Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.39 AVERAGE
3.39 AVERAGE
I liked this book less than the others in the Lord Peter Wimsey series. The supporting characters I like so much were barely in this book, and the cction seemed to repeat and repeat and repeat before they finally caught the killer. It was tedious to go over wrong theories of the crime in excruciating detail again and again. I hope the next book in the series will return to the former high standard.
This was a fun satisfying cozy mystery that felt sort of like Dorothy Sayers doing Agatha Christie. Whimsey acts a bit like Poirot here and there are numerous false clues, liars, and information that's only obvious once it's revealed.
This feels like a 92,000 word crossword puzzle clue! The suspects all felt intentionally 2D and bland in order to add to the confusion. I could see how you could enjoy this book by reading it alongside a whiteboard as you piece together the volumes of information and perform your own deductions. However, if you want to read this as a book that’s enjoyable in its own right, I think it fails pretty miserably.
Lord Wimsey's crime investigation moved at a snail's pace compared to any of the mysteries solved by Poirot. The methodical detailed style is commendable, and it does cover a more realistic pattern of a police investigation: with dead-end pursuits of useless clues and pages upon pages of train time-tables, not to mention at least five lost bicycles that even the most attentive reader would lose track of. I liked Wimsey and his Jeeves-like man-servant and enjoyed the portrayal of the various police detectives, but the attempt to phonetically render a Scottish dialect was poor, and for an easy, fast-paced, holiday crime novel, the book was a bit of a disappointment.
I mean, I understand why this is a lot of people's least favorite Lord Peter novel. Timetables, a large cast of characters (larger than others in the series? I suppose), the Unnamed Missing Object, impenetrable brogues, etc. Me, I like it. It's not my favorite either - but I like it. I went to art school, I loved painting, I wanted to be an artist, so I love/envy the milieu of the informal artists' colony, a group of men beavering away at their canvases and picking at each other's styles. I am unbearably smug that, for possibly the only time in my life, I easily identified the Unnamed Missing Object because of my background - it was blindingly obvious to me, because I'd handled such a thing many times.
I like the characters. I like the artists and those around them, and the police. Their personalities are brilliantly drawn, as always - DLS was always able to create marvelous, often unforgettable background and secondary characters (Miss Murchison and Bill Rumm, anyone?), and there are some great character studies here. One of my favorite author tricks is that of introducing a character from one point of view, limning their personality in that light - and then bringing in a new character who has a completely opinion on that personality. It's up to the reader to judge who's right and where the biases come from, based on the narration - and DLS is among the best at presenting these miniature dramas.
The best example here is of Gilda Farren. Campbell, in his bitter and antisocial way, worshipped her as an icon of purity and womanhood. Peter, however, casts a cynical eye at how she's staged herself - with an artist's instincts, she knows how to present a facade, sure enough - and seems to have his own ideas. Ferguson outright hates her as an "interfering, well-meaning bitch" who needs to keep out of other people's business. As for Mr. Farren - well, it's been a minute since I read this book, and in my mind the scene in which Wimsey confronts him over the new Dog & Gun inn painting felt like the finale, detective bracing murderer and with some melancholy sending him off to be hanged. When in fact it was detective bracing absconding husband and sending him home to be ... forgiven. Gilda Farren's forgiveness comes off here as a fate worse than hanging. But Campbell would have rejoiced in it. DLS is a marvel.
This chapter is one of my favorites in all of Wimsey, the one I retain from this book when everything else has faded.
And Peter and Bunter are utterly Peter and Bunter. It's mentioned that Peter has taken a small studio in Kirkcudbright (pronounced, I discover in this, the first time I'm ever hearing an audiobook version, Kir-COO-bree) because "it entertained him to watch his extremely correct personal man gutting trout and washing potatoes under an outside tap, and receiving the casual visitor with West End ceremony." And it does. Moreover, it entertained me - and I strongly suspect it entertained Bunter. He's put up with worse, after all. I think he got along gloriously well with the locals, soaked in the bits of dialect and produced them as needed to amuse Peter, and altogether enjoyed himself. (And was relieved and glad to go back to 110A Piccadilly and all its amenities.) And can I just say that Bunter's Castle of Otranto narrative is worth literally any amount of timetables.
