A Lord Peter Wimsey / Harriet Vane Mystery - Thrones

I had read "Busman's Holiday" and this filled in details of Lord Peter and Harriet's collaboration in solving a tangled murder mystery -- great story. Anyone who likes Dorothy Sayers will like this book.

Written in a style close to Sayers' own handling of Lord Peter in his later incarnations, this book affords a charming glimpse into the first year of Lord and Lady Peter's marriage. One hopes many more adventures will follow.

Dorothy Sayer's mystery novels were a much beloved part of my youth. I am so pleased to find that the stories are continuing. Jill Patton Walsh does a remarkable job matching the voice and soul of the original.

Whatever happened to Lord Peter Wimsey after he was married? How did Harriet deal with the duchess? Where did they live?

Answers to these and more questions reside in Thrones, Dominations, first of the “new” Lord Peter Wimsey/Harriet Vane novels, based on notes left by the original author. The novel reads just like its predecessors. Lord Peter and Harriet Vane change only in that they’re growing together, as married couples will. Coping and changing are interesting, of course, bound by love and split by family and a changing world. So a dead body isn’t the only complication.

Society moves on, ideas change, and Harriet leads the way, very tidily. The dialog remains pitch-perfect, relationships just as expected and nicely humorous. The gap between rich and poor opens occasional doors. And a home in the country might be as dangerous as one in town.

A story of culture and relationships, told with well timed mystery; I’d love to read move.

Disclosure: I loved Dorothy Sayers’ books and wasn’t sure what to expect, but now I’m delighted.

If you liked Pride and Prejudice, you may find Thrones and Dominations surprisingly pleasant to read, and I recommend it to you. I was so taken by the writing that I read the novel through twice without interrupting it for any other fiction. Let me explain.

Pride and Prejudice is one of my favorite novels. Jane Austen is one of my favorite writers. I have often thought what a pity it is that there are only 6 Austen novels, her life being cut short by an unknown disease. I have searched for more Austenness in other works, largely in vain. There are dozens of Austen fan-fiction novels, extending and expanding the lives of her characters. Even now I am awaiting the broadcast of part 2 of Death Comes to Pemberley, a Masterpiece Theater dramatization of P.D. James’ novel, which is the most famous and probably best of these efforts. But Mr. Darcy’s Diary, Jane and the Unpleasantness at Scargrave, and even Death Comes to Pemberley all lack the one thing I want to read: writing like Jane Austen’s. No one seems to be able to catch her style, or her essence, so the follow up books are disappointing to me. I found some of what I wanted in Thrones and Dominations.

Thrones and Dominations is a murder mystery set in 1930’s England. Not a promising beginning for one desperately seeking Austen. But it is set in the English upper class – the same social set Austen depicted. And little has changed in that society composed of people who have enough unearned income to allow them to not work for a living. For the novelist, such people, freed from so many of the distractions of everyday life, provide the perfect canvas for painting the struggles of their heroines to determine how life should best be lived. If you could do what you want, what would you want to do? Add the second question: if you have a successful life already and then marry into great wealth, will you survive the change as the same person? That was the question for Elizabeth Bennet, it is the question for Harriet Vane. She is a successful mystery novelist, courted by then married to Lord Peter Wimsey, the famous gentleman detective.

But plot summaries are not helpful in describing literature. What is wanted is the quality of the writing, the insight into human character, and the wit with which it is expressed. I hesitate to provide examples, but here is one. This is the inner situation of Lawrence Harwell, gentleman producer of plays in an age when many plays were produced. We are told that he can not recognize a good play when he reads it, but can when he sees it on stage, so his successes come from bringing to London plays from the boonies, Off-Broadway, as it were. He is somewhat successful, but has a more successful rival. Here is Harwell’s thinking about sexual harmony in the home.

“He believed there were indeed men that came to a placid understanding with their wives in this matter. They were the men that people wrote plays about: cheerful, stupid, complacent men who were always cuckolded in the third act, amid the acquiescent laughter even of the upper circle, that stronghold of propriety. The author always made it clear that these men roused no passionate response in their wives; the corollary followed that so long as you could rouse passion all was well with you. As for those plays in which women went about offering spontaneous passion to all and sundry, they were clearly perverse and very seldom box-office; and if a play was not box-office it was because the public did not recognize it for truth.”

