Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by hannahstohelit
Dorothy L. Sayers: A Biography by James Brabazon
medium-paced
3.0
I don't know if this book deserves a 3 per se, but I will be giving it one, and while I haven't yet done any research into how it was received by either Sayers's friends or the public, I'm not enormously surprised that this book, which was clearly done with significant cooperation from Barbara Reynolds, was followed not long after by a biography of her own (which I had previously read and enjoyed).
On one level, the book definitely was engaging, but while nobody could claim it to lack biographical detail, any specifics generally seem to be included solely to provide insight upon her character, psychology, or state of mind at various points in her life. The purpose of the book for him seems not just to disseminate the correct facts after, apparently, a lot of rumor-mongering had been going around but also to figure out WHO SHE WAS, and Anthony Fleming- who it was interesting to actually hear from directly in a preface, given that I'd heard a lot about him in the context of DLS's life but not so much as an actual person- very specifically says that he stands behind the facts if not necessarily the interpretations, which I think VERY interesting.
It's not like the Sayers who Brabazon interprets in this book would be completely unrecognizable to people who have read about Sayers from other sources or even only just from her books. But he is still very opinionated, and while some of his opinions are more unique than anything else (he believes that The Documents in the Case is a sign that Sayers had a Great Novel in her that she could have written if not for the money from Wimsey, and I like Documents but not THAT much), others clearly reflect him as himself a bit more. One of these is in a paragraph that starts "Though there is no evidence that Dorothy's sexual instincts were ever anything but female" (...yes he talks quite a bit about sex in this book, not necessarily unwarrantedly but definitely to a degree that seemed a smidge excessive) and concludes "[s]he also had an objective and analytical turn of mind- and this is commoner (for whatever reason) among men than among women." A prior reader of the edition that I read inked in in the margin here "this is ridiculous, Brabazon!" and I find it hard to disagree. That same reader had put a little question mark next to the "sexual instincts" line (and sadly nothing else in the book, I'd have loved to read further commentary!).
So here's where I get to the 3 stars, because I actually got this book because I'm doing more research on Sayers's thoughts about Jews. I have some of my own thoughts but wanted to see what was already in the literature, and here's what Brabazon has- his final paragraph in the section says that "two points should be borne in mind: first, that the word prejudice means the prejudging of a question before studying the facts; and second, that awareness of others' faults is not the same as hostility. Whether or not Dorothy's criticisms are judged to be valid, they were carefully considered and honest." I'm not sure where Brabazon gets the idea that one can't be honestly antisemitic, and I don't think anyone can describe the paragraph she wrote that is quoted here as not being hostile in her description of ways in which Jews in Hampstead and Whitechapel (neither places where she lived herself, so presumably opinions gotten second or third hand) were "bad citizens" in wartime. It makes clear that yes, of course Sayers DID know plenty of Jews who WEREN'T like this, and presumably they were the Jews who she knew personally like Victor Gollancz and maybe even John Cournos (whose faults seem to have been in other directions), but the fundamental prejudice that led her to accept overheard faults in Jews who she did not know as the standard over the interactions she had with the Jews who she did- for this is really the only way that I can read this section- is still absolutely present no matter what Brabazon says. He also is aware enough to link this somewhat with Sayers's belief (which she famously attempted to propagate in a "constructive" symposium on "The Future of the Jews") that Jews' misfortunes are the "sad but inevitable consequence of their failure to recognize the Messiah when he came" but still portrays her feelings about modern-day Jews as considered and rational, which seems like a major blind spot, and he also portrays Jewish people who were upset about Sayers's essay as "playing into her hands" by overreacting rather than publishing and letting it be ignored/criticized. I'm honestly skimming the surface here in an attempt not to simply criticize items in here that seem antisemitic but to say why I think that Brabazon's attempts to explain away the antisemitism are incoherent and problematic in themselves, and so even if I loved the rest of the book I'd still have come away with a "WHAT now?!"
(To be clear- my opinions on Sayers and Jews are more complex than the above, and will wait for whatever essay I may or may not write on the subject. The target here is Brabazon.)
Anyway- after this I will definitely be doing more of a deep dive into the reception of this book and what led Barbara Reynolds to follow it with her own. That said, I should note that I did enjoy plenty of the book, and plenty of the insights that it made into Sayers's character seemed to make a lot of sense. But they were definitely written by an opinionated man, and I preferred Reynolds's biography when I read it as a bit more measured and also giving the facts of Sayers's life without always trying to eke out Meaning from them. Especially since, if the Meaning that Brabazon gets is based on insight as poor as his opinions about Jews, then maybe I should be more wary of trusting it.
