Gaudy Night and Busman's Honeymoon, so I'm not a "read only the Harriet Books" fan). So it's clear to me that you can read them in any order and love them, but I'd say if possible go for the first few, and if you find it slow going, skip to Gaudy Night. :) Definitely don't think the short stories are the place to start - there's not enough of Lord Peter in them. Even Whose Body, one of the weakest, has the "full Peter" experience.

[freenarnian.livejournal.com]

Thanks, Ian!

I'd agree that Gaudy Night is in a league of its own, and for many (including myself) it stands as the Lord Peter book. I admit I wasn't sure about Harriet in the books proceeding it (which I did read in order). Normally I feel cringy about authors blatantly writing themselves into their novels as love-interests. It turned me off the Mary Russell books and even the Mitford series. But Sayers won my loyalty, somehow. :)

Murder Must Advertise is great. I recommended it to a friend who works in marketing once, simply for its satirical genius. And speaking of favorites, The Nine Tailors is too often overlooked, imho.

[ibmiller.livejournal.com]

Gaudy Night is definitely, for me, the pinnacle of the Lord Peter series - and indeed, of almost all mystery novels. While I do love the first and third Mary Russell novels, the books definitely devolve into fairly generic and repetitive thrillers really quickly. (The third I love largely because it has one chapter with Lord Peter ;) - even though I did some work many years ago and figured out that it would probably not fit with the chronology of Clouds of Witness).

The "Sayers is Harriet" thing continues to come up - probably because it's such an easy criticism for those who find Harriet hard to like. Since I read Gaudy Night first, maybe that's why I love Harriet so much. To me, Sayers isn't at all sentimental or smoothing of things over for Harriet - she goes through hell, and even has to learn from Peter how to be a better writer. So she's nothing like a self-insert romantic fantasy.

Murder Must Advertise just makes me laugh so much. It's so lovely. Nine Tailors and Strong Poison, for some reason, I've always heard from other fans, are the "best written" or something of the novels. But for me, it's definitely Gaudy Night, and Clouds of Witness, Murder Must Advertise, and Busman's Honeymoon which are next best crafted.

[freenarnian.livejournal.com]

That Sayers based much of Harriet on herself and her own experience is undeniable... but it seems funny to criticize any author for "writing what they know," as the maxim goes. Besides, much of what I understand of Sayers' life has only made her a more sympathetic figure in my eyes (even the fact that she didn't always endear herself to others, nor felt the need to). ;) Anyway, Harriet's journey, from Have His Carcase onwards, is extraordinary, and I'm hard-pressed to think of her equal in literature. She's smart, curious, stubborn, insightful, caring, witty, feminine, and fallible. Amazingly human for an invented female character, in other words, and I adore her. :)

(Tangent: And so what, if there was an element of wish-fulfillment in having her find her match in Peter? Don't we look to books for the satisfying conclusion so often lacking in "real life"?)

(Speaking of tangents, I backspaced an entire paragraph that was, on the surface, about Sayers, but was subliminally about Star Wars, because most of my thoughts are subliminally about Star Wars lately.) 0:)

[ibmiller.livejournal.com]

I definitely agree that Sayers used her experience to write Harriet. But it's really frustrating to have Harriet dismissed or disliked because of that, when so many other novelists never catch any real heat for it. :)

I'm not completely sure where I stand on power or wish-fulfillment fantasies right now. There's obviously a huge draw for me, based on how many superhero comics I love, but I'm trying to figure out how that fits with my desire to be the kind of reader described positively in Lewis's An Experiment in Criticism. All that being said, I do think that the love story in the Wimsey novels is really lovely, especially because it doesn't retreat to "everything is easy" in Busman's Honeymoon. That book actually was a bit hard for me to swallow at first, because of how dark the ending is, but I've converted to loving it once I understood that Sayers pulled a full circle with Peter by having his last words in that novel be the same as the first words of Strong Poison - truly lovely craftsmanship.