There is a slightly different angle on Peter in this book. Instead of being ensconced amongst his incunabula and black-and-primrose library, zipping around London in Mrs Murbles and dining with the Honorable Freddy and Lady
Worthington and scoping out sales of rare books - here he is hanging out at a pub with fishermen and artists of a variety of social standings, and rambling the countryside, and getting along famously with everyone and everything. I love that he's not an expert in painting. He knows a little, as an accomplished and sophisticated nobleman must, enough to be able to assess skill and talent - but he is on the whole ignorant of the mechanics of it all. It's a good thing that he's not an expert in every field.
As for what most people feel are the drawbacks in the book - I'm fine with them. I admit to glazing over a bit when the timetables are being worked out - it's the sort of thing that is legitimately interesting only to the person on the spot trying to figure it out, and definitely not a spectator sport - but for me the interest lies with the person doing the figuring rather than the figuring itself. I like Constable Ross, who does so much of the legwork, and the snippets of character in all the many conductors and porters and bystanders and bicycle owners met along the way. The train schedules are dull - the characters are not. For me that's always what a book is about: the characters. An author can get away with a lot in my eyes if they can write good characters. DLS can get away with pretty much anything, and I'll defend her to the death. Oh, and then there's P.C. Duncan, who fantasized about infiltrating the local dressed up "(when off duty) as an aged clergyman or a Breton onion-seller" - anyone who quit the book earlier because of the timetables missed P.C. Duncan. Poor them.
Oh, and the brogue? I'm fine with that too. Context is good enough to help translate anything that is otherwise unintelligible, and I've gotten pretty good at the brogue (reading, at least).
Anyone who DNF'd the book also missed the fantastical, marvelous story of Gowan's incapacity. Told by someone else, it would probably be stupid and too improbable to swallow. Told by DLS, it is, yes, stupid - but not on the part of the author. It shows up the characters as having behaved stupidly and improbably - - and every bit in keeping with their personalities. It's a wild story, but because of the people involved in it it's the only answer. I love it.
The recreation of the crime and all its trappings is great fun. As it was coming closer, I kept thinking of Marty McFly for some reason ... Again, because of DLS's use of characters (main and NPC), it strikes entirely true.
This, as I mentioned, was the first time I listened to an audio version of the book, and I had a great time with it. I was a little disappointed that my, er, source didn't have the version read by Ian Carmichael I believe exists somewhere, but was instead read by Patrick Malahide. Don't get me wrong - it's excellent; his Peter had a somewhat odd timbre that took a moment to get used to after several books' worth of Ian Carmichael's Peter, but I approve on the whole. His brogue is fun; he produces a wide variety of tones and accents for all the different characters; I think my only quibble is with his Parker, who sounds by times a bit Cockney, and by times a bit Scots. I still want to find the Carmichael one day, but I'm very glad I came across this.
ETA: As I listened, I kept expecting a scene in which Bunter breaks out an easel and palette while Wimsey fishes somewhere downstream, and it never happened; I started wondering about the Mandela effect, until I remembered the (also) Ian Carmichael tv adaptation. Could the memory have been from that? As a matter of fact, it could - if I recall correctly, 'tis they who find the body. Truly dreadful quality screencap to prove it:
I like the characters. I like the artists and those around them, and the police. Their personalities are brilliantly drawn, as always - DLS was always able to create marvelous, often unforgettable background and secondary characters (Miss Murchison and Bill Rumm, anyone?), and there are some great character studies here. One of my favorite author tricks is that of introducing a character from one point of view, limning their personality in that light - and then bringing in a new character who has a completely opinion on that personality. It's up to the reader to judge who's right and where the biases come from, based on the narration - and DLS is among the best at presenting these miniature dramas.
The best example here is of Gilda Farren. Campbell, in his bitter and antisocial way, worshipped her as an icon of purity and womanhood. Peter, however, casts a cynical eye at how she's staged herself - with an artist's instincts, she knows how to present a facade, sure enough - and seems to have his own ideas. Ferguson outright hates her as an "interfering, well-meaning bitch" who needs to keep out of other people's business. As for Mr. Farren - well, it's been a minute since I read this book, and in my mind the scene in which Wimsey confronts him over the new Dog & Gun inn painting felt like the finale, detective bracing murderer and with some melancholy sending him off to be hanged. When in fact it was detective bracing absconding husband and sending him home to be ... forgiven. Gilda Farren's forgiveness comes off here as a fate worse than hanging. But Campbell would have rejoiced in it. DLS is a marvel.
