What do you think?
Rate this book
Lord Peter Wimsey #7
The Five Red Herrings
The body was on the pointed rocks alongside the stream. The artist might have fallen from the cliff where he was painting, but there are too many suspicious elements—particularly the medical evidence that proves he'd been dead nearly half a day, though eyewitnesses had seen him alive a scant hour earlier. And then there are the six prime suspects—all of them artists, all of whom wished him dead. Five are red herrings, but one has created a masterpiece of murder that baffles everyone, including Lord Peter Wimsey.
354 pages, Mass Market Paperback
First published March 1, 1931
About the author
Dorothy L. Sayers
662 books2,772 followersThe detective stories of well-known British writer Dorothy Leigh Sayers mostly feature the amateur investigator Lord Peter Wimsey; she also translated the
Divine Comedy
of Dante Alighieri.
This renowned author and Christian humanist studied classical and modern languages.
Her best known mysteries, a series of short novels, set between World War I and World War II, feature an English aristocrat and amateur sleuth. She is also known for her plays and essays.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothy...
This renowned author and Christian humanist studied classical and modern languages.
Her best known mysteries, a series of short novels, set between World War I and World War II, feature an English aristocrat and amateur sleuth. She is also known for her plays and essays.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothy...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,075 reviews
March 5, 2018
In this, the seventh novel of the Lord Peter Wimsey series, Dorothy L. Sayers has surpassed herself. We have the murder of an artist who drinks too much, quarrels with everyone, and is obnoxious to all without bias.
We have Lord Peter visiting friends in the neighbourhood who realizes right away that the murderer had to have been another artist. We have a police force with several interesting personnel who are all doing their part to discover which one (or combination) of the six suspects is the guilty person(s).
This novel takes place in Scotland and I thoroughly enjoyed the vernacular as the author was precise in writing as they spoke rather than as the words are spelled. I could hear their speech directly in my ear as I read, even though this was a written book, not audio.
The descriptions of the countryside were also both fascinating and atmospheric in a way that helped me feel I was there. Since there was a lot of movement in this story, we were able to visit several places in Scotland during the course of this case’s development.
During the last portion of the book, there is a meeting with the fiscal, and each of the police officers present their theory of who committed the crime – complete with the supporting evidence. By the time Lord Peter is to present his version it felt like it did at the beginning – who did this? – but with more arrows pointing at each person.
Then, Lord Peter decides to re-enact the crime as he saw it with each of the police officers playing a role and those who didn’t have a role were there as witnesses. Regardless of their own theories, each officer threw themselves into their assigned roles with professionalism and enthusiasm.
After finishing this book, I realized what an effective device this was. We were allowed to be party to a nasty murder without having all the gore stuck in our faces. I am amazed by how cleverly this book was written and based on my enjoyment I would recommend this to mystery fans – especially those who have also enjoyed other Golden Age of Mystery writers.
We have Lord Peter visiting friends in the neighbourhood who realizes right away that the murderer had to have been another artist. We have a police force with several interesting personnel who are all doing their part to discover which one (or combination) of the six suspects is the guilty person(s).
This novel takes place in Scotland and I thoroughly enjoyed the vernacular as the author was precise in writing as they spoke rather than as the words are spelled. I could hear their speech directly in my ear as I read, even though this was a written book, not audio.
The descriptions of the countryside were also both fascinating and atmospheric in a way that helped me feel I was there. Since there was a lot of movement in this story, we were able to visit several places in Scotland during the course of this case’s development.
During the last portion of the book, there is a meeting with the fiscal, and each of the police officers present their theory of who committed the crime – complete with the supporting evidence. By the time Lord Peter is to present his version it felt like it did at the beginning – who did this? – but with more arrows pointing at each person.
Then, Lord Peter decides to re-enact the crime as he saw it with each of the police officers playing a role and those who didn’t have a role were there as witnesses. Regardless of their own theories, each officer threw themselves into their assigned roles with professionalism and enthusiasm.
After finishing this book, I realized what an effective device this was. We were allowed to be party to a nasty murder without having all the gore stuck in our faces. I am amazed by how cleverly this book was written and based on my enjoyment I would recommend this to mystery fans – especially those who have also enjoyed other Golden Age of Mystery writers.
October 28, 2021
I'm finished, thankfully. This is the worst story I've read by Sayers. She is up and down for me, some of her novels with Lord Peter Wimsey are outstanding. Some are middling. This one is terrible. There is much ado about train schedules and bicycle routes that goes on for days it seemed like. There were also 5 artists (the red herrings of the title) who could be the murderer who I could barely tell apart. Life's too short for this.
January 10, 2012
read during my AIG Years
I Remember: surely Sayers can do better... the intriguing mystery gets lost in the unceasingly tedious recounting of all the various permutations of a train schedule... chapter after chapter of train schedules... TRAIN SCHEDULE, TRAIN SCHEDULES, STOP IT ALREADY!... where are the suspects?... oh there they are, only took a half a book to get to them... some good lines here and there... the characters of Wimsey & Bunter remain wonderful but are given little play.
I Remember: surely Sayers can do better... the intriguing mystery gets lost in the unceasingly tedious recounting of all the various permutations of a train schedule... chapter after chapter of train schedules... TRAIN SCHEDULE, TRAIN SCHEDULES, STOP IT ALREADY!... where are the suspects?... oh there they are, only took a half a book to get to them... some good lines here and there... the characters of Wimsey & Bunter remain wonderful but are given little play.
August 26, 2012
I can't believe I gave two stars to a Peter Wimsey novel. Why only two stars? Well, Lord Wimsey is on a little fishing vacation in Scotland. There was a murder and Peter gets involved. Since the setting is in Scotland, the author attempted to add authenticity by having the local characters speak with a Scottish brougue. There were paragraphs of dialogue written with a thick accent. It slowed my reading progress down to the point where I lost the thread of the story. Then, there was an overly complicated time table involving train schedules, bicycles, and five artist. I really had a hard time keeping it all clear. Way too many theories tossed around as well. After all of that, the ending was a let down. Overall, a C-
July 22, 2012
Where I got the book: purchased (used) on Amazon. Continuing my Lord Peter Wimsey re-read.
Ah, the Wimsey book I never liked. I like it better now, but I still think it lacks something of the other books. Wimsey is in Scotland, presumably getting away from it all (it, by now, meaning Harriet Vane, who was in the last book). Somewhat incongruously, he is hanging out in an artists' community, when one of the painters, an argumentative bugger called Campbell, is found dead. And Wimsey immediately knows he's murdered, because of a detail that you really have to have read the book once before to understand - foreknowledge makes the whole of the book much clearer. I always kind of resented Sayers for not giving the reader that clue early on, because after all isn't the whole point of a classic murder mystery that the reader has ALL the facts presented to them?
So we end up with six suspects, all painters, and the novel goes into excruciating detail examining the movements and motives of each of them. Railway timetables and other kinds of timetable are much in evidence, making this a hard read. In addition many of the characters speak in broad Scots, and peersonally ah'm no verra guid at followin' sich a mess o' dialogue, ye ken. Worse, we even have one witness who talkth like thith - I think Sayers is indicating here that the gentleman is Jewish, as she was cheerfully bigoted after the manner of her generation.
And yet if you have the patience to wade through the Scots and the timetables and all the business about bicycles, it's a very clever mystery. Although Wimsey solves it NOT on the strength of all the miles and miles of careful reconstruction of the crime but on the strength of the aforementioned unspoken clue, which means that basically the entire middle 4/5 of the book is a RED HERRING, so yeesh.
For Wimsey devotees there are also some nice little character touches, foreshadowing the deepening of character that was to come in the other Wimsey/Vane books. So for me it was fun to encounter what almost came across as new information. And, of course, cleverly written, although the older I get the more I notice the instability of POV that haunts the books. But, you see, DLS had the trick of making us into drooling Wimsey fans, showing the power of a damn good character to make up for any amount of technical faults.
Ah, the Wimsey book I never liked. I like it better now, but I still think it lacks something of the other books. Wimsey is in Scotland, presumably getting away from it all (it, by now, meaning Harriet Vane, who was in the last book). Somewhat incongruously, he is hanging out in an artists' community, when one of the painters, an argumentative bugger called Campbell, is found dead. And Wimsey immediately knows he's murdered, because of a detail that you really have to have read the book once before to understand - foreknowledge makes the whole of the book much clearer. I always kind of resented Sayers for not giving the reader that clue early on, because after all isn't the whole point of a classic murder mystery that the reader has ALL the facts presented to them?
