sophia_sol | Have His Carcase, by Dorothy Sayers

Entry tags:

Have His Carcase, by Dorothy Sayers

Sigh, I don't know. Like, is Sayers a very good writer? She certainly is. Do Harriet and Peter play beautifully off each other, and is it fun to watch them? Absolutely! But somehow I don't love this as much as I did the first time I read it. I don't know, I just.... there's this moment where for the first time Harriet sees Peter as being masterful and she is very positively struck by this new vision and understanding of him and is clearly Into It, and it just presages all the complexity in Gaudy Night where the point is SUPPOSED to be about them finding a way to be on equal footing with each other but there's still this sort of uneasiness in the end with the idea that she could in fact be the complete equal of the male aristocratic Lord Peter Wimsey (I've found aspects of this meta helpful for making clearer the ways this shows up in the book). Plus the scene reminded me of the way Georgette Heyer has an obvious kink for masterful men but she seems to think it's just normal, which is never a comparison you want to end up with, much though I also do enjoy a Heyer now and then.

And the book treats Mrs Weldon as ultimately ridiculous and off-putting, and ditto Paul's previous girl in different ways, and Paul's previous girl's new young man is depicted as basically contemptible, and on and on - and like, they're all just people, whose only real crime is to be of the wrong class, basically, and thus behaving in ways that are judged to be vulgar.

It just doesn't feel good-hearted about the diversity of humanity and the value that all people have in their different ways.

Also the timetables might not be as bad as in Five Red Herrings but there sure are entirely too many pages of code-breaking which you can skip RIGHT over to the end solution without missing a single bit of importance.

So it's a very enjoyable and readable book overall, but I'm not ultimately satisfied with it.

(one other, irrelevant complaint: my second-hand paperback copy from 1987 simply ABOUNDS in errors; seriously, did nobody look at the proofs for this edition??? This is the most errors I have ever seen in a published book in my entire life, by a wide margin.)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

That particular book, imo, does not compare to Gaudy Night or even Strong Poison. It's fine! It's enjoyable! But it's just not on the same level as some of the others.

I appreciate your thoughts very much! I never cared for this one as much as I did Gaudy Night or Strong Poison. (And I readily admit that you and that meta are completely right about the ending of GN and also why I don't care a think about Busman's Honeymoon and honestly just pretend it doesn't exist.) Sayers is such a snob and her obsession with her own character in the form of the perfect aristocratic character (the implication being that if all aristocrats were like him, well, then aristocracy wouldn't be so bad at all, would it? I beg to differ) is highly annoying.

Honestly, my enjoyment of the Lord Peter books fluctuates wildly depending on which book I'm reading. On the whole I enjoy them more than I don't, but omg I will never read Five Red Herrings again, for instance, whereas I am happy to reread some of the others.

the way Georgette Heyer has an obvious kink for masterful men but she seems to think it's just normal

God, I know, it's so annoying for those of us who do not have that kink. I think that's one of the reasons Cotillion remains my favorite--Freddy does get bossy sometimes, but mostly he's a sweetheart.

Ugh, yes, Sayers IS a snob and it bugs me so much! I think it actually in some respects bugs me more than Heyer because Sayers is genuinely engaging on page with questions of power and equality, and so her failures to successfully do so hurt more for me, whereas with Heyer I'm just like, "well if you're reading Heyer then you just gotta go in knowing that she's prejudiced against pretty much any grouping of people one can be prejudiced about." And because Sayers is asking the questions, when I was younger I thought she was engaging successfully with the questions, and it's only more recently that I've been like "....wait."

The thing is that I AM okay with reading about relationships where one of the characters is....masterful, for lack of a better word, but it's only as long as it's clear it's because that's what these particular characters in their particular relationship are into, as opposed to assuming it's because that's how genders work. I think this is why kink makes more sense to me than the standard heterosexual relationship: everyone involved chooses the role they want to play, instead of it being assigned at birth!

I do love the relationship between the two leads in Cotillion, it's one of the Heyers where I most think the leads will have a successful and happy lifelong relationship with each other! They're so good, and Freddy is indeed a sweetheart, and their relationship delights me. But I struggle with that book in other ways because of the prominent secondary role Dolph plays in it, and of course Heyer is Not Great about people with intellectual disabilities, sigh. Oh Heyer.

This discussion gave me a lot of thoughts (and the fact that I'm reading Ibbotson right now gave me even more!).

I think it actually in some respects bugs me more than Heyer because Sayers is genuinely engaging on page with questions of power and equality, and so her failures to successfully do so hurt more for me, whereas with Heyer I'm just like, "well if you're reading Heyer then you just gotta go in knowing that she's prejudiced against pretty much any grouping of people one can be prejudiced about."

Yes, absolutely. When they aren't even trying to engage with anything of substance, you can't fault them for doing so (though I certainly hold Heyer accountable for her anti-semitism and racism, as I know you do, too).

If I'm in a more compassionate mood, I can acknowledge that Sayers was at least trying to fight against the deeply-ingrained cultural snobbery of her time. She was failing, clearly, but I think she did try. And it would have been harder to be truly democratic back then than it is now. But most days I'm just like, "Seriously, Dorothy?"

but it's only as long as it's clear it's because that's what these particular characters in their particular relationship are into, as opposed to assuming it's because that's how genders work. I think this is why kink makes more sense to me than the standard heterosexual relationship: everyone involved chooses the role they want to play, instead of it being assigned at birth!

