What do you think?
Rate this book
Lord Peter Wimsey #6
Strong Poison
Mystery novelist Harriet Vane knew all about poisons, and when her former lover died in the manner prescribed in one of her books, a jury of her peers had a hangman's noose in mind. But Lord Peter Wimsey was determined to find her innocent.
240 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1968
1472 people are currently reading
17510 people want to read
About the author
Dorothy L. Sayers
698 books2,936 followersThe detective stories of well-known British writer Dorothy Leigh Sayers mostly feature the amateur investigator Lord Peter Wimsey; she also translated the
Divine Comedy
of Dante Alighieri.
This renowned author and Christian humanist studied classical and modern languages.
Her best known mysteries, a series of short novels, set between World War I and World War II, feature an English aristocrat and amateur sleuth. She is also known for her plays and essays.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothy...
This renowned author and Christian humanist studied classical and modern languages.
Her best known mysteries, a series of short novels, set between World War I and World War II, feature an English aristocrat and amateur sleuth. She is also known for her plays and essays.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothy...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 2,189 reviews
June 15, 2010
I'm sorry, Hercule Poirot. There's a new literary detective in my life, and while I will always cherish your silly Belgian antics, Lord Peter Wimsey just understands my needs better - he makes me laugh so much more than you do, and he has that sincerity that you lack.
Now don't cry, Hercule. It's not your fault; the fact is that Lord Peter is just...well, truth be told he's a better man than you. You take cases more out of boredom, and also because the police tend to beg for your help. Lord Peter Wimsey seems to care so much more than you - when Harriet Vane was accused of poisoning her former lover, Lord Peter knew she didn't do it, and he decided to take her case because he genuinely cared about her, and this led to a delightful scene where he proposes marriage to her in prison. He's such a better speaker than you - he talks like Oscar Wilde wrote all his lines but decided to be sincere about them for a change. All I can do to prove my point is quote directly from his conversation with Harriet after he proposes:
"'No - dash it all, I seem to be saying all the wrong things today. I was absolutely stunned that first day in court, and I rushed off to my mater, who's an absolute dear, and the kind of person who really understands things, and I said, "Look here! here's the absolutely one and only woman, and she's being put through a simply ghastly awful business and for God's sake come and hold my hand!" You simply don't know how foul it was.'
'That does sound rather rotten. I'm sorry I was brutal. But, by the way, you're bearing in mind, aren't you, that I've had a lover?'
'Oh, yes. So have I, if it comes to that. In fact, several. It's the sort of thing that might happen to anybody. I can produce quite good testimonials. I'm told I make love rather nicely - only I'm at a disadvantage at the moment. One can't be very convincing at the other end of a table with a bloke looking through the door.'"
Also, and I know I've mentioned this before, you don't really share things with your readers, Hercule, or even the other characters in your stories. You have a tendency to discover Very Important Clues and then not mention them to anyone, just so you can reveal them at the most dramatic moment possible. There's just no communication. Lord Peter is different - not only did I know every detail of the case as he discovered it, but he even shared the investigation with other characters in the book! He has a veritable army of smart spinsters who do investigation work for him, and he dispatched two of them to help with the Vane case. This resulting in two wonderful scenes, where one woman learns how to pick locks from a born-again thief, and another where a Miss Murchinson uses fake Spiritualism to convince someone to search for a hidden will. It's all fascinating and funny and very educational, especially the Spiritualism stuff.
So I'm sorry to say that Lord Peter Wimsey is now my favorite detective* at the moment, and that I think it's time we took a break while I explore this. I'll return to your stories again some day, but for now I want to focus on spending more time with Lord Peter.
Thank you for understanding, and I hope we can still be friends.
Yours truly,
Madeline
*Sherlock, sweetie, don't you even worry. You're still my Number One and always will be.
Now don't cry, Hercule. It's not your fault; the fact is that Lord Peter is just...well, truth be told he's a better man than you. You take cases more out of boredom, and also because the police tend to beg for your help. Lord Peter Wimsey seems to care so much more than you - when Harriet Vane was accused of poisoning her former lover, Lord Peter knew she didn't do it, and he decided to take her case because he genuinely cared about her, and this led to a delightful scene where he proposes marriage to her in prison. He's such a better speaker than you - he talks like Oscar Wilde wrote all his lines but decided to be sincere about them for a change. All I can do to prove my point is quote directly from his conversation with Harriet after he proposes:
"'No - dash it all, I seem to be saying all the wrong things today. I was absolutely stunned that first day in court, and I rushed off to my mater, who's an absolute dear, and the kind of person who really understands things, and I said, "Look here! here's the absolutely one and only woman, and she's being put through a simply ghastly awful business and for God's sake come and hold my hand!" You simply don't know how foul it was.'
'That does sound rather rotten. I'm sorry I was brutal. But, by the way, you're bearing in mind, aren't you, that I've had a lover?'
'Oh, yes. So have I, if it comes to that. In fact, several. It's the sort of thing that might happen to anybody. I can produce quite good testimonials. I'm told I make love rather nicely - only I'm at a disadvantage at the moment. One can't be very convincing at the other end of a table with a bloke looking through the door.'"
Also, and I know I've mentioned this before, you don't really share things with your readers, Hercule, or even the other characters in your stories. You have a tendency to discover Very Important Clues and then not mention them to anyone, just so you can reveal them at the most dramatic moment possible. There's just no communication. Lord Peter is different - not only did I know every detail of the case as he discovered it, but he even shared the investigation with other characters in the book! He has a veritable army of smart spinsters who do investigation work for him, and he dispatched two of them to help with the Vane case. This resulting in two wonderful scenes, where one woman learns how to pick locks from a born-again thief, and another where a Miss Murchinson uses fake Spiritualism to convince someone to search for a hidden will. It's all fascinating and funny and very educational, especially the Spiritualism stuff.
So I'm sorry to say that Lord Peter Wimsey is now my favorite detective* at the moment, and that I think it's time we took a break while I explore this. I'll return to your stories again some day, but for now I want to focus on spending more time with Lord Peter.
Thank you for understanding, and I hope we can still be friends.
Yours truly,
Madeline
*Sherlock, sweetie, don't you even worry. You're still my Number One and always will be.
August 15, 2025
A mystery to die for.
Or so Harriet Vane must think since it's her neck that's on the line.
When mystery writer Harriet Vane's sensational murder trial ends in a hung jury, Lord Peter Wimsey lets out a sigh of relief and takes up the case. He believes Harriet is innocent, and more importantly, he's fallen in love with her while watching the proceedings.
Just go with it.
With only a month to go before the new trial gets underway, Lord Wimsey sets his considerable resources in action for the sole purpose of finding the real killer and saving (what he hopes will be) his fiancée from swinging from the gallows.
The skinny gist is that Vane was living in sin with the victim until they had a falling out. The argument stemmed from his deciding to make an honest woman of her and her telling him to go to the devil.
Turns out, he had only said he was opposed to marriage (which she wanted at first) to see if she would be loyal enough to live with him without the ring. She thought he was ideologically opposed to marriage and had agreed to live life with him on those terms. Finding out this was a plot to "determine her worthiness" rankled, and she kicked his ass to the curb.
The night of his death, he came back to beg her to take him back one more time, and that's when the police say she poisoned him.
But while it might look bleak, Lord Peter thinks there has to be another way the poison was introduced into his system.
I really enjoyed this one. The women of The Cattery were great, especially Miss Climpson. The seance she initiated to find the missing will was a highlight of the story.
Another thing I loved was Peter's response to Harriet when she pointed out that she was a fallen woman who had already had a lover, was to say that he'd had lovers in his past, too. And that he'd been told he was good at it! Though he had no proof due to the lack of an audience.
Pretty progressive for a book published in 1930.
A fun mystery - that's what I'm saying here.
Recommended.
Or so Harriet Vane must think since it's her neck that's on the line.
When mystery writer Harriet Vane's sensational murder trial ends in a hung jury, Lord Peter Wimsey lets out a sigh of relief and takes up the case. He believes Harriet is innocent, and more importantly, he's fallen in love with her while watching the proceedings.
Just go with it.
With only a month to go before the new trial gets underway, Lord Wimsey sets his considerable resources in action for the sole purpose of finding the real killer and saving (what he hopes will be) his fiancée from swinging from the gallows.
The skinny gist is that Vane was living in sin with the victim until they had a falling out. The argument stemmed from his deciding to make an honest woman of her and her telling him to go to the devil.
Turns out, he had only said he was opposed to marriage (which she wanted at first) to see if she would be loyal enough to live with him without the ring. She thought he was ideologically opposed to marriage and had agreed to live life with him on those terms. Finding out this was a plot to "determine her worthiness" rankled, and she kicked his ass to the curb.
The night of his death, he came back to beg her to take him back one more time, and that's when the police say she poisoned him.
But while it might look bleak, Lord Peter thinks there has to be another way the poison was introduced into his system.
I really enjoyed this one. The women of The Cattery were great, especially Miss Climpson. The seance she initiated to find the missing will was a highlight of the story.
Another thing I loved was Peter's response to Harriet when she pointed out that she was a fallen woman who had already had a lover, was to say that he'd had lovers in his past, too. And that he'd been told he was good at it! Though he had no proof due to the lack of an audience.
Pretty progressive for a book published in 1930.
A fun mystery - that's what I'm saying here.
Recommended.
July 2, 2015
In 1847, the average woman who read novels apparently wanted Mr Rochester. In 1930, she wanted Lord Peter Wimsey. And in 2015, she wants Christian Grey.
This is called progress.
This is called progress.
October 22, 2022
October 2022 Group Read of all the Lord Peter books
Well despite it only being 2 years since I last read this I still really enjoyed it. The characters are getting more and more real and the story lines seem to be getting better as DLS gets into her stride.
Lord Peter is in court as murder charges are brought against Harriet Vane for poisoning her ex lover with arsenic, and he's convinced that something is wrong with the charge.