This chapter is one of my favorites in all of Wimsey, the one I retain from this book when everything else has faded.
And Peter and Bunter are utterly Peter and Bunter. It's mentioned that Peter has taken a small studio in Kirkcudbright (pronounced, I discover in this, the first time I'm ever hearing an audiobook version, Kir-COO-bree) because "it entertained him to watch his extremely correct personal man gutting trout and washing potatoes under an outside tap, and receiving the casual visitor with West End ceremony." And it does. Moreover, it entertained me - and I strongly suspect it entertained Bunter. He's put up with worse, after all. I think he got along gloriously well with the locals, soaked in the bits of dialect and produced them as needed to amuse Peter, and altogether enjoyed himself. (And was relieved and glad to go back to 110A Piccadilly and all its amenities.) And can I just say that Bunter's Castle of Otranto narrative is worth literally any amount of timetables.
There is a slightly different angle on Peter in this book. Instead of being ensconced amongst his incunabula and black-and-primrose library, zipping around London in Mrs Murbles and dining with the Honorable Freddy and Lady
Worthington and scoping out sales of rare books - here he is hanging out at a pub with fishermen and artists of a variety of social standings, and rambling the countryside, and getting along famously with everyone and everything. I love that he's not an expert in painting. He knows a little, as an accomplished and sophisticated nobleman must, enough to be able to assess skill and talent - but he is on the whole ignorant of the mechanics of it all. It's a good thing that he's not an expert in every field.
As for what most people feel are the drawbacks in the book - I'm fine with them. I admit to glazing over a bit when the timetables are being worked out - it's the sort of thing that is legitimately interesting only to the person on the spot trying to figure it out, and definitely not a spectator sport - but for me the interest lies with the person doing the figuring rather than the figuring itself. I like Constable Ross, who does so much of the legwork, and the snippets of character in all the many conductors and porters and bystanders and bicycle owners met along the way. The train schedules are dull - the characters are not. For me that's always what a book is about: the characters. An author can get away with a lot in my eyes if they can write good characters. DLS can get away with pretty much anything, and I'll defend her to the death. Oh, and then there's P.C. Duncan, who fantasized about infiltrating the local dressed up "(when off duty) as an aged clergyman or a Breton onion-seller" - anyone who quit the book earlier because of the timetables missed P.C. Duncan. Poor them.
Oh, and the brogue? I'm fine with that too. Context is good enough to help translate anything that is otherwise unintelligible, and I've gotten pretty good at the brogue (reading, at least).
Anyone who DNF'd the book also missed the fantastical, marvelous story of Gowan's incapacity. Told by someone else, it would probably be stupid and too improbable to swallow. Told by DLS, it is, yes, stupid - but not on the part of the author. It shows up the characters as having behaved stupidly and improbably - - and every bit in keeping with their personalities. It's a wild story, but because of the people involved in it it's the only answer. I love it.
The recreation of the crime and all its trappings is great fun. As it was coming closer, I kept thinking of Marty McFly for some reason ... Again, because of DLS's use of characters (main and NPC), it strikes entirely true.
This, as I mentioned, was the first time I listened to an audio version of the book, and I had a great time with it. I was a little disappointed that my, er, source didn't have the version read by Ian Carmichael I believe exists somewhere, but was instead read by Patrick Malahide. Don't get me wrong - it's excellent; his Peter had a somewhat odd timbre that took a moment to get used to after several books' worth of Ian Carmichael's Peter, but I approve on the whole. His brogue is fun; he produces a wide variety of tones and accents for all the different characters; I think my only quibble is with his Parker, who sounds by times a bit Cockney, and by times a bit Scots. I still want to find the Carmichael one day, but I'm very glad I came across this.
