I Try to Solve a Dorothy L. Sayers Mystery | Whose Body? (Lord Peter Wimsey)

WhoseBody

Fresh off my recent victories with Dame Agatha’s work (woohoo!), I decided to give her contemporaries a try. First up: Dorothy L. Sayers, a founder and early president of the Detection Club, to which Christie also belonged, and which set up the whole “fair play” rules for detective fiction in the first place.

Sayers’ best-known mysteries are the Lord Peter Wimsey series. I tried reading the first book Whose Body? over a decade ago, and found it too boring to finish, but I decided to give it a go again this year, and see if perhaps pitting my wits against her sleuth made the story more compelling.

And… it did. It still took me over three months to finish the book — an especially long time considering it’s only 197 pages long. I’m afraid that as great a writer as Sayers is — and there are some sections in the book that are just *chef’s kiss* stylistically — I’m never going to devour her mysteries like I do Christie’s. And I’m not sure why either. Her writing is a bit like Agatha Christie meets PG Wodehouse, and those are two of my favourite authors, but for some reason, I struggled with Sayers’ writing.

Regardless, Whose Body? has an incredible hook for a mystery: a man discovers a dead body in his bathtub. The body of the dead man is naked, except for a pair of pince nez (a kind of eyeglasses) on his face. He bears a remarkable resemblance to Reuben Levy, a wealthy Jewish financier who went missing the night before, yet there are enough differences that the body clearly is not the financier’s. Detectives check the local hospital, and there are no bodies missing from their morgue. Whose body is it, and where is Reuben Levy?

Did I Solve It? (No Spoilers)

Well, yes, but I don’t think it’s as big a cause for celebration as solving an Agatha Christie mystery is. Unlike Hercule Poirot or Miss Marple, Lord Peter Wimsey is pretty open about his thought processes, so the killer’s identity was easy to figure out.

The couple of red herrings that came up were revealed as such fairly quickly, often with Wimsey pointing out how they didn’t fit the physical evidence. Now, with an Agatha Christie book, that wouldn’t necessarily mean the characters are definitely innocent, so I continued to keep them on my suspect list.

But then emerged a suspect who knew Levy, had a motive for getting him out of the way, and had a connection to the man in the tub. At first I thought it couldn’t be this person; they were too obvious a suspect, especially given that the relevant information was revealed only about halfway through the book. But then I flipped back to earlier chapters to see earlier scenes with them, and what I found only confirmed they had the opportunity to carry out the crimes.

And sure enough, it wasn’t long before Lord Peter confirmed my suspicions. I suppose I can feel proud that technically, Lord Peter took an extra chapter or two after I figured it out to reach the same conclusion. But again, I don’t think Sayers was being particularly sneaky about her reveal to the reader, so I think I figured it out precisely when the author intended me to.

My Verdict on Dorothy L. Sayers and Lord Peter Wimsey

She’s an incredibly skilled writer. There’s a wonderful passage late in the book:

When lovers embrace, there seems no sound in the world but their own breathing. So the two men breathed face to face. (page 174)

It’s so masterfully written; you can practically feel the charge in the air as Lord Peter Wimsey makes eye contact with the murderer.

Through Lord Peter’s dialogue, Sayers also shares some gems about detective fiction:

“That’s just what happened, as a matter of fact,” said Lord Peter. “You see Lady Swaffham, if ever you want to commit a murder, the thing you’ve got to do is to prevent people from associatin’ their ideas. Most people don’t associate anythin’ — their ideas just roll about like so may dry peas on a tray, makin’ a lot of noise and goin’ nowhere, but once you begin lettin’ ’em string their peas into a necklace, it’s goin’ to be strong enough to hang you, what?”

“Dear me! said Mrs. Tommy Frayle, with a little scream, “what a blessing it is none of my friends have any ideas at all!”

“Y’see,” said Lord Peter, balancing a piece of duck on his fork and frowning, “it’s only in Sherlock Holmes and stories like that, that people think things out logically. Or’nar’ly, if somebody tells you somethin’ out of the way, you just say, ‘By Jove!’ or ‘how sad!’ an’ leave it at that, an’ half the time you forget about it, ‘unless somethin’ turns up afterwards to drive it home.” (page 117)

It’s a brilliant piece of writing. Light, funny, and with nice comic touches like the part about Lord Peter frowning at the duck on his fork (I love how she phrased that!). It’s also sharp and incisive commentary about some of the conventions of detective fiction and how unnatural it is to have the important clues and evidence laid out so neatly for the reader.

As someone trying to solve this mystery with Lord Peter, it’s also a sly invitation to look more closely at information I may have easily overlooked earlier on, because they may be important. And indeed, when I re-read sections from earlier in the book to confirm details about my suspect, I had to applaud Sayers for how masterfully she sprinkled relevant details into the narrative. There’s good reason I didn’t suspect this person until Sayers meant to reveal them as suspicious, and kudos to the author for that. She also later mentions a highly telling clue that I missed altogether, so that was a nice new bit for me to realize after the fact.

Ultimately, despite my admiration for her writing skill, I don’t think I’ll continue with Dorothy L. Sayers’ Lord Peter Wimsey novels. Her style just isn’t a page turner for me, and the mystery element isn’t enough of a puzzle that I’ll want to keep trying to solve them. Still, I’m glad I read this. Her approach is so different from Agatha Christie’s that this gives me a better idea of what golden age detective fiction was like, and this book in particular gave me a better appreciation for how a mystery like The Honjin Murders is structured.