He seems to have a soft spot for Harriet and vows to discover the necessary evidence to prove her innocence. He calls upon all his talents and uses Bunter and his special team of ladies led by Miss Climpson.
I notice that in my previous review I was quite critical of certain aspects of the book, but this time I didn't feel that, so maybe I should up my rating. We shall see.
June 2020 Busy Read
A solid 4 star read and another enjoyable Wimsey.
More tomorrow (soon) 😬
And for once it is tomorrow as I put pen to paper, well fingers to a keyboard.
So firstly as I really enjoyed it, let me address why it isn't 5 stars, but only 4. Well, I felt that , so that disappointed me.
What I did like was his nod to Sherlock Holmes where he says "give a dressing gown and an ounce of shag and I shall dispose of this difficulty" straight from The Man with the Twisted Lip from The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes which I just happen to be reading as well.
Well despite it only being 2 years since I last read this I still really enjoyed it. The characters are getting more and more real and the story lines seem to be getting better as DLS gets into her stride.
Lord Peter is in court as murder charges are brought against Harriet Vane for poisoning her ex lover with arsenic, and he's convinced that something is wrong with the charge.
He seems to have a soft spot for Harriet and vows to discover the necessary evidence to prove her innocence. He calls upon all his talents and uses Bunter and his special team of ladies led by Miss Climpson.
I notice that in my previous review I was quite critical of certain aspects of the book, but this time I didn't feel that, so maybe I should up my rating. We shall see.
June 2020 Busy Read
A solid 4 star read and another enjoyable Wimsey.
More tomorrow (soon) 😬
And for once it is tomorrow as I put pen to paper, well fingers to a keyboard.
So firstly as I really enjoyed it, let me address why it isn't 5 stars, but only 4. Well, I felt that , so that disappointed me.
What I did like was his nod to Sherlock Holmes where he says "give a dressing gown and an ounce of shag and I shall dispose of this difficulty" straight from The Man with the Twisted Lip from The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes which I just happen to be reading as well.
May 14, 2020
A good solid mystery with an excellent cast and a neat, happy conclusion, Strong Poison finds Lord Peter Wimsey meeting his paramour Harriet Vane for the first time. She is in court, accused of murdering her ex-lover. Lord Wimsey is enamored by her stoic character, her strong morals and lovely voice. He doesn't think she murdered the scoundrel either and if she did is to be congratulated for removing this wart from the face of humanity.
January 28, 2018
Lord Peter Wimsey meets the love of his life – finally – and decides then and there he is going to marry her. Unfortunately, Harriet Vane, the source of Lord Peter’s willingness to forgo the bachelor life for a house and family, is not in a position to accept.
Harriet Vane is in the prisoner’s dock of the court, charged with the murder of her previous lover. If convicted, she will hang. Instead, there is a hung jury and a second trial due to be opened in a month. Lord Peter has only that short time to figure out how to save this young woman – and the only way he can do that is to produce the real culprit.
Fairly early on, we are given some indication of who the real culprit is. But there is the question of motive – nothing fits. There is also the question of how the murder was done. From the title, we know it was poison, but how was the poison administered and when? More significantly, will the information they need come to light in time to save Harriet Vane?
Once again, Dorothy Sayers spins out a great mystery and some fascinating and clever sleuth-work on the part of Lord Peter and his friends and associates. And there is more than one romance in the works during this brim-full novel. It took all my willpower not to jump straight into #7 of this series (The Five Red Herrings) to find out what happens next!
Harriet Vane is in the prisoner’s dock of the court, charged with the murder of her previous lover. If convicted, she will hang. Instead, there is a hung jury and a second trial due to be opened in a month. Lord Peter has only that short time to figure out how to save this young woman – and the only way he can do that is to produce the real culprit.
Fairly early on, we are given some indication of who the real culprit is. But there is the question of motive – nothing fits. There is also the question of how the murder was done. From the title, we know it was poison, but how was the poison administered and when? More significantly, will the information they need come to light in time to save Harriet Vane?
Once again, Dorothy Sayers spins out a great mystery and some fascinating and clever sleuth-work on the part of Lord Peter and his friends and associates. And there is more than one romance in the works during this brim-full novel. It took all my willpower not to jump straight into #7 of this series (The Five Red Herrings) to find out what happens next!
April 6, 2016
I was reading this, feeling a whole lotta deja vu and just wondering which came first, Dorothy Sayers' Lord Peter Wimsey series or PG Wodehouse's Wooster/Jeeves series, when out of the blue one of Sayers' characters name-drops Jeeves!
For me and the sort of reading I enjoy, this hit the spot! It was like reading a murder mystery penned by Wodehouse. And if you're been reading my reviews, you know he's one of my favorite authors. There's something very Wooster-like about the foppish Wimsey. The style, language and flippancy of '20s/'30s England mirror Wodehouse almost to a tee.
The major difference is in the slightly more serious tone. This is about a murder trial, after all. It's not the most devilishly clever of murder mysteries, but it's good reading and I will definitely pick up another in the Wimsey series!
Rating Note: This was a strong 3.5 stars. I'll give it 4 stars for sheer enjoyment over any sense of writing quality.
For me and the sort of reading I enjoy, this hit the spot! It was like reading a murder mystery penned by Wodehouse. And if you're been reading my reviews, you know he's one of my favorite authors. There's something very Wooster-like about the foppish Wimsey. The style, language and flippancy of '20s/'30s England mirror Wodehouse almost to a tee.
The major difference is in the slightly more serious tone. This is about a murder trial, after all. It's not the most devilishly clever of murder mysteries, but it's good reading and I will definitely pick up another in the Wimsey series!
Rating Note: This was a strong 3.5 stars. I'll give it 4 stars for sheer enjoyment over any sense of writing quality.
June 16, 2011
introducing harriet vane! she's a loveable heroine and lord peter wimsey practically becomes a walking boner as soon as she arrives on the scene. dorothy sayers is one of the most elegant of writers and her super-detective peter wimsey is one of literature's most elegant creations. he's a semi-tragic war hero, he's brave & strong & fast & loyal, he's kind to service staff, he's a defender of the innocent...and all his heroic attributes would grow quickly obnoxious except that sayers places them in the persona of an effete, often snobby, often condescending dandy, a straight oscar wilde who can kick your ass if you get too rude. this kind of character has reappeared in many places over time, but this is my favorite incarnation of the type.
April 29, 2012
You would think that having read Strong Poison once, listened to the Ian Carmichael audiobook, and watched the Edward Petherbridge tv adaptation twice, I wouldn't be still at the point of giggling every few pages or staying up all night to finish it. You'd definitely be wrong.
It's so good coming back to these characters and learning more about them, and having the fondness about them, and not having my mind occupied with trying to figure out the mystery. Miss Murchison! Miss Climpson! Bunter! Parker! The whole Victorian asking of intentions bit!
I think one of my favourite moments, oddly, was the moment in which Peter is thinking crossly about suicides and how they should leave a note, just to avoid all the mess. And he thinks about how he should do it, not in terms of "if", but in terms of "when". Such a chillingly telling moment, and dropped in at the end of a chapter, and never returned to -- how typical of Peter's character, for something so serious to be only glanced across. And it's one of those moments that you see Peter very clearly as more than a silly ass, instead of just having to take that on faith. I don't know if I'm explaining it very well -- and this is an extraordinary amount of my review to devote to what was really a tiny detail -- but the moment really caught my attention.
So yes. Still toe-curlingly squee worthy, even on a fifth go at the plot.
It's so good coming back to these characters and learning more about them, and having the fondness about them, and not having my mind occupied with trying to figure out the mystery. Miss Murchison! Miss Climpson! Bunter! Parker! The whole Victorian asking of intentions bit!
I think one of my favourite moments, oddly, was the moment in which Peter is thinking crossly about suicides and how they should leave a note, just to avoid all the mess. And he thinks about how he should do it, not in terms of "if", but in terms of "when". Such a chillingly telling moment, and dropped in at the end of a chapter, and never returned to -- how typical of Peter's character, for something so serious to be only glanced across. And it's one of those moments that you see Peter very clearly as more than a silly ass, instead of just having to take that on faith. I don't know if I'm explaining it very well -- and this is an extraordinary amount of my review to devote to what was really a tiny detail -- but the moment really caught my attention.
So yes. Still toe-curlingly squee worthy, even on a fifth go at the plot.
March 2, 2018
I think this may be the Sayers I read in my younger years & didn't much care for.
I can appreciate Sayers' ability more now.
I did enjoy this title very much, but not quite a perfect read for me. There was quite a bit of filler & not many suspects. But the murder method was ingenious & this is enough to make this title a most satisfying read.
Good stuff!
I can appreciate Sayers' ability more now.
I did enjoy this title very much, but not quite a perfect read for me. There was quite a bit of filler & not many suspects. But the murder method was ingenious & this is enough to make this title a most satisfying read.
Good stuff!
April 17, 2019
Rating: 4* of five
The Book Report: Lord Peter Wimsey, younger brother of the Duke of Denver, bibliophile, and dilettante in the arts and sciences of murder, meets his One True Love, the Other Half of His Soul; where else would he do this, but in court? Too bad she's the accused in a rather sensational murder trial, in which she is accused and about to be convicted of poisoning by arsenic her Illicit Lover, now ex- after having the *temerity* to propose honorable and legal marriage to her. He was, it turns out, having her on when he refused to countenance the idea of marriage; he was counting on his Peculiar Charms to sway his Muse and fellow novelist into revealing her true depths of devotion to him by setting this test. Having fallen (and Fallen) for it, Harriet felt (not at all unreasonably) that she'd been a right prat and, in umbrage extreme, slung the rotter out on his ear, refusing thereafter to treat his suit. Subsequent to their final meeting, unluckily, the rotter collapses and dies at his cousin's home, where he's been living for over a year since the end of the dream.
