I loaned a book to my sister once and she accidentally left it somewhere, but had no clue where that might be. It had a note scribbled on the back of the dust jacket, so now every time she walks into a used bookstore, she looks for the book. She’s sure that some day it will turn up, just like in the movie “Serendipity.” 
I only lend books that I don’t ever expect to see again. If I get them back (which I sometimes do), it’s a happy surprise or I will encourage the lender to find someone else who may enjoy the book to lend/give it to.
@Mary13 - what’s the book and what’s the scribble? Maybe one of us has it!
From earliest childhood, baby sister has always had a reputation of “borrowing” from the rest of us. She is cleaning out her house during stay at home. This week I received a box of books she borrowed so long ago I barely remember them. Inside I had written my name and the date: 1964
@Marilyn, haha, it’s a hard copy of The Lovely Bones, with a faint image of a handwritten “happy birthday” on the back, when someone in the house used the book as a base while writing the message on a thin piece of paper, and the ink bled through.
It’s June 1st! Welcome to our discussion of And Then There Were None by Agatha Christie and Whose Body? by Dorothy L. Sayers.
I found both books to be quick, enjoyable reads. I started with And Then There Were None and appreciated Christie’s careful plotting and crisp, clean, declarative sentences. Then I moved on to Whose Body? and realized right away that this one was more my style. I laughed through much of it—loved Peter Wimsey’s British humor—and enjoyed the characters, who were more like real people and less like characters in a “Clue” game.
Neither book gets five stars, though, because of the casual anti-Semitism. I know that was a by-product of the times, but every slur made me cringe.
Having read neither book before—nor anything else by either author—I was quite amused by the fact that both ended with a long, detailed letter from the murderer explaining how he accomplished his crime.
From the end of Whose Body?:
From the end of And Then There Were None
Both books employ the same “chatty criminal” trope, which is also common in TV shows and movies, but I doubt, somehow, in real life.
I couldn’t find any discussion questions for Whose Body?, but here is a list from Lit Lovers for And Then There Were None.
I did find some interesting commentary on Whose Body? from a library discussion: https://www.lislelibrary.org/murderamongfriends/our-book-discussion-whose-body-dorothy-l-sayers
I also found a lively discussion by another group who beat us to the punch: https://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=293500
I enjoyed both books, but Agatha Christie’s reminded me very much of why I rarely read them. I am just not that interested in the the puzzle aspect of it and her characters left me cold. It’s not just that they were unlikable (a good thing, since they were all going to get murdered), but they also seemed remarkably uninteresting I ended up having a sticky on the page with the recording of who did what and referring back to the first chapter. It also felt like a bit of a cheat to get what each character was thinking, but then obviously seriously censoring one.
I too am bothered by the stereotypes of Jewish characters, but I would like to point out that in Dorothy Sayer’s case, I don’t think it quite the same. There is no question that her Jews are all in finance, and I thought it quite interesting that Peter’s mother at one point says, “We’re all Jews now”, I think meaning that most of the aristocracy actually has to work now. (Though obviously Lord Peter doesn’t.) Peter’s friend Freddy is wooing a Jewish young woman and (SPOILER ALERT BELOW!)
Meanwhile Dorothy Sayers herself was in a serious relationship with a Jewish man and seems to have had a much more complicated relationship with the Jewish faith. This was a very interesting read: https://momentmag.com/curious-case-dorothy-l-sayers-jew-wasnt/ So to me the issue is not antisemitism per se, but more the British habit of describing all races in ways that seem ugly to us today. Some seem positively bizarre such as describing Jews as having thick lips. I began to wonder do the Brits in general have unusually thin lips?
Anyway, I read Sayers because I’m fond of Peter who becomes considerably less silly as the series progresses. I like him because he cares about people and why they act the way they do. It’s all about motive.
SPOILER
in another book (Strong Poison) eventually not only marries her, but also converts to Judaism.
I enjoyed both books, despite being forced to read on a screen. Never having read Sayers previously, I quickly discovered that Lord Peter Wimsey is the model for several detectives in books I’ve enjoyed over the years. I’ve moved on to the second in the series, and stumbled across a website that may be helpful for others - it gives context for some of the turns of phrase in the books. http://www.dandrake.com/wimsey/whos.html
Huge huge Sayers ’ fan. Consider Wimsey superior to Darcy as a romantic hero (later books) and iirc he does sort of work for a living, with savvy investing in London real estate. Really love the character. Because of knowing serious book collectors, one of my favorite descriptions ever is Wimsey thinking there’s probably a greater chance the rare book he wants comes up again (Vatican might be invaded ha ha) than a body turns up in a bathtub. And the difficulties of a man having two hobbies.
