GAUDY NIGHT

Gaudy Night vs. Strong Poison

We chose Gaudy Night as one of our “history of mystery” book reads. Let’s discuss why … and make a case for having chosen the other.

For instance, Gaudy Night shows up on several lists of important books. Written by a woman, with a woman acting as detective, at a critical historical juncture, AND this is a huge departure for Sayers, with A LOT of internal monologue for Vane, the detective. It feels very autobiographical in many ways.

Gaudy Night: Mystery Novel, Philosophical Treatise, Love Story, All of the Above?

Gaudy Night pushes the mystery genre in the direction of philosophical treatise, asking questions about duty and where our ultimate loyalty lies. It’s a social commentary, specifically on the question of prospects for women who are smart and would like both a career and family.

Sayers includes long passages of complicated dialogue — long scenes where Oxford dons debate matters of ethics and social policy or conversations where Harriet Vane ponders what it means to write mysteries.

Gaudy Night has been called the first feminist mystery novel. Is it a mystery novel posing as a philosophical treatise (or the opposite)? How did you feel about the many discussions of life, love, men/women, marriage and family, class/status, education, …. Is it less a mystery novel than a romance, social commentary, comedy of manners, philosophical exploration, feminist manifesto, novel of personal growth, künstlerroman (artist’s novel) …?

Which is paramount here: plot or philosophy? In what ways do the ideas introduced at the beginning of the book evolve throughout the book? In what ways does Harriet herself change?

Criticism of the Book

British crime writer Julian Symons (simmons) thought Gaudy Night was “long-winded and ludicrously snobbish … essentially a woman’s novel full of the most tedious pseudo-serious chat between the characters that goes on for page after page.”

George Orwell wrote that Sayers’ “slickness in writing has blinded many readers to the fact that her stories, considered as detective stories, are very bad ones. They lack the minimum of probability that even a detective story ought to have, and the crime is always committed in a way that is incredibly tortuous and quite uninteresting.”

So … how did YOU feel about Gaudy Night? 

Let’s Talk About Harriet Vane

Backstory: Harriet Vane is an Oxford graduate with a First in English. She attends Shrewsbury College then moves to London to write mystery novels. She’s wrongly accused of murder. Lord Peter Wimsey secures her release from prison. For the past five years, he has wanted to marry her. Harriet hasn’t been back to Shrewsbury since she finished her studies and is nervous about attending the Gaudy. (Contained in Strong Poison & Have His Carcase)

Agatha Christie: “Dorothy Sayers … was such an exceptionally good detective story writer and a delightfully witty one. Her earlier books [including Whose Body?] are decidedly her best, having greater simplicity and more “punch” to them (Christie excels at punch). Also her detective, Lord Peter Wimsey, whose face was originally piquantly described as “emerging from his top hat like a maggot emerging from a gorgonzola cheese”, became through the course of years merely a “handsome hero”, and admirers of his early prowess can hardly forgive his attachment to, and lengthy courtship of, a tiresome young woman called Harriet. One had hoped that, once married to her, he would resume his old form, but alas, Lord Peter remains an example of a good man spoilt.” Christie referred to herself first and foremost as a housewife and may have a hard time identifying with Harriet’s struggles.

Harriet works to identify the Poltergeist/Poison Pen author. She also helps Miss Lydgate edit a manuscript and does research on Sheridan Le Fanu (19th-century Irish writer of Gothic tales, mysteries, and horror fiction). She talks with the dons about what it means to live a life of the mind, isolated from the world of families and domestic responsibilities. She has the chance to think about whether a satisfying life is possible for a woman who has both brains and heart — who wants to do more than care for a family but doesn’t want her career to keep her from experiencing love and romance. She worries that she’ll have to choose between career and love. She’s surrounded by single women devoted to their scholarly lives. At the Gaudy, she reconnects with women who now care for their children and have lost touch with their intellectual ambitions.

She doesn’t seem entirely sure until about ⅔ into the book that she does actually have a heart and is drawn by Oxford strongly back to the life of the mind. It’s hard to always be in her mind. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t realistic. It’s rather hard to be in my own mind much of the time.

How do you feel about Harriet Vane? What do you think of her as a character – especially as the main point-of-view character?

The Love Story in Gaudy Night

Is Peter’s pursuit of Harriet over the last five years fair and respectful? Or is he an entitled man who doesn’t get the concept of consent and refuses to take “no” for an answer?

Miss de Vine to Harriet: ‘If you are determined that you’re not fit to black his boots, tell him so and send him away.’

‘I’ve been trying to send Peter away for five years. It doesn’t have that effect on him.’

‘If you had really tried, you could have sent him away in five minutes…..’

In Strong Poison, Lord Peter Wimsey feels terrible for how she was treated by her lover and willing to put in the effort to help her overcome her baggage. The nature of her baggage feels rather unknown to even herself, and the book explores her growing awareness.