Lord Peter, attending the trial (as who would not?) with the Hon. Freddy and the Dowager Duchess of Denver (aka Mater), forms the simultaneous convictions that Harriet is innocent, and that she shall be Lady Wimsey as soon as the event can be fixed. How to forestall the hangman's deft attentions is his sole focus, needless to say, and he goes about proving the identity of the real culprit with his accustomed panache, energy, and cunning.
Ah, but stay the strains of the Wedding March, dear readers, because Harriet...quite sensibly...is Once Bitten, Twice Shy re: matrimony. She offers herself as his leman, his dolly-bird, his bit o' stuff, but marriage? To a well-known aristocrat, with all the attendant hoo and pla? No, indeed. Wimsey is, well, not to fobbed off with mere sex when what he craves is glory and delight everlasting in matrimony golden, so he ankles off as soon as he sees her acquitted. The End. Only, of course, not so much. But that's another book.
My Review: A Certain Party, who shall remain nameless herein but is frequently addressed by me as "Horrible" and is known on LibraryThing as "karenmarie", has really, really put her foot in it this time. I mention, oh so casually in passing, that long, long ago I read and disliked this book. "Oh," burbles The Evil One, "I read that and found it both witty and amusing, don't you think it would be fun to re-read it?" I, ever the innocent and naive victim, forgot that the aforementioned Evil One has hooked me on ever-so many mystery series with her offhand cruelty, fell for it and re-read the book. Reader, beware! NEVER VENTURE NEAR HER! You'll end up reading long lists of (admittedly quite good) mysteries.
Wimsey is certainly not for every taste. His erudition, not notably fine for that era, is huge by modern standards, and so his references to poets, writers, and cultural furniture quite ordinary in the 1930s, will come across as condescending to thos of this less well-versed (!) time and place. His general attitude of privilege might cause some sensitive souls in the era of Political Correctness to flinch. And Sayers' lovely, steady, and quite dry prose will go down like a martini at a Salvation Army bash with the modern reader accustomed to gutter talk, explosions, gunshots, and generally seamy turpitude that passes for most modern mysteries.
And thank GOD for that. It's a breath of chamomile-scented mountain meadow air to me to re-find these books in a state and at a time when I can appreciate them. No one tell The Evil One, blast her eyes, that I am thoroughly glad to have read this book at 51 that I understood and so little of at 25. Loose lips sink ships!
The Book Report: Lord Peter Wimsey, younger brother of the Duke of Denver, bibliophile, and dilettante in the arts and sciences of murder, meets his One True Love, the Other Half of His Soul; where else would he do this, but in court? Too bad she's the accused in a rather sensational murder trial, in which she is accused and about to be convicted of poisoning by arsenic her Illicit Lover, now ex- after having the *temerity* to propose honorable and legal marriage to her. He was, it turns out, having her on when he refused to countenance the idea of marriage; he was counting on his Peculiar Charms to sway his Muse and fellow novelist into revealing her true depths of devotion to him by setting this test. Having fallen (and Fallen) for it, Harriet felt (not at all unreasonably) that she'd been a right prat and, in umbrage extreme, slung the rotter out on his ear, refusing thereafter to treat his suit. Subsequent to their final meeting, unluckily, the rotter collapses and dies at his cousin's home, where he's been living for over a year since the end of the dream.
Lord Peter, attending the trial (as who would not?) with the Hon. Freddy and the Dowager Duchess of Denver (aka Mater), forms the simultaneous convictions that Harriet is innocent, and that she shall be Lady Wimsey as soon as the event can be fixed. How to forestall the hangman's deft attentions is his sole focus, needless to say, and he goes about proving the identity of the real culprit with his accustomed panache, energy, and cunning.
Ah, but stay the strains of the Wedding March, dear readers, because Harriet...quite sensibly...is Once Bitten, Twice Shy re: matrimony. She offers herself as his leman, his dolly-bird, his bit o' stuff, but marriage? To a well-known aristocrat, with all the attendant hoo and pla? No, indeed. Wimsey is, well, not to fobbed off with mere sex when what he craves is glory and delight everlasting in matrimony golden, so he ankles off as soon as he sees her acquitted. The End. Only, of course, not so much. But that's another book.
My Review: A Certain Party, who shall remain nameless herein but is frequently addressed by me as "Horrible" and is known on LibraryThing as "karenmarie", has really, really put her foot in it this time. I mention, oh so casually in passing, that long, long ago I read and disliked this book. "Oh," burbles The Evil One, "I read that and found it both witty and amusing, don't you think it would be fun to re-read it?" I, ever the innocent and naive victim, forgot that the aforementioned Evil One has hooked me on ever-so many mystery series with her offhand cruelty, fell for it and re-read the book. Reader, beware! NEVER VENTURE NEAR HER! You'll end up reading long lists of (admittedly quite good) mysteries.
Wimsey is certainly not for every taste. His erudition, not notably fine for that era, is huge by modern standards, and so his references to poets, writers, and cultural furniture quite ordinary in the 1930s, will come across as condescending to thos of this less well-versed (!) time and place. His general attitude of privilege might cause some sensitive souls in the era of Political Correctness to flinch. And Sayers' lovely, steady, and quite dry prose will go down like a martini at a Salvation Army bash with the modern reader accustomed to gutter talk, explosions, gunshots, and generally seamy turpitude that passes for most modern mysteries.
And thank GOD for that. It's a breath of chamomile-scented mountain meadow air to me to re-find these books in a state and at a time when I can appreciate them. No one tell The Evil One, blast her eyes, that I am thoroughly glad to have read this book at 51 that I understood and so little of at 25. Loose lips sink ships!
November 3, 2018
Hello, Harriet Vane. We don't know you very well yet, but we will.
I am not sure how many times I have read this but it was even more enjoyable this time because of my trip to England.
I have now walked some of the streets mentions and could visualize it all so much better. As always I have the feeling that
I am just not smart enough yet to get all the jokes and nods. But I got more this time around than last.
I am not sure how many times I have read this but it was even more enjoyable this time because of my trip to England.
I have now walked some of the streets mentions and could visualize it all so much better. As always I have the feeling that
I am just not smart enough yet to get all the jokes and nods. But I got more this time around than last.
July 6, 2016
This review originally appeared on my blog, Shoulda Coulda Woulda Books.
Dorothy Sayers has been a popular mystery writer for at least eighty years. She was writing books in the twenties and thirties and they, despite the competition of Agatha Christie and everyone else writing similarly mannered mystery puzzles and polite comedies of manners (which category her books also fall into), have lasted until now, which means they've come through at least three generations of fans. And it isn't hard to see why.
Her most famous character (and deservedly) is Lord Peter Wimsey. He is the younger son and brother of a Duke in the interwar era who takes up "sleuthing" as his hobby. It's like if Bertie Wooster decided to be Sherlock Holmes one day, plus about 100 IQ points and deeper heart and ironic self-awareness, but also retaining his faithful Jeeves (called Bunter in this series). His other hobby is reading, and his speech is a patchwork of classical, biblical and artistic references, often stopping and starting in the middle of thoughts, or making comments ten steps ahead of the conversation in the appealing manner of the incredibly smart and verbally gifted. His charm is undeniable- you smile because you've met him before, and then laugh because you haven't, not really. He constantly surprises with his intelligence and insight, which leap all unexpected out of the apparently harmless "buffoonery" others identify him with and is all the more searing because of it.
In Strong Poison, this appealing charm is only added to by the fact that Peter is, at seemingly long last, showing his vulnerability and humanity beneath the clownish exterior, and he does it by falling deeply in love with an accused murderer, Harriet Vane. She is accused of murdering her former lover with arsenic, and as the story opens seems to be about a hairsbreadth from being convicted with pretty convincing evidence. But Peter Wimsey doesn't believe it for a second! A hung jury allows for a second trial and a second chance for Peter to save her if he works fast- and that he most certainly does.
Surrounded by a cast of amusing and fully drawn supporting characters like the delightful clearly-recognizable-to-a-1930s-reading-public sweet old Miss Climpson, the Watson, of sorts, of the piece, the requisite actual near Bertie Wooster type, Freddy Arbuthnot- there clearly to highlight the difference, and the broadly drawn stereotype of a former lock picker Rumm, just to name a few, its hard not to get pulled along with and fall for this literarily inclined sitcom of a piece, packed with stand-alone comedy routines of episodes. (Indeed, I think Dorothy Sayers would have had a very good career as a staff writer on Fraiser or Gilmore Girls, had she been born a few decades later.) Wimsey's orchestration of the madness has an appropriately light touch and, rarely for a detective main character, he doesn't hog the spotlight at all. Lots of characters get a chance to shine in this truly ensemble piece.
(Note: It was also a plus that the bothersomely insistent anti-Semitism I noticed in Whose Body (and I'm still unclear about whether it was editorial commentary or just on the part of characters who were unfortunately realistic for the time) isn't present here except for a stray remark or two, and not from characters I think we're meant to admire, so that was also a big step up.)
But I actually, for all my trying, could not jump into the waters and be swept along. The first major weakness is the mystery itself. I guessed all the twists chapters before the main characters did, to the point where I wanted to smack my forehead when they finally figured it out. I guessed the murderer a few chapters after they were first mentioned. The villain is unsatisfyingly stupid, to the point where even Sayers questions him, "Sooo... why didn't he just do this to cover himself?".. and essentially gives an answer of, "IDK, don't question it- good luck for our dashing main character!" Which I get, Peter is what we're here for for sure. But it made some of the machinations to figure out what happened feel longer than they would have without at least a little suspense. Partly I think this is not Sayers' fault- I am conditioned to figure out the murderer by who they are mentioned by, when they are mentioned, how much information gets repeated and by whom because I have read many of Sayers' descendants and I know the rules. Perhaps at the time it was written people hadn't been trained enough to figure that out.