There is, of course, a murder mystery in the plot, with bizarre and astonishing aspects, psychologically revealing. But no spoilers shall sully my review. For me the writing, and the progress of Harriet Vane were the enticing aspects of the novel. Lord Peter, like Mr. Darcy, gets a secondary role. But I can’t resist one further excerpt. Lord Peter is investigating the murder of a person and this ensues:

“It is perfectly possible, I suppose,” said Lord Peter to his wife, over breakfast, “for someone to be murdered while doing something she does not usually do, or behaving in a way unaccustomed to her. But it is an affront to the natural feelings of a criminologist, all the same”

“It has the feeling of lightning striking twice in the same spot, you mean?”

“It does rather. I would greatly prefer it if every tiny break in precedent was in some way connected to the crime. And therefore could be constructed as a clue by a brainy enough person.”

“Well, if this were a work of fiction, one would certainly make sure that was the case,” said Harriet. “But in real life, Peter, don’t people usually do unusual things? Aren’t they always going places for the first time, mildly surprising their friends by little switches in behavior, suddenly getting bored, or headachy, and dashing out to parties, or going early to bed, or buying a red dress instead of a blue one, or suddenly marrying, at the age of forty-five, a highly unsuitable person?”

“Do you mean that unpredictable behavior may simply reveal the secret truth of someone’s inner man or woman?”

“In a novel, of course it would. Things have to be connected or the reader would not believe them.”

Now to go back and read some other Dorothy Sayers novels, to see if these excerpts are hers, or her co-writer's. I recommend this book, despite feeling that a bit of it, mostly relating to current events, could have been left out. Nothing is perfect, even this review.

If you are a fan of Dorothy Sayers' elegant, though weak-chinned and monocle-wearing detective Lord Peter Wimsey, you will be happy to squeeze any last traces out of the scraps of the late Ms. Sayers' writing desk. This is a collaboration based on a partly completed manuscript and a plot outline by Ms. Sayers, completed 60 years later by Booker Prize finalist Jill Paton Walsh. It is literate, witty, and includes many of our favorite supporting cast members, including the indispensable Bunter, Lord Peter's valet, Lord Peter's indomitable mother, the Dowager Duchess, and of course Lord Peter's wife, lover, and sometime colleague, the inimitable Harriet Vane. It takes quite awhile before we get to our first corpse, but in the meantime we get a lot of amusing portraits of high-level British society, some intimate views of the Wimsey/Vane marriage, and of course a lot of literary allusions. Admirers of John Donne's poetry will be particularly delighted.

When this novel appeared it was a wholly unexpected delight, like a simultaneous birthday and Christmas present. And when I first read it, I was equally delighted - these were convincingly the characters who are so dear to their fans, and it was an exciting plot. But whereas I have regularly reread the subsequent Wimsey novels by JPW (and goodness knows how often I have read the originals), I find that in this book once the murder is discovered I lose interest. Now JPW has said (in a lecture at Witham) how difficult she found it to complete the detective part of this novel, and with the benefit of this hindsight I think it's not hard to see why DLS abandoned the novel. The murder plot doesn't give enough opportunity for interesting development. In Five Red Herrings or Have His Carcase the plots may be implausible, but by gum, the details are so rich and interesting. Now both of those novels involve the construction of extraordinarily complex alibis. With the murder here, such planning is simply not in the picture. Having said that, I enjoy the social parts, and the pages where Harriet is visited by the Countess of Severn and Thames are among my favourites in the whole Wimsey canon.
I don't pretend to guess where DLS stopped and JPW took over, and I'm very prepared to believe that there wasn't a clear demarcation - that JPW had to do some editing and expansion in what DLS had already written. The one give-away is that JPW's quotations (and especially the chapter superscriptions) are crashingly obvious clichés.
Having said all that, I am immensely grateful for this book and for its successors.

Thrones, Dominations is the continuation of the Wimseys' story after Busman's Honeymoon. Jill Paton Walsh has Sayers' voice to a tee. The characters of our old friends Harriet, Wimsey, Bunter, Helen, Gerald and even Freddie and the Dowager Duchess are pitch-perfect and the domestic details and adjustments of their lives are charming.

