Another Sayers novel, namely Unnatural Death, and another pleasant re-discovery. I mean, it has a happy, lifelong lesbian relationship with admirable and admired partners (broken only by one partner’s death in 1922, before the book opens), legal neepery—neither of which I remembered—and Miss Climpson! What more could I ask for?
(Okay, I could ask for correct legal neepery. Apparently Sayers made a considerable error, though just enough is accurate to suffice for plot purposes. But never mind that.)
Agatha Dawson is the surviving partner of the relationship I mentioned above; when she dies, her doctor is baffled, as there doesn’t appear to be any immediate reason for the death (despite her suffering from cancer). Peter gets on the case by accident, partly because he has a meddling nature [*] and partly because he thinks he may have found a successful murder—no obvious means, no obvious motive, quietly going along under the radar, and who’s to say how many of the type there might be? (I couldn’t, myself, but I bet there are lots with this method.)
[*] Which, to be fair, troubles his conscience here and throughout the series. As a priest says to himself after encountering Peter, “‘Dear, dear, how nice they are. So kindly and scrupulous and so vague outside their public-school code. And much more nervous and sensitive than people think. A very difficult class to reach. I must make a special intention for him at Mass tomorrow.’ Being a practical man, Mr. Tredgold made a knot in his handkerchief to remind himself of this pious resolve.”
Probably non-lawyers roll their eyes and skim through the legal neepery in this book, but it amused me—”hey, I know what this is about!” And I certainly don’t want to meet Miss Climpson in person, but I really enjoy reading about her (even if Sayers ends up forgetting the existence of one (1) of her messages, this book). It’s a pretty good mystery, I think, but really, the main thing that pleases me so much is the positive portrayal of Agatha Dawson and Clara Whittaker’s relationship. (Note, however, that it does contrast oddly with the casual generalized racism of some of the characters, which itself contrasts oddly with the entirely sympathetic portrayal of the only Black character. If you don’t mind book-destroying spoilers, Jo Walton has interesting comments on British racism in the comments to this LiveJournal post.)
I think I’m going to re-read the short stories too, so a collection of those will be next up.
It’s amusing just how much badly done legal details can throw you off, isn’t it? We just watched Intolerable Cruelty, in which George Clooney plays a high-powered L.A. divorce attorney. Having now worked on some actual family law cases, I basically annoyed my wife for the entire movie by yelling at the screen about its laughably inaccurate legal shenanigans, which were many. Not to mention the stuff he coulda/shoulda been disbarred for. I know, why let that get in the way of the plot…but sheesh.
Well, I didn’t know the error until after I read it and was checking the _Companion_; it turned on the interpretation of a 1925 statute, so it’s wasn’t an error that jumped out at me. And the stuff I *did* recognize was right. So it actually wasn’t a problem for me.
My mother refuses to watch _Law and Order_ in the same room as me, because I basically can’t keep my mouth shut about its errors either.
Well, I’m fortunate that I’m not a lawyer, then, and instead get to watch Hollywood’s scrupulously accurate portrayal of software development and system administration.
Mike: not that you will, but never ever read any of J.D. Robb’s books.
Since I haven’t read this particular book, I’m talking out my ass here, but I suspect that the “casual generalized racism” is part and parcel of the casual generalized classism I noticed (and was annoyed by) in other books in the series.
I don’t know about part & parcel as in stemming from the same sources; Jo considers British racism as xenophobia. The racism is much less pervasive, and also bothered me a lot more, though I have noticed the class stuff.