A Hearkening Back to College Days / Love Letter to Oxford

John Donne (quoted in the book): “The university is a paradise, rivers of knowledge are there, arts and sciences flow from thence. Council tables are Horti conclusi, (as it is said in the Canticles) Gardens that are walled in, and they are fontes signati, wells that are sealed up; bottomless depths of unsearchable counsels there.”

We get a picture of Oxford life, with all its traditions and habits. Oxford itself becomes a character. Harriet wants to recapture the love that she had for Shrewsbury while she was there. She seems to want to reclaim her student experience. But what is it about that student experience that resonates for her (and for Carolyn) so deeply?

Shrewsbury is an oasis/retreat where she can detach from the day-to-day world and reflect (or meditatively not reflect). It’s a civilized safe haven where order (normally) reigns.

(Warden) ‘Probably you are not specially interested in all this question of women’s education.’

(Wimsey) ‘Is it still a question? It ought not to be. I hope you are not going to ask me whether I approve of women’s doing this and that.’

‘Why not?’

‘You should not imply that I have any right either to approve or disapprove.’

‘I assure you,’ said the Warden, ‘that even in Oxford we still encounter a certain number of people who maintain their right to disapprove.’

‘And I had hoped I was returning to civilisation.’

Upon Second Reading of Gaudy Night

This was the first book Sarah read from Sayers years ago, and really struggled with it. However, rereading it is now the fourth Sayers book as part of TTT. And it feels a lot different.

Dan Drake recommended Strong Poison as a prelude, and he was not mistaken. It brought so much context not only to Harriet but also Miss Climpson and Miss Murchison. Suddenly casual references had a RICH context. Miss Murchison was especially comedic, having left the firm to get married – and yet she was chosen as an agent in Strong Poison as she came across as particularly unmarriageable. In such a small reference, I felt a wonderful victory for Murchison.

We also learn more about Levy who is frequently referred to from Whose Body, and Wimsey’s friendship with Freddy Arbuthnot, which Harriet struggles to understand. How many more references am I missing? I rather think it makes a lot of sense to just read Sayers in order. The books are much richer for it. She is world building not only within books, but across books. 

A Hero Creates a Victim

Sarah struggled deeply with Harriet upon the first reading. And while she still struggles with her in many ways, begins to understand more her resentment of feeling one down. Peter is more masterful than I first realized, better at everything, smarter, more capable, richer, and she is indebted to him. 

This is the earliest reference to the social concept called the marriage ladder that Sarah has seen, and it’s still a very relevant topic: Men tend to marry slightly down.

“She had the old sensation of being outwitted.”

Yet Wimsey doesn’t see her in this one-down light. He feels delighted at the prospect of having an equal companion.

Harriet struggles with this as a concept, and also her personal indebtedness, manufacturing Wimsey as someone who sees in her his own generosity.

“She would rather have him secure and happy in order that she might resent his happy security.”

She feels most attracted to him when she sees his imperfections and vulnerability. And when he takes her work seriously and allows her to accrue some danger. She feels his affections might actually be genuine when Pomfret proposes.

And yet: Harriet longs for Peter to come back and take the matter in his competent hands. She dreams of being in his arms.

Annie as Villain

Is Annie a believable villain? Did you suspect that one of the scouts (servants) was the culprit? Did you instead assume one of the dons must have committed the crimes? Was Sayers so invested in the dons that none of them could turn out to be the villain? (Sarah says: It seems much more obvious and inevitable upon a second reading. It doesn’t make sense as anyone else.)

Carolyn will cut to the chase. She sees incredible classism here – the scouts seem portrayed as dumb or ridiculous. The novel focuses in large part on women being treated as men’s equals. It seems clear that the women and men in question are middle and upper-class educated women, not to the class of women who become scouts in Oxford colleges.

Annie’s logic is particularly flawed to the point of insanity. Let’s examine Annie’s case. Her fraudulent husband was exposed by the scholarship of a woman, Miss de Vine. As a result, Annie resents the “impropriety” of female scholars. So … is women’s learning to blame for her husband’s ruin and downfall? Would no man have ever exposed his poor scholarship?

Annie’s rants and ramblings are old-fashioned (to our modern ears). Yet she arguably did make some good points about class and the wealthier women not understanding the position and life challenges of working class women. She hasn’t had the opportunities afforded Harriet and Wimsey, and what stability she had has been stripped away. The pursuit of pure intellectual truth is a lofty goal, but how much does it mean to a woman with two children to support and a disgraced, depressed husband to deal with?

Do you think Sayers sympathizes with Annie? Does the narrator sympathize with her? Are readers meant to sympathize with her? Did you have sympathy for her? 

The Ending of Gaudy Night

So were you surprised and satisfied by the resolution? Confused? Frustrated? Has Harriet capitulated at the end? Is she agreeing to marry Wimsey on her own terms? (Did you even realize they’re now engaged?) Has she returned (or perhaps never left) her judgmental self? Did the Latin exchange (Placetne, magistra? Placet.) bug you, charm you, or something else entirely? As the story wraps up, what worked and what didn’t?