(no subject)
I just finished reading Conundrums for the Long Week-End, a Christmas present from my parents. It's about the Lord Peter Wimsey books and how they reflect the world in which Sayers was writing. Just my sort of thing (which is why I asked for it). However, it was a bit disappointing. Rather than an in-depth exploration of the books, it felt more like a recap of the plots, together with fairly basic contextual information. Sayers discussions on LJ seem to be much more interesting and original in general.
It's not helped by the fact that the authors seem to be mistaken about various points. (They are based at US universities, and presumably are American; I think part of it is a lack of familiarity with British culture.) For instance, we are told that "Wimsey belonged to a family of sportsmen, skilled hunters who had nonetheless never killed a fox". This is something of a misreading. In Whose Body? the narration mentions that "He belonged to a family which had never shot a fox". I'm sure the foxes still ended up dead - I can imagine Peter having an outbreak of soft-heartedness and calling the hounds off, but I cannot imagine for a second his father or Gerald (or Helen) doing so. That line appears when Peter is making his mind up to go and visit Freke in an attempt to play fair; it's about playing the game, rather than the authors' seeming suggestion that the Wimseys are a compassionate lot.
"Though Dorothy L. Sayers worked hard to create a sense of the real in her novels ... she employed several devices to remind readers that they were reading a story, that none of these horrible, murdering people were real. The most obvious of her tricks was the naming of places and characters. No one would conceive that places with names such as Riddlesdale, Little Dorking or Little Doddering could actually exist. ... Vera Findlater, Bertha Gotobed - who would believe that these were the names of real people?"
Um. I think this may well be a US/UK difference, because as an English reader I can readily conceive that places with those names could exist, seeing as there is indeed a Dorking, a Riddlesden, and various other places with similar names. I also have no trouble believing in the names used as examples.
I find these assumptions - that all readers must react in the same way to these authors - rather bizarre. They also leap to conclusions a bit - we are solemnly told that "Harriet Vane's closest friends and supporters in Strong Poison are a lesbian couple". Which they certainly could be - the text isn't explicit either way, and I know many people like to read Sylvia and Eiluned as a couple, which I am completely in favour of. But it's something where there's evidence for both sides - they might be, or they might not, and just flatly stating that they are a couple, with no exploration of the evidence in the text or why you've come to that conclusion, seems to be missing the opportunity for a more interesting discussion.
One for the completist, I think. There are some interesting moments (I have been led to muse on just what the status of Sherlock Holmes is in Lord Peter's world), but it's nothing that you wouldn't get from reading the books and having a basic grasp of 20s and 30s UK history.
It's not helped by the fact that the authors seem to be mistaken about various points. (They are based at US universities, and presumably are American; I think part of it is a lack of familiarity with British culture.) For instance, we are told that "Wimsey belonged to a family of sportsmen, skilled hunters who had nonetheless never killed a fox". This is something of a misreading. In Whose Body? the narration mentions that "He belonged to a family which had never shot a fox". I'm sure the foxes still ended up dead - I can imagine Peter having an outbreak of soft-heartedness and calling the hounds off, but I cannot imagine for a second his father or Gerald (or Helen) doing so. That line appears when Peter is making his mind up to go and visit Freke in an attempt to play fair; it's about playing the game, rather than the authors' seeming suggestion that the Wimseys are a compassionate lot.
"Though Dorothy L. Sayers worked hard to create a sense of the real in her novels ... she employed several devices to remind readers that they were reading a story, that none of these horrible, murdering people were real. The most obvious of her tricks was the naming of places and characters. No one would conceive that places with names such as Riddlesdale, Little Dorking or Little Doddering could actually exist. ... Vera Findlater, Bertha Gotobed - who would believe that these were the names of real people?"
Um. I think this may well be a US/UK difference, because as an English reader I can readily conceive that places with those names could exist, seeing as there is indeed a Dorking, a Riddlesden, and various other places with similar names. I also have no trouble believing in the names used as examples.
I find these assumptions - that all readers must react in the same way to these authors - rather bizarre. They also leap to conclusions a bit - we are solemnly told that "Harriet Vane's closest friends and supporters in Strong Poison are a lesbian couple". Which they certainly could be - the text isn't explicit either way, and I know many people like to read Sylvia and Eiluned as a couple, which I am completely in favour of. But it's something where there's evidence for both sides - they might be, or they might not, and just flatly stating that they are a couple, with no exploration of the evidence in the text or why you've come to that conclusion, seems to be missing the opportunity for a more interesting discussion.
One for the completist, I think. There are some interesting moments (I have been led to muse on just what the status of Sherlock Holmes is in Lord Peter's world), but it's nothing that you wouldn't get from reading the books and having a basic grasp of 20s and 30s UK history.