So we end up with six suspects, all painters, and the novel goes into excruciating detail examining the movements and motives of each of them. Railway timetables and other kinds of timetable are much in evidence, making this a hard read. In addition many of the characters speak in broad Scots, and peersonally ah'm no verra guid at followin' sich a mess o' dialogue, ye ken. Worse, we even have one witness who talkth like thith - I think Sayers is indicating here that the gentleman is Jewish, as she was cheerfully bigoted after the manner of her generation.
And yet if you have the patience to wade through the Scots and the timetables and all the business about bicycles, it's a very clever mystery. Although Wimsey solves it NOT on the strength of all the miles and miles of careful reconstruction of the crime but on the strength of the aforementioned unspoken clue, which means that basically the entire middle 4/5 of the book is a RED HERRING, so yeesh.
For Wimsey devotees there are also some nice little character touches, foreshadowing the deepening of character that was to come in the other Wimsey/Vane books. So for me it was fun to encounter what almost came across as new information. And, of course, cleverly written, although the older I get the more I notice the instability of POV that haunts the books. But, you see, DLS had the trick of making us into drooling Wimsey fans, showing the power of a damn good character to make up for any amount of technical faults.
July 4, 2024
Dorothy L. Sayers and Peter Wimsey get better with every book! In The Five Red Herrings, Sayers combines strong, clever characters, with a riveting story revolving around the murder of a painter that everybody seems to hate.
We get a glimpse into the gritty world of the police inspecting alibis minutely and the careful details that lie behind the apparently carefree lives of artists. And not least is Sayers' writing that brings Scotland, where the murder takes place, to life. All of this tied together results in the book that started with six people who could possibly have committed a murder - and yes, five of them are herrings - and ends with Peter Wimsey finally feeling like Sherlock Holmes.
🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟
[One star for the premise; One star for the characters; One star for the plot; One star for the details and the description of the world; One star for the writing - Five stars in total].
We get a glimpse into the gritty world of the police inspecting alibis minutely and the careful details that lie behind the apparently carefree lives of artists. And not least is Sayers' writing that brings Scotland, where the murder takes place, to life. All of this tied together results in the book that started with six people who could possibly have committed a murder - and yes, five of them are herrings - and ends with Peter Wimsey finally feeling like Sherlock Holmes.
🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟
[One star for the premise; One star for the characters; One star for the plot; One star for the details and the description of the world; One star for the writing - Five stars in total].
January 16, 2015
In the second chapter of ‘Five Red Herrings’, as Lord Peter Wimsey examines the newly discovered corpse, he starts to frantically look around for a specific item. A police sergeant asks him what he’s hunting for – and the following paragraph appears in parenthesis:
“Here Lord Peter Wimsey told the Sergeant what he was looking for and why, but as the intelligent reader will readily supply these details for himself, they are omitted from this page.”
Now I would say that virtually no reader is going to be able to guess what the sleuthing peer is actually searching for (it isn’t even mentioned in the text before this point), and since it proves to be absolutely crucial to how Winsey carries out his investigation, this omission is therefore cheating. It is a highly inelegant trick and terribly unfair on Sayers’ part. After all the reader is supposed to be given a shot at solving the case for themselves, and having such an important piece of information hidden away makes the entire book – which does have a great deal that’s entertaining within it – feel like a bit of con.
You won’t need to be one of detective fiction’s great operators then, to note that I am still somewhat ambivalent about Dorothy L. Sayers and Lord Peter Wimsey. And that’s a shame as there’s a lot here that I liked. The setting is a small community in Scotland where there are seemingly dozens of painters. When a particularly objectionable member of their breed is slain, there are six obvious suspects – five of whom are red herrings. The mechanics of them all having dodgy alibis is incredibly well done, the setting is nicely evoked and there are some wonderful lines – for example, a Police Inspector answering questions with “the resentful accent of a schoolboy burdened with too much homework.”
There is also a nice post-modern element to this 1931 mystery. It’s noted which characters have mystery books they could have purloined ideas from; a ‘red herring’ itself is of course a term used far more often in detective novels than in actual detecting; while towards the end of the book, when Wimsey raises the possibility of the killer not being one of the six, he is chastised for being like the worst kind of detective fiction. It’s interesting that even this early in the detective novel’s surge to the top, the genre was capable of reaching in to itself.
On the down side it does tip its hat as to whodunit a tad too early, and I could have down without the renderings of Scottish dialect from the more menial characters. And then of course there’s the fact that Sayers doesn’t play by the rules as far as the reader is concerned. But if you go into the mystery forearmed on that point, having steeled yourself adequately, you should find that there’s a lot between these covers to give you pleasure.
“Here Lord Peter Wimsey told the Sergeant what he was looking for and why, but as the intelligent reader will readily supply these details for himself, they are omitted from this page.”
Now I would say that virtually no reader is going to be able to guess what the sleuthing peer is actually searching for (it isn’t even mentioned in the text before this point), and since it proves to be absolutely crucial to how Winsey carries out his investigation, this omission is therefore cheating. It is a highly inelegant trick and terribly unfair on Sayers’ part. After all the reader is supposed to be given a shot at solving the case for themselves, and having such an important piece of information hidden away makes the entire book – which does have a great deal that’s entertaining within it – feel like a bit of con.
You won’t need to be one of detective fiction’s great operators then, to note that I am still somewhat ambivalent about Dorothy L. Sayers and Lord Peter Wimsey. And that’s a shame as there’s a lot here that I liked. The setting is a small community in Scotland where there are seemingly dozens of painters. When a particularly objectionable member of their breed is slain, there are six obvious suspects – five of whom are red herrings. The mechanics of them all having dodgy alibis is incredibly well done, the setting is nicely evoked and there are some wonderful lines – for example, a Police Inspector answering questions with “the resentful accent of a schoolboy burdened with too much homework.”
There is also a nice post-modern element to this 1931 mystery. It’s noted which characters have mystery books they could have purloined ideas from; a ‘red herring’ itself is of course a term used far more often in detective novels than in actual detecting; while towards the end of the book, when Wimsey raises the possibility of the killer not being one of the six, he is chastised for being like the worst kind of detective fiction. It’s interesting that even this early in the detective novel’s surge to the top, the genre was capable of reaching in to itself.
On the down side it does tip its hat as to whodunit a tad too early, and I could have down without the renderings of Scottish dialect from the more menial characters. And then of course there’s the fact that Sayers doesn’t play by the rules as far as the reader is concerned. But if you go into the mystery forearmed on that point, having steeled yourself adequately, you should find that there’s a lot between these covers to give you pleasure.
November 14, 2022
Lord Peter is on holiday in Scotland in a small village where fishing is a big pastime only rivalled by the number of artists in the community, both permanent and summer visitors.
As in any village, not everyone gets on, and one of the well known Scottish artists, Sandy Campbell, rubs the other Scottish artists and the English on holiday completely up the wrong way. Next thing after spending the morning painting at a well know beauty spot , he is found dead in the small stream below.
At first it is thought that he had fallen down the bank whilst musing on the view, but our wise and wonderful Lord P finds a few issues with the murder scene and speaks to the local police about his thoughts.
As the investigation continues it transpires that he was dead early that morning, despite the fact he was supposedly seen alive and painting much later. Further investigation reveals that six permanent or holiday residents in the village had major issues with the drunk, Sandy Campbell. All six had an alibi, but one of them is lying and the other five are the red herrings of the title.
An excellent story that ends with After that it all ends a little quickly, like this review.
As in any village, not everyone gets on, and one of the well known Scottish artists, Sandy Campbell, rubs the other Scottish artists and the English on holiday completely up the wrong way. Next thing after spending the morning painting at a well know beauty spot , he is found dead in the small stream below.
At first it is thought that he had fallen down the bank whilst musing on the view, but our wise and wonderful Lord P finds a few issues with the murder scene and speaks to the local police about his thoughts.
As the investigation continues it transpires that he was dead early that morning, despite the fact he was supposedly seen alive and painting much later. Further investigation reveals that six permanent or holiday residents in the village had major issues with the drunk, Sandy Campbell. All six had an alibi, but one of them is lying and the other five are the red herrings of the title.
An excellent story that ends with After that it all ends a little quickly, like this review.
June 12, 2016
Lord Peter Wimsey is on holiday in Galloway, where people either fish or paint – and some do both. The artistic centre of Galloway is Kirkcudbright and there are many artists in the area. One evening there is an argument between a Scottish painter, called Campbell, and an English artist, named Waters. However, this was not unusual – Campbell being an argumentative man, who regularly caused trouble and fell out with his neighbours. The next morning, Campbell is found dead. Was he painting, when he slipped an hit his head – or was he murdered? Lord Peter sets off in pursuit of the answer.
This mystery involves six suspects, all artists who knew and who had argued with Campbell for different reasons. They are Hugh Farren, Henry Strachan, Matthew Gowan, Jock Graham, Michael Waters and John Ferguson. The problem is that all of them are possibly guilty of the crime and Lord Peter, and the police, are left to untangle all the different alibi’s and motives. This was not my favourite Lord Peter Wimsey mystery, but it was still a good read. As always, Lord Peter solves the crime and the location is an enjoyable one. At times, though, the endless lists of suspects and alibi’s got a little tedious. Lord Peter really brings the book alive, when the plot drags though and this is still a good addition to the series.
This mystery involves six suspects, all artists who knew and who had argued with Campbell for different reasons. They are Hugh Farren, Henry Strachan, Matthew Gowan, Jock Graham, Michael Waters and John Ferguson. The problem is that all of them are possibly guilty of the crime and Lord Peter, and the police, are left to untangle all the different alibi’s and motives. This was not my favourite Lord Peter Wimsey mystery, but it was still a good read. As always, Lord Peter solves the crime and the location is an enjoyable one. At times, though, the endless lists of suspects and alibi’s got a little tedious. Lord Peter really brings the book alive, when the plot drags though and this is still a good addition to the series.
February 8, 2018
Does anyone else watch Endeavour? There’s a part where Morse’s mentor tells him that he might be able to come up with brilliant theories and connections, but the actual police work, the grunt fact checking stuff, has to get done too, and frankly, he sucks at it.
..Well that’s as it may be, as Lord Peter would say, but while it may make for a better policeman, it makes for a boring novel. Like... how do you look at Peter Wimsey stories and weirdly decide that what’s wrong with them is that there should be more fussy paperwork? Especially when you make your reader suffer through all the pulling teeth aspects of that decision and then all but like 1% of it doesn’t pay off! Honestly, if they had one more scene talking about where someone’s bicycle may or may not have been on the morning in question, I might have chucked it, charming BBC performances or no. No one needs that much realism in their detective stories.
It was almost ALMOST worth it for the big scene at the end where everybody sits around a table and gets to throw out six different theories and Sayers has done the work for all of them to be totally plausible. Although I’m sure it won’t surprise you at all to hear Peter’s theory is the winner, because of course he is the specialest snowflake of all, it was great to see other characters get to sound intelligent and rival him. He really only turns out to be right through as much blind luck as anything.
But that was one relatively short scene in a relatively longer book- or at least it surrreeeeeeeeee felt that way, even listening to it. Peter’s in Scotland too, so none of his quirky friends show up to lighten the mood and provide some fun tangents for Peter’s intellect and some silly toff period dialogue to laugh at.
Meh. At least my commutes were filled with the soothing sounds of BBC actors rather than the news. That’s all I can say for it- onto the next! Which is Have His Carcase. Another Harriet Vane! Hopefully this will be the one that converts me on her.
..Well that’s as it may be, as Lord Peter would say, but while it may make for a better policeman, it makes for a boring novel. Like... how do you look at Peter Wimsey stories and weirdly decide that what’s wrong with them is that there should be more fussy paperwork? Especially when you make your reader suffer through all the pulling teeth aspects of that decision and then all but like 1% of it doesn’t pay off! Honestly, if they had one more scene talking about where someone’s bicycle may or may not have been on the morning in question, I might have chucked it, charming BBC performances or no. No one needs that much realism in their detective stories.
It was almost ALMOST worth it for the big scene at the end where everybody sits around a table and gets to throw out six different theories and Sayers has done the work for all of them to be totally plausible. Although I’m sure it won’t surprise you at all to hear Peter’s theory is the winner, because of course he is the specialest snowflake of all, it was great to see other characters get to sound intelligent and rival him. He really only turns out to be right through as much blind luck as anything.
But that was one relatively short scene in a relatively longer book- or at least it surrreeeeeeeeee felt that way, even listening to it. Peter’s in Scotland too, so none of his quirky friends show up to lighten the mood and provide some fun tangents for Peter’s intellect and some silly toff period dialogue to laugh at.
Meh. At least my commutes were filled with the soothing sounds of BBC actors rather than the news. That’s all I can say for it- onto the next! Which is Have His Carcase. Another Harriet Vane! Hopefully this will be the one that converts me on her.
July 29, 2016
I loved the ending of this book, but the rest of it? Well, it's not a typical Dorothy L Sayers Lord Peter Wimsey. We didn't see so much of Lord Peter's character and foibles: Bunter played a very minor role and that mainly as Lord Peter's manservant; nor did we see much of our other regular characters. This may have been because of the location, Scotland. But the whole writing style seemed completely different to the previous Lord Peter murder mysteries I have read.
I did not enjoy the timelines and regimentation as much as I enjoy Lord Peters flights of fancy and 'waffling' as he puts people at their ease and learns things they would never otherwise dream of telling him.
I did enjoy the reconstruction of the crime as he believed it to have been carried out, and as I said previously, I did enjoy the ending. But this will not go down as one of my Sayer favourites.
I did not enjoy the timelines and regimentation as much as I enjoy Lord Peters flights of fancy and 'waffling' as he puts people at their ease and learns things they would never otherwise dream of telling him.
I did enjoy the reconstruction of the crime as he believed it to have been carried out, and as I said previously, I did enjoy the ending. But this will not go down as one of my Sayer favourites.
March 22, 2019
Give this volume about 3.5 stars, I think. For me, it has been the least enjoyable installment of Lord Peter Wimsey. And still, it had its great moments. Dorothy Sayers is the only author that I have read who had produced Scots dialog on the page that hasn’t annoyed me to death! I found it was effective and even a bit humorous from time to time.
Where this book fell down for me was the intricacy of the clues. I know that Sayers prided herself on not “cheating,” giving the reader all the clues that they needed to solve the mystery right along with Wimsey (see Dorothy L. Sayers: Her Life and Soul by Barbara Reynolds). However, I would have needed to make myself a detailed flow chart if I was going to solve this mystery! So I just drifted with the flow of her writing and enjoyed other details along the way.
The last few pages, including the re-enactment of the crime, were absolutely the best part of the book. I don’t usually laugh out loud when I’m reading, but I know for a fact that I produced several outbursts as I enjoyed this production! Well worth enduring all the train time tables!
Where this book fell down for me was the intricacy of the clues. I know that Sayers prided herself on not “cheating,” giving the reader all the clues that they needed to solve the mystery right along with Wimsey (see Dorothy L. Sayers: Her Life and Soul by Barbara Reynolds). However, I would have needed to make myself a detailed flow chart if I was going to solve this mystery! So I just drifted with the flow of her writing and enjoyed other details along the way.
The last few pages, including the re-enactment of the crime, were absolutely the best part of the book. I don’t usually laugh out loud when I’m reading, but I know for a fact that I produced several outbursts as I enjoyed this production! Well worth enduring all the train time tables!
September 16, 2015
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007jw7fDescription: The body was on the pointed rocks alongside the stream. The artist might have fallen from the cliff where he was painting, but there are too many suspicious elements - particularly the medical evidence that proves he'd been dead nearly half a day, though eyewitnesses had seen him alive a scant hour earlier. And then there are the six prime suspects - all of them artists, all of whom wished him dead. Five are red herrings, but one has created a masterpiece of murder that baffles everyone, including Lord Peter Wimsey.
1/8: The death of an artist curtails the upper class sleuth's Scottish fishing trip. 2/8: Key suspects keep vanishing.3/8: More evidence disappears4/8: Bunter takes the initiative5/8: Lord Peter attempts to verify the whereabouts of key suspects. 6/8: Who murdered the Scottish Artist? 7/8: Theories abound 8/8: Peter and his cohorts piece together the last hours before death.
Flake White
October 13, 2018
In the meantime, a constable had rounded up the undertaker, who arrived in great excitement, swallowing the last fragments of his tea. A slight further delay was caused by its occurring to somebody that the Fiscal should be notified. The Fiscal, fortunately enough, happened to be in the town, and joined the party, explaining to Wimsey as they drove along to the mortuary that it was the most painful case he had handled in the whole of his experience, and that he had been much struck by the superiority of the Scots law to the English in these matters, ‘For,’ said he, ‘the publicity of a coroner’s inquest is bound to give much unnecessary pain to the relations, which is avoided by our method of private investigation.’
‘That is very true,’ said Wimsey, politely, ‘but think of all the extra fun we get from the Sunday newspapers. Inquests are jam to them.’