Secondly, I found Harriet Vane underwhelming- I was promised someone awesome, and I think she just didn't get enough screen time to show it. Oh, she was cool when we saw her, but it was in two to five page spurts every fifty pages or so. I gathered from the testimony of others definitely a strong, independent woman with an unconventional life and a lot of integrity, which was amazing, especially in an older book, but again, no chance to show it- she only appeared in spurts of two to five pages every four or five chapters. I also thought that Peter's relationship with her during this time was much less charming than I think he meant it to be- a lot of it was an uncomfortable example of a man exerting power over a woman who has no choice but to play to him, whether she honestly likes him or not. And even if she does, it'll maybe never be totally clear. It all ended up all right and I approve of where Sayers took it and I'd be interested to see what a Harriet Vane not currently under arrest for murder would be like as a character, but she didn't show to her best advantage here.
Thirdly, I really wish the book had spent more time on letting us glimpse beneath Peter's lighthearted nature- the few scenes where he playfully-but-not-playfully took people to task for getting upset with him for showing his humanity, rather than just being a delightful, dumb jokester all the time that others could use to lighten their mood (using Jon Stewart's Crossfire "monkey" line centuries before it became famous to contemporary people). It was affecting- I get that part of its power was being used sparingly and too much might put off an audience who also loves him the way he is, but I guess Sayers was just too good at these parts. I really loved Georgette Heyer's Cotillion, which does kind of a similiar thing and sets up a "buffoon" as the romantic hero, defending him and all his virtues the whole while against the more popular Byronic type. Sayers had more to work with in her secretly-actually-smart hero and I wish she'd done it. Just my personal preference for seeing people in layers, I guess. I get that this is a polite mystery from the 1930s and what I'm talking about is a modern thing. New fanfiction idea!
If I read another Sayers I think I'll try Have his Carcase or Gaudy Night, both of which are supposed to have a strong Harriet Vane appearance. Sayers seems worth at least one more shot. I like this sort of thing and there aren't many playing at this level in the game.
Dorothy Sayers has been a popular mystery writer for at least eighty years. She was writing books in the twenties and thirties and they, despite the competition of Agatha Christie and everyone else writing similarly mannered mystery puzzles and polite comedies of manners (which category her books also fall into), have lasted until now, which means they've come through at least three generations of fans. And it isn't hard to see why.
Her most famous character (and deservedly) is Lord Peter Wimsey. He is the younger son and brother of a Duke in the interwar era who takes up "sleuthing" as his hobby. It's like if Bertie Wooster decided to be Sherlock Holmes one day, plus about 100 IQ points and deeper heart and ironic self-awareness, but also retaining his faithful Jeeves (called Bunter in this series). His other hobby is reading, and his speech is a patchwork of classical, biblical and artistic references, often stopping and starting in the middle of thoughts, or making comments ten steps ahead of the conversation in the appealing manner of the incredibly smart and verbally gifted. His charm is undeniable- you smile because you've met him before, and then laugh because you haven't, not really. He constantly surprises with his intelligence and insight, which leap all unexpected out of the apparently harmless "buffoonery" others identify him with and is all the more searing because of it.
In Strong Poison, this appealing charm is only added to by the fact that Peter is, at seemingly long last, showing his vulnerability and humanity beneath the clownish exterior, and he does it by falling deeply in love with an accused murderer, Harriet Vane. She is accused of murdering her former lover with arsenic, and as the story opens seems to be about a hairsbreadth from being convicted with pretty convincing evidence. But Peter Wimsey doesn't believe it for a second! A hung jury allows for a second trial and a second chance for Peter to save her if he works fast- and that he most certainly does.
Surrounded by a cast of amusing and fully drawn supporting characters like the delightful clearly-recognizable-to-a-1930s-reading-public sweet old Miss Climpson, the Watson, of sorts, of the piece, the requisite actual near Bertie Wooster type, Freddy Arbuthnot- there clearly to highlight the difference, and the broadly drawn stereotype of a former lock picker Rumm, just to name a few, its hard not to get pulled along with and fall for this literarily inclined sitcom of a piece, packed with stand-alone comedy routines of episodes. (Indeed, I think Dorothy Sayers would have had a very good career as a staff writer on Fraiser or Gilmore Girls, had she been born a few decades later.) Wimsey's orchestration of the madness has an appropriately light touch and, rarely for a detective main character, he doesn't hog the spotlight at all. Lots of characters get a chance to shine in this truly ensemble piece.
(Note: It was also a plus that the bothersomely insistent anti-Semitism I noticed in Whose Body (and I'm still unclear about whether it was editorial commentary or just on the part of characters who were unfortunately realistic for the time) isn't present here except for a stray remark or two, and not from characters I think we're meant to admire, so that was also a big step up.)
But I actually, for all my trying, could not jump into the waters and be swept along. The first major weakness is the mystery itself. I guessed all the twists chapters before the main characters did, to the point where I wanted to smack my forehead when they finally figured it out. I guessed the murderer a few chapters after they were first mentioned. The villain is unsatisfyingly stupid, to the point where even Sayers questions him, "Sooo... why didn't he just do this to cover himself?".. and essentially gives an answer of, "IDK, don't question it- good luck for our dashing main character!" Which I get, Peter is what we're here for for sure. But it made some of the machinations to figure out what happened feel longer than they would have without at least a little suspense. Partly I think this is not Sayers' fault- I am conditioned to figure out the murderer by who they are mentioned by, when they are mentioned, how much information gets repeated and by whom because I have read many of Sayers' descendants and I know the rules. Perhaps at the time it was written people hadn't been trained enough to figure that out.
Secondly, I found Harriet Vane underwhelming- I was promised someone awesome, and I think she just didn't get enough screen time to show it. Oh, she was cool when we saw her, but it was in two to five page spurts every fifty pages or so. I gathered from the testimony of others definitely a strong, independent woman with an unconventional life and a lot of integrity, which was amazing, especially in an older book, but again, no chance to show it- she only appeared in spurts of two to five pages every four or five chapters. I also thought that Peter's relationship with her during this time was much less charming than I think he meant it to be- a lot of it was an uncomfortable example of a man exerting power over a woman who has no choice but to play to him, whether she honestly likes him or not. And even if she does, it'll maybe never be totally clear. It all ended up all right and I approve of where Sayers took it and I'd be interested to see what a Harriet Vane not currently under arrest for murder would be like as a character, but she didn't show to her best advantage here.
Thirdly, I really wish the book had spent more time on letting us glimpse beneath Peter's lighthearted nature- the few scenes where he playfully-but-not-playfully took people to task for getting upset with him for showing his humanity, rather than just being a delightful, dumb jokester all the time that others could use to lighten their mood (using Jon Stewart's Crossfire "monkey" line centuries before it became famous to contemporary people). It was affecting- I get that part of its power was being used sparingly and too much might put off an audience who also loves him the way he is, but I guess Sayers was just too good at these parts. I really loved Georgette Heyer's Cotillion, which does kind of a similiar thing and sets up a "buffoon" as the romantic hero, defending him and all his virtues the whole while against the more popular Byronic type. Sayers had more to work with in her secretly-actually-smart hero and I wish she'd done it. Just my personal preference for seeing people in layers, I guess. I get that this is a polite mystery from the 1930s and what I'm talking about is a modern thing. New fanfiction idea!
If I read another Sayers I think I'll try Have his Carcase or Gaudy Night, both of which are supposed to have a strong Harriet Vane appearance. Sayers seems worth at least one more shot. I like this sort of thing and there aren't many playing at this level in the game.
May 19, 2016
Published in 1930, this is the sixth book to feature Lord Peter Wimsey and the first to feature Harriet Vane. When we are introduced to Harriet, she is a prisoner in the dock; on trial for killing her lover, Philip Boyes. Lord Peter is convinced of her innocence and instantly smitten. However, the case against her looks pretty convincing at first glance. Miss Vane had left Mr Boyes, after an attempt at ‘free love’ had fallen apart. A writer of detective fiction, Harriet had been investigating death by arsenic poisoning and had purchased arsenic under false names. When Philip Boyes is poisoned, it looks as though Harriet is the obvious person to accuse.
In a race against time, Lord Peter is determined to find the real murderer and so we set off on an exciting adventure, including false wills, mediums, notorious great-aunts and the glorious Miss Climpson who, against her moral scruples, is sent by Lord Peter to help solve the crime.
This is a delightful mystery, with wonderful characters, lots of humour, a great plot and a real sense of danger – as Lord Peter has to solve the crime and rescue Harriet. There is also a lot of romance in the air, with Parker still mooning over Peter’s sister, Mary and Freddy Arbuthnot about to tie the knot with Rachel Levy (who was mentioned in the first ever Wimsey novel, “Whose Body?”). This is one of the most enjoyable in the series which I have read so far and I recommend the entire, classic, Golden Age series highly.
In a race against time, Lord Peter is determined to find the real murderer and so we set off on an exciting adventure, including false wills, mediums, notorious great-aunts and the glorious Miss Climpson who, against her moral scruples, is sent by Lord Peter to help solve the crime.
This is a delightful mystery, with wonderful characters, lots of humour, a great plot and a real sense of danger – as Lord Peter has to solve the crime and rescue Harriet. There is also a lot of romance in the air, with Parker still mooning over Peter’s sister, Mary and Freddy Arbuthnot about to tie the knot with Rachel Levy (who was mentioned in the first ever Wimsey novel, “Whose Body?”). This is one of the most enjoyable in the series which I have read so far and I recommend the entire, classic, Golden Age series highly.
November 3, 2019
“Oh, come,” said Wimsey, “you can’t think that, Helen. Damn it, she writes detective stories and in detective stories virtue is always triumphant. They’re the purest literature we have.”
Sayers has a lot going in this story where Whimsey attends a trial (just out of curiosity?) and finds that he has fallen in love with the defendant, Harriet Vain, who is accused of killing her former lover by poisoning him while he was trying to effect a reconciliation. Whimsey? Vain? Is this a chapter from Pilgrim’s Progress? Not really.