Absolutely!!!

But I struggle with that book in other ways because of the prominent secondary role Dolph plays in it, and of course Heyer is Not Great about people with intellectual disabilities, sigh. Oh Heyer.

Yeah. It's been so many years since I last read it that I've mostly blocked that from my mind and focused on how much I love the leads, but...yeah.

oh my gosh IBBOTSON yes she is.....not doing as well as she could on class issues, isn't she. Among other things. I love her AND YET.

(though I certainly hold Heyer accountable for her anti-semitism and racism, as I know you do, too).

YEAH. Oh boy. She was Special Levels Of Dedication To Bigotry and it's baaaaaad. She was writing right up to the 1970's and I don't think she ever learned a thing! And tbh I find her harder and harder to read as I get older and have developed a more thorough understanding of the ways in which this shows up in her books. I know that when I was much younger, for example, I didn't know enough about how antisemitism presents to be able to recognize how very awful she was being about it!

If I'm in a more compassionate mood, I can acknowledge that Sayers was at least trying to fight against the deeply-ingrained cultural snobbery of her time."

Yeah this is absolutely true! I think sometimes I'm more able to be in that headspace than others. Like, if what I'm wanting is just to enjoy a charming escapist romance type of thing (which is how I was approaching Have His Carcase), then I get irritated at Sayers. But if I am approaching from a perspective of analyzing the way different people from her era and her background approached these questions, it's really very interesting and you can understand why this was a challenge for her to struggle with, and admire her for the struggle, even if she didn't quite get there.

I love her AND YET.

Exactly!

She was writing right up to the 1970's and I don't think she ever learned a thing!

I fear that you are right.

And tbh I find her harder and harder to read as I get older and have developed a more thorough understanding of the ways in which this shows up in her books. I know that when I was much younger, for example, I didn't know enough about how antisemitism presents to be able to recognize how very awful she was being about it!

Yes, me too.

Like, if what I'm wanting is just to enjoy a charming escapist romance type of thing (which is how I was approaching Have His Carcase), then I get irritated at Sayers. But if I am approaching from a perspective of analyzing the way different people from her era and her background approached these questions, it's really very interesting and you can understand why this was a challenge for her to struggle with, and admire her for the struggle, even if she didn't quite get there.

Yes!

Lurker wandering in... curious what thoughts you have on Ibbotson! I've thought about A Countess Below Stairs crossover with a young Paul Alexis, because he feels like the sort of character who would be happier in an Ibbotson story.

Ooh yes, Paul Alexis really does have the vibes of someone from an Ibbotson story, and there he probably wouldn't be murdered! I'd be fascinated to see what Ibbotson would have done with him. (and I see you found

lirazel's post about Ibbotson already :) )

Oh, hey, just saw you have a post on your journal about Ibbotson, I will go over there!

Glad you found your way over there!

I actually had sort of the opposite reaction last time I reread Have His Carcase! Dorothy Sayers seems to finds it a slightly embarrassing book -- she spends several paragraphs of Gaudy Night being like 'god isn't it awful the way we were to each other in HHC! that isn't us!! isn't it lovely that we're back in Oxford now where we can see each other clearly!' -- so I was sort of braced to not enjoy it when I hit it, and instead I found it really interesting in the way that it sort of forces Harriet and Peter to come up against social problems that they cannot solve, and people whose actions they're initially inclined to judge while simultaneously realizing there legitimately often isn't another way out for them, and they're so uncomfortable with it that at the end of the book they more or less just make a break for it. And then they go back to Oxford and become their best selves again, and I do love their best selves, but I wonder what could have happened if Sayers hadn't brought them back there, and if she'd been willing to let them be uncomfortable for longer.

Oh fascinating, and I can understand that reaction too! idk, I guess I just felt, for myself at least, like the narrative joined Harriet and Peter in being uncomfortable with it at the end? Which is why they had to be packed off in the end instead of sitting with that uncomfortableness and learning anything from it, I think, because you're so right about that last sentence!

I really enjoy this book, but you're right about the "masterful" bit, of course. They're still more or less on a footing of equality in HHC, but only because they're not in a romantic relationship yet. The assumption is that romance would mean "surrender" for Harriet: for all that Harriet imagines herself on a much-bigger horse, he nevertheless steps in to protect her. That's the premise of his presence in Wilvercombe and is the precondition of any relationship. I think the point of HHC is to demonstrate how inequities and transactional necessities can corrupt male-female relationships; Gaudy Night, then, is supposed to be the story of Peter and Harriet finding their way to a more honest mode of relating. And it is more honest, but not more equal.

On a plot level, I saw the hemophiliac thing coming a mile away. The plot struck me as both too convoluted and too predictable.

Edited 2022-08-18 20:32 (UTC)

Yeah exactly, Peter shows up in this book specifically to protect Harriet, and there is indeed that assumption that romance would be a surrender! And ooh, I hadn't made that thematic connection about the demonstration about inequities and transaction as a problem in relationships, but you're right, that is what it's doing, and I think one could do some interesting analyses of that.

I actually don't remember how surprising I did or didn't find the hemophilia reveal the first time; it's so long since I first read the book that it's entirely left my memory. But I don't find the plot particularly appealing in this one, it's true.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Have His Carcase, by Dorothy Sayers

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject