At last, I pick up Dorothy Sayers' first mystery novel and finally learn the Origins of Lord Peter!...except, this isn't an origin story like I was expecting. We don't get to see Lord Peter as Bruce Wayne in Batman Begins, deciding to become a defender of justice while pretending to be a empty-headed rich playboy (oh man, did anyone else start thinking of Peter Wimsey/Batman slashfic? Maybe Batman builds a time machine and goes back to the 1930's and he and Peter fight crime together while Alfred and Bunter hang out and trade dry witticisms and then everyone makes out. Give me a couple days, I'll work on it.) - instead, this is more like the earlier Batman movies, where he's already running around Gotham punching people in funny outfits and it's always been that way. There are some references in this book to Peter taking up detective work out of boredom, but when the book starts he's already solved several important cases and has his method figured out. Boo on Sayers for not giving me the gritty origin story I expected, but that's okay. Aside from that quibble, I enjoyed this story pretty well - like most other reviewers, I guessed the culprit pretty quickly, but it's not Sayers' fault that I watch so much Law and Order: SVU and have learned to pick out the patterns. This is very obviously a first novel, and her style has improved a lot since this book. It's not the best in the series, but it's still a fun, brief detective romp. Which leaves only one thing left to talk about.RACISM. In her very thoughtful review of this book, Kelly expressed discomfort with what she saw as anti-Semitic elements present throughout the plot. Having now finished the book, I disagree with this reading, and will try to explain myself without pissing anyone off. First: an author is not her characters, and just because a character expresses a certain view does not mean that the author shares this view. It's true that some of the minor characters in this book express anti-Semitic opinion, but I think Sayers is using their prejudiced beliefs to make a point about how Jews were seen by the general population at the time - I don't think anyone can deny that in the 1920's, people were still racist as hell.Secondly, I read the book specifically looking for anti-Semitic statements and...I just don't see them. Some (not all) characters are prejudiced against Jews, but no one is saying that Jews are evil - if anything, characters just echo commonly accepted misconceptions and stereotypes about Jews, and none of it seems motivated by a particular malice, but by just general ignorance. A prime example of this is Peter's mother who delivers what Kelly saw as a lengthy rant against Jews (I think she was referencing Peter's mother, anyway - the character's not named in the review, so I apologize if I got it wrong, Kelly) Here's some of the Duchess's dialogue, judge for yourself: "...and I'm sure some Jews are very good people, and personally I'd much rather they believed something, though of course it must be very inconvenient, what with not working on Saturdays and circumcising the poor little babies and everything depending on the new moon and that funny kind of meat they have with such a slang-sounding name, and never being able to have bacon for breakfast. Still, there it was, and it was much better for the girl to marry him if she was really fond of him..."I don't see anti-Semitism in that. Peter's mother doesn't understand Judaism very well, but there's nothing particularly unkind in her dialogue - in fact, she's basically saying, "Yes, Jews are different and I don't understand their religion at all, but they should be able to marry who they like." Furthermore, I think that based on what I know of Sayers' other books, the speech is meant to be a comic display of how little Judaism was understood at the time. I don't think Peter's mother is anti-Semitic, and I don't think the book is, either.
In Whose Body? as with other detective fictions, Dorothy L. Sayers creates a detective as unique as Sherlock Holmes, Hercule Poirot, Miss Marple or Father Brown. This is, indeed, the first of her Lord Peter Whimsey stories, featuring the aristocratic amateur detective as he proceeds to investigate various criminal occurrences. In this particular instance the crime is the sudden appearance of a body in an unused bathtub in the house of one Mr Thripps. There are several peculiarities connected to the body which further highlight the nature of the strange crime. And for once there is no clearly identifiable motives or suspicions, making the crime a bolt out of the blue. Then, at the same time, one particularly notable individual has gone missing.However, as the best detective novels do, Sayers work does not merely stop at observing a crime, the repercussions and the conclusion. This novel is more set around the crime, with the importance of the novel centring around the world of Lord Peter and his colleagues. To that end this novel becomes capable of observing that all too simple idea of 'the human condition.' An idea that after many thousands of years remains as simple and unsolvable a quandary as any of the best crimes to be found in fiction or reality.If you intend to look for some of the better classic crime novels then you cannot go wrong with Sayers work here. Particularly if you are looking for a female author to pair up against such men as G.K. Chesterton or Sir Arthur Conan Doyle as I have been. I certainly recommend this novel although it has been noted that the internal chronology of events is rather skewed when one tries to read the entire novels.
Do You like book Whose Body? (1995)?
I should say, this was like Sherlock Holmes and Agatha Christie’s mixed together but not to perfection. It was set in a frame bigger than just identifying who was the murderer (in this book the murderer was announced while there was like a quarter of the book to be finished) so honestly, the thrill was not there. The characters spoke a lot, they must have a gallon extra supply of saliva, and Lord Peter could rant for pages and pages you lost track of what he was actually talking about. But ironically it was Lord Peter Wimsey who attracted me into continuing my read and wanting to read more. He was witty with his words, had a habit of suddenly quoting strands of poems, liked to harass his partner-in-‘crime’ Charles Parker and the long suffering Inspector Sugg, and said he was bullied by his valet Mr Bunter, but also suffered from a shell shock during the WWI. He was a man of personality.I look forward to seeing more of his lordship. There are criticisms about him being too perfect and having too many gifts it is a crime to normal humanity, and I am set to finding that out. All in all not a perfect crime story and surely would not beat Dame Agatha but just nice and delicious to quench your thirst for detective story.Oh, by the way, Lord Peter was an amateur and admitted himself to be one. And his motto was “As Whimsy takes me.”
—Norain
This book fails miserably as a mystery novel. It is plain as day who is the murderer right from the beginning, but flagrantly obvious clues are persistently ignored solely for the sake of prolonging the the book. It is a failure as a piece of writing, too: it's peopled with ridiculously typological characters - a typical butler, a typical aristocrat, a typical Scotland Yard officer etc., and it drags on and on, despite its relatively small size, as half of the book consists of lenghty, redundant conversations, which aim at being witty and entertaining, but induce only boredom verging on annoyance. Moreover, it is INSUFFERABLY elitist. This 20th century novel somehow manages to be more snobbish than many a 19th c. work, and that's something. I don't even want to know whence Sayers got the idea that Peter Wimsey, an irresponsible, idle blue-blood running around interrupting other people's work, ironising about "democracy" and "equality", good-humouredly patronising people who, unlike him, are paid for actually doing something, and pampered like a little baby by his butler, is a likeable character. Discrimination of lower classes goes as far as stating that members of the working class all have a similar, primitive shape of head. What exactly is meant by that is not clear. For a woman so well educated, and fighting against discrimination herself, Sayers sure judges others by their cover. Superficiality is the main theme of Whose Body?: plot-wise, stylistically and ideologically.
—Kin
WHOSE BODY? (Amateur Sleuth-London-1920s) – VGSayers, Dorothy L. – 1st in seriesHarper, 1923- PaperbackLord Peter Wimsey is called to view the body of an unknown dead man found in the bathtub of a friend. The body is wearing nothing but a gold pince-nez. When Ruben Levy, a prosperous member of the Exchange, disappears, Wimsey, and his intrepid man Bunter and detective friend Mr. Parker, set out to find the solution.*** I had forgotten how fun this is. Reflecting the social attitudes of English aristocracy at the time, yet still with the impact of WWI, Wimsey is an interesting character surrounded by a cast of excellent supporting players. It was a real treat to be re-introduced to this delightful series. If you've not read Dorothy Sayers, I recommend giving the series a try.
—LJ