But, Sayers is writing this in 1930, at the point where the Great Depression meets the Jazz Age. In the past decade, England has suffered its worst loss of “manpower” in history due to the First World War. At the same time, women’s right to vote was granted to about 8 million women in the UK who were over 30 and met certain property qualifications. And the decline of Britain’s nobility was in free-fall given the costs of maintaining a lordly mansion and the staff for it.
So, while P.G. Wodehouse gives us Bertie Wooster, Sayers gives us Whimsey, who is silly and smart at the same time, as well as the whole family of the Duke of Denver who are arrogant, illogical, supporters of the way “things used to be and still ought to be,” and excessive in most other ways.
Harriet Vain is also, apparently, a way for Sayers to work out her own problems with a former lover who bears a striking resemblance to the murder victim of this tale. That bit of errata aside, the plot hangs together sufficiently to be a vehicle for all the rest of the baggage. And, Sayers provides us with humor and insights along the way.
Sayers has a lot going in this story where Whimsey attends a trial (just out of curiosity?) and finds that he has fallen in love with the defendant, Harriet Vain, who is accused of killing her former lover by poisoning him while he was trying to effect a reconciliation. Whimsey? Vain? Is this a chapter from Pilgrim’s Progress? Not really.
But, Sayers is writing this in 1930, at the point where the Great Depression meets the Jazz Age. In the past decade, England has suffered its worst loss of “manpower” in history due to the First World War. At the same time, women’s right to vote was granted to about 8 million women in the UK who were over 30 and met certain property qualifications. And the decline of Britain’s nobility was in free-fall given the costs of maintaining a lordly mansion and the staff for it.
So, while P.G. Wodehouse gives us Bertie Wooster, Sayers gives us Whimsey, who is silly and smart at the same time, as well as the whole family of the Duke of Denver who are arrogant, illogical, supporters of the way “things used to be and still ought to be,” and excessive in most other ways.
Harriet Vain is also, apparently, a way for Sayers to work out her own problems with a former lover who bears a striking resemblance to the murder victim of this tale. That bit of errata aside, the plot hangs together sufficiently to be a vehicle for all the rest of the baggage. And, Sayers provides us with humor and insights along the way.
August 11, 2024
I’ve long wanted to read some of the more “classic” mysteries in the hopes of finding another Sherlock Holmes, Hercule Poirot, or Miss Marple. I was also inspired by 1986’s mystery-adventure “Killed Until Dead” in which Wimsey and other classic sleuths investigate.
Unfortunately, Dorothy L. Sayers' "Strong Poison" failed to impress, feeling distinctly dated. Published in 1930, it suffers from the mannerisms, the tone, and the zeitgeist of the previous decade which detracted from my overall enjoyment.
Right from the outset, the narrative was bogged down by a significant information dump delivered through the judge's summarising of the case to the jury. This served as an intro, and while I appreciate thorough background, it dragged on unnecessarily for the first 12% of the novel, making for a tedious start.
Lord Peter Wimsey, the supposed star of the show, comes across as unsympathetic and rather superficial. His character, along with that of Harriet Vane, left me feeling disconnected and uninvested. The novel seemed to revel in his eccentricity without endearing him to the reader. Unlike Holmes, Poirot, or Marple, whose quirks add depth and charm, Wimsey's characteristics felt forced and less appealing.
The secondary characters did not fare much better in my estimation. Harriet Vane, the accused at the heart of the narrative, and various other figures blended into the background without making a significant impact.
Moreover, the characterisation is often shallow and relies on outdated stereotypes.
»“Female intuition,” said Eiluned, bluntly. “She doesn’t like the way he does his hair.”«
To make matters worse, I correctly guessed the culprit and motive early on, leaving me underwhelmed for much of the remainder of the novel.
Despite its shortcomings, I must admit that "Strong Poison" is not a complete failure. The writing is good enough, and Sayers' use of language is undeniably evocative. Fans of classic mysteries may find more to appreciate, but for me, it failed to live up to its potential.
Three stars out of five from me; I have read far worse, but I expected much better.
Blog | Facebook | Twitter | Mastodon | Instagram | Pinterest | Medium | Matrix | Tumblr
Ceterum censeo Putin esse delendam
Unfortunately, Dorothy L. Sayers' "Strong Poison" failed to impress, feeling distinctly dated. Published in 1930, it suffers from the mannerisms, the tone, and the zeitgeist of the previous decade which detracted from my overall enjoyment.
Right from the outset, the narrative was bogged down by a significant information dump delivered through the judge's summarising of the case to the jury. This served as an intro, and while I appreciate thorough background, it dragged on unnecessarily for the first 12% of the novel, making for a tedious start.
Lord Peter Wimsey, the supposed star of the show, comes across as unsympathetic and rather superficial. His character, along with that of Harriet Vane, left me feeling disconnected and uninvested. The novel seemed to revel in his eccentricity without endearing him to the reader. Unlike Holmes, Poirot, or Marple, whose quirks add depth and charm, Wimsey's characteristics felt forced and less appealing.
The secondary characters did not fare much better in my estimation. Harriet Vane, the accused at the heart of the narrative, and various other figures blended into the background without making a significant impact.
Moreover, the characterisation is often shallow and relies on outdated stereotypes.
»“Female intuition,” said Eiluned, bluntly. “She doesn’t like the way he does his hair.”«
To make matters worse, I correctly guessed the culprit and motive early on, leaving me underwhelmed for much of the remainder of the novel.
Despite its shortcomings, I must admit that "Strong Poison" is not a complete failure. The writing is good enough, and Sayers' use of language is undeniably evocative. Fans of classic mysteries may find more to appreciate, but for me, it failed to live up to its potential.
Three stars out of five from me; I have read far worse, but I expected much better.
Blog | Facebook | Twitter | Mastodon | Instagram | Pinterest | Medium | Matrix | Tumblr
Ceterum censeo Putin esse delendam
February 18, 2025
““I had no difficulty in getting a comfortable room at the Station Hotel, late as it was. In the old days, an unmarried woman arriving alone at midnight with a suitcase would hardly have been considered respectable – what a wonderful difference one finds it today! I am grateful to have lived to see such changes, because whatever old-fashioned people may say about the greater decorum and modesty of women in Queen Victoria’s time, those who can remember the old conditions know how difficult and humiliating they were! […]’”
Admittedly, in comparison to Agatha Christie’s mysteries, Dorothy L. Sayers’s novels are far less plot-driven and infinitely more rambling because Sayers gives a lot more space for her side characters to unfold their stories and attitudes. It may not help, either, that in Strong Poison you may know very well after the first half of the book who the actual killer is whereas Christie usually keeps you guessing and wondering until the very last few pages. The quotation above is taken from a lengthy letter of Lord Peter’s female Baker Street Irregular Miss Climpson in which she tells her employer how she goes about securing a will that might hold the key as to who did away with Philip Boyes, and this little observation of Miss Climpson’s seems to be neither here nor there with regard to the outcome of her mission but it adds depth to the novel by pointing out the changes of mores and attitudes towards gender roles in Interwar Britain. It may also be an instance of Sayers’s voicing her own opinions by putting them into the mouth of a rather peculiar but by no means ridiculous character – a character, by the way, who might have served Agatha Christie as a blueprint to her inimitable Miss Marple.
The central plot of Strong Poison is actually quite simple: A young artist, i.e. a writer of mystery novels like Sayers herself, named Harriet Vane, is accused of having poisoned her lover Philip Boyes, an author of rather scandalous vanguard literature, and it is only due to Miss Climpson, who happens to serve as a juror, that in the first trial, where all the circumstantial evidence is against Vane, there is no judgment of guilty brought in. The trial, however, gives Lord Peter his first occasion of clapping eyes on Vane and of falling in love with her, forming the conviction that this remarkable young lady is innocent. Lord Peter now sets out to find the real murderer, an enterprise of great pith and moment, that is exacerbated by the fact that whatever trace he follows will eventually point at Miss Vane. It finally all boils down to proving that Boyes was killed at a dinner which was shared by three other people, a culinary kind of locked-room-mystery.
The setting of this carefully premeditated crime not only gives Sayers the opportunity to add yet another dimension to her hero Lord Peter, who now appears in the unusual role of a lover, and uses a rather unusual time and place to declare his intentions to Miss Vane, but also to introduce a female character whose attitudes might have not gone down well with the average contemporary reader. It must be said that, all in all, Miss Vane readily fulfils the role of the damsel in distress in the plot of the novel, ready to be rescued by the knight in shining armour and that her appearances in the novel itself are few and far between. Yet, Miss Vane is anything but the compliant female because she consents to “live in sin”, as the expression goes, with Boyes, and when he later shows willing to offer her marriage, she regards this as a betrayal of their free-thinking principles and as an offer à la “He tried me out and now deigns to legitimize our relationship in the eyes of a society he pretended to look down on.” In other words, Miss Vane has a head of her own and the guts to act up to her principles, which are quite high-minded in a certain way – and Lord Peter is ready to accept this, thinking that not only men should be given leeway to sow their wild oats. Apart from Miss Vane, the novel also has two other female characters that come over as resourceful, plucky and self-confident. One of them is Miss Climpson, to whose mental independence and personal courage the court’s first failure to bring in a verdict of guilty is due and who proves, again and again, clever and determined in the persecution of Lord Peter’s interests, and the other is another “spinster” named Miss Murchison, who does not fall back behind Miss Climpson when it comes to using her ready wit in order to help unearth the secrets hidden by the true murderer. All in all, it may therefore be said that without the help of these two proto-Miss Marples Lord Peter would never have been able to come to the rescue of Miss Vane.
Times have gone by since Sayers wrote Strong Poison, and this is what, with regard to gender roles, makes this a very daring and refreshing reading experience, giving us the chance to look into the past with the eyes of its contemporaries.
