Reading the Detectives discussion

This is the spoiler thread for the buddy read discussion of The Late Scholar by Jill Paton Walsh.

Spoilers can be posted openly in this thread.

I found the way the plot in this book plays on previous Wimsey mysteries clever and enjoyable - I was very glad to be reading it soon after the previous books, so the various plot twists were fresh in my memory.

As I've just mentioned in the other thread, though, I do think the book would have spoiler potential if you hadn't read the previous books!

Also, I didn't really feel the plot held together very well - there was the same problem as in The Attenbury Emeralds of so much going on that it was hard to keep track of it all.

Another thing re the "greatest hits" references to previous novels - would Harriet really have used so many of Peter's previous cases in her fiction, including ones where she wasn't involved herself? I had the impression in Sayers' books that she was keen to invent her own plots.

I found it odd that Harriet had taken Peter's cases in her novels too, Judy.

I did enjoy the Oxford setting of the novel.

It really felt like the last book in the series to me with so many references to earlier cases, and then Peter talking about how he would like to be remembered right at the end.

I wonder if JPW intended this as the last one initially, even though there has been a report that she is writing another one?

Possibly. Really though, the author could take the series anywhere - I would like to read another pre Harriet novel.

My favorite aspect was all the references to earlier Wimsey's: the Oxford setting and characters, and the murder methods. I tried to remember all the plots but the only one I anticipated was the arsenic poisoning. I was amused that Vearing failed and blamed it on the Wimseys. I enjoy following the family and Freddy is always fun. He seemed such a lightweight when we first met him.

The mystery itself was not as interesting. I had trouble keeping the characters straight, which side they were on and why. I had to go back to identify two of the victims. Just a day after finishing I can't remember much of Vearing's motive, except insanity which is never very satisfying. And Troutbeck's motive didn't make much sense. Didn't he suggest that the land be donated to the college? And wouldn't it have sold for more on the open market? Was he worried that the town would take it? And, did he really think the widow would marry him or that he would have the authority to have her committed? I'm confused; perhaps I just missed important details!

Final (minor) negative: the warden's housekeeper had two different first names. (Now why did I notice that when I couldn't keep the suspects / victims straight?)

I'll read another if Jill Paton Walsh writes one, but, as Judy mentioned, I think this is a good finale with the recap of prior books and Peter's ending comment. I'm afraid the dowager duchess might not last through another book.

I do agree about the arsenic, Sandy, his reaction made me laugh too. I'll bet a lot of the weird murder methods in classic mysteries wouldn't work in real life, fortunately!

I wonder if one teason for choosing such strange methods, apart from the entertainment value, was to avoid the risk of murderously-minded readers copying them, as the characters in this book do?

Sandy wrote: "And Troutbeck's motive didn't make much sense. Didn't he suggest that the land be donated to the college? And wouldn't it have sold for more on the open market? Was he worried that the town would take it? And, did he really think the widow would marry him or that he would have the authority to have her committed? I'm confused; perhaps I just missed important details!"

Glad it wasn't just me, Sandy - I was confused by the whole plot involving Troutbeck. This is the aspect of the book that I just didn't understand.

I'm must have missed something because I'm not sure how he is caught - it's suddenly announced that he is about to be arrested for murder, but I don't understand what evidence there is against him.

I didn't even know who he was supposed to have killed until I checked back, and realised it's mentioned a bit earlier on that he might have killed Trevair. I also wondered if he killed David Outlander? Sorry to be thick, but can anyone explain this to me?

Come to think of it, I'm also not sure why Vearing uses the methods out of the Wimsey books - does he ever explain this? Seems as if I didn't understand the book very well overall, even though I quite enjoyed it.

Judy wrote: "Sandy wrote: "And Troutbeck's motive didn't make much sense. Didn't he suggest that the land be donated to the college? And wouldn't it have sold for more on the open market? Was he worried that th..."