What's missing is the depth that made Sayers's books iconic. The names, descriptions and actions of the characters are perfect, but their motivations are not as sophisticated nor as revealed as Sayers would have written. That's OK. I'm always happy to revisit WimseyWorld.

The plotting is excellent, and as intricate and broad as in Sayers' finest. In Thrones, Dominations, we visit the world of London theater, fashion and finance, and there's a bit of world news as the old King dies and the new King proves less than satisfactory, necessitating several interventions by Peter in his Foreign Office capacity. Mrs. Simpson hovers on the periphery, and there are strong hints of what's to come.

Thrones, Dominations is an excellent period mystery peopled with familiar characters. I enjoyed it very much.

As other reviewers have said, I was delighted when I first discovered that Peter Wimsey was back. Walsh does a commendable job with these beloved characters and I enjoyed the book very much. It's not Sayers. Wimsey is not as flippant, and the story is as much historical narrative as it is novel. As an entry into the Wimsey canon, I'm giving it 4 stars.

But, in all honesty, if I had read this as a standalone, without being familiar with the original Sayers stories, I would likely have given it all 5 stars. I'm slighly biased in favor of the originals, and that's all that should be read into it. It's a really well written book in its own right, and while the historical forays distract from the fun somewhat, making some passages a bit wordier than necessary, they are also excellent at placing the story and giving it the tone and atmosphere necessary to put new readers into that world. Sayers, of course, didn't need it because when she wrote them, the stories were contemporary. But time has passed and that world is not so familiar, especially to folks who are just discovering British mysteries from that era.

With the exception of her Dante translation, I have devoured virtually Dorothy Sayers' entire output, mystery and theology. I believe divine Dottie is the most brilliant woman produced by the 20th century, and I look upon Lord Peter and Harriet Vane with near-worship, as my favorite literary couple, with Darcy and Lizzie running a close second.

If Jill Paton Walsh had written nothing else, this would stand as a career-defining triumph. I was incredulous when another Sayers aficianado told me that an Oxford alum had mustered the overweening chutzpah to touch divine Dottie and finish "Thrones, Dominations." It would not (and could not) be "The Nine Tailors" or "Gaudy Night"--Dottie herself was growing bored with Lord Peter by the time she novelized the play "Busman's Honeymoon" and could not have approached the brilliance of either masterpiece, even if she had lived to complete the novel herself. But I was floored, positively floored, by Walsh's accomplishment. As the concluding Author's Note states, Sayers' "Gaudy Night" inspired Walsh to go to Oxford, and this is Walsh's thank-you, a painstaking labor of love.

In "Thrones, Dominations," the almost idyllic Wimsey union is paralleled by a more troubled, more forced, more fake marriage between a shallow, stupid beauty (think Dian Momerie of Peter's former acquaintance) and a theatre man--until the shallow beauty, whom the brilliant, honest Harriet was attempting to befriend with predictable difficulty, turns up dead. The ensuing mystery unfolds with Sayeresque twists and turns, and Walsh can be forgiven for not bewildering the reader with several apparently airtight alibis and plausible murderers, as Sayers and only a handful of other mystery writers have been able to do.

How did Walsh do it? How did she maintain Peter and Harriet's delicious tete-a-tetes sprinkled with literary allusions, while settling them into a believable post-honeymoon life with the pressures of writing, detection, a certain opera singer from Peter's playboy days, and Harriet's morning sickness? We could quibble over some new shades of characterization; whether Helen, Duchess of Denver, was ever this godawful, for instance, or whether Bunter was ever intended by Sayers to marry, given the discovery of an unpublished short story by Sayers in which Bunter is still a bachelor butler chasing after the three junior Wimseys. But Walsh pulls it off, beautifully. Given the loving artfulness with which Harriet and Peter accommodate a prospective Mrs. Bunter, which are so thoroughly in character, I cannot find fault with Walsh's liberties in getting Bunter a bride.

Walsh is particularly brilliant to make use of one of Sayers' most enthralling narrative techniques: the Dowager Duchess's faithful daily diary. The Dowager is eerily spot-on, 99% accurate.

If I must quibble with something, my biggest (minor) gripe would be that the murder itself has a sexual element that divine Dottie would likely never have considered, making "Thrones, Dominations" a decidedly modern novel in spite of all the major characters and their patterns of interaction having been set by Sayers half a century ago. However, in a novel in which Harriet and Peter are watching the rise of the Third Reich and discussing the threat of modern warfare, even the sexual component seems to fit; it seems like a carefully crafted foreshadowing of things just over the horizon. Sayers herself had prophetic gifts. "Thrones" is at least as good as some of Sayers' lesser Lord Peter outings. As an addition to the other Harriet-and-Peter novels, I found it entertaining and satistying. I can't believe Walsh even tried it, but I'm very glad she did.

I started reading this book feeling unsure that I would enjoy it. I love all of Dorothy Sayers' work and didn't know how successfully Jill Paton Walsh had been able to capture her unique writing style. To my pleasant surprise, I found that Walsh really had captured Sayers' voice. The book was full of the witty one-liners that are packed with so much meaning, that are sprinkled throughout the Lord Peter Wimsey books. The atmosphere of London circa 1935 is very well portrayed and I felt that a real effort was made at character development, particularly that of Harriet Wimsey, who is shown as being less prickly and more self-confident as she adapts to married life. That is a very welcome change from "Gaudy Night" where, although you sympathize with her, you can also become very irritated at her oversensitivity. My only criticism was that the actual mystery is a lot thinner than Sayers' usual works, which are densely and intricately plotted with many fascinating sidebars. Still, I would highly recommend the book to fans of Sayers, simply because of the great atmosphere and the chance to see one of the most fascinating fictional detectives ever, in action. How I wish Sayers had written more mysteries!

Execpt for "Busman's Honeymoon", actually written and published after a play and movie by the same name, and some rather off-hand short stories, the story of Lord Peter Whimsey and his amorata, Harriet Vane, effectively ends with Gaudy Night, which is not strictly a murder mystery. What a joy then to read Throne, Dominations. It is virtually impossible to tell where D.L. Sayers ends and her collaborator Jill Paton Walsh begins. In fact, in many ways this book is the perfect bridge between the still fading Edwardian World of the earliest books and the modern world introduced by the ominous rumblings of WWII as it approaches the couple, recuperating from their rather lurid honeymoon and still trying to merge two high-strung and independent minds into one marriage. The mystery is taut and truly interesting, the characters alive and vivid. Much praise and kudos to both authors and to the family of Sayers for giving closure to those of us fanatical fans who were disatisfied with where we were left in the life of Harriet Vane and Lord Peter Whimsey. Execellence in form and content!

In Murder Must Advertise, Wimsey briefly portrays a charicature of himself as a cold, stiff, conceited, well-educated lord. It's an hilarious episode, since it's a ruse perpetrated by the true Lord Peter (dear Lord Peter!) - quick-witted, playful, noble in the ancient sense.

In Thrones, Dominations, however, not only Wimsey, but also Harriet, Parker, and Bunter are sad, pale imitations of themselves. There's even one scene in which Parker says something abysmal like, "I don't mind if Bunter takes photgraphs. I have seen Bunter's photographs before. They are of a good quality. He knows better than to mess up the evidence, too." Who ARE these people? It's true that Wimsey and Harriet still quote various texts at one another. In the grand style of an ill-begot sequel, however, the majority of the quoting is from Sayer's previous works - half the sentences seem to start with "Remember that time when we...?". There's a very obnoxious mix of constant reference to Sayers' novels, a desire to wrap up all the "loose ends" in them, and complete lack of any resemblence to them.
More upsetting, however, than the problems with style and characterization, is the heavy-handed way in which Walsh handles the moral and ethical dilemmas Sayers carefully developed over the whole of the LPW series. The worst error is perhaps made just in the "wrapping-up" tone that permeates the novel - as if Lord Peter and Harriet had reached their pinnacle, and would not grow any farther. One equally striking, however, is Walsh's incapacity to deal delicately and knowledgeably with the notion of nobility.
Thrones, Dominations may be a decent book. It's not an especially intricate or interesting mystery story - it has none of the technical descriptions and details that characterize Sayers' books. But it's certainly not a Lord Peter Wimsey mystery.

