RSS

DOROTHY L. SAYERS. Clouds of Witness (1926).

07 Feb

In the same year that Sayers issued this work, the second full-length book to feature Lord Peter Wimsey, Agatha Christie released a modest volume titled The Murder of Roger Ackroyd. The sharp contrast between these two novels from a peak year during the Golden Age of detective fiction raises a question: By what addled marketing logic did the authors of those works become yoked together as so-called Queens of Crime? Gender, of course, played a big part in the coining of that shared designation. But aside from being women who wrote about criminals and crime solvers, Christie and Sayers had little in common as creative figures. Christie, as she exultantly demonstrates in Ackroyd, excelled at devising intricate mechanisms that would enable her to misdirect and astound readers. Sayers, while she would exhibit greater ingenuity in later works, shows in Clouds of Witness that setting a complex, fair-play puzzle was an endeavor that tapped into neither her talents nor her interests. Rather than trick readers, she sought to treat them. In this instance, she treats them to a vision of good people rescued from adversity by a plucky hero. The tale that she constructs around that vision is a hearty assemblage of old-school narrative tropes, coincidence-laden plot turns, and workaday clues that Wimsey doesn’t so much discover as amble into—all of it held in place by a thick mortar of Tory sentiment.

CloudsWitness.jpg In the first Wimsey adventure (Whose Body?), Sayers thrusts her hero into a social and criminal realm that lies well beyond the genteel drawing rooms and Clubland reading rooms that he knows best. Here, in his sophomore outing, she keeps him relatively close to his home ground. In fact, the case amounts to a family affair. It starts with the discovery of a dead body at a hunting lodge in Yorkshire leased by his brother, Gerald, the Duke of Denver. The corpse belongs to Denis Cathcart, the fiancé of Denver’s (and Wimsey’s) sister, Lady Mary. Circumstances quickly evolve to a point where the police charge the duke with murder. It was Denver who stumbled upon the slain Cathcart in the wee hours of the morning, Denver who owned the gun used to shoot Cathcart, Denver who possessed the most obvious motive to eliminate Cathcart. (He had just received a letter that revealed Cathcart to be an unsuitable match for Mary.) When news of Denver’s arrest reaches Wimsey, the young lord swoops in to defend the duke’s—and his own—good name.

It’s easy to be annoyed by Wimsey, but it’s hard to dislike him. Like the prose that Sayers deploys to spin this tale, Wimsey exudes good-willed energy and high-spirited (albeit not always rigorous) intelligence. And, like the story that she builds around him, Wimsey seems to be ever on the move. He speeds from Paris to London and then, via airplane, from London to Yorkshire. He takes a jaunt to the Soviet Club, a bohemian dive in Soho. He gets shot and retreats briefly to his digs in Piccadilly Lane to recuperate from a glancing wound. He ventures to a market town near Denver’s lodge and—with his man, Bunter, in tow—scavenges for clues at a local public house. Most outlandishly, he rushes to New York City, again via airplane (and does so a year before Charles Lindbergh’s transatlantic voyage), and returns just in time to deliver evidence that will exonerate Denver.

What happens in each spot where Wimsey lands never quite justifies the excitement that attends his arrival. Indeed, chapter by chapter, Clouds of Witness lurches ahead as a series of anti-climaxes. Yet what stands out amid the weak storytelling is Wimsey’s (and, by extension, Sayers’s) resolve to move forward—to carry on, if not necessarily to keep calm—even in the most trying of times. His brother is on trial for murder, his sister is reeling from the violent death of her fiancé, and his entire family is reckoning with the public exposure of its private business. For Wimsey, it’s all in a day’s work, and he approaches that work in a doggedly playful manner. In the wake of the Great War, a cataclysm whose shadow hangs over the novel like a burst of mustard gas, a fellow who could act briskly and grin bravely in the face of dire circumstances held strong appeal for millions of Britons, including (evidently) Sayers. Although she was hardly a paragon of Golden Age mystery writing, she was very much a writer of her time.

In place of a scene that would let Wimsey explain a series of masterly deductions—he performs little deductive reasoning, in the classic sense—Sayers presents a grand finale that occurs in the House of Lords, where the duke has come to be judged by his peers. This sequence allows her to go on at length about the legal bombast and regal (or, at any rate, ducal) pomp that surround the trial, and it points to the kind of thematic material that captured her imagination as a writer. Clearly Sayers revered Denver and adored Wimsey and admired the aristocratic values that they embody. For those who share her politics, Clouds of Witness offers a winning saga of the nobility at its best. For others, perhaps not so much.

 
5 Comments

Posted by on February 7, 2019 in British, Golden Age, Novel

 

5 responses to “DOROTHY L. SAYERS. Clouds of Witness (1926).

  1. Marty

    February 7, 2019 at 5:19 PM

    I wouldn’t say Sayers revered the Duke of Denver or “aristocratic values” in general .The Duke and several other aristocratic types are treated with irreverence (and in some cases, such as Gerald’s wife, outright scorn). Lord Peter had some fairly egalitarian views, despite his upper-class trappings. Sayers may have had a commoner’s fascination with the nobility plus a generally conservative political outlook, but she didn’t totally buy into the status quo–note her views on the status of women. Even her prejudices, sad to say, were shared by every class of that time. Her “snobbery” was based more on personal merit than on social standing The thoroughly middle-class Harriet Vane and Charles Parker are shown to be just as admirable as the Wimsey family, and much more so than rigid upper-class Helen!

     
    • Mike

      February 7, 2019 at 7:00 PM

      Thanks for your comment, Marty.

      Sayers was a very talented writer, and she was particularly adept at limning characters who come to life as individuals, quite apart from their social position. She created aristocrats who have notable flaws and commoners who have notable virtues. But even in doing so, she made it clear that she favored a social order in which aristocrats and commoners would stay happily in their respective places. She portrays Charles Parker as an admirable fellow, to be sure—but one quality of his that she treats admiringly is his *deference* to the Denver clan.

      You’re right, though: Accusing Sayers of snobbery misses the mark. Her Tory politics, it seems fair to say, arose not from contempt for lower orders but from love—love for a way of life in which a figure like Wimsey could flourish. That politics is certainly different from my own, but I can appreciate it. (I’m one of those Americans who enjoys watching “Downtown Abbey,” “The Crown,” and other fare of that sort.)

       
  2. Marty

    February 9, 2019 at 6:55 PM

    Parker was a deferential kind of guy, and coppers had to be that way with influential people. Sayers gave Parker a naturally pleasant and courteous manner. But if.she had totally bought into the caste system, she wouldn’t have married him off to the sister of a duke. The same with Harriet Vane. I’m not claiming she was dissatisfied with the social order, just that she valued other characteristics over caste. I think she would’ve felt more admiration for Jeeves than for Bertie Wooster. It was fun and glamorous to make her hero rich and aristocratic, but the other qualities she gave him really mattered more to her (and her readers) than the title.

     
  3. Christophe

    February 11, 2019 at 4:28 PM

    Thanks for the review, Mike. Another book by Sayers that I’ll steer clear from.

     
    • Mike

      February 11, 2019 at 5:48 PM

      It’s a “your mileage may vary” thing, I’d say. Sayers does write very well. Despite the many aspects of this novel that would otherwise give it a highly dated feel, she makes the tale seem fresh and vibrant. If only she had more of a knack for, or an interest in, weaving a solid detective plot!

       

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: