Whose Body? (1923)

I felt pretty smart when I managed to snatch Whose Body? up for free last June…

The Story.

Lord Peter Wimsey feels downright sorry for Alfred Thipps. Poor man, it would be rather a jolt to walk into one’s bathroom and find a naked corpse lying in the bathtub. But as to who the man is – who he could possibly be – ah, now that is the mystery. A bit strange, too, don’t you know. Usually the problem is to find out who killed the dead man, not to find out who the dead man actually is. But it’s true. It seems that no one has ever seen or heard of this man before. But he must have come from somewhere!

Across town, another mystery is developing, this one for Lord Peter’s friend, Parker. It seems that a rich and famous Jewish banker, Sir Reuben Levy has popped off to nobody knows where on the day before an important business meeting. The two men put their heads together: is there any possible connection between Sir Reuben’s disappearance and the body in the bathtub? And if so, what?

Praises.

I might as well admit it – I really like Lord Wimsey. You want to know why? Because he’s the detective version of another of my favorite characters, Sir Percy Blakeney. Like Sir Percy, Lord Peter pretends to be idiotic and harmless – he improvises poetry with a vengeance! – but this is merely a cover, a ruse to conceal a sharp brain and an immense spirit. Like Sir Percy, Lord Peter is adept at presenting the ridiculous with debonair – all the while enjoying himself immensely.

Conclusion. Much more enjoyable than Five Red Herrings, Whose Body? was a fine mystery, even if it was resolved a little too early.

Visit Laura's Bookshelf to read more reviews.

http://www.lauraverret.com/blog/category/adult-fiction/ ( )

Mum thought I should read this as soon as she realised I was doing Crime Fiction. I can see why -- Lord Peter Wimsey is an interesting sort of character to choose as the centre of a crime/mystery novel, with his attitude towards what he's doing, and his backstory. It's interesting how like Holmes and Poirot he comes off at first, with his know-it-all sort of air, and then you learn more about him and begin to care more about him as a character and you find that, really, he's quite a distinct character. I want to read more of Sayers' series about him more for the sake of his character than for the sake of the crime/mystery fiction aspect. In fact, I'm interested in finding out more about most of the characters that would be likely to recur: Bunter, Wimsey's mother, Parker...

Don't get me wrong, though -- the mystery aspect is good. It isn't impossible to figure it out yourself, but it certainly keeps you guessing. The writing is good, too, although in the dialogue I sometimes thought it was getting rather off the point. There was a lot of -- don't you know -- something like this, I think -- prone to it in my own writing at times -- now realise how awfully -- yes, don't you -- it's rather like nobody ever quite finishes -- although I do think a part of that is characterisation -- and of course in reality, people do --

Alright, alright, I shall stop that now. Anyway, enjoyed this one, and while I'm not in a massive hurry to get the rest, I'm certainly planning to at some point. ( )

I first read the Peter Wimsey books during my undergrad, when I was doing a crime fiction course. Then, recently, I listened to the radio plays -- I haven't finished yet, in fact. Wimsey endeared himself to me over the course of the novels -- and Ian Carmichael is brilliant for him in the radio plays -- so I come to this first book again ready to find him endearing, to know and love Bunter and Parker and the Dowager Duchess.

I wasn't disappointed. There was more here than I was expecting: the Dowager Duchess being so clever; Bunter caring so much for Peter; Parker's intelligence and faithfulness. He's no Watson, and not is Bunter: they're all different, not quite how you expect. The book emphasises Peter's shell shock and moral dilemmas, too, which gives the story a bit more depth than in the radio plays -- they're very faithful to the books: it's just a matter of emphasis (and Peter Carmichael outshines everyone, though I wish they didn't switch Parker's actor; the first one is the best).

It's not exactly a 'cosy' mystery -- it's a bit too psychological and incisive for that. But at the same time, it's a comforting book for me, read to tide me through a grey day. Wimsey and co. are very good companions. ( )

Des personnages très intéressants, que je serais ravie de revoir, mais une intrigue qui n'a pas su capter mon intérêt. ( )

It's difficult for me to be objective about Dorothy L Sayers. Since discovering [b:Strong Poison|246225|Strong Poison (Lord Peter Wimsey Mysteries, #6)|Dorothy L. Sayers|http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1327883280s/246225.jpg|1121561] in the school library when I was about 14, she has been one of my favourite writers and one whose novels I re-read regularly. In the past couple of years I've ventured beyond the novels and the short stories (not being much of a short story reader, I've not read all of these) to read Sayers' collected letters, some of her essays (such as [b:Are Women Human?|320481|Are Women Human?|Dorothy L. Sayers|http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1349117181s/320481.jpg|529133]) and Barbara Reynold's excellent biography, [b:Dorothy L. Sayers: Her Life and Soul|351562|Dorothy L. Sayers Her Life and Soul|Barbara Reynolds|http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1348015220s/351562.jpg|341793]. This has in turn made me want to read more of Sayers' non-fiction as well as her plays and her translation of Dante. Suffice to say, I'm a big fan and a shared love of Sayers' writing is what has introduced me to a number of my GR friends.

This novel is where it started for Sayers' best known contribution to crime fiction literature, Lord Peter Wimsey. At the time the novel was published in 1923, Sayers was an Oxford University graduate (she was amongst the first group of women graduates to be finally awarded their degrees in 1920) and a published poet. She had worked in publishing and as a high school teacher and was then working as a copy writer in a London advertising agency - all of which makes her stand out from other women of her generation.

For a first novel, this has a lot of strengths. Lord Peter, the wealthy and erudite younger son of a Duke, shell-shocked WWI veteran, musician, collector of incunabula and amateur detective, comes to the page fully created. He develops throughout the course of the twelve novels in which he features, but the essentials of his character are there from the beginning: the sharp intelligence, the ready wit, the tendency to quote poetry at odd moments, the silly-ass impersonation and affected drawl of his public persona, which disappears when he speaks seriously to those he is closest to, the troubled conscience, the lingering effects of shell-shock. Lord Peter is a superb character, as are his manservant Bunter, his friend Scotland Yard inspector Charles Parker and his truly wonderful mother, the Dowager Duchess, all of whom (thankfully) also feature in later novels.

The deft characterisation - not at all common in a Golden Age mystery novel - is not the only strength of Sayers' writing. Her prose is excellent, her dialogue is witty and the mystery itself is interesting enough. That said, the novel is not without its weaknesses. There is, for example, a startling lapse from the third person voice to the second person at one point in the narrative. In addition, the perpetrator is not that difficult to pick (although admittedly the big reveal is not necessarily a feature of Sayers' novels), the perpetrator's method is complex and improbable and the novel contains one of my pet peeves in crime fiction - the extended confession in the form of a letter.

The weaknesses are enough for me to rate the novel lower than I would want to rate anything written by Sayers. However, the fangirl in me means I can't bring myself to give this less than 4 stars, well, maybe 3-3/4. I'm looking forward to a Lord Peter re-read over the next 12 months with my good friend and Sayers novice Jemidar. ( )