h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: The Lord Peter Wimsey novels of Dorothy L. Sayers - A2076130
Author: Wildman - I'm not really mad, I've just been in a very bad mood for 40 years! - U225113

I've had this on the back burner for a while and finally got round to doing a bit more work on it.
I'll be interested to hear what you think of it.

Superb entry

No mention of the BBC series with Ian Carmichael?


Scout

Since the title is 'Wimsey novels', I decided to stick to the books....

Besides which, I'm too lazy

There doesn't seem to be a BBC page about the series - a simple link to that would've been enough

I'm a fan of these books, I enjoyed your entry.

Just a couple of comments:

The opening sentence of the second paragraph reads oddly - do you need the word 'however' or would a dash do as well?

I'd endorse putting in a link or some sort of reference to the TV & radio dramatisations.

Can you enlighten me, am I imagining it, or did Lady Mary marry a policeman at some stage?

Yeah. She married Parker and so he became Peter's brother-in-law. The announcement of the engagement is at the end of Strong Poison, I think.

Good point about the 2nd para, thanks.

Like it Wildman -

Like it Wildman -

oops

Bllody goot article. Raymond Chandler described the prevaling theme of the English detective novel as being 'snobbery with violence'. One of the distinctive characteristics of this series is that it *doesn't* equate moral worth or even sophistication with class: class is present all right, but means, motives and opportunity are explored in depth and not dismissed, regardless of social standing. PD James could learn a lot by merely reflecting on this point.

One other thing: I think that 'Thrones, Dominations' is a play on the 'thrones, dominions' etc hierarchy of angels that thelogians used to argue about (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_(angel)). Presumably they had to work out who had feudal rights to the pinhead!

...or even 'bloody good article'.

And the link doesn't work: try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_(angel)

Brilliant Wildman

I love the books. My Mum lives in Kirkcudbright, so Five Red Herrings is compulsory family reading And one of my brothers and I went to Oxford, so my favourite is Guady Night

Nothing to add. I'm delighted to see this and look forward to it being on the front page.


Fb

There was a rather better TV series than the Ian Carmichael one, IMHO - I can't remember the actor's name, however I can see him in my mind's eye.Ah - a very quick Google shows it was Edward Petherbridge with Harriet Walter as Harriet Vane, and Richard Morant as Bunter. Excellent stuff.

I've never read the books. The TV series was excellent.

Read the books!! - Please read the books!

There really is so much more depth in the books and the whole development thing really gets to you, don't give up after the first one - the series improves tremendously as it goes along

W

Felonius,

The quote seems to be:-

"Thrones, and imperial powers, off-spring of heaven,
Ethereal virtues; or these Titles now
Must we renounce, and changing stile be call'd
Princes of hell?

Thrones, Dominations, Princedoms, Virtues, Powers..."

John Milton

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/ENLIGHT/PL5.HTM

"These are the ranks of angels. In medieval and Renaissance angelology, the ranks of angels (from top to bottom) were: Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones, Dominations, Powers, Angels, Archangels."

I'm noway qualified to judge whether Milton or Wikipedia are right

Are you saying that angels are higher than archangels, or have you got the top to bottom thing the wrong way round, Wildman?

Aha!

http://www.catryce.com/MysticCat/Metaphysics/angels.html

http://www.sarahsarchangels.com/archangels/9orders.html

http://www.healinghandsoflight.homestead.com/The_Hierarchy_Of_Angels.html

It puts into context the line, 'Sing choirs of angels'.

Maybe we need an entry on the hierarchy of angels/

There's also another novel by DLS & Jill Paton Walsh - 'A Presumption of Death', published in 2002. Very little of this one is from the pen of DLS, unfortunately, but it shows that her characters stand the test of time and have plausible lives of their own; this doesn't happen often with characters in detective novels. But I'm not sure that this one belongs in the canon, so to speak. Maybe it's just a footnote.

Apart from the fact that the novels are great stories, skilfully constructed and wrtten by a highly literate and well-educated woman, I've found the books useful for period detail. DLS was very observant, and she adds incidental detail that won't usually be found in histories of the period. I haven't read all the books lately, but I do remember that in 'The Nine Tailors' there's a mention of a reasonably young country woman having few teeth left. From the context, it's plain that this was common in that place at that time. It's details like this that make DLS' books such good literature.

As you might have guessed, I'm quite enthusiastic about this entry.

Ivan.

I read a number of these when I was a teenager, and I remember enjoying them.

The quality of the writing is different class from say Agatha Christie.

Only the TV series really sticks in the mind now. Funny that.

The books were quite revealing on issues of class at that period. Bunter and Wimsey got on well together, but they each knew their own place, as it were. Also on the role of women, with Harriet Vine testing a bit the barriers.

Nice article,


sprout