Libby and I have been reading Dorothy Sayer's murder mysteries together lately. I'm not sure how long, but we're on our third novel and have read most of the short stories.
In reading these novels, I have been surprised not to find C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, or Charles Williams. In short, the novels are not the kind of 20th century Oxfordian Christian fiction that I expected. I don't think Sayers presents a plainly Christian world-view.
My previous exposure to Sayer's is mainly in regard to Dante: her translations and some papers. I've also read parts or most of her article on women and her famous work on education (The Mind of the Maker). Most of these works are from later in her life, and I suspect she either changed considerably or has a literary philosophy very different from the Inklings.
For example, her characters reflect contemporary ethical thought: not classical ethical thought (though they are familiar with it). Much of this thought either seems anachronistically wicked - a separate Aristocratic morality - or contemporary bad thinking - consequentialist morality. The former is demonstrated in Clouds of Witness, though she does a good job of painting a difficult moral situation in respect to some adultery, ultimately I cannot find any appropriate accusations leveled toward the Duke. The latter is demonstrated in Unnatural Death, where at one point Murbles argues that the murder may not be unethical - it prevents the Crown from getting money - merely legal.
I find that here, and in some other places, she's coming down on the opposite sides of questions from Scripture, the historic witness of the Church - and from the Inklings.
Many people would say, "So?" to this argument, and I think that's fair. I don't censor my own reading so that I only read books with which I agree. It is, however, much rarer that I pick up a book I expect to find agreeable and experience a disillusioning. Sayer's early fictional writings are such an experience.
Coming Soon: Another author I'm really enjoying - pooor Sayers' pen pales by comparison - is Flannery O'Connor. She's my favorite American prose as of yet - perhaps favorite American literature ever. (Can you count Eliot as American?) I'll post about her when I've digested her stories more fully: there's an awful lot to think about.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Yeah, Peter Wimsey is an interesting character. However, Torrey girls tend to go ga-ga over him. I remember some saying that he was a 'true man.' So, if you want to get Torrey girls you've gotta be a consequentialist and aristocratic...
As for O'Connor, I find her understanding of the south to be very interesting. I might start a thread on my blog regarding her writing, if you are so interested. Or I'll contribute to yours if you start one.
Part of what you find in the Lord Peter books is Sayers allowing her hero to be what he is, and that is not a Christian. She's intellectually honest enough not to have him react in Christian ways when he isn't one. In other words, Lord Peter's views are not those of his creator. Someone once told her that "of course Lord Peter is going to convert in the end" and Sayers responded that of course he would not, that sort of man never would.
Have you read Barbara Reynolds' biography of Sayers? It's quite good and enlightening. Also, if you want Dorothy's most unabashedly Christian work, try reading her "The Man Born To Be King" play cycle, along with her commentary on it.
-Jess
Btw, have you read O'Connor's collection of short stories? I read that when I first moved to IL and I couldn't put it down. Very harsh writing, but inescapable! Like Wiseblood. Seems to appeal to that morbid part of me that likes the apocalypse, and contemplates death and suffering
First! I recant of above post. Unnatural Death introduced a more traditional and comfortable ethic in the person of a parish Anglo-Catholic priest. The plot resolves in a Christian way!
Eric: I wonder if it's true that some girls really thought of Wimsey as "the man." It seems to me that Sayers (at least in the first 2 books) did not intend him to be. If I were them I'd stick with good old Achilles. At least he can kill people (all people).
Jessica: I hope that my ability to read books has gotten past reading the author's point of view into the main character's. :-) I will try and remember to read the Reynold's biography at some point. It interests me.
Eric again: I am reading and have only read Flannery O'Connor's short stories. I can only read one or maybe two a day because I find them intensely honest and personal. I find myself in them more than I'd like to, and I think that's part of what fascinates me. I really think she gets humanity, but she is wonderfully modest in her portrayals: she chooses people like herself to expose, and I feel like she really could open up each character's mind to me.
Anyway, I'm about halfway through Libby's book. It has all the short stories in it, I think.
Well, at least I remember a Sarah (not sure which) remarking that he was the man. Maybe. At any rate, there is a distinct memory that at least A Torrey girl said Wimsey was the man. Might have been Rebecca. I think whoever it was liked the fact that Wimsey is British, something that Achilles isn't.
I'd really be interested to hear your take on Flannery's stories. Like I said, gripping, but I'd bet you are getting them at a somewhat deeper level:) I read straight through the book without taking much time to reflect, merely going for the intuitive understanding.
Finally, and this is minor, I don't get how Sayers could say that Wimsey would never repent. What about free will and all that? we are what we choose to be?
I don't feel like I'm getting the stories at a deep level. But I do feel like there are deep levels that I'm not getting.
Post a Comment