First in the Lord Peter Wimsey / Harriet Vane historical mystery series that continues from where Dorothy Sayers left off in Busman's Honeymoon (Lord Peter Wimsey, #13), the last full-length story in the initial Lord Peter Wimsey series (the LPW/ HV marks the point where Jill Paton Walsh has taken on Sayers' legacy).

It's 1936 and Lord and Lady Peter are coming to London off their honeymoon via Paris.

My Take
Oh, this was so warmly wonderful. I have adored Dorothy Sayers' Lord Peter Wimsey stories forever, and I finally took the plunge into Walsh's continuance of this particular story which Sayers had started but never finished. I so hate having to use my own imagination to determine how a series' characters continue through with their lives, and I'm so pleased that Walsh is doing it for me, lazy sod that I am *she says with a laugh*.

Yes, it has been years since I last read any Sayers, and, yes, there is a tiny, tiny bit of disconnect, and I'm curious as to whether Walsh can continue in Presumption of Death. We'll see as it's in the TBR pile of the week. AND, on the whole, it is well worth it as Walsh did a marvelous job of continuing in Sayers' style.

I simply adore the characters in this. Sayers took the stereotypical image of a noble family and turned at least two of its members on their bloodline with Lady Mary marrying out and a policeman, no less! Horrors! But then Lord Peter made everything worse by marrying a possible murderess! A scheming woman who simply took the opportunity to marry in, darlings. At least that's what the horrific duchess believes! Sayers has such fun mocking Helen; it's such a naughty treat to enjoy it! Then there's the lovely dowager duchess and Lord St. George. It's something of a Miss Marple crossed with the Toff with the upper crust mucking with the much, much lower.

As Walsh states in a foreword:
"I have loved and admired Lord Peter since first I met him...his undying charm arises from a characteristic...that he requires as his consort, a spirited woman who is his intellectual equal."

I just adore how very much in love these two are and the ways in which they express it. They are so circumspect and so finely in tune with each other. And each is so careful in how they adjust to being married. Harriet so fiercely independent and yet protective of Peter while Peter is so fiercely protective of her independence.

This is one of the loveliest love scenes I've read in a very long time:
"I could never storm a citadel, however ill-defended. The only thing that tempts me is a wide-open gate, and the trumpets sounding welcome."

"Alone of all your sex?"

"...I think I would rather explore without a guide."

"No maps of the interior?"

"Just surveys of my own making. What kind of trumpets do you want to sound your welcome?..."

The two of them are always exchanging quotes from various authors including John Donne, a bit of a favorite of theirs. Then there's that lovely definition of noblesse oblige that Harriet provides. Very sensible.

As I think about it, this story is of Harriet and Peter settling down to married life with the murder a convenient [although not to the victim] way of bringing out their individual fears, providing a way for them to confront and settle those fears. I like that each time one of them thinks of offering up an anodyne such as "of course not", they stop. Instead they tell each other the truth. Their consideration for each other should be part of a marriage manual!

OH, Peter has such a lovely justification for Harriet's detective stories. And it's true, detective stories, the suspense, the thrillers, all those types do have a purpose for Joe [and Josephine!] average. That of a world in which justice is fed, a world which ought to be true. It's a hope that, yes, it is possible that all the corruption and greed that decides so many lives does have a counter to it. And so we hope. Read this story if only for what Peter says to his beloved wife. As he explains what is so very valuable about her "good story with a few thrills and reversals".

It's amazing how each clue uncovered, no matter how independent it appears, leads to the next and eventually joins all the puzzle pieces.

Then there's the psychology of comfort and how it makes it so difficult to push on with writing---authors will enjoy this bit, and it provides a nice bit of insight on some causes of writer's block. Chapparelle's comments to Harriet when she's sitting for her portrait are...I don't know how to explain it, but he's so very insightful and I love how he determines what the sitter is thinking and experiencing just by the expression on their faces. Damn, there's something for everyone in Thrones, Dominations!

The Story
Lord and Lady Peter Wimsey are finishing up their honeymoon with a side trip to Paris before arriving back in London to take up married life.