ETA: As I listened, I kept expecting a scene in which Bunter breaks out an easel and palette while Wimsey fishes somewhere downstream, and it never happened; I started wondering about the Mandela effect, until I remembered the (also) Ian Carmichael tv adaptation. Could the memory have been from that? As a matter of fact, it could - if I recall correctly, 'tis they who find the body. Truly dreadful quality screencap to prove it:
This is my favourite Sayers so far (reading them chronologically). There is a lot going on with all the characters and timetables, but it's perfectly plotted and I thoroughly enjoyed it.
This one gets better the more times you read it. Unfortunately, the first time I read it I got so confused with the large cast of characters and the ever changing stories that I nearly put it down. Twice.
This was a pretty big disappointment after Strong Poison. What worked for me, after I read the novel, was to listen to the BBC radio play. Then re-reading the novel became much easier and more fun.
Let's start with the premise. Peter's up in Scotland to do some finishing, and he breaks up a fight one evening between his (English) friend and the local Scottish hell raiser, Campbell. Come to find out that Campbell has managed to piss off nearly everyone in this small town. Then he shows up dead the next day. Well. There is no dearth of suspects. In fact, there are six. Five red herrings and a murderer.
And it is murder, despite the murderer making it seem like an accident.
So we have 6 threads to unravel, and the stories constantly change. And we go over them again and again and again. Sayers pulls a fast one on the readers, by not revealing the important clue until the very end, even though Peter saw it immediately. Sometimes I like that kind of thing, but here it was just annoying, because he kept referring to it but never explaining.
However, there are good things about this! The police force is excellent, and not just as a backdrop for Peter to hang his genius upon. There are some great interactions between Bunter and Peter, and the way they trap the murderer is a grand piece of drama that would never happen in a book today. Once I started to make sense of all the connecting threads, it was SO MUCH easier to just sit back and enjoy Sayers' lovely writing.
Also, the backdrop of this whole story was great, and Sayers portrayed it so well. The language of the characters all fit perfectly with their characterization, without making it difficult to read, and the descriptions of scenery were excellent.
So, not as great as some others, but perfectly acceptable for the series. And much better on a second read, even though you already know the ending.
This was a pretty big disappointment after Strong Poison. What worked for me, after I read the novel, was to listen to the BBC radio play. Then re-reading the novel became much easier and more fun.
Let's start with the premise. Peter's up in Scotland to do some finishing, and he breaks up a fight one evening between his (English) friend and the local Scottish hell raiser, Campbell. Come to find out that Campbell has managed to piss off nearly everyone in this small town. Then he shows up dead the next day. Well. There is no dearth of suspects. In fact, there are six. Five red herrings and a murderer.
And it is murder, despite the murderer making it seem like an accident.
So we have 6 threads to unravel, and the stories constantly change. And we go over them again and again and again. Sayers pulls a fast one on the readers, by not revealing the important clue until the very end, even though Peter saw it immediately. Sometimes I like that kind of thing, but here it was just annoying, because he kept referring to it but never explaining.
However, there are good things about this! The police force is excellent, and not just as a backdrop for Peter to hang his genius upon. There are some great interactions between Bunter and Peter, and the way they trap the murderer is a grand piece of drama that would never happen in a book today. Once I started to make sense of all the connecting threads, it was SO MUCH easier to just sit back and enjoy Sayers' lovely writing.
Also, the backdrop of this whole story was great, and Sayers portrayed it so well. The language of the characters all fit perfectly with their characterization, without making it difficult to read, and the descriptions of scenery were excellent.
So, not as great as some others, but perfectly acceptable for the series. And much better on a second read, even though you already know the ending.
Moderately entertaining, but the timetables made my eyes spin (I finally gave up on putting them together and let it wash over me) and slogging through the Scottish brogue took much of my fun out of reading it. I ended up skimming big chunks of this one and didn't really care all that much by the end. However, for fans of puzzles and those with precise, methodical minds, I can see how this would be enjoyable.
I've demoted it to two stars because I just started [book:Have His Carcase] and it's so smart and delightful that I'm reminded how much better she can do!
I've demoted it to two stars because I just started [book:Have His Carcase] and it's so smart and delightful that I'm reminded how much better she can do!
2.5*. My least favourite so far due to a personal peeve: authors writing in a dialect.