The Five Red Herrings started off strong and I loved the setting and some of the scenes - like Bunter being a few steps ahead of Lord Peter, retelling his adventures in the fashion of The Castle of Otranto, and then caring for Lord Peter by having the Arnica oinment at the ready for Lord Peter's bruises.
However, ... for most of the book, I wished Sayers had spared us the details of doggedly chasing down every single train connection and what is more every single - it seemed - damned bicycle in the country only to find out that it was not the bicycle in question.
Not one of my favourite Wimseys.
‘That is very true,’ said Wimsey, politely, ‘but think of all the extra fun we get from the Sunday newspapers. Inquests are jam to them.’
The Five Red Herrings started off strong and I loved the setting and some of the scenes - like Bunter being a few steps ahead of Lord Peter, retelling his adventures in the fashion of The Castle of Otranto, and then caring for Lord Peter by having the Arnica oinment at the ready for Lord Peter's bruises.
However, ... for most of the book, I wished Sayers had spared us the details of doggedly chasing down every single train connection and what is more every single - it seemed - damned bicycle in the country only to find out that it was not the bicycle in question.
Not one of my favourite Wimseys.
May 14, 2019
For many people this is not a popular Lord Peter book but I have always enjoyed it. The puzzle was daunting and not that interesting but the writing was good and the humor subtle.
March 7, 2013
This book has a fun setup, from a mystery aspect: in a small artist's community in Scotland, a man named Campbell is found dead at the base of a cliff, having apparently fallen to his death. But it wasn't an accident, obviously, and soon the local police, aided by his wonderfulness Lord Peter Wimsey, are on the case. There are some complications: Campbell has multiple enemies in the town, the six most likely suspects all have alibis for the time of death, and although Campbell was killed sometime on Monday night, multiple witnesses saw him painting on the cliff the next day.
The investigation isn't terribly compelling. Dissecting the multiple alibis involves a lot of discussion about trains and schedules, which becomes mind-numbingly boring and impossible to follow after the second paragraph. Other reviews tell me that when The Five Red Herrings was written, so-called "train timetable" mysteries were all the rage, and Dorothy Sayers wrote this book mainly to prove that she could do the same. She shouldn't have bothered - the constant, lengthy monologues about "Well, if he took the 2:35 to Blahdiblah, that would give him just enough time to catch the 4:15 out of Whocares, but if he took the 1:55 like he said, that would mean it would take him nearly two hours to reach Nobodygivesafuck! Great Scott!" are boring, and I still have no idea how the various timetables worked out. The six suspects are pretty much interchangeable, to the extent that any one of them could have been named as the murderer and it wouldn't have changed anything. Also, there's a frustrating bit at the beginning when Wimsey examines the crime scene. Something is missing from the scene, Wimsey declares, and it's because of this object's absence that he knows the death was murder. What is this object, you ask? Here's what Dorothy Sayers says, right after Wimsey's revelation: "(Here Lord Peter Wimsey told the Sergeant what he was to look for and why, but as the intelligent reader will readily supply these details for himself, they are emitted from this page.)"
Come on, Sayers! Okay, obviously we aren't actually expected to know what the missing object is (otherwise she would have just told us, because if it was that obvious there wouldn't be any reason to hide it), but couldn't she have chosen a less-frustrating way to keep the information from the readers? I was actually able to guess what the missing object was by the time I was 2/3 through the book, but to be fair, Sayers drops some pretty big hints about what we should be looking for. So ultimately I guess the missing clue was a good choice, because it gave me a little side mystery to work on in my head while I read the book, but it was still irritating.
Normally, a book with this many issues would get less than three stars from me, but this is Dorothy Sayers, who can do no wrong in my eyes. And the reason for this is, even if the mystery is confusing and dull, it's still being investigated by Lord Peter, who continues to delight in everything he does. Also, Sayers's characters all have a working knowledge of detective stories and their tropes, and the genius of Sayers is that she has her characters point out how well they're fulfilling these common tropes throughout the investigation. It's very meta, and very amusing:
"'They want to find the last person who saw the man alive,' said Wimsey, promptly. 'It's always done. It's part of the regular show. You get it in all the mystery stories. Of course, the last person to see him never commits the crime. That would make it too easy. One of these days I shall write a book in which two men are seen to walk down a cul-de-sac, and there is a shot and one man is found murdered and the other runs away with a gun in his hand, and after twenty chapters stinking with red herrings, it turns out that the man with the gun did it after all.'"
You can't not love that. In fact, I'm going to now disregard the review format completely and just post a bunch of delightful Peter Wimsey quotes from this book, because that's really the best part. Enjoy the delight of Lord Peter Wimsey...
Discussing his particular method of detecting:
"An official personage like you might embarrass them, don't you know, but there's no dignity about me. I'm probably the least awe-inspiring man in Kirkcudbright. I was born looking foolish, and every day in every way I am getting foolisher and foolisher."
Breaking up a bar fight:
"'This won't do,' said Wimsey, 'this isn't the League of Nations. A plague on both your houses! Have a bit of sense.'"
Talking with Bunter, the Alfred to his Batman, after chasing a suspect:
"Somebody's just made a moonlight flitting,' said Wimsey. 'I've been round to tell the police. At least,' he corrected himself, 'not moonlight, because there is no moon; in fact, it's beastly dark and I fell over some confounded steps, but the principle is the same and have you got any arnica?'
Bunter's reply was memorable.
'My lord, I have already taken upon me, in your lordship's absence, to acquaint Sir Maxwell Jamieson with Mr. Gowan's project of escape. I have every reason to anticipate that he will be detained at Dumfries or Carlisle. If your lordship will kindly remove your garments, I will apply suitable remedies to the contusions.'"
The defense rests.
The investigation isn't terribly compelling. Dissecting the multiple alibis involves a lot of discussion about trains and schedules, which becomes mind-numbingly boring and impossible to follow after the second paragraph. Other reviews tell me that when The Five Red Herrings was written, so-called "train timetable" mysteries were all the rage, and Dorothy Sayers wrote this book mainly to prove that she could do the same. She shouldn't have bothered - the constant, lengthy monologues about "Well, if he took the 2:35 to Blahdiblah, that would give him just enough time to catch the 4:15 out of Whocares, but if he took the 1:55 like he said, that would mean it would take him nearly two hours to reach Nobodygivesafuck! Great Scott!" are boring, and I still have no idea how the various timetables worked out. The six suspects are pretty much interchangeable, to the extent that any one of them could have been named as the murderer and it wouldn't have changed anything. Also, there's a frustrating bit at the beginning when Wimsey examines the crime scene. Something is missing from the scene, Wimsey declares, and it's because of this object's absence that he knows the death was murder. What is this object, you ask? Here's what Dorothy Sayers says, right after Wimsey's revelation: "(Here Lord Peter Wimsey told the Sergeant what he was to look for and why, but as the intelligent reader will readily supply these details for himself, they are emitted from this page.)"
Come on, Sayers! Okay, obviously we aren't actually expected to know what the missing object is (otherwise she would have just told us, because if it was that obvious there wouldn't be any reason to hide it), but couldn't she have chosen a less-frustrating way to keep the information from the readers? I was actually able to guess what the missing object was by the time I was 2/3 through the book, but to be fair, Sayers drops some pretty big hints about what we should be looking for. So ultimately I guess the missing clue was a good choice, because it gave me a little side mystery to work on in my head while I read the book, but it was still irritating.
Normally, a book with this many issues would get less than three stars from me, but this is Dorothy Sayers, who can do no wrong in my eyes. And the reason for this is, even if the mystery is confusing and dull, it's still being investigated by Lord Peter, who continues to delight in everything he does. Also, Sayers's characters all have a working knowledge of detective stories and their tropes, and the genius of Sayers is that she has her characters point out how well they're fulfilling these common tropes throughout the investigation. It's very meta, and very amusing:
"'They want to find the last person who saw the man alive,' said Wimsey, promptly. 'It's always done. It's part of the regular show. You get it in all the mystery stories. Of course, the last person to see him never commits the crime. That would make it too easy. One of these days I shall write a book in which two men are seen to walk down a cul-de-sac, and there is a shot and one man is found murdered and the other runs away with a gun in his hand, and after twenty chapters stinking with red herrings, it turns out that the man with the gun did it after all.'"
You can't not love that. In fact, I'm going to now disregard the review format completely and just post a bunch of delightful Peter Wimsey quotes from this book, because that's really the best part. Enjoy the delight of Lord Peter Wimsey...
