I read somewhere that Jill Paton Walsh was such a fan of Harriet Vane's that Gaudy Night inspired her to attend Oxford. It's a wonderful little detail, and I love hearing stuff like that. But unfortunately for me as a Lord Peter Wimsey fan, it seems that Walsh's identification with Harriet means that Lord Peter is being winnowed out of her version of Sayers's stories almost completely.So once again, as with Walsh's Sayers continuation Thrones, Dominations, we have a solid, competently written book that doesn't feel much like part of the "Lord Peter" series except in name only. Most of the book takes place in WWII England, at Talboys (Harriet's childhood home, and the setting of Busman's Honeymoon), and Peter is absent for most of the book, off on mysterious wartime missions.I really felt like this Harriet-centric narrative device was a mistake. We're left with Harriet's rather straightforward, plainer personality, and without even a little of the Wimsey sparkle, the book drags for long sections. The only relief is a surprisingly enjoyable portrait of Bunter, whose character is believably expanded and who is one of the book's bright spots. But nobody else really feels like themselves. In Walsh's hands, Harriet lacks the quiet wit that marked her in Sayers's work, and here she's more humorless than ever. Kirk and Twitterton are both rather grim and seem to return just for fan-service (and they're completely unlike their Busman's Honeymoon selves). But it's the bright, mercurial characters that suffer most -- the Dowager is, like Peter, barely recognizable in Walsh's hands -- a shadow of her usually wonderful, rambling, stream-of-consciousness self, Jerry (Pickled Gherkins) is utterly lacking his usual breezy charm, and worst of all, Walsh cannot even seem to write Miss Climpson, who is presented without her ever-present breathless over-emphasis and italics (surely Miss Climpson's funny and faintly breathless and distinctive voice (!!!) could have and should have been better captured). It's as if Walsh is writing these faintly dry, academic, competent fan-fictions that happen to include Sayers characters, but she can't seem to capture the real vividness of the characters themselves.Lord Peter does return to the narrative here eventually, but he's once again rather sparkless. It's not that I think he should be dancing jigs in wartime, but Lord Peter does tend to whistle in the dark, and in addition to that, a sense of humor can be slyly evident as a personality trait even under pressure. With Lord Peter, in fact? Especially under pressure!But not here. As before, the character just doesn't feel much like Lord Peter at all -- once again, Walsh's take on Lord Peter is rather humorless and stuffy, with little wit or wordplay. Worst of all, she has Lord Peter apologizing repeatedly for being so "foolish" in the past -- this comes up repeatedly, and annoyed me a lot. Lord Peter's 'laughing on the outside' tomfoolery isn't actually foolish, and that's what's fun about the character. He's usually clowning around right when the danger is greatest or when his heart is breaking -- so for Walsh to essentially dismiss and criticize the earlier Sayers (real) Lord Peter as some kind of flighty annoyance is upsetting if you're a fan of the series.While this was an interesting story that brought to life WWII Britain, I ultimately felt this one was less successful than Thrones, Dominations, which I also felt was simply an okay mystery, and a substandard attempt at Lord Peter. However, where Thrones offered a mystery that felt like Sayers, the mystery here not only is very oddly presented and explored, it's almost thrown away by the end of the book. Both books are well-researched and presented, and Walsh obviously enjoys Sayers's works, but it's like hearing a barely competent musician play Mozart -- there's little real feeling to what feels like an almost academic exercise.I will keep reading Walsh's take -- substandard Lord Peter is better in a weird way than none at all, and I'm interested to see where she takes the characters. But it's been a quiet disappointment, as she has taken so much of the dazzle and dash of one of my favorite characters and made him rather ordinary -- that's the real crime here.I hope I'm explaining myself well. It's a decent book, but in it we see only the palest reflection of one of the great literary characters of all time. As an example -- one of my favorite moments in the Lord Peter Wimsey series is a moment in the book Strong Poison, when Lord Peter is rambling humorously at Harriet about the case (while making yet another marriage proposal), and charmed in spite of herself, she tells him that if anyone ever does marry him, it will be for the pleasure of hearing him "talk piffle."That's my problem with Walsh's take on the characters. There's plenty of mystery -- but no piffle.