I think I thought that he had some way to embezzle money through his shady shenanigans.

Re evidence against Troutbeck: Wimsey knew he had rescued the warden's copy of the vile review from the fire, so that was 'proof' that he was the blackmailer. Not sure about the murder.

I was confused by the ending and I thought Peter going all pale, and talking about the death sentence being unlikely, was getting a bit tired. Before, we'd seen that after a trial, but it just seemed like labouring over how concerned he was.

Sandy wrote: "Re evidence against Troutbeck: Wimsey knew he had rescued the warden's copy of the vile review from the fire, so that was 'proof' that he was the blackmailer. Not sure about the murder."

Thanks, Sandy - I thought I must have missed some proof that he did the murder! It sounds as if this must be a problem with the book.

I was confused by the way Peter suddenly becomes angry when he is listening to Mrs Cutwater and says he is about to get Troutbeck arrested - I thought she must have said something which confirms he is the murderer, but I couldn't understand what.

This conversation echoes something I've been pondering lately. Is it ok to rate a book as 5 stars or very good even if there is a problem with the way the plot hangs together or the solution is contrived, because you just really liked the book in spite of these things?

Do you decide on stars subjectively or do you mark down because of certain aspects?

I think I rate lower than most and it is strictly subjective based on GR's descriptions. I feel few books meet the five stars "it was amazing" criteria. There are definitely aspects that will affect my enjoyment and thus my rating. I also give few, or no, one stars; I don't start books I don't want to read and stop reading them if I dislike them. Those I list as unfinished, for my own info. I often wait a day or so before rating and have changed rating for books that have stayed with me or not. I use the verbal reviews if I want to make a point about various aspects - sometimes hard to do without spoilers.

Sandy wrote: "I think I rate lower than most and it is strictly subjective based on GR's descriptions. I feel few books meet the five stars "it was amazing" criteria. There are definitely aspects that will affec..."

Like you I tend to stop reading books that I'm not enjoying, but I know I tend towards rating too highly. I suppose I start by thinking 'Is there any reason why I shouldn't rate this a 5?' which is probably the wrong way round!

My ratings are definitely subjective too. I tend to give a lot of 3 and 4 star ratings, because on the whole I also only finish reading books I enjoy. I keep 5 stars for books I really love. Like Sandy, I do sometimes go back and change - sometimes I find myself thinking about a book a lot and realise I liked it more than I thought I did at the time.

I'm mostly a three-star person, 4 if it is good, 5 if it blows me away. I have a lot of 2s also. 1s are mainly for books that I will never finish or that I throw across the room (obviously, they weren't on my kindle).

On the insulting review, I'd be surprised if the TLS would really publish a piece like this since it could lead to a libel case, as is mentioned in the book!

Yes, good point, Judy. I think writers in those days tended to put barely disguised portraits of people into books though and seemed to get away with it, rather than writing factual things, such as reviews. Perhaps those satirised were too ashamed to take a case to Court. However, as you say, making unfounded suggestions in a review, or article, could lead to a libel case.

That review certainly makes a good case for publishing a reviewer's name. Libel would be likely in real life but I wonder if Outlander would have pursued it, the criticism coming from a superior, basically his boss.
I don't think the warden thought through his decision to write the review. I expect he could write articles on the manuscript without tearing down a colleague if he really thought that was in the college's best interest. He seemed, by his own admission, in over his head.

Having read all these books now, I think Sayers plots were fiendish, but workable - even in the novel with all the train time tables, where I glazed over - I could follow it. Jill Paton Walsh seems to get herself bogged down and I find her plots confusing to follow at times. I think she goes for the complication of a Sayers, but doesn't quite have her touch...

I agree, I really enjoy JPW's writing but for me her plotss don't always add up.

She does a much better job than Sophie Hannah did in writing Poirot though, I must say. She tries much more to keep characters in character, even if she doesn't completely pull it off. She is a much more sympathetic advocate of Sayers work.