Discussing his particular method of detecting:
"An official personage like you might embarrass them, don't you know, but there's no dignity about me. I'm probably the least awe-inspiring man in Kirkcudbright. I was born looking foolish, and every day in every way I am getting foolisher and foolisher."
Breaking up a bar fight:
"'This won't do,' said Wimsey, 'this isn't the League of Nations. A plague on both your houses! Have a bit of sense.'"
Talking with Bunter, the Alfred to his Batman, after chasing a suspect:
"Somebody's just made a moonlight flitting,' said Wimsey. 'I've been round to tell the police. At least,' he corrected himself, 'not moonlight, because there is no moon; in fact, it's beastly dark and I fell over some confounded steps, but the principle is the same and have you got any arnica?'
Bunter's reply was memorable.
'My lord, I have already taken upon me, in your lordship's absence, to acquaint Sir Maxwell Jamieson with Mr. Gowan's project of escape. I have every reason to anticipate that he will be detained at Dumfries or Carlisle. If your lordship will kindly remove your garments, I will apply suitable remedies to the contusions.'"
The defense rests.
Shelved as 'abandoned'
March 28, 2016It turns out that train time tables are so boring that not even a great writer like Dorothy Sayers can make them interesting.
Let me give you a fictional paragraph that could have been included in the book to give you an idea of the tedious and confusing-ness of train time tables in all their boring glory:
"It turns out the Chamley was on the 1.5 to Ayers when we thought he was on the 1.41 to Allen even though his wife found a ticket for the 2.5, which was hard to believe because the train only ran at 1.3, 1.4, or 1.7 except on Sunday when it ran at 2.1 but stopped at Averrs and Arreys or on Wednesdays when it ran at 1.8 and 1.9. His neighbor Cunnley ran into Miss Bev and Miss Bav on the 1.1 from Ayers stopping in Allen..."
The moral lesson I would like everyone to take away from this review is that train time tables are boring. Painfully boring. So boring that it brings me to tears faster than that scene in Heidi when they take her from her grandfather.
Let me give you a fictional paragraph that could have been included in the book to give you an idea of the tedious and confusing-ness of train time tables in all their boring glory:
"It turns out the Chamley was on the 1.5 to Ayers when we thought he was on the 1.41 to Allen even though his wife found a ticket for the 2.5, which was hard to believe because the train only ran at 1.3, 1.4, or 1.7 except on Sunday when it ran at 2.1 but stopped at Averrs and Arreys or on Wednesdays when it ran at 1.8 and 1.9. His neighbor Cunnley ran into Miss Bev and Miss Bav on the 1.1 from Ayers stopping in Allen..."
The moral lesson I would like everyone to take away from this review is that train time tables are boring. Painfully boring. So boring that it brings me to tears faster than that scene in Heidi when they take her from her grandfather.
August 13, 2022
4-stars and I'm being a wee bit generous because this book took FOREVER for me to finish and I failed utterly at keeping track of all the characters. But there were moments that were absolutely genius and fun to read, making this one a genuinely hard book to rate.
Campbell is dead and, unfortunately, almost everyone wanted him so. 6 suspects emerge, but each with an even less likely alibi. Good thing famed sleuth Lord Peter Wimsey is staying nearby taking a fishing holiday! But will even he be able to tell fact from fiction?
I had the hardest time keeping the 6 suspects straight. Even when the murderer is finally revealed, I had to flip back to the beginning to remember the motive. But I blame that on the length of time it took me to read this book because I kept putting it down and coming back weeks later to try again. 'Cause guess what. Most of this book is boring. It involves train-times and missing bicycles and painting techniques. It is all sorts of little details and police work stuffed together and twisted about so you really have to pay attention and on top of 6 suspects, remember all the details of their days as the police run around checking facts.
And if you're smart enough to catch onto the Really Important Clue in that mess of details, good for you.
The fun thing about the multiple suspects, though, is that they all have a plausible motive and means and there is a great scene near the end where all the police officers (another mess of people I couldn't keep straight) sum up their theories about each one. I loved the energy in that scene. And I did love the eventual solution, because it fits so neatly in all the chaos.
Of course, I also loved Lord Peter, who is always a delight.
Most of all, though, I loved the accents in this book. This book begs to be read out loud. In fact, with the Scottish brogues, I dare you to understand a word they're saying without whispering it under your breath. It is almost incomprehensible and delightfully fun to decipher. ("'Och, ay, imph'm, ye'll dew weel tae gie't a mulch o' liquid guano and aspidistra tonic.'")
And the guy with the lisp!
It really shows how Sayers can shine with characters.
Quite fun, but am I ever glad to have knocked this one off my to-read!
Campbell is dead and, unfortunately, almost everyone wanted him so. 6 suspects emerge, but each with an even less likely alibi. Good thing famed sleuth Lord Peter Wimsey is staying nearby taking a fishing holiday! But will even he be able to tell fact from fiction?
I had the hardest time keeping the 6 suspects straight. Even when the murderer is finally revealed, I had to flip back to the beginning to remember the motive. But I blame that on the length of time it took me to read this book because I kept putting it down and coming back weeks later to try again. 'Cause guess what. Most of this book is boring. It involves train-times and missing bicycles and painting techniques. It is all sorts of little details and police work stuffed together and twisted about so you really have to pay attention and on top of 6 suspects, remember all the details of their days as the police run around checking facts.
And if you're smart enough to catch onto the Really Important Clue in that mess of details, good for you.
The fun thing about the multiple suspects, though, is that they all have a plausible motive and means and there is a great scene near the end where all the police officers (another mess of people I couldn't keep straight) sum up their theories about each one. I loved the energy in that scene. And I did love the eventual solution, because it fits so neatly in all the chaos.
Of course, I also loved Lord Peter, who is always a delight.
Most of all, though, I loved the accents in this book. This book begs to be read out loud. In fact, with the Scottish brogues, I dare you to understand a word they're saying without whispering it under your breath. It is almost incomprehensible and delightfully fun to decipher. ("'Och, ay, imph'm, ye'll dew weel tae gie't a mulch o' liquid guano and aspidistra tonic.'")
And the guy with the lisp!
It really shows how Sayers can shine with characters.
Quite fun, but am I ever glad to have knocked this one off my to-read!
August 26, 2007
Meh. I am told Sayers wrote this at a time when railroad timetable mysteries were popular, just to prove she could. I believe it. Basically, the first half of the book features Lord Peter and all the policemen going through all the permutations of Scotland's mindboggling train schedule, as well as six suspects who are barely distinguishable from each other. During the second half, the plot really picks up, and we finally get a little characterisation of each of the suspects, as well as some much-needed plot not involving trains or bicycles. Unfortunately, this leads the reader to hope and even assume that the solution will be surprising and fresh. Sadly, that hope is dashed. And there are only approximately two scenes of Lord Peter being awesome. He's just... there for the most part. Quite disappointing.
What I liked was the method of concealing the fact of murder, which was, frankly, ingenious. I think the book would have benefited from making that part of the speculation.
What I liked was the method of concealing the fact of murder, which was, frankly, ingenious. I think the book would have benefited from making that part of the speculation.
February 21, 2015
I really liked this little mystery set in Scotland. It may be that I am just fond of Scotland but I found this delightful. First of all, the last place I would have thought to find Lord Peter is fishing in the Highlands. The thought of that alone makes me giggle.
The murder surrounds a disliked artist and five other painter/fishermen are the suspects. It's quite entertaining as Peter makes his way through the conflicting alibis. The ending was a surprise for me.
I thought it was a lot of fun.
The murder surrounds a disliked artist and five other painter/fishermen are the suspects. It's quite entertaining as Peter makes his way through the conflicting alibis. The ending was a surprise for me.
I thought it was a lot of fun.
April 30, 2018
Five Red Herrings does a couple of things that really annoy me, like having a long section of people positing obviously wrong ways the crime unfolded, and the whole “the reader will of course know what the missing object was” bit — no, I don’t! I’m not a painter, I don’t have that education, and I don’t know how common it would’ve been in Sayers’ time, but knowing that fact has not lasted.
In any case, reading it this time, I did enjoy Five Red Herrings more than I did last time, perhaps. The introduction in the new edition drew my attention to the fantastic sense of place and character, and to appreciate again the way that Peter is embedded in the mystery, caring about the people involved. Plot-wise, it’s very clever again, literally written according to train timetables and precise distances between places. It might not be my favourite, but I can appreciate all the work that went into it. Sayers may not have thought her detective novels terribly literary or worthwhile, but hindsight says they are.
Reviewed for The Bibliophibian.