I confess to a bit of envy with those who still feel able to invest in the current Star Wars narrative to think about it that much. I'm still extremely bitter than nothing Disney's produced is better than the best of the 90s novels. :)

[freenarnian.livejournal.com]

I've had An Experiment in Criticism on my to-read list for over a year (after attending a lecture about it).

I try not to be insufferable, but I'm afraid I'm too often that friend who, immediately upon exiting the movie theater, likes to dissect the plot and pass judgement on its innards. 0:1 I didn't "grow up" with Star Wars, though, so I'm already in a different camp than most when it comes to the new movies. I respect the feelings of those who did, while admittedly being the audience-equivalent of a Gray Jedi.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ <--Here for the lightsabers

[ibmiller.livejournal.com]

I read it many years ago, and recently got it as a gift, so I need to reread it. But it definitely challenges me as a reader, and I think that's generally of the good. Nothing irritates me more than being told my opinion doesn't matter because I'm thinking too hard about a book or movie. :) So I'm likely similar to you in the way people think about going to a movie with me.

My biggest problem with the new Star Wars movies, apart from not being the books I love (I'm a weird Star Wars fan (or ex fan, now) in that the world of Star Wars is much more about the books than the movies), it's just not as good. It's dumber, louder, more made-by-committee - just extruded money product. Now, you could make the argument that my beloved Star Wars books are also extruded money product - but they were often carefully thought through and very effective in creating solid characters and thematic exploration. And despite being edited to death (particularly the later ones), they didn't exude the feeling of so many cooks in the kitchen as the new films.

[freenarnian.livejournal.com]

More thoughts on An Experiment once I've read it. (Bumping it up on my reading list, as it keeps coming to my attention.)

I have to keep books and movies in separate compartments in my brain... Good mental fences make good mental neighbors (or something like that). :)

[frosted-feather.livejournal.com]

I also loved the Star Wars books and, funnily enough, nearly every Star Wars fan I know loves the old books more than the new movies. I've been able to enjoy the new movies as "alternate stories". But there was a momentum and freshness to those '90s Star Wars books (the good ones) that can't be replicated on purpose. I remember spending my lunch breaks in the summer after high school reading the Star Wars books message boards and experiencing the thrills and upheavals of the New Jedi Order with other fans.

[(Anonymous)]

Most Star Wars fans I know who actually read them love them more than the new movies. But there's two factions who don't - the ones who seem to be fairly thoughtless and heavily politicized, and the ones who didn't read the books in the 90s and early 2000s.

I think there have been some fun things about the new movies, but there's nothing I can love in them.

Those message boards were pretty great! All the fanfic and speculation!

[ibmiller.livejournal.com]

Oops, this was me.

[freenarnian.livejournal.com]

I never read the novels and therefore had no prior allegiance or expectations for the new movies, but I totally get how that could change one's reception. (Ignorance is bliss, in my case.) As it stands, whatever objections I had to The Last Jedi didn't hold up to multiple viewings (...yes, I saw it three times). 0:) But now I find myself in the seemingly unique position of both enjoying the movies and understanding why some folks didn't like them.

I guess I'm more of a fence-rider than I'd like to admit? Because I similarly refuse to take sides in the debate over which adaption of Pride and Prejudice is better, preferring to enjoy the positive aspects of both!

[ibmiller.livejournal.com]

I definitely can't be a fence sitter on the issues of Star Wars or Pride and Prejudice films (at least, with our current slate of films - 41, 80, 95, 05). The new miniseries coming up...we'll have to see, but I'm open. As much as I love 95 best (though I do think that 05 has some distinct merits, weighed down by a really dumb script), I don't think that it's the "real" Pride and Prejudice. That's always the book for me, so if a new version comes out that captures as much or more of the book, I'm perfectly happy to make a new judgment.

On the issue of Emma adaptations, though, I am on the fence (though not the fence most people find themselves on). I loathe the 72 film and the Paltrow version, but I can't decide if I love the Beckinsale or Garai version better, because Beckinsale has a much stronger script (closer to the book, less self indulgent), but Garai gets to include more of the book and flesh things out. And I don't have a performance preference. So I guess it really depends for me on the thing in question, whether I sit on fences or not. (Also, if you ever bring up Pride and Prejudice adaptations, I did do my undergrad thesis on five of them, so I have Opinions. ;) )

[freenarnian.livejournal.com]

re: Opinions... haha! I would never accuse you of having Opinions... :P (Certainly not unfounded ones, anyway!)