It's at a family dinner party the duchess arranges to introduce Harriet to society that everyone receives the first shock of their marriage, for Harriet fully intends to continue writing. And, horrors, under her maiden name! Surely, she doesn't need to work now that she's married to Peter!?

That same night, King George V dies, and the irresponsible Edward steps into place.

It's all a matter of fitting themselves into this new married life of theirs, with each so careful of the other's thoughts and feelings. The checks provided by a few murders and a disruption in the household are enough to rouse past fears.

The Characters
Harriet Vane is now Lady Peter Wimsey (and what a treat to read an author who understands the proper way of addressing a lady). Harriet resisted Peter for years under a mistaken impression of why he pursued her.

Lord Peter Wimsey is a second son and, as such, has been free to indulge his interests in rare books, music, wine, and sleuthing. The Foreign Office has had reason to appreciate his suave, unassuming, intelligence. Bunter is his man in all things whether its the dressing of Lord Peter, the pursuit of the criminal mind, or placing his photographic interests at his master's requirements.

The newly established Wimsey household consists of:
Mrs. Trapp has been serving the Denvers for decades and now chooses to be Peter's housekeeper. Meredith is the butler and Bunter's brother. Juliet Mango is a convicted shoplifter with an eye for style and protocol who becomes Harriet's lady's-maid. And an excellent addition to the sleuthing team. Miss Bracy is Harriet's secretary entrusted with typing up her manuscripts and impatiently knitting when there is nothing to type. Ahem.

The rest of the Wimsey family includes:
Gerald is the well-meaning Duke of Denver and, unfortunately, Peter got all the wits. Although, I do rather like that he likes his brother and "was disposed to like his sister-in-law, if only people would let him". Helen is the bitchy, prideful, too-aware-of-her-station duchess, who thinks Harriet is a major mistake. I did love Harriet's bit of remorse for lashing back at Helen when she thinks that "the Duchess was not an equal opponent in contests such as this."

Lord St. George [Jerry] is the son and heir. He's a sweetheart whose father despairs of his ever becoming serious and I'm terrified he'll be killed when World War II breaks out! He does have a heartfelt plea to make of Harriet. The Dowager Duchess, Honoria Lucasta, is a treat-and-a-half. She adores Harriet for her sake and for what she does for Peter. And she's having a ball decorating Peter and Harriet's new house.

The dowager duchess is quite realistic in her assessment of beautiful women:
"All those wealthy men choosing a wife like a piece of furniture or a fine picture...then having to listen to her at breakfast twenty years later.

Hope Fanshaw is a photographer and the woman with whom Bunter is in love. She has some interesting observations about how much easier it is to paint a person than it is to photograph them. And she's right. If one were as good a painter as someone like Chapparelle.

Chief Inspector Charles Parker is Peter's brother-in-law as he's married to Lady Mary, Peter's sister. Parker and Peter have been in cahoots with each other forever and is how Mary met him. They have two children.

Uncle Paul Delgardie is Peter's uncle and a confirmed Francophile with a eye for the ladies. He could have sworn Peter would be joining him in a long, luxurious bachelorhood. He serves to introduce the principal couples. The Countess of Severn and Thames is Peter's intimidating godmother, who thinks Harriet is perfect. She wants six copies of any book Harriet writes in which Harriet uses her as a character.

Freddy Arbuthnot is happily married to Rachel with two children. And still has a finger on the City's financial pulse. The Hon. Henry Drummond-Taber is a partner in the publishing firm of Bonne and Newte. Gaston Chapparelle is French and a very insightful portrait painter. Alcibiade, a.k.a., Mr. Hicks, is Harriet's dressmaker and refreshingly honest with her. For some reason, his name sets Rosamund off, but there's no reason given.

Laurence Harwell is inherited wealth and he enjoys spending his money in the theater putting on plays. He also indulges his gorgeous yet cold-hearted wife, Rosamund. Their love for each other is a byword in London. Claude Amery is a poet and playwright whom Rosamund leads on. Mr. Warren is Rosamund's jailbird father with a huge secret. Streaker and Basher, a.k.a., Pettifer and Brown, have come to collect on what they believe Warren owes them. Certainly a different mindset from mine... Sir Jude Shearman is Harwell's perceived bête noire, a fellow theatrical producer.