In any case, reading it this time, I did enjoy Five Red Herrings more than I did last time, perhaps. The introduction in the new edition drew my attention to the fantastic sense of place and character, and to appreciate again the way that Peter is embedded in the mystery, caring about the people involved. Plot-wise, it’s very clever again, literally written according to train timetables and precise distances between places. It might not be my favourite, but I can appreciate all the work that went into it. Sayers may not have thought her detective novels terribly literary or worthwhile, but hindsight says they are.
Reviewed for The Bibliophibian.
September 4, 2021
I got two very different comments about this book before reading it. One person said it bored her to tears. The other person (my aunt, who lent it to me) was enthusiastic about how fun and clever and Scottish it was and thought I'd like it very much.
And I guess I'm siding with my aunt. Family ties and all. xD
For real, though, it WAS fun. There were boring bits - a couple chapters where they're tracing movements and train tickets and calculating times - but I almost like them just because they feel like they're letting you in on every last process of solving the mystery? It's fun how that's set up too. A murder (that was supposed to look like an accident) happens in a little community of fishermen and painters, and Scotland Yard doesn't get called in. Lord Peter happens to be up there and to know the people involved, and he helps the local police figure it out. And constables and inspectors and Lord Peter each gather different bits of evidence and work together to figure it out and it's just...a pleasantly collaborative atmosphere.
(I also really, really liked the ending. Sha'n't spoil, but one of the nicest endings I've read to a murder mystery, ever. Though I take umbrage with the Goodreads summary, because I wouldn't say that six people didn't regret Campbell's death. I wouldn't say that at all.)
And then to balance out the boring chapters, there are chapters like the one where Lord Peter talks to Gilda Farren. And where he finds and talks to Hugh Farren. And where Graham and Waters try to duplicate Campbell's "last painting." Those are just...riveting, in an odd way. Because speculation and human nature and Lord Peter being Lord Peter are all jumbled up in them, tight.
(Speaking of Campbell's last painting, I guessed the murderer and I'm very proud of myself for that.)
It's a detective story cliche, to reenact the crime scene, but I've literally never seen it done before now. So that was fun. Wimsey's enthusiasm and ridiculous running commentary made it especially fun.
I just...really like Lord Peter. He grows on you, my aunt said, and he does.
And then the Scottish accents, you know. They're all written out. Some people hate that, but I love it.
Besides, almost all the suspects are such...wimps. I don't know if they were supposed to be? They struck me that way, and I'm grateful for the amusement provided.
It also appealed greatly to my sense of humor that Sayers included an actual note in the text saying that "since the reader can figure out what mysterious item I'm talking about, I won't say what it is" because now she can't be accused of cheating but she can still be mysterious and signal to you that this missing item is VERY IMPORTANT. And you definitely can figure out what it is, so she really isn't cheating.
I liked it. It felt smart.
And I guess I'm siding with my aunt. Family ties and all. xD
For real, though, it WAS fun. There were boring bits - a couple chapters where they're tracing movements and train tickets and calculating times - but I almost like them just because they feel like they're letting you in on every last process of solving the mystery? It's fun how that's set up too. A murder (that was supposed to look like an accident) happens in a little community of fishermen and painters, and Scotland Yard doesn't get called in. Lord Peter happens to be up there and to know the people involved, and he helps the local police figure it out. And constables and inspectors and Lord Peter each gather different bits of evidence and work together to figure it out and it's just...a pleasantly collaborative atmosphere.
(I also really, really liked the ending. Sha'n't spoil, but one of the nicest endings I've read to a murder mystery, ever. Though I take umbrage with the Goodreads summary, because I wouldn't say that six people didn't regret Campbell's death. I wouldn't say that at all.)
And then to balance out the boring chapters, there are chapters like the one where Lord Peter talks to Gilda Farren. And where he finds and talks to Hugh Farren. And where Graham and Waters try to duplicate Campbell's "last painting." Those are just...riveting, in an odd way. Because speculation and human nature and Lord Peter being Lord Peter are all jumbled up in them, tight.
(Speaking of Campbell's last painting, I guessed the murderer and I'm very proud of myself for that.)
It's a detective story cliche, to reenact the crime scene, but I've literally never seen it done before now. So that was fun. Wimsey's enthusiasm and ridiculous running commentary made it especially fun.
I just...really like Lord Peter. He grows on you, my aunt said, and he does.
And then the Scottish accents, you know. They're all written out. Some people hate that, but I love it.
Besides, almost all the suspects are such...wimps. I don't know if they were supposed to be? They struck me that way, and I'm grateful for the amusement provided.
It also appealed greatly to my sense of humor that Sayers included an actual note in the text saying that "since the reader can figure out what mysterious item I'm talking about, I won't say what it is" because now she can't be accused of cheating but she can still be mysterious and signal to you that this missing item is VERY IMPORTANT. And you definitely can figure out what it is, so she really isn't cheating.
I liked it. It felt smart.
October 20, 2017
“The more you hate everybody for hating you, the more unattractive you grow and the more they hate you.”
By her own admission (elsewhere), in this book, “the plot was invented to fit a real locality.”
Apparently, written to please her Scottish friends, this is a Sudoku puzzle of clues spread through several hundred pages of prose. Not one or two but five false trails are explored and discarded. Dreary. The least pleasing Wimsey mystery to date.
“This English habit of rushing into situations on a high tide of chatter and excitement.”
Five percent in, Sayers inserts a comment, “… as the intelligent reader will readily supply these details for himself, they are omitted….” Dirty trick. Yes, I deduced the omitted clue (partly because I’m a painter), but that’s cheating.
“Even you … look on me as nothing more than an amiable nuisance, don’t you?” “There may be something in what you say.”
Quibbles: Too many stage directions. The dialect is excruciating. “Eh, mon! But ye’re over clever tae be an honest mon.” (Some words I never deciphered.)
“Still, it doesn’t do to murder people, however offensive they may be.”
By her own admission (elsewhere), in this book, “the plot was invented to fit a real locality.”
Apparently, written to please her Scottish friends, this is a Sudoku puzzle of clues spread through several hundred pages of prose. Not one or two but five false trails are explored and discarded. Dreary. The least pleasing Wimsey mystery to date.
“This English habit of rushing into situations on a high tide of chatter and excitement.”
Five percent in, Sayers inserts a comment, “… as the intelligent reader will readily supply these details for himself, they are omitted….” Dirty trick. Yes, I deduced the omitted clue (partly because I’m a painter), but that’s cheating.
“Even you … look on me as nothing more than an amiable nuisance, don’t you?” “There may be something in what you say.”
Quibbles: Too many stage directions. The dialect is excruciating. “Eh, mon! But ye’re over clever tae be an honest mon.” (Some words I never deciphered.)
“Still, it doesn’t do to murder people, however offensive they may be.”
June 7, 2020
My least favourite. I got lost among all the bicycles and train timetables.
December 1, 2022
I mean, I understand why this is a lot of people's least favorite Lord Peter novel. Timetables, a large cast of characters (larger than others in the series? I suppose), the Unnamed Missing Object, impenetrable brogues, etc. Me, I like it. It's not my favorite either - but I like it. I went to art school, I loved painting, I wanted to be an artist, so I love/envy the milieu of the informal artists' colony, a group of men beavering away at their canvases and picking at each other's styles. I am unbearably smug that, for possibly the only time in my life, I easily identified the Unnamed Missing Object because of my background - it was blindingly obvious to me, because I'd handled such a thing many times.
I like the characters. I like the artists and those around them, and the police. Their personalities are brilliantly drawn, as always - DLS was always able to create marvelous, often unforgettable background and secondary characters (Miss Murchison and Bill Rumm, anyone?), and there are some great character studies here. One of my favorite author tricks is that of introducing a character from one point of view, limning their personality in that light - and then bringing in a new character who has a completely opinion on that personality. It's up to the reader to judge who's right and where the biases come from, based on the narration - and DLS is among the best at presenting these miniature dramas.
The best example here is of Gilda Farren. Campbell, in his bitter and antisocial way, worshipped her as an icon of purity and womanhood. Peter, however, casts a cynical eye at how she's staged herself - with an artist's instincts, she knows how to present a facade, sure enough - and seems to have his own ideas. Ferguson outright hates her as an "interfering, well-meaning bitch" who needs to keep out of other people's business. As for Mr. Farren - well, it's been a minute since I read this book, and in my mind the scene in which Wimsey confronts him over the new Dog & Gun inn painting felt like the finale, detective bracing murderer and with some melancholy sending him off to be hanged. When in fact it was detective bracing absconding husband and sending him home to be ... forgiven. Gilda Farren's forgiveness comes off here as a fate worse than hanging. But Campbell would have rejoiced in it. DLS is a marvel.