It seemed to me a wonderful pairing, since I’ve always thought Christie more plot driven, and Sayers more about character development. Though that may only be my impression.
I haven’t finished And Then There Were None. No problem though, as I’d already read it, albeit long ago. I remember the who-done-it.
I lean toward Christie at the moment. I like her “careful plotting” and puzzling out her mysteries.
Lord Peter Wimsey came across a bit too whimsical for me - at least, at first. I ended up liking the first book, but it took a while. (Thank Bunter for that.) I requested the second in the series, so I obviously liked the first enough to want to check out the next one.
The characters in And Then There Were None serve the plot rather than vice versa. In Whose Body characters take precedence. Maybe too much so, as I figured out the “who” and managed a good guess at the “why” almost immediately. I found the lengths the murderer went to unrealistic - carrying the body across rooftops etc - so consider that one of my complaints. I’m not quite sure why I give Christie a pass on that in ATTWN but I do. (At least at the moment, I still have a good bit of reading left to do.)
Overall, great choices to follow the Middlemarch discussion.
*I read @alh’s post after typing mine. We evidently agree on plot vs. character.
Great pairing during some stressful times. Both books transported me to another time and place.
My first experience with both authors, and enjoyed Christie more because she engaged me with the puzzle, the mystery, and completely surprised me with their clever ending.
Sayers, was second, and enjoyed the humor, envisioned a black and white 1930-1940 movie characters, hearing their accents, and banter. Loved Wimsey’s relationship with his valet, and his mother.
After being so intrigued with Christie’s skillful, complicated murder mystery, was disappointed with “Whose Body” conclusions, and drawn out use of Two letters to explain the plot. The ending seemed anti climatic.
@mary13 I did think about “clue” game and Christie book.
Both has clear ( to me ) cases of anti Semitism and it was very disturbing.
@mathmom from your article about Sayers and antisemitism,
Also, in the article Sayers personal love life was such a mess.
Absolutely. The idea of transporting a dead body such a distance and through a bathroom window–a man of some girth, no less–was fairly absurd. And I don’t give Agatha Christie a pass either. I was amused by the part of the Judge’s confession where he fakes his own death. I know that Dr. Armstrong was an accomplice there, but the others “carried me upstairs and laid me on my bed.” Without being able to tell the difference between a live man and dead one!
Also, I read (too much) about decomposition during And Then There Were None. There would be some mighty toxic gases floating around that house even within a few hours of the first death, much less a few days.
On the whole, though, I don’t mind exercising Suspension of Disbelief. The stories are just fun, not clinical studies or reports on the laws of physics.
The whimsical was what I loved about him – because it’s hiding something so much darker. A poster on the other discussion that I linked to wrote that Lord Peter was, “a mash-up of Sherlock Holmes and Bertie Wooster, with a dash of the Scarlet Pimpernel in his silly-ass-about-town-demeanor to hide his serious side.”
(Re the Bertie Wooster allusion – Bunter as the uber-competent and unflappable Jeeves, obviously.)
I also liked his friendship with Parker.
Has anyone ever seen the movies with Ian Carmichael? (not I – having just been introduced to the character of Lord Peter): https://www.amazon.com/Lord-Peter-Wimsey-Complete-Collection/dp/B00009WNVN
^yes. Bad war experiences, with Bunter. And horrible internal struggles with issues of morality and personal responsibility.
Peter’s character, and some very involved back stories, unfold as you read the Wimsey series. That’s off topic for this discussion though. However, it’s one of those series many readers enjoy more on reread. We barely know him at the end of this book.
For me, Christie’s mysteries can be enjoyed as individual stand alone books. Sayers not so much.
@jerseysouthmomchess You’re right of course, that she did end up being a Christian apologist and gave up writing dectective novels all together as well.
I thought the explanation for how the murders happened were okay until we got to the judge. There was no way there would not have been blood everywhere if he’d really been shot, even with the red curtains. I also did not buy that he just assumed Vera would somehow “frizzle up” to quote the verse. Finally the murderer’s own suicide seem pretty far-fetched.
I thought the letters were sort of a disappointing way of ending the book, but at least we know the how and the who. I remember reading some mystery by Martha Grimes because I was sucked into her wanting to know what happened next to her annoying regular set of characters. The mystery ends with her detective looking across the marsh, thinking something like, “Ah that’s how it was done.” And then nothing. I threw the book across the room and never read a book of hers again. I’m still mad! (Note looking at GoodReads I wonder if I missed something.)
Mary… I prefer Edward Petherbridge as Peter.
@ahl: I got the impression - re continuing onward with Lord Peter - that I could turn into a fan. I liked him and his mother and Bunter and Parker more and more as I read.
His mother is one of my all time favorite characters.
eta: reread both books last summer. Can’t remember Then There Were None at all, so will find and read now.