Sayers, Dorothy - Have His Carcase, take 2
Oops! I was reading some of truepenny's very good posts on the book and realized in my great fear of having a mob of Sayers fans, uh, mob me, I forgot to note the meta aspects of the book, which I did enjoy to some degree.
I'm probably going to just end up repeating what truepenny has already written, but I haven't actually read all hers yet and wanted to make observations.
It's perpetually interesting having Harriet involved in a mystery, given that she is a mystery writer. truepenny makes the point that Harriet approaches the body on the beach much as she would in a hypothetical book; she constantly asks herself what Robert Templeton (her fictional detective) would do. I did very much like that in the beginning, particularly the bits in which Harriet thinks that really, investigating a corpse on the beach isn't half as much fun as it seems in the books.
I also thought it was interesting that many of the breakthroughs in the book happened because Harriet would say something like, "Well, if this were in a detective story, such-and-such would happen." Same with Wimsey debating how truthful some alibis were, simply because they were so perfect. Sadly, I would probably have more to say about this had I read more mysteries in general.
There was also the fact that the murderer seemed to be working off what he thought a proper mystery should be; vague threats, impractical suggestions and all, which highlighted the artificiality of mysteries.
Unfortunately, I got rather irritated because Harriet would say something reminded her of such-and-such, and then Peter would end up having the epiphany. I should probably stop grinding this axe, but it kept bothering me. I like Harriet. I like that she is grumpy and fumbles and is cruel to Peter and doesn't always think things through. I would like Peter much more, except he seems entirely too perfect and too clever; he solves the ciphers while Harriet spends days substituting words, he figures out all the twists and turns of the mystery while Harriet only realizes after he mentions a few things, he is also hopelessly in love. It felt incredibly unfair, and I ended up taking Harriet's side.
Er, I do realize that this is probably a highly atypical reaction to the book, but I seem hard-wired to first sympathize with the female character no matter what.
Also, in the end, despite all the meta-narrative about detective novels and the inherent artificialities of a murder mystery, particularly one with an amateur sleuth, Peter and Harriet still end up solving the mystery. There would be moments in which the deciphered letter would prove to be a comment on how a mystery should work, which I liked, but right before that, there would be a long, drawn-out scene in which Peter and Harriet would go carefully through the cipher, which I had a difficult time suspending disbelief for.
I suspect much of this is unfamiliarity with the genre.
ETA: First reaction
I'm probably going to just end up repeating what truepenny has already written, but I haven't actually read all hers yet and wanted to make observations.
It's perpetually interesting having Harriet involved in a mystery, given that she is a mystery writer. truepenny makes the point that Harriet approaches the body on the beach much as she would in a hypothetical book; she constantly asks herself what Robert Templeton (her fictional detective) would do. I did very much like that in the beginning, particularly the bits in which Harriet thinks that really, investigating a corpse on the beach isn't half as much fun as it seems in the books.
I also thought it was interesting that many of the breakthroughs in the book happened because Harriet would say something like, "Well, if this were in a detective story, such-and-such would happen." Same with Wimsey debating how truthful some alibis were, simply because they were so perfect. Sadly, I would probably have more to say about this had I read more mysteries in general.
There was also the fact that the murderer seemed to be working off what he thought a proper mystery should be; vague threats, impractical suggestions and all, which highlighted the artificiality of mysteries.
Unfortunately, I got rather irritated because Harriet would say something reminded her of such-and-such, and then Peter would end up having the epiphany. I should probably stop grinding this axe, but it kept bothering me. I like Harriet. I like that she is grumpy and fumbles and is cruel to Peter and doesn't always think things through. I would like Peter much more, except he seems entirely too perfect and too clever; he solves the ciphers while Harriet spends days substituting words, he figures out all the twists and turns of the mystery while Harriet only realizes after he mentions a few things, he is also hopelessly in love. It felt incredibly unfair, and I ended up taking Harriet's side.
Er, I do realize that this is probably a highly atypical reaction to the book, but I seem hard-wired to first sympathize with the female character no matter what.
Also, in the end, despite all the meta-narrative about detective novels and the inherent artificialities of a murder mystery, particularly one with an amateur sleuth, Peter and Harriet still end up solving the mystery. There would be moments in which the deciphered letter would prove to be a comment on how a mystery should work, which I liked, but right before that, there would be a long, drawn-out scene in which Peter and Harriet would go carefully through the cipher, which I had a difficult time suspending disbelief for.
I suspect much of this is unfamiliarity with the genre.
ETA: First reaction