This chapter is one of my favorites in all of Wimsey, the one I retain from this book when everything else has faded.
And Peter and Bunter are utterly Peter and Bunter. It's mentioned that Peter has taken a small studio in Kirkcudbright (pronounced, I discover in this, the first time I'm ever hearing an audiobook version, Kir-COO-bree) because "it entertained him to watch his extremely correct personal man gutting trout and washing potatoes under an outside tap, and receiving the casual visitor with West End ceremony." And it does. Moreover, it entertained me - and I strongly suspect it entertained Bunter. He's put up with worse, after all. I think he got along gloriously well with the locals, soaked in the bits of dialect and produced them as needed to amuse Peter, and altogether enjoyed himself. (And was relieved and glad to go back to 110A Piccadilly and all its amenities.) And can I just say that Bunter's Castle of Otranto narrative is worth literally any amount of timetables.
There is a slightly different angle on Peter in this book. Instead of being ensconced amongst his incunabula and black-and-primrose library, zipping around London in Mrs Murbles and dining with the Honorable Freddy and Lady
Worthington and scoping out sales of rare books - here he is hanging out at a pub with fishermen and artists of a variety of social standings, and rambling the countryside, and getting along famously with everyone and everything. I love that he's not an expert in painting. He knows a little, as an accomplished and sophisticated nobleman must, enough to be able to assess skill and talent - but he is on the whole ignorant of the mechanics of it all. It's a good thing that he's not an expert in every field.
As for what most people feel are the drawbacks in the book - I'm fine with them. I admit to glazing over a bit when the timetables are being worked out - it's the sort of thing that is legitimately interesting only to the person on the spot trying to figure it out, and definitely not a spectator sport - but for me the interest lies with the person doing the figuring rather than the figuring itself. I like Constable Ross, who does so much of the legwork, and the snippets of character in all the many conductors and porters and bystanders and bicycle owners met along the way. The train schedules are dull - the characters are not. For me that's always what a book is about: the characters. An author can get away with a lot in my eyes if they can write good characters. DLS can get away with pretty much anything, and I'll defend her to the death. Oh, and then there's P.C. Duncan, who fantasized about infiltrating the local dressed up "(when off duty) as an aged clergyman or a Breton onion-seller" - anyone who quit the book earlier because of the timetables missed P.C. Duncan. Poor them.
Oh, and the brogue? I'm fine with that too. Context is good enough to help translate anything that is otherwise unintelligible, and I've gotten pretty good at the brogue (reading, at least).
Anyone who DNF'd the book also missed the fantastical, marvelous story of Gowan's incapacity. Told by someone else, it would probably be stupid and too improbable to swallow. Told by DLS, it is, yes, stupid - but not on the part of the author. It shows up the characters as having behaved stupidly and improbably - - and every bit in keeping with their personalities. It's a wild story, but because of the people involved in it it's the only answer. I love it.
The recreation of the crime and all its trappings is great fun. As it was coming closer, I kept thinking of Marty McFly for some reason ... Again, because of DLS's use of characters (main and NPC), it strikes entirely true.
This, as I mentioned, was the first time I listened to an audio version of the book, and I had a great time with it. I was a little disappointed that my, er, source didn't have the version read by Ian Carmichael I believe exists somewhere, but was instead read by Patrick Malahide. Don't get me wrong - it's excellent; his Peter had a somewhat odd timbre that took a moment to get used to after several books' worth of Ian Carmichael's Peter, but I approve on the whole. His brogue is fun; he produces a wide variety of tones and accents for all the different characters; I think my only quibble is with his Parker, who sounds by times a bit Cockney, and by times a bit Scots. I still want to find the Carmichael one day, but I'm very glad I came across this.
ETA: As I listened, I kept expecting a scene in which Bunter breaks out an easel and palette while Wimsey fishes somewhere downstream, and it never happened; I started wondering about the Mandela effect, until I remembered the (also) Ian Carmichael tv adaptation. Could the memory have been from that? As a matter of fact, it could - if I recall correctly, 'tis they who find the body. Truly dreadful quality screencap to prove it:
I like the characters. I like the artists and those around them, and the police. Their personalities are brilliantly drawn, as always - DLS was always able to create marvelous, often unforgettable background and secondary characters (Miss Murchison and Bill Rumm, anyone?), and there are some great character studies here. One of my favorite author tricks is that of introducing a character from one point of view, limning their personality in that light - and then bringing in a new character who has a completely opinion on that personality. It's up to the reader to judge who's right and where the biases come from, based on the narration - and DLS is among the best at presenting these miniature dramas.
The best example here is of Gilda Farren. Campbell, in his bitter and antisocial way, worshipped her as an icon of purity and womanhood. Peter, however, casts a cynical eye at how she's staged herself - with an artist's instincts, she knows how to present a facade, sure enough - and seems to have his own ideas. Ferguson outright hates her as an "interfering, well-meaning bitch" who needs to keep out of other people's business. As for Mr. Farren - well, it's been a minute since I read this book, and in my mind the scene in which Wimsey confronts him over the new Dog & Gun inn painting felt like the finale, detective bracing murderer and with some melancholy sending him off to be hanged. When in fact it was detective bracing absconding husband and sending him home to be ... forgiven. Gilda Farren's forgiveness comes off here as a fate worse than hanging. But Campbell would have rejoiced in it. DLS is a marvel.
This chapter is one of my favorites in all of Wimsey, the one I retain from this book when everything else has faded.
And Peter and Bunter are utterly Peter and Bunter. It's mentioned that Peter has taken a small studio in Kirkcudbright (pronounced, I discover in this, the first time I'm ever hearing an audiobook version, Kir-COO-bree) because "it entertained him to watch his extremely correct personal man gutting trout and washing potatoes under an outside tap, and receiving the casual visitor with West End ceremony." And it does. Moreover, it entertained me - and I strongly suspect it entertained Bunter. He's put up with worse, after all. I think he got along gloriously well with the locals, soaked in the bits of dialect and produced them as needed to amuse Peter, and altogether enjoyed himself. (And was relieved and glad to go back to 110A Piccadilly and all its amenities.) And can I just say that Bunter's Castle of Otranto narrative is worth literally any amount of timetables.
There is a slightly different angle on Peter in this book. Instead of being ensconced amongst his incunabula and black-and-primrose library, zipping around London in Mrs Murbles and dining with the Honorable Freddy and Lady
Worthington and scoping out sales of rare books - here he is hanging out at a pub with fishermen and artists of a variety of social standings, and rambling the countryside, and getting along famously with everyone and everything. I love that he's not an expert in painting. He knows a little, as an accomplished and sophisticated nobleman must, enough to be able to assess skill and talent - but he is on the whole ignorant of the mechanics of it all. It's a good thing that he's not an expert in every field.
As for what most people feel are the drawbacks in the book - I'm fine with them. I admit to glazing over a bit when the timetables are being worked out - it's the sort of thing that is legitimately interesting only to the person on the spot trying to figure it out, and definitely not a spectator sport - but for me the interest lies with the person doing the figuring rather than the figuring itself. I like Constable Ross, who does so much of the legwork, and the snippets of character in all the many conductors and porters and bystanders and bicycle owners met along the way. The train schedules are dull - the characters are not. For me that's always what a book is about: the characters. An author can get away with a lot in my eyes if they can write good characters. DLS can get away with pretty much anything, and I'll defend her to the death. Oh, and then there's P.C. Duncan, who fantasized about infiltrating the local dressed up "(when off duty) as an aged clergyman or a Breton onion-seller" - anyone who quit the book earlier because of the timetables missed P.C. Duncan. Poor them.
Oh, and the brogue? I'm fine with that too. Context is good enough to help translate anything that is otherwise unintelligible, and I've gotten pretty good at the brogue (reading, at least).
Anyone who DNF'd the book also missed the fantastical, marvelous story of Gowan's incapacity. Told by someone else, it would probably be stupid and too improbable to swallow. Told by DLS, it is, yes, stupid - but not on the part of the author. It shows up the characters as having behaved stupidly and improbably - - and every bit in keeping with their personalities. It's a wild story, but because of the people involved in it it's the only answer. I love it.
The recreation of the crime and all its trappings is great fun. As it was coming closer, I kept thinking of Marty McFly for some reason ... Again, because of DLS's use of characters (main and NPC), it strikes entirely true.