This is the first independent “Wimsy” novel by Jill Paton Walsh. The previous book was partially written by Dorothy L Sayers and ‘finished’ by Walsh. This duet though wasn’t blended very well and parts of that book (“Thrones, Domination”) read like it was written by a committee (which usually ends up with a Camel when trying to design a horse). In 1939/1940 Sayers wrote a series of (what today would be op-ed) pieces for one of the major London papers. They were more “buck-up” pieces using her ‘Wimsy’ characters to discuss what was going on in England as a response to what the Germans were doing on the Continent. They were also meant to help those on the British Isles to get ready for what they all expected…invasion. Walsh has taken the information from (what is now referred to as) the ‘Wimsy Papers’ and extended it into this novel.From the Papers, we know that Peter was working undercover for the Foreign Office on the Continent (along with Bunter), and that his nephew St. George (known as Jerry, and the heir to the Denver Dukedom) had become a Spitfire pilot with the RAF. Lady Peter (Harriet Vane) had taken her two boys (the third was not born yet) along with Peter’s sister Lady Mary’s children to live in the country at Talboys in East Hertfordshire.After there is a murder in the Town (its’ name is never mentioned), the local police Superintendent asks for Harriet’s help in finding the murderer since she has experience as a mystery writer and a Lord Peter’s wife. Strangely enough, she turns out to be good at being a ‘sleuth’, and when Lord Peter and Bunter return from their mission, she has already gotten all the pieces squared away. With the help of Lord Peter everything is put to right.As in all of Sayer’s Lord Peter books, there is a sense of a gentle air of satire and Peter and Harriet do a great deal of repartee between themselves. Harriet is able to work out a way for Bunter’s wife Hope and him to settle at Talboys (with their son Peter) in their own small bungalow just as they had in London. All together a ‘good show’ don’t you know.Zeb Kantrowitz zworstblog.blogspot.com
Do You like book A Presumption Of Death (2004)?
I've been on a Peter Wimsey and Harriet Vane binge lately. Over the past few weeks I've read all of the Sayers novels involving them. That is, I've re-read the ones that Dorothy L Sayers wrote, and then started reading the Jill Paton Walsh continuations. I quite liked Thrones, Dominations, althougth I didn't think it was entirely successful. This one I liked much more. I enjoyed the evocation of the early WWII years and felt that Paton Walsh portrayed Peter and Harriet in a way which was true to their creator. I'm now reading (and now very much enjoying) The Attenbury Emeralds. It is going to be so very hard to leave my favourite literary couple behind!
—Kim
With Thrones and Dominations and Presumption of Death, Jill Paton Walsh manages to accomplish two demi-miracles--to provide worthy successors to the memorable novels of Dorothy L. Sayers and to write a passionate account of a marriage between two intellectual equals. I particularly enjoyed the second novel, set in a village in wartime England. Lord Peter is off on a secret mission and Harriet is not only keeping the home fires burning, but investigating a murder of a land girl whose unsolved death is breeding distrust and unease among the villagers.
—Ellen
This is the second full novel that Jill Paton Walsh developed for the characters Lord Peter Wimsey and Harriet Vane, created by Dorothy Sayers, but she has used notes and letters Sayers wrote that were full of little details about the Wimsey family. The setting is 1940, and the war is heating up for Britain, with the Battle of Britain and Hitler's attempted invasion looming just ahead with intensity that is very well depicted without being heavy-handed. I could feel the threat of the times these people endured and see clearly the quickening unification of all strata of society against their common enemy.Harriet has taken her children and Peter's sister Mary's children to Talboys, the farmhouse in the countryside that was the setting for Busman's Honeymoon, for safety. Peter is abroad with Bunter, working for the Foreign Office undercover; the Parkers are in London. Harriet and household participate in an air-raid drill during which a Land Girl is murdered, and the local police ask Harriet to help them with the investigation as they are very short-handed due to a number of their policemen joining the armed forces. For at least half the novel Harriet carries on without Peter, but he does come home at length and help with the solution to the mystery. Harriet has written an account of the mystery and its clues as a way of discussing things with Peter, and when he gets home he reads her letters about the case. Harriet should have been able to see the way the clues pointed, but she doesn't and Peter does. I did not like the way Harriet seemed a little stupid at connecting the dots without the corresponding delving into her psyche to see what is in the way as was the case in Have His Carcase.The author is not as skilled at planting clues as I would have liked. There is one clue in particular that could easily have been better hidden, I thought. (view spoiler)[When Harriet finishes her tasks in London and boards the train for home, she sees the killer (she names him to herself but of course not as the killer) running to catch the train. He is supposed to be lame from a broken ankle, and yet she thinks nothing of his running at the time and forgets about it. Had this clue been recast so that she could not think of his name but simply registers that someone she vaguely knows is running for the train and barely catching it and somehow shouldn't be running, but she cannot think of that now because there are so many more important problems she is beset by, then that might have been both more realistic and more subtle and less detrimental to Harriet's powers. (hide spoiler)]
—Marci
