Genre: Mystery
Series: Lord Peter Wimsey #11
Page Count: 397
Publication Year: 1934
Publisher: Harvest Book/Harcourt
Summary: Lord Peter Wimsey gets waylaid in a small town only to revisit it later when a body is found in the wrong grave.
I know this is a murder mystery, but it’s quite a charming one. Between the gentlemanly manners, the close-knit community, and jolly what-ho dialogue it never went the dark and depressing route and I appreciated the relative levity of the story.
I’m very bad at solving mysteries whether they’re movies/tv or books, but this time I guessed correctly who was involved, if not the reasons why. I’m not sure the reader could completely solve the case as certain details only came to light toward the end when the guilty party confessed. But at least there wasn’t a clue Peter discovered and only revealed at the end for drama’s sake. It’s a reasonable mystery that revolves around two common human traits: greed and protecting loved ones. Because of the second reason, Peter is reluctant to see the matter through and it’s an intriguing and realistic approach.
The whole mystery is wrapped tightly around bells and bell ringing. I live in a place where manual bell ringing is unheard of, so all the terminology and intricacies were completely new. I can’t pretend I now understand what’s all involved, but I have a newfound respect for the (probably) lost art of change-ringing. Who knew campanology was so complicated?
There’s also an emphasis on sluices, weirs, dykes and other watery architecture. I was very confused about why she included it in the book, until the last couple chapters when this really good burst of action came along. I’m still very confused about how everything was operated as I’ve never seen any of the mechanisms mentioned, but I guess I got the gist.
Lord Peter is delightful. This is the third Wimsey book I’ve read (besides a few tv adaptations I watched) and he continues to grow on me. He’s a proper gentleman and a good detective. He cleverly guides conversations to get the answers he wants; he asks the opinions of the policemen assigned to the case; and he remains human and believable while doing it. He’s just plain likable.
Bunter is amazing. He’s Peter’s manservant/valet/accomplice and entirely too useful. Not in a bad way, but you get the impression that there’s nothing he can’t do. He can talk easily with the servants, he knows random stuff and he’s wonderfully loyal to Peter. I think his power, if you will, lies in him anticipating what Peter needs help with and executing it. He also has thoughts like this: “He [Bunter] was deeply attached to his master, but sometimes felt his [Peter’s] determined dislike of closed cars to be a trifle unreasonable.” For those of you who’ve seen the tv show The Blacklist, Bunter is a twentieth-century Dembe. I wish there was more of Bunter in this book.
There’s quite a large cast of characters and in the beginning I couldn’t keep them separate. It’s different from other books with lots of people because once the mystery gets going it throws many suspects and interrogations at you while expecting you to know what’s going on. It’s a little frustrating but unless the author takes pages upon pages to give backstories on everyone involved, there’s not an easy way to handle all the moving parts. By the end I knew most of the people, but that doesn’t help when I’m trying to figure out the mystery and can’t keep track of names.
In one of my Witcher reviews (here's the first one) I talked about how the author used dialogue to show action. Sayers did it here too. For example, instead of saying how someone went to sit down but was directed to sit in a different chair, an author might have a person say, “Do sit down. Oh, not that one. Yes, isn’t that much more comfortable? Tea? Or perhaps something stronger. Ah, Mary, just the person I wanted to see. Could you bring us some brandy? Would you like a cigar? No, I don’t smoke either. Are these the papers you wanted to show me?” I don’t see that type of dialogue often and even less in new books so it makes a nice change. Sure, dialogue is longer and there were many such paragraphs in this book, but it’s better than the pages of voiceless drudge I’ve come across in other classics. I’d like to see similar dialogue used in books of today.
The humor is adorable. Not everyone will think so and that’s fine, but I had a great time. Some of my enjoyment stemmed from seeing how dated it is, like when Peter’s apologetic for saying bad words around women and the church grounds. So while it is funny, it’s also sad to realize that chivalry and manners aren’t regularly used anymore.
Now that I know what the title means I think it’s one of the best titles for a murder mystery I’ve ever heard.
In the final chapter something happens for the sake of the plot but had me thinking, “Um, why would he do that?” It’s probably the weakest point in the book.
Do you have to read the other books in the series first? Not really. You might have more fun if you had knowledge about Peter and Bunter but it’s not essential.
In conclusion, wonky bits aside, I had a good time.
Check out my rating here.