***SPOILERS BELOW***

Continue reading

I Try to Solve an Agatha Christie Mystery | Five Little Pigs (Hercule Poirot)

FiveLittlePigs

Putting my little grey cells to work, fuelled by tea and chocolates!

Fresh and confident (read: cocky) from my recent victory over the Queen of Crime, I decided I was in the mood to tackle yet another Agatha Christie mystery. This time, I went for the Hercule Poirot classic Five Little Pigs. I remember having read this years ago, and absolutely loving it, but fortunately, it’s been so long since I last read it (this copy was purchased in 2007, and my Goodreads rating is dated 2012) that I no longer remembered whodunnit.

Five Little Pigs is a Rashomon-style mystery. A young woman, Carla, asks Poirot for help: 16 years ago, her father, artist Amyas Crale, was killed by poison, and her mother Caroline was convicted for the crime. Caroline was the one who served Amyas the beer that killed him; traces of coniine were found in his glass, and a bottle of coniine was later found in Caroline’s drawer.

Caroline’s defence was that Amyas must have taken the coniine himself, but everyone who knew Amyas felt he was too in love with life to die by suicide. Worse, despite her lawyer’s best efforts, Caroline herself barely put up a fight in the courtroom, and she was quickly found guity. She died in prison a year later, leaving behind a note to her daughter that she’s innocent. Now engaged to be married, Carla wants Poirot to find out what really happened, so she can go to the next stage of her life with a clear mind.

This is such a perfect case for the Belgian detective! Unlike similar detective superstar Sherlock Holmes, Poirot doesn’t rely so much on forensics or physical clues, but rather on the psychology of the people involved. And for a crime that occurred 16 years ago, all physical evidence is gone, and there is only the psychology to rely on. (Side note: I realized I bought my copy of this book in 2007, which is coincidentally also 16 years ago, so I felt a nice little frisson of rightness in my quest to solve this alongside Poirot.)

The clues lie with five people on the estate the day Amyas was killed:

  • Philip Blake – Amyas’ long-time friend, now a successful stockbroker
  • Meredith Blake – Philip’s older brother, a country squire and a chemist who held a torch for Caroline. The coniine that killed Amyas came from his laboratory.
  • Elsa Greer – a beautiful 20-year-old woman whose portrait Amyas was painting. It’s widely known that she’s having an affair with Amyas, and that Amyas planned to leave Caroline for her. Caroline was overheard telling Amyas she’d rather kill him than let him marry Elsa.
  • Angela Warren – Caroline’s 15-year-old half-sister. She has a scar on her face from a childhood accident caused by Caroline, and has been spoiled by her older sister since. She and Amyas fought over Amyas’ plan to send her to boarding school.
  • Cecilia Williams – Angela’s governess, a serious middle-aged woman with strong feminist beliefs and a deep disdain for Amyas’ relationship with Elsa.

Poirot goes to each of the five in turn, and gets five slightly differing accounts of what happened on the day Amyas died. Who’s telling the truth? Who’s lying? And who gave Amyas the poison that killed him? I have my theory, and we’ll see how I do!

Did I Solve the Case? (No Spoilers)

Boo-freaking-YES!!! I guessed it! AND I picked up on a couple of key clues that pointed to the answer. And so, this makes 2 wins, and (ahem) I forget how many losses… 🙂

***SPOILERS BELOW***

Continue reading

I Try to Solve an Agatha Christie Mystery | Peril at End House (Hercule Poirot)

PerilAtEndHouse

It feels like forever since I’ve attempted to match my little grey cells with those of the brilliant Queen of Mystery! I was in the mood for a bit of a treat this Friday — I’d taken the day off work to make it an extra long Canada Day long weekend — and what better treat than a brand new Christie adventure?! I bought the Hercule Poirot classic Peril at End House a few months ago and haven’t had a chance to read it yet, so, armed with my trusty purple pen and dubious art skills, I made myself a cup of coffee and set to work.

In this mystery, Hercule Poirot and his trusty sidekick Captain Hastings are on holiday when they meet a vivacious young woman, Nick Buckley, who owns the nearby End House. Nick has had a streak of bad luck, with three near-fatal ‘accidents’ over the past few days, and while chatting with Poirot and Hastings, what she thought was a pesky wasp turns out to be a bullet shot through her hat. Poirot decides to help her out, and catch the would-be murderer before Nick gets killed.

I just paused my reading at the end of Chapter 18. Poirot has figured it all out, and is about to put on a play a la Hamlet, and for once I’m feeling really confident that I’ve actually figured this one out. More exciting: if I’m right, I will have figured it out even before the world’s greatest detective himself, as I’d had this major gut feel theory fairly early on, and while Poirot was pursuing several leads, all the little twists seemed to fit into the theory I’d formed.

Of course, that likely means my theory is completely off-base, and I’d missed some valuable clue somewhere amongst the pages. Still, this is turning out to be such a fun mystery! There’s a full cast of colourful characters, an atmospheric location in End House, and lots of fun twists along the way. So, as per usual, I’ll post my guess below the spoiler tag, and will only note up here whether or not I’ve succeeded.

Did I Succeed? (No Spoilers)

YES I DID!!!! I figured out the murderer even before the great Hercule Poirot did! I got their motive, their method, and even one of the (several) valuable clues!

WOOHOO!!! I finally solve an Agatha Christie mystery!

Now, which Christie should I read next?

***SPOILERS AHEAD***

Continue reading