When it comes to movie adaptions, I'm afraid I can't separate the overall quality from my like/dislike for certain actors and actresses. I enjoy the Paltrow version of Emma, for example, largely because of Jeremy Northam's Mr. Knightley (also for its humor), whereas Romola Garai ruins any movie for me. :( And while I've heard fair criticisms of Northam, Jonny Lee Miller made Knightley downright unlikable!

(Speaking of Jeremy Northam, I highly recommend the movie The Winslow Boy.)

None of that is based on how well the movies mirrored the books, of course. I disliked the Beckinsale Emma simply because it sounded like they were all walking around with their microphones attached to their shoes. I shalln't pretend my opinions aren't sometimes petty! :)

[ibmiller.livejournal.com]

Now this is very interesting. I do love Jeremy Northam (and the Winslow Boy - such a lovely film), but Paltrow, Sophie Thompson, Toni Collette, and above all McGrath's script, just makes it more winces than enjoyment. Whereas when I first watched Daniel Deronda, I was convinced that Garai could be the perfect Emma, but that she would never do it because she'd already done her big novel miniseries...then a year later, I got the news that she was cast and I was literally skipping on my way back to work. :) I'm surprised you thought JLM was unlikeable - I thought he was one of the most likeable Knightley's out there (certainly much less dark than Mark Strong's, who I still quite liked.) I guess Emma is right - one half of the world cannot understand the pleasures of the other.

[freenarnian.livejournal.com]

...one half of the world cannot understand the pleasures of the other...

Right again, Jane! :)

(Though I *do* understand different points of view on it. Just can't bring *myself* to get over the auditory distraction of microphone-shoes and the faces that Romola makes.)

I could go on and on about how great The Winslow Boy is. Lovely indeed.

[chocolatepot.livejournal.com]

Like ibmiller, I read them as I found them - mainly because there's a finite number of books and I didn't want to get through them too quickly. I did, however, make sure to read the ones with Harriet Vane in order to preserve the storyline: Strong Poison, Have His Carcase, Gaudy Night, and Busman's Honeymoon.

[freenarnian.livejournal.com]

Sound advice. But am I remembering correctly that Murder Must Advertise goes somewhere in that list, chronologically speaking?

[ibmiller.livejournal.com]

Murder Must Advertise does take place during the Harriet series, but she is only mentioned once.

[freenarnian.livejournal.com]

I knew she was only mentioned, but couldn't remember if it contained anything significant to the development of their relationship. Thanks for clarifying!

[ibmiller.livejournal.com]

MMA is mentioned as having a significant impact on Peter during Gaudy Night, but I don't think it really impacts the Harriet plot or relationship - you can read the Harriet books without reading MMA, and I don't think it materially changes the experience. Just a bonus reference to make the heart of a fan glad. :)

lord peter

[scatha-b.livejournal.com]

In fact, Sayers wrote her real self into "Murder must advertise" as one of the (if I remember the term correctly) copy writers who has a crush on Peter.

[frosted-feather.livejournal.com]

I am late to the party. (Very late!) Like others, I recommend starting with either Murder Must Advertise, The Nine Taylors, or Who's Body? (the first book), to get the Peter Whimsey flavor. Then reading in order the introduction of Harriet (Strong Poison), and on to the end.

Though if the initial books don't grab your interest, then of course Gaudy Night is perfection on its own, and may lead you back into the rest of the series.

My own journey was funny: I listened to a variety of the non-Harriet books on audio without being very invested, then an abridged version of Gaudy Night, missing most of the subtext, then started listening to "Busman's Honeymoon", and stopped to I could grab and devour the actual book. Suddenly, I loved Peter! I went back and read everything with him again, and finally read the introduction of Harriet and their relationship in order.