Admittedly, in comparison to Agatha Christie’s mysteries, Dorothy L. Sayers’s novels are far less plot-driven and infinitely more rambling because Sayers gives a lot more space for her side characters to unfold their stories and attitudes. It may not help, either, that in Strong Poison you may know very well after the first half of the book who the actual killer is whereas Christie usually keeps you guessing and wondering until the very last few pages. The quotation above is taken from a lengthy letter of Lord Peter’s female Baker Street Irregular Miss Climpson in which she tells her employer how she goes about securing a will that might hold the key as to who did away with Philip Boyes, and this little observation of Miss Climpson’s seems to be neither here nor there with regard to the outcome of her mission but it adds depth to the novel by pointing out the changes of mores and attitudes towards gender roles in Interwar Britain. It may also be an instance of Sayers’s voicing her own opinions by putting them into the mouth of a rather peculiar but by no means ridiculous character – a character, by the way, who might have served Agatha Christie as a blueprint to her inimitable Miss Marple.
The central plot of Strong Poison is actually quite simple: A young artist, i.e. a writer of mystery novels like Sayers herself, named Harriet Vane, is accused of having poisoned her lover Philip Boyes, an author of rather scandalous vanguard literature, and it is only due to Miss Climpson, who happens to serve as a juror, that in the first trial, where all the circumstantial evidence is against Vane, there is no judgment of guilty brought in. The trial, however, gives Lord Peter his first occasion of clapping eyes on Vane and of falling in love with her, forming the conviction that this remarkable young lady is innocent. Lord Peter now sets out to find the real murderer, an enterprise of great pith and moment, that is exacerbated by the fact that whatever trace he follows will eventually point at Miss Vane. It finally all boils down to proving that Boyes was killed at a dinner which was shared by three other people, a culinary kind of locked-room-mystery.
The setting of this carefully premeditated crime not only gives Sayers the opportunity to add yet another dimension to her hero Lord Peter, who now appears in the unusual role of a lover, and uses a rather unusual time and place to declare his intentions to Miss Vane, but also to introduce a female character whose attitudes might have not gone down well with the average contemporary reader. It must be said that, all in all, Miss Vane readily fulfils the role of the damsel in distress in the plot of the novel, ready to be rescued by the knight in shining armour and that her appearances in the novel itself are few and far between. Yet, Miss Vane is anything but the compliant female because she consents to “live in sin”, as the expression goes, with Boyes, and when he later shows willing to offer her marriage, she regards this as a betrayal of their free-thinking principles and as an offer à la “He tried me out and now deigns to legitimize our relationship in the eyes of a society he pretended to look down on.” In other words, Miss Vane has a head of her own and the guts to act up to her principles, which are quite high-minded in a certain way – and Lord Peter is ready to accept this, thinking that not only men should be given leeway to sow their wild oats. Apart from Miss Vane, the novel also has two other female characters that come over as resourceful, plucky and self-confident. One of them is Miss Climpson, to whose mental independence and personal courage the court’s first failure to bring in a verdict of guilty is due and who proves, again and again, clever and determined in the persecution of Lord Peter’s interests, and the other is another “spinster” named Miss Murchison, who does not fall back behind Miss Climpson when it comes to using her ready wit in order to help unearth the secrets hidden by the true murderer. All in all, it may therefore be said that without the help of these two proto-Miss Marples Lord Peter would never have been able to come to the rescue of Miss Vane.
Times have gone by since Sayers wrote Strong Poison, and this is what, with regard to gender roles, makes this a very daring and refreshing reading experience, giving us the chance to look into the past with the eyes of its contemporaries.
January 6, 2021
2021 Review
I'm going to admit, the mystery itself doesn't quite strike me as 5 stars upon re-read. There are a few too many coincidences for comfort. And it is weird that the story randomly follows the adventure of a middle age lady for like the last third of the book. Harriet gets almost no screen time. And the mystery is more about "how did it happen" than "who did it" considering the pure lack of suspects.
But, oh. Sir Peter. He's gold, pure gold. I adored him. Everything about him is perfection.
I was also struck by the numerous absurd and hilarious scenes in the book. The Dowager Duchess is just amazing. She made me laugh so hard.
Definitely a book I love for the characters over the plot.
2015 Review
Simply marvelous.
Mystery writer Harriet Vane knows all about poison. Unfortunately so does her former lover....he's been killed by it. As the only obvious individual with means & motive, Harriet presents the obvious suspect and is charged accordingly. Sir Peter Wimsey is convinced she didn't do it. He has one month before it comes to trial to save her from the hangman's noose.
It's not just the mystery that makes this novel so wonderful. It's all the characters. Though its a 'Lord Peter Wimsey Novel', many chapters get devoted to 'other' characters and their adventures. It doesn't lose the thread of the plot. It simply follows the natural course which is fabulous. From middle age women learning to pick locks or a bureau funded for sleuthing women, Sir Peter shares the spotlight and it changes the tone for the better.
Its also fun to read a mystery that has, in some ways, 'gone cold'. Sir Peter isn't on the spot to examine the body. He has to pick together clues and hunt for motive. A refreshing change of pace for a detective story.
Easily my favorite Sayers.
I'm going to admit, the mystery itself doesn't quite strike me as 5 stars upon re-read. There are a few too many coincidences for comfort. And it is weird that the story randomly follows the adventure of a middle age lady for like the last third of the book. Harriet gets almost no screen time. And the mystery is more about "how did it happen" than "who did it" considering the pure lack of suspects.
But, oh. Sir Peter. He's gold, pure gold. I adored him. Everything about him is perfection.
I was also struck by the numerous absurd and hilarious scenes in the book. The Dowager Duchess is just amazing. She made me laugh so hard.
Definitely a book I love for the characters over the plot.
2015 Review
Simply marvelous.
Mystery writer Harriet Vane knows all about poison. Unfortunately so does her former lover....he's been killed by it. As the only obvious individual with means & motive, Harriet presents the obvious suspect and is charged accordingly. Sir Peter Wimsey is convinced she didn't do it. He has one month before it comes to trial to save her from the hangman's noose.
It's not just the mystery that makes this novel so wonderful. It's all the characters. Though its a 'Lord Peter Wimsey Novel', many chapters get devoted to 'other' characters and their adventures. It doesn't lose the thread of the plot. It simply follows the natural course which is fabulous. From middle age women learning to pick locks or a bureau funded for sleuthing women, Sir Peter shares the spotlight and it changes the tone for the better.
Its also fun to read a mystery that has, in some ways, 'gone cold'. Sir Peter isn't on the spot to examine the body. He has to pick together clues and hunt for motive. A refreshing change of pace for a detective story.
Easily my favorite Sayers.
June 27, 2018
I listened to this on audiobook and completely forgot to add it to my Goodreads challenge. Dorothy L. Sayers is now officially my no. 1 Agatha Christie substitute. If you like Agatha Christie, I can only recommend checking out one of the Lord Peter Wimsey Mysteries! They have a very similar feel to them and they're always very satirical and funny.
May 5, 2024
The detailed descriptions of the dinner (that may or may not have been full of arsenic) in this book lead to my making and eating both an omelette and a casserole . . . in the same day! Of course what they describe as an omelette seems to be something sweet, it reminds me of the German dessert Kaiser Schmarr'n, which I used to make all the time in college, so I might have to make that again soon! Yes, even the fact that it might have been laced with arsenic didn't stop me from getting a craving because of a well-written dinner scene! Also, this had some of the best dialogue so far, from Lord Peter telling Parker that no man should be forced to see a friend "going all wobbly over his sister" to telling Bunters not to pull any of that "Jeeves business" and my absolute favorite: his telling Harriet that he had himself have lovers "happen to him" and that he could supply her with references as to his successful lovemaking! I died!
April 29, 2021
I truly enjoyed listening to this lively mystery written by the intelligent and perceptive Dorothy L. Sayers.
My favorite passages:
I laughed out loud at the wry humor of this description: "The carriage was well heated, indeed so much so that I should have liked the window down, but there was a very fat businessman muffled to the eyes in coats and woolly waistcoats who strongly objected to fresh air."
She "muffled herself in a heavy rain-cloak of Inverness cut, took a hat and umbrella and started on her way to steal Mrs. Wrayburn's will." I love the directness of this statement, which caused me to do a double-take.
I loved this apt description, which describes my activity on most afternoons somewhere between 3:30 and 4:30pm, "left alone in the kitchen with the kettle bumping and singing on its way to boiling point."
And this is so true: "It is astonishing how long a kettle, which seems to be on the verge of boiling will take before the looked for jet of steam emerges from its spout. Elusive little puffs and deceptive little pauses in the song tantalize the watcher interminably."
My favorite passages:
I laughed out loud at the wry humor of this description: "The carriage was well heated, indeed so much so that I should have liked the window down, but there was a very fat businessman muffled to the eyes in coats and woolly waistcoats who strongly objected to fresh air."
She "muffled herself in a heavy rain-cloak of Inverness cut, took a hat and umbrella and started on her way to steal Mrs. Wrayburn's will." I love the directness of this statement, which caused me to do a double-take.
I loved this apt description, which describes my activity on most afternoons somewhere between 3:30 and 4:30pm, "left alone in the kitchen with the kettle bumping and singing on its way to boiling point."
And this is so true: "It is astonishing how long a kettle, which seems to be on the verge of boiling will take before the looked for jet of steam emerges from its spout. Elusive little puffs and deceptive little pauses in the song tantalize the watcher interminably."
March 1, 2019
This mystery was okay. I wasn't able to guess who committed the crime, or how, so it is definitely unpredictable in that sense. It was very clever and I admire the novel for that.
I did like the plot, and I liked the underlying quiet feminism to it all. I liked the characters well enough, and the writing style had a buoyancy to it which made it nice to read.
So why only three stars if I am mentioning all these good things? Mostly because I don't find it to be a particularly memorable book. And much like the tv series Monk, when the detective decides to pursue one avenue to solve the crime, that's the right avenue. There aren't really many other people he seems to look into or dead ends to read. He kind of sets his path and follows along it. So it wasn't too thrilling, or suspenseful. It was clever, but the solving of the mystery was straighforward and easy to follow. I like my mysteries with more layers and complication.