On one level, the book definitely was engaging, but while nobody could claim it to lack biographical detail, any specifics generally seem to be included solely to provide insight upon her character, psychology, or state of mind at various points in her life. The purpose of the book for him seems not just to disseminate the correct facts after, apparently, a lot of rumor-mongering had been going around but also to figure out WHO SHE WAS, and Anthony Fleming- who it was interesting to actually hear from directly in a preface, given that I'd heard a lot about him in the context of DLS's life but not so much as an actual person- very specifically says that he stands behind the facts if not necessarily the interpretations, which I think VERY interesting.
It's not like the Sayers who Brabazon interprets in this book would be completely unrecognizable to people who have read about Sayers from other sources or even only just from her books. But he is still very opinionated, and while some of his opinions are more unique than anything else (he believes that The Documents in the Case is a sign that Sayers had a Great Novel in her that she could have written if not for the money from Wimsey, and I like Documents but not THAT much), others clearly reflect him as himself a bit more. One of these is in a paragraph that starts "Though there is no evidence that Dorothy's sexual instincts were ever anything but female" (...yes he talks quite a bit about sex in this book, not necessarily unwarrantedly but definitely to a degree that seemed a smidge excessive) and concludes "[s]he also had an objective and analytical turn of mind- and this is commoner (for whatever reason) among men than among women." A prior reader of the edition that I read inked in in the margin here "this is ridiculous, Brabazon!" and I find it hard to disagree. That same reader had put a little question mark next to the "sexual instincts" line (and sadly nothing else in the book, I'd have loved to read further commentary!).
So here's where I get to the 3 stars, because I actually got this book because I'm doing more research on Sayers's thoughts about Jews. I have some of my own thoughts but wanted to see what was already in the literature, and here's what Brabazon has- his final paragraph in the section says that "two points should be borne in mind: first, that the word prejudice means the prejudging of a question before studying the facts; and second, that awareness of others' faults is not the same as hostility. Whether or not Dorothy's criticisms are judged to be valid, they were carefully considered and honest." I'm not sure where Brabazon gets the idea that one can't be honestly antisemitic, and I don't think anyone can describe the paragraph she wrote that is quoted here as not being hostile in her description of ways in which Jews in Hampstead and Whitechapel (neither places where she lived herself, so presumably opinions gotten second or third hand) were "bad citizens" in wartime. It makes clear that yes, of course Sayers DID know plenty of Jews who WEREN'T like this, and presumably they were the Jews who she knew personally like Victor Gollancz and maybe even John Cournos (whose faults seem to have been in other directions), but the fundamental prejudice that led her to accept overheard faults in Jews who she did not know as the standard over the interactions she had with the Jews who she did- for this is really the only way that I can read this section- is still absolutely present no matter what Brabazon says. He also is aware enough to link this somewhat with Sayers's belief (which she famously attempted to propagate in a "constructive" symposium on "The Future of the Jews") that Jews' misfortunes are the "sad but inevitable consequence of their failure to recognize the Messiah when he came" but still portrays her feelings about modern-day Jews as considered and rational, which seems like a major blind spot, and he also portrays Jewish people who were upset about Sayers's essay as "playing into her hands" by overreacting rather than publishing and letting it be ignored/criticized. I'm honestly skimming the surface here in an attempt not to simply criticize items in here that seem antisemitic but to say why I think that Brabazon's attempts to explain away the antisemitism are incoherent and problematic in themselves, and so even if I loved the rest of the book I'd still have come away with a "WHAT now?!"
(To be clear- my opinions on Sayers and Jews are more complex than the above, and will wait for whatever essay I may or may not write on the subject. The target here is Brabazon.)
Anyway- after this I will definitely be doing more of a deep dive into the reception of this book and what led Barbara Reynolds to follow it with her own. That said, I should note that I did enjoy plenty of the book, and plenty of the insights that it made into Sayers's character seemed to make a lot of sense. But they were definitely written by an opinionated man, and I preferred Reynolds's biography when I read it as a bit more measured and also giving the facts of Sayers's life without always trying to eke out Meaning from them. Especially since, if the Meaning that Brabazon gets is based on insight as poor as his opinions about Jews, then maybe I should be more wary of trusting it.