Whose Body? was my first book by Dorothy Sayers, and I enjoyed it more than I thought I might when I first started it. Ironically, the book was also Dorothy’s debut book, written in 1923.

As I got into the book there were some references to ethnicities that I thought were a bit inappropriate but when I found out that Sayers wrote this series, featuring Sir Peter Whimsy, with satire in mind, I hoped that the references were meant to show the incorrect attitudes of the characters and not show what Sayers really thought about Jews.

One article I read said that her goal was to poke some fun at the upper crust and their attitudes about Jewish people but other articles disagreed. Some literary critics said they weren’t really sure what Sayers thought about Jews but that she did perpetuate quite a few stereotypes while also appearing to paint Jews in a positive light.

Before we get into all that, though, let’s talk a bit about the plot of the book.

Lord Wimsey is a nobleman who has developed an interest in solving murders and mysteries as a hobby. At first, he seems rather stuck up and proper, but as the book continues, there is much more to Peter Wimsey than meets the eye.

Thipps is an architect who finds a body in his bathtub wearing nothing but a pair of glasses. He looks to Lord Wimsey to help him solve this murder before he contacts the police.

Wimsey agrees to privately investigate the matter but still suggests the police be called. An Inspector Sugg shows up and believes the body may belong to famous financier Sir Reuben Levy, who disappeared under mysterious circumstances the night before.

His disappearance is being led by Inspector Charles Parker, who Wimsey knows.

The body in the bath does somewhat resemble Reuben, but not exactly and soon it’s clear the body isn’t his and the two cases probably are not connected. Despite the lack of connection, Wimsey joins Parker in his investigation.

Wimsey’s connections to other wealthy people will help Parker in his investigation, he decides. Together with Wimsey’s manservant Mervyn Bunter, who he just calls Bunter, the three work to find the identity of the one man and to find out if Reuben was, in fact, murdered.

Like any mystery with a lighter flair there are red herrings and complex twists and turns aimed at confusing the reader and delaying the revelation of the true killer

Eventually Wimsey and Parker visit a teaching hospital near Thipps’s flat to see if one of the students had been trying to play a practical joke on Thipps.

Evidence later given at an inquest by Sir Julian Freke, who runs the teaching college, reveals that no bodies were missing from his dissecting room, which leads Wimsey to believe he is on the wrong trail.

I enjoyed the twists and turns of this one and I especially enjoyed Wimsey’s tricks, verbal sparrings with suspects, and how he seemed to mock his own class throughout much of the book.

His character was created by Sayers during a time when she was low on money and prospects. She’d also had a few failed love affairs, according to historians.

Of her creation of Wimsey, Sayers said, “Lord Peter’s large income… I deliberately gave him… After all it cost me nothing and at the time I was particularly hard up and it gave me pleasure to spend his fortune for him. When I was dissatisfied with my single unfurnished room I took a luxurious flat for him in Piccadilly. When my cheap rug got a hole in it, I ordered him an Aubusson carpet. When I had no money to pay my bus fare I presented him with a Daimler double-six, upholstered in a style of sober magnificence, and when I felt dull I let him drive it. I can heartily recommend this inexpensive way of furnishing to all who are discontented with their incomes. It relieves the mind and does no harm to anybody.”.

In their 1989 review of crime novels, the US writers Barzun and Taylor called the book “a stunning first novel that disclosed the advent of a new star in the firmament, and one of the first magnitude. The episode of the bum in the bathtub, the character (and the name) of Sir Julian Freke, the detection, and the possibilities in Peter Wimsey are so many signs of genius about to erupt. Peter alone suffers from fatuousness overdone, a period fault that Sayers soon blotted out”

Going back to the antisemitism that seems to be in this book — and from what I read, other Sayers books: this was prevalent in books written by British crime writers, especially those who came from upper class families. There was a deep-seeded distrust and dislike of Jews among the rich of Britain. We can see this most clearly in Agatha Christie’s novels where, to me, it is clear she wasn’t a big fan of Jewish people and often made them the villains of her novels.

Sayres views of Jews are complex, muddled and confusing, wrote Amy Schwartz of Moment Magazine. Sayers was once in an affair with a Jewish man who broke her heart and worked with many. She didn’t shy away from writing characters who married and had children with Jews, even if they weren’t.

She still used many stereotypes, including that they were greedy, or at least good with money, but did she feel that way about Jews herself? There is a ton of evidence that suggests she didn’t and as one commentor on Schwartz’s article writes: “Isn’t it possible that writers reflect in their fiction the world that they observe, rather than create themselves over and over again? The character is not the author.”

In other words, it is very possible that Sayers was writing the characters and how they thought and believed, not saying she believed the same things.

You can read more about Schwartz’s views on Sayers views on Jews and how that played into her writing here: https://momentmag.com/curious-case-dorothy-l-sayers-jew-wasnt/?srsltid=AfmBOorDo1MUIdcqPBbz0ejgOITsXaQDv7KccGFdTytZwsxuDb7VaiKu

Despite not being sure what Sayers thought of Jews and being a bit uncomfortable with the comments of some characters about them, I did enjoy the book and Sayers writing style. I enjoyed that she writes more descriptively than Christie and therefore helps the reader feel closer to the characters and more involved with the story.

The complexity of this story was just enough to keep me puzzled until very close to the end and even when I knew who the guilty party was, I thoroughly enjoyed Wimsey’s verbal banter with the “villain.”

Have you ever read this book or any of Sayers books?

*Note: If I review Sayers books in the future, I don’t plan to comment on her views of Jews every time. Many writers portrayed people of various minorities in a negative light throughout the years. It doesn’t make it right, but it happened often. Sometimes the writers believed those things about the minorities but sometimes they were showing the true feelings of the characters they were writing for the sake of the story. It’s impossible to determine what a writer’s actual intentions were in most cases. I hate to throw out entire books simply because I don’t know the actual heart and mind of the authors since they are all dead now. Instead, I will try to focus on the stories as a whole.