I did like the plot, and I liked the underlying quiet feminism to it all. I liked the characters well enough, and the writing style had a buoyancy to it which made it nice to read.
So why only three stars if I am mentioning all these good things? Mostly because I don't find it to be a particularly memorable book. And much like the tv series Monk, when the detective decides to pursue one avenue to solve the crime, that's the right avenue. There aren't really many other people he seems to look into or dead ends to read. He kind of sets his path and follows along it. So it wasn't too thrilling, or suspenseful. It was clever, but the solving of the mystery was straighforward and easy to follow. I like my mysteries with more layers and complication.
November 3, 2021
[2021 review:] Peter showing up as the 47th person to propose marriage to Harriet Vane in jail is just...it. How can any of us expect to find love if we're not being accused of the murder of our former ex-lovers and then proven innocent by blond, foolish lords in a monocle? I ask you.
[2019 review:] Lord Peter Whimsy attends the closing arguments of a trial for the accused murderess-cum-author Harriet Vane. From these proceedings he determines two things: 1) she is very much innocent, and 2) she is very much his future wife (if she will have him). This means that Peter is ON THE CASE, ready to defy friends, family, etc. for the chance to get Miss Vane off (not a pun).
1. This was HILARIOUS. Wry and amusing and clever and absurd by turns, I honestly was delighted. What a good collection of banter and teasing and humor, balanced against Peter's fear of failure and the nebulous question of his future relationship with the intriguing Miss Vane.
2. That said, I did think it lagged slightly in the second half when the focus turns to Miss Climpton and the Cattery ladies accomplishing the necessary in order to discover the true murderer. The lack of Peter's driving momentum (and Harriet's dry reads) was definitely missing.
3. Only Peter would consider this successful wooing which is why it works so well for me: "I can produce quite good testimonials. I'm told I make love rather nicely—only I'm at a disadvantage at the moment. One can't be very convincing at the other end of a table with a bloke looking in at the door."
4. HARRIET VANE: "If anybody ever marries you, it will be for the pleasure of hearing you talk piffle."
5. I look forward to more Cattery adventures. And Peter heckling Parker over his relationship with Mary. And general Vane presence.
[2019 review:] Lord Peter Whimsy attends the closing arguments of a trial for the accused murderess-cum-author Harriet Vane. From these proceedings he determines two things: 1) she is very much innocent, and 2) she is very much his future wife (if she will have him). This means that Peter is ON THE CASE, ready to defy friends, family, etc. for the chance to get Miss Vane off (not a pun).
1. This was HILARIOUS. Wry and amusing and clever and absurd by turns, I honestly was delighted. What a good collection of banter and teasing and humor, balanced against Peter's fear of failure and the nebulous question of his future relationship with the intriguing Miss Vane.
2. That said, I did think it lagged slightly in the second half when the focus turns to Miss Climpton and the Cattery ladies accomplishing the necessary in order to discover the true murderer. The lack of Peter's driving momentum (and Harriet's dry reads) was definitely missing.
3. Only Peter would consider this successful wooing which is why it works so well for me: "I can produce quite good testimonials. I'm told I make love rather nicely—only I'm at a disadvantage at the moment. One can't be very convincing at the other end of a table with a bloke looking in at the door."
4. HARRIET VANE: "If anybody ever marries you, it will be for the pleasure of hearing you talk piffle."
5. I look forward to more Cattery adventures. And Peter heckling Parker over his relationship with Mary. And general Vane presence.
April 25, 2020
"-¿Son ganzúas?-preguntó la señorita Murchison con curiosidad
-Eso es lo que son, señorita ¡Instrumentos de Satanás! - Movió la cabeza mientras acariciaba con cariño el brillante acero-¡Cuántas veces habrán abierto llaves como estas la puerta trasera del infierno a los pobres pecadores!
-Esta vez sacarán a una pobre inocente de la cárcel para que vea al sol...eso si hay, con este clima tan espantoso."
Y así...todo very British. Con alusiones al clima, mucho té y pudín con pasas y ese humor especial. Ambientada en Londres, en la década del treinta, con un investigador de noble estirpe, agudo y bibliófilo (un detalle que no pasa inadvertido en sus constantes alusiones literarias)
El que quiera leerla se encontrará con una novela de misterio "de las de antes". Escrita con humor y resuelta con ingenio, refinamiento y elegancia. Nobleza obliga, no esperaba menos.
-Eso es lo que son, señorita ¡Instrumentos de Satanás! - Movió la cabeza mientras acariciaba con cariño el brillante acero-¡Cuántas veces habrán abierto llaves como estas la puerta trasera del infierno a los pobres pecadores!
-Esta vez sacarán a una pobre inocente de la cárcel para que vea al sol...eso si hay, con este clima tan espantoso."
Y así...todo very British. Con alusiones al clima, mucho té y pudín con pasas y ese humor especial. Ambientada en Londres, en la década del treinta, con un investigador de noble estirpe, agudo y bibliófilo (un detalle que no pasa inadvertido en sus constantes alusiones literarias)
El que quiera leerla se encontrará con una novela de misterio "de las de antes". Escrita con humor y resuelta con ingenio, refinamiento y elegancia. Nobleza obliga, no esperaba menos.
March 29, 2021
Strong Poison is still a terrific book. It must be thirty years since I last read it and even though I remembered the plot pretty well, it was still a huge treat.
This is the book in which Peter Wimsey falls in love with Harriet Vane when she is on trial for murder and makes it his business to prove her innocence. It’s a corny enough premise, but it’s so well done that it feels very fresh. Dorothy L. Sayers writes so well that for me any flaws are instantly forgivable – if I notice them at all. The old jibe about Snobbery With Violence has some truth here and Sayers is plainly in love with her creation, but none of that mattered to me. She creates such memorable and believable characters and writes with such elegance and wit that the whole thing was a pleasure. Wimsey himself is full of verbose charm (as Harriet remarks, “If anyone ever marries you, it wil be for the pleasure of hearing you talk piffle”), the wonderful Miss Climpson is on top form and a dinner party at Duke’s Denver, for example, is a beautifully understated portrait of a sort of antique, posh Twitter in which people have very definite opinions about matters of which they are wholly ignorant.
Dorothy L. Sayers is comfortably my favourite Golden Age author. This is one of her best – so much so that I now want to re-read the whole Wimsey canon. Very, very warmly recommended.
This is the book in which Peter Wimsey falls in love with Harriet Vane when she is on trial for murder and makes it his business to prove her innocence. It’s a corny enough premise, but it’s so well done that it feels very fresh. Dorothy L. Sayers writes so well that for me any flaws are instantly forgivable – if I notice them at all. The old jibe about Snobbery With Violence has some truth here and Sayers is plainly in love with her creation, but none of that mattered to me. She creates such memorable and believable characters and writes with such elegance and wit that the whole thing was a pleasure. Wimsey himself is full of verbose charm (as Harriet remarks, “If anyone ever marries you, it wil be for the pleasure of hearing you talk piffle”), the wonderful Miss Climpson is on top form and a dinner party at Duke’s Denver, for example, is a beautifully understated portrait of a sort of antique, posh Twitter in which people have very definite opinions about matters of which they are wholly ignorant.
Dorothy L. Sayers is comfortably my favourite Golden Age author. This is one of her best – so much so that I now want to re-read the whole Wimsey canon. Very, very warmly recommended.
May 16, 2021
This, first in the trilogy of the Oxford classics major’s semi-autobiographical mysteries, ending in Gaudy Night (made a PBS Mystery series). Here’s a brilliant, multifold ironic tale, the best of the three Sayers I’ve re-read in the last month. Only drawback, a long early discourse, too dense in an old judge’s voice; it holds ten pages of legal summation, the trial of Harriet Vane mystery writer, who knows too much about arsenic. In her defense, the handsome Sir Impey Biggs notes Vane was researching her new novel, about such poisoning. The victim was her former lover, from whom she drove off when he proposed marriage. As I said, multi-ironic.
Brilliant prose, for example, look at the verbs for typing. Miss Murchison "galloped" over the keys, "ornamented" the foot of the page, "threw over" the release, "spun" the roller, "twitching" the foolscap, "flung" the carbons, "shuffled" the copies, "slapped" them symmetric, and "bounced" with them (135)
Sayers lades her tale with rich characters, like the best burglar-lockpicker in London, Blindfold Bill [Rumm], who holds packed religious meetings in his impoverished E end dwelling—only poor since his religion has cancelled his burgling. Mrs. Rumm offers Lord Peter dinner, “trotters,” pigsfeet. Bill undertakes to train a secretary in his skill, with the result that “Miss Murchison had acquired a considerable facility with the more usual types of lock and a greatly enhanced respect for burglary as a profession”(133).
Lord Peter Wimsey, unlike so many detectives—say, Beaton’s Hamish MacBeth— stands 5’ 7” or so, his force deriving from his mental agility and knowledge, sometimes research of similar cases, as here. His brother, the Duke of Denver, stands horrified their sister, Mary, might marry a policeman (Scotland Yard). When Lord Peter defends Mary’s choice of Chief Inspector Parker, Scotland Yard, the Duke asks, “I hope YOU’RE not going to marry a policewoman?” Lord Peter responds, “No…I hope to marry the Prisoner— IF she’ll have me.” (The prisoner is Harriet Vane, detective novelist, a fictionalization of Sayers herself.)
An American reader must translate a good deal, say “hob” for the top surface of a stove (English “cooker”), or “tester” for canopy over a bed, "mews" for old stables now human homes, or a "Morris chair"--first chair with multi-slant back--which we have in our family. But also, here’s a great education in fine things common to the great houses of England, but encountered in the U.S. among wealthy families: “buhl tables [inlaid with ivory and shells], mahogany chiffoniers [high chests, often with mirrors], Chinese vases [say, a Ming dynasty, worth tens of thousands], Sheraton bureaux." Lord Peter will not drink cocoa, even with brandy.