This, as I mentioned, was the first time I listened to an audio version of the book, and I had a great time with it. I was a little disappointed that my, er, source didn't have the version read by Ian Carmichael I believe exists somewhere, but was instead read by Patrick Malahide. Don't get me wrong - it's excellent; his Peter had a somewhat odd timbre that took a moment to get used to after several books' worth of Ian Carmichael's Peter, but I approve on the whole. His brogue is fun; he produces a wide variety of tones and accents for all the different characters; I think my only quibble is with his Parker, who sounds by times a bit Cockney, and by times a bit Scots. I still want to find the Carmichael one day, but I'm very glad I came across this.
ETA: As I listened, I kept expecting a scene in which Bunter breaks out an easel and palette while Wimsey fishes somewhere downstream, and it never happened; I started wondering about the Mandela effect, until I remembered the (also) Ian Carmichael tv adaptation. Could the memory have been from that? As a matter of fact, it could - if I recall correctly, 'tis they who find the body. Truly dreadful quality screencap to prove it:
December 15, 2016
This is a solid mystery novel, very detailed, very well planned, but it didn't work particularly well for me this time around. I like the idea behind the book - a man who is fairly universally disliked is murdered, and six people have more or less equally terrible alibis. But something in the execution falls a bit flat. Perhaps it's the reread, but I suspect it's due to a combination of other factors, notably:
1. There's very little Lord Peter being, well, Lord Peter (for lack of a better description). With the exception of the reconstruction of the crime at the end, there's very little fun in the detecting in this one. It's heavy on the detail, and the planning, but light on, well, for lack of a better term, the heart. I missed Lord Peter cavorting around being vaguely charming.
2. Related to the lack of charm, the character interactions in this one are lacking. Lord Peter is on vacation, which has the effect of distancing himself from essentially all familiar characters. Parker pops up a couple of times, but it's hardly a major role. And Lord Peter's dynamic with the plethora of Scottish detectives is not the same. Bunter is there, especially in the first half, but he more or less disappears for the entire second half of the novel. More Bunter would have definitely been a help. But there is also no Dowager Duchess, no Lady Mary, no mention of Harriet (for obvious reasons), there's not even the Right Honourable Freddy. Even an appearance by the Duke of Denver or his wife would have been interesting. But no, it's just Lord Peter and a pack of strangers, which is less effective.
3. The problem with having six equally plausible suspects that are all artists, and all hate the victim is that they become interchangeable, and it's hard to keep them straight. Particularly if you read this book in fits and starts (which I did). Ditto the plethora of Scottish investigators.
4. The Scots dialect... I'm always of two minds when I see dialects written out. I was fine with this for a while, but then I kind of wished there was less of it.
5. The sheer amount of detail required gives this a clinical quality. Beth described it as "the one with all the train schedules," which I didn't remember, and didn't notice the first readthrough. But this time around, when I was already less engaged, the constant rehashing of the timeline, in an attempt to pin down everyone's movements got more than a little tiresome. It's very intricately planned, which I can objectively admire, but impressive planning is not quite enough to sustain my interest in 350+ pages of detecting.
6. The whole time I mostly just wanted to be rereading "Have his Carcase" for Harriet-related reasons. But that one is next, so, win?
To sum up: Objectively solid from a mystery plot perspective, perhaps less so from a character-driven perspective.
1. There's very little Lord Peter being, well, Lord Peter (for lack of a better description). With the exception of the reconstruction of the crime at the end, there's very little fun in the detecting in this one. It's heavy on the detail, and the planning, but light on, well, for lack of a better term, the heart. I missed Lord Peter cavorting around being vaguely charming.
2. Related to the lack of charm, the character interactions in this one are lacking. Lord Peter is on vacation, which has the effect of distancing himself from essentially all familiar characters. Parker pops up a couple of times, but it's hardly a major role. And Lord Peter's dynamic with the plethora of Scottish detectives is not the same. Bunter is there, especially in the first half, but he more or less disappears for the entire second half of the novel. More Bunter would have definitely been a help. But there is also no Dowager Duchess, no Lady Mary, no mention of Harriet (for obvious reasons), there's not even the Right Honourable Freddy. Even an appearance by the Duke of Denver or his wife would have been interesting. But no, it's just Lord Peter and a pack of strangers, which is less effective.
3. The problem with having six equally plausible suspects that are all artists, and all hate the victim is that they become interchangeable, and it's hard to keep them straight. Particularly if you read this book in fits and starts (which I did). Ditto the plethora of Scottish investigators.
4. The Scots dialect... I'm always of two minds when I see dialects written out. I was fine with this for a while, but then I kind of wished there was less of it.
5. The sheer amount of detail required gives this a clinical quality. Beth described it as "the one with all the train schedules," which I didn't remember, and didn't notice the first readthrough. But this time around, when I was already less engaged, the constant rehashing of the timeline, in an attempt to pin down everyone's movements got more than a little tiresome. It's very intricately planned, which I can objectively admire, but impressive planning is not quite enough to sustain my interest in 350+ pages of detecting.
6. The whole time I mostly just wanted to be rereading "Have his Carcase" for Harriet-related reasons. But that one is next, so, win?
To sum up: Objectively solid from a mystery plot perspective, perhaps less so from a character-driven perspective.
March 11, 2024
2.5 stars upped to 3 just because it's Lord Wimsey. This was a real slog, way too many herrings, way too convoluted, too many characters to keep track of, and way too long. But I will go on to #8 after a longish break!
November 29, 2007
Lately I've been reading a lot of mysteries. They are a fun way of spending an evening at home when there is nothing good to watch and the secondary literature in my academic discipline begins to seem a little tedious. *The Five Red Herrings* is a fine example of the genre. Unlike other Dorothy Sayers books, the mystery was done in the form of character sketches: every chapter focused on a single character, and the chapters were even named after the theme character, and the style of writing changes in many of them to reflect the person that Sayers is describing. I think I saw a movie of the book a few years ago, and it completely skipped this important structural element. I suppose Sayers got the idea to do this from the premise: the five red herrings seems to suggest multiple takes on the same situation. Admittedly, some of these takes were not as well done as others, and some chapters didn't carry out the large scale trends, but it seemed an interesting approach to a murder mystery. The story was also structured sort of like a fugue, except with contrasting motifs, that all reach a climax in the later chapters where you get multiple stories and multiple names in the chapter titles. I also really liked the opening: the fact that Sayers deliberately withheld the key fact, which even though I vaguely guessed it (I can't give up on a challenge!), added a sort of excitement to the book, since I was strongly motivated to find out if I was right. I also admit that I liked the Scottish setting, the fact that it involved painters (how many murder mysteries are there of painters?), and the key clue was unique, and the fact that it was so ingeniously constructed. I mean it takes real skill to come up with a plot that is so complicated, so consistent, and allows at least four or five equally persuasive versions of events. It is masterful. The only qualm I might have is that it doesn't emphasize any of the standard relationships that one finds in Sayers' books: Bunter and Wimsey, Harriet Vane and Whimsey, and it is even lacking some of the relationships within the Wimsey family, all things that most Sayers fans probably depend upon. But I suppose that this added a certain charm. Like Jane Austen's *Mansfield Park* it is a different sort of Sayers, and variety, after all, is the spice of life.
November 23, 2016
Writing a murder mystery where all of the suspects are basically the same character is a bold move. I've done it in Jolly Foul Play, so I guess I can't fault Sayers for doing it too, but ... my personal ability to differentiate between six Scottish young white adult male artists with facial hair is LOW and so I was on the back foot from the beginning. I'm not saying this isn't a great mystery story, because it is, with a clever solution - it was just a lot more confusing to me than most of her other books. 14+ (which is a rating based on density of text and story rather than content. Nothing in here that an 8 year old couldn't cope with, but I think older readers will enjoy it much more)
*Please note: this review is meant as a recommendation only. Please do not use it in any marketing material, online or in print, without asking permission from me first. Thank you!*
*Please note: this review is meant as a recommendation only. Please do not use it in any marketing material, online or in print, without asking permission from me first. Thank you!*
April 19, 2021
3.5 stars
This book has had a very bad press: it's complicated, it's all about the puzzle, it's too cerebral, Wimsey pockets a clue, but you'll only know that if you are an experienced artist, there's no love interest...etc etc.
But that's not what the book is actually about.
I gave a talk about what this book meant to Sayers, for a series entitled "The Geography of Literature", which I've put up on my resurrected blog here.
This book has had a very bad press: it's complicated, it's all about the puzzle, it's too cerebral, Wimsey pockets a clue, but you'll only know that if you are an experienced artist, there's no love interest...etc etc.
But that's not what the book is actually about.
I gave a talk about what this book meant to Sayers, for a series entitled "The Geography of Literature", which I've put up on my resurrected blog here.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,075 reviews