Brilliant prose, for example, look at the verbs for typing. Miss Murchison "galloped" over the keys, "ornamented" the foot of the page, "threw over" the release, "spun" the roller, "twitching" the foolscap, "flung" the carbons, "shuffled" the copies, "slapped" them symmetric, and "bounced" with them (135)
Sayers lades her tale with rich characters, like the best burglar-lockpicker in London, Blindfold Bill [Rumm], who holds packed religious meetings in his impoverished E end dwelling—only poor since his religion has cancelled his burgling. Mrs. Rumm offers Lord Peter dinner, “trotters,” pigsfeet. Bill undertakes to train a secretary in his skill, with the result that “Miss Murchison had acquired a considerable facility with the more usual types of lock and a greatly enhanced respect for burglary as a profession”(133).
Lord Peter Wimsey, unlike so many detectives—say, Beaton’s Hamish MacBeth— stands 5’ 7” or so, his force deriving from his mental agility and knowledge, sometimes research of similar cases, as here. His brother, the Duke of Denver, stands horrified their sister, Mary, might marry a policeman (Scotland Yard). When Lord Peter defends Mary’s choice of Chief Inspector Parker, Scotland Yard, the Duke asks, “I hope YOU’RE not going to marry a policewoman?” Lord Peter responds, “No…I hope to marry the Prisoner— IF she’ll have me.” (The prisoner is Harriet Vane, detective novelist, a fictionalization of Sayers herself.)
An American reader must translate a good deal, say “hob” for the top surface of a stove (English “cooker”), or “tester” for canopy over a bed, "mews" for old stables now human homes, or a "Morris chair"--first chair with multi-slant back--which we have in our family. But also, here’s a great education in fine things common to the great houses of England, but encountered in the U.S. among wealthy families: “buhl tables [inlaid with ivory and shells], mahogany chiffoniers [high chests, often with mirrors], Chinese vases [say, a Ming dynasty, worth tens of thousands], Sheraton bureaux." Lord Peter will not drink cocoa, even with brandy.
January 11, 2023
4.5*
Carrying on with my chronological read of 'Lord Peter Wimsey’ mysteries. This one was a re-read but I enjoyed it even more as it allowed me to see Sayers’s writing skill in action. Always amazes me how much we miss on a first read.
“I say--I've thought of a good plot for a detective story."
"Really?"
"Top--hole. You know, the sort that people bring out and say 'I've often thought of doing it myself, if only I could find time to sit down and write it.' I gather that sitting down is all that is necessary for producing masterpieces.”
Wimsey is charming in his single-mindedness to free Harriet, and helped by quite a few characters, least of them the loyal Bunter. I particularly loved the sections that were following the resourceful and fearless Misses Munchinson and Climpson. These two nearly stole the show and I appreciated how Wimsey employs them, seeing the immense worth in these 'surplus’ women, contrary to what the contemporaries believed. Again, I couldn't help seeing Sayers using her very own experience of Life informing her portrait of Wimsey. She also seems to deep dive into disparate topics, here lock picking, séances, and arsenic poisoning, that she weaves into her narrative.
The novels that feature Wimsey and Vane have garnered a special fame - those were the ones I read first, before deciding to go through the whole series from the beginning - and I can see the very first seeds here. I do wonder how readers in the 1930s reacted to this...
Carrying on with my chronological read of 'Lord Peter Wimsey’ mysteries. This one was a re-read but I enjoyed it even more as it allowed me to see Sayers’s writing skill in action. Always amazes me how much we miss on a first read.
“I say--I've thought of a good plot for a detective story."
"Really?"
"Top--hole. You know, the sort that people bring out and say 'I've often thought of doing it myself, if only I could find time to sit down and write it.' I gather that sitting down is all that is necessary for producing masterpieces.”
Wimsey is charming in his single-mindedness to free Harriet, and helped by quite a few characters, least of them the loyal Bunter. I particularly loved the sections that were following the resourceful and fearless Misses Munchinson and Climpson. These two nearly stole the show and I appreciated how Wimsey employs them, seeing the immense worth in these 'surplus’ women, contrary to what the contemporaries believed. Again, I couldn't help seeing Sayers using her very own experience of Life informing her portrait of Wimsey. She also seems to deep dive into disparate topics, here lock picking, séances, and arsenic poisoning, that she weaves into her narrative.
The novels that feature Wimsey and Vane have garnered a special fame - those were the ones I read first, before deciding to go through the whole series from the beginning - and I can see the very first seeds here. I do wonder how readers in the 1930s reacted to this...
August 10, 2018
This one is the introduction of Harriet to the mix.
It's nearly a 5, but just short. It misses a bit on the nuance that will build between Lord Peter and herself- but which hasn't risen to its zenith yet. But Miss Climpson makes up for it- she's 5 star in this novel. I sure hope Lord Peter pays her an exorbitant salary.
It's dire circumstances for the ending of Harriet's former relationship. And our hero Peter declares himself almost immediately when he views her verve within her own situation. That truly surprised me as I've read many of these but not their meeting phases nor the style of their banter becoming established as it becomes.
Lots of details and lots of sleuthing and some of it is on the continent. Early airplane travel involved and Bunter assists. We have some high, high tone clubs and clubs that are merely "the high". And also some very traditional changes for both Mary and our favorite police inspector give Lord Peter a new possible brother-in-law, and thanks to his "help" too.
There's tons of dialect and the reading with allusions and era referencing quite difficult. But Dorothy Sayers doesn't pander down- you need to rise to it.
I love the style of humor and its absolutely classic and unique wit.
On to all the others I have not read. Kudos Dorothy!
It's nearly a 5, but just short. It misses a bit on the nuance that will build between Lord Peter and herself- but which hasn't risen to its zenith yet. But Miss Climpson makes up for it- she's 5 star in this novel. I sure hope Lord Peter pays her an exorbitant salary.
It's dire circumstances for the ending of Harriet's former relationship. And our hero Peter declares himself almost immediately when he views her verve within her own situation. That truly surprised me as I've read many of these but not their meeting phases nor the style of their banter becoming established as it becomes.
Lots of details and lots of sleuthing and some of it is on the continent. Early airplane travel involved and Bunter assists. We have some high, high tone clubs and clubs that are merely "the high". And also some very traditional changes for both Mary and our favorite police inspector give Lord Peter a new possible brother-in-law, and thanks to his "help" too.
There's tons of dialect and the reading with allusions and era referencing quite difficult. But Dorothy Sayers doesn't pander down- you need to rise to it.
I love the style of humor and its absolutely classic and unique wit.
On to all the others I have not read. Kudos Dorothy!
October 15, 2016
3.5
So far the only Wimsey book I didn't like was Unnatural Death and that's because there was no Wimsey. He appears in a couple of scenes but the majority of the book is a woman he hired to investigate for him. Well, that was one of the main reasons.
The reason I mention Unnatural death is that here too Miss Climpson is sent to investigate something but in Strong Poison it wasn't too much and she actually does interesting things trying to find the item she came for. She isn't just talking to people. I liked it.
As for Wimsey, he is all over this case because he kind of falls in love with the accused. I loved his attitude towards her, towards marriage in general. He works slower here because this time he has something to lose (no, his brother's problem from one of the previous books is not the same).
The case is not that interesting and there are so few suspects that there is no real surprise in the end, but the way Lord Wimsey, Miss Climpson, the typist who works for her, and many, many others mobilise to solve the case is lovely.
There are, of course, a lot of contemporary issues sprinkled throughout the book (spiritualist and inevitable frauds, communists and artists, feminists and such) and they make this story very colourful.
So far the only Wimsey book I didn't like was Unnatural Death and that's because there was no Wimsey. He appears in a couple of scenes but the majority of the book is a woman he hired to investigate for him. Well, that was one of the main reasons.
The reason I mention Unnatural death is that here too Miss Climpson is sent to investigate something but in Strong Poison it wasn't too much and she actually does interesting things trying to find the item she came for. She isn't just talking to people. I liked it.
As for Wimsey, he is all over this case because he kind of falls in love with the accused. I loved his attitude towards her, towards marriage in general. He works slower here because this time he has something to lose (no, his brother's problem from one of the previous books is not the same).
The case is not that interesting and there are so few suspects that there is no real surprise in the end, but the way Lord Wimsey, Miss Climpson, the typist who works for her, and many, many others mobilise to solve the case is lovely.
There are, of course, a lot of contemporary issues sprinkled throughout the book (spiritualist and inevitable frauds, communists and artists, feminists and such) and they make this story very colourful.
April 4, 2020
I've never read these in order, and I'm not about to start now.
Harriet Walter was the bee's knees as Harriet Vane in the BBC's 1987 Mystery! production of Strong Poison
1920s-era modern girl Harriet Vane is far too intelligent to have anything to do with Lord Peter Wimsey, that Alice-spouting, quote-a-minute sleuth. Too bad for Harriet, since he's hopelessly smitten and she's a captive audience (in jail, awaiting trial for allegedly murdering her caddish boyfriend).
Chock-full of nicely ironic in-jokes about fiction-writing, lesser novelists, and the dubious joys of publishing.
The one where Peter tells Bunter, "Don't talk like Jeeves. It irritates me."
Harriet Walter was the bee's knees as Harriet Vane in the BBC's 1987 Mystery! production of Strong Poison
1920s-era modern girl Harriet Vane is far too intelligent to have anything to do with Lord Peter Wimsey, that Alice-spouting, quote-a-minute sleuth. Too bad for Harriet, since he's hopelessly smitten and she's a captive audience (in jail, awaiting trial for allegedly murdering her caddish boyfriend).
Chock-full of nicely ironic in-jokes about fiction-writing, lesser novelists, and the dubious joys of publishing.
The one where Peter tells Bunter, "Don't talk like Jeeves. It irritates me."
Displaying 1 - 30 of 2,189 reviews