Mrs. Chanter takes care of the Sugdens' house next door to Rose Cottage in Hampton. Her daughter Rose obliges for the Harwells when they come down to use their house in the country with some sub rosa help from Mary. Miss Gloria Tallant, known in private as Phoebe Sugden, is about to make her stage debut. Larry Porsena, a fellow actor and Phoebe's friend, has his own additions.

The Cover
The cover is a black and gold silhouette of Walsh's name and two couples having cocktails above a very wide band of gold for the title. Do check out the couples as it gives you a hint of what is to come within the story.

As for the title, I'm not really sure what is meant. It's Thrones, Dominations and the first could refer to the new King Edward (King George V dies at the start) or to where Peter places Harriet in his heart while the second could be a sideways reference to Edward's infatuation with Simpson and the Germans, an oblique reference to one of Peter's names for Harriet, or even the intense emotions that may dominate one's reactions.

Read it and decide or yourself.

From reading the previous reviews, I understand that Ms. Sayers wrote the first 100 pages of this mystery. Really? It didn't seem to be in her style of writing. Too many details of the "real" world were incorporated into the story line; whereas, in Ms. Sayers' previous novels, we weren't constantly being sidetracked from the mystery at hand.
I enjoyed the story, but kept feeling like it wasn't coming from Ms. Sayers' own "quill." This novel was written very lightly and loosely compared to Ms. Sayers' other novels. Too many extraneous subplots were included.
I appreciated knowing what happens to the family, but felt a sense of finality too. I guess no one plans to write further stories about Lord Peter. The door was firmly shut at the end of the book.
Of course, don't forget the short story about Lord Peter's first son being born - The Haunted Policeman. And, wasn't there another short story with both sons included? So, we, Lord Peter Wimsey fans, are not totally bereft of tales of the Wimsey family after Lord Peter and Harriet Vane married.

I originally had my doubts about this book. Continuations by other hands of the lives, adventures, and cases of well-known fictional detectives almost never work, from Sherlock Holmes on. But this is actually a pretty good effort, as shown by the fact that after the first chapter or two, you've forgotten that Sayers didn't actually write it, that she only left an incomplete plot outline. It's 1936, a few months after the events of _Busman's Honeymoon,_ and Lord Peter Wimsey and his new wife, novelist Harriet née Vane, have just returned to London from a brief sojourn in Paris. They're settling into a new house and are still cautiously dancing around each other as they come to terms with their mutually changed status and relationship, as is to be expected of two strong-minded professional people of relatively mature years and established lifestyles. Harriet especially is having trouble with her new novel, since she no longer has to approach writing as a "job" for her own financial support; she now finds she must adopt more artistic motives or else probably give it up. Peter, on the other hand, has long had things all his own way as regards his criminological avocation and he's trying hard to not make Harriet feel put upon. Parallel to this, we get to know another, much younger couple, Laurence and Rosamund Harwell, who are famous in society for having married for love, not advantage. Of course, their private personalities and relationship are somewhat different from their public appearance. Laurence, born to wealth, is a theater "angel," supporting the production of new plays which often lose money, while the gorgeous Rosamund's father lost his more modest fortune and spent ten months as a guest of His Majesty for financial fraud. She's also being pursued by a pathetically besotted young poet-playwright. And then, of course, Rosamund is found strangled in their cottage in the country and Lord Peter, as an acquaintance of the Harwells, is invited to assist in the investigation by his brother-in-law and good friend, DCI Charles Parker. Walsh seems to have Sayers's narrative style down pat (though she tends to minimize Wimsey's penchant for strewing classical quotations through every conversation) and she certainly understands the established characters. In fact, Peter and Harriet are a bit less flighty, which I think is an improvement. She sets the story firmly in the period, with the death of the old king and the country's growing doubts about the suitability of the new king, as well as developing events in Germany. (Of course, Walsh has the advantage of knowing what the future holds for Britain, which for Sayers was simply current events.) And even though I guessed the significance of the "maguffin" shortly after its appearance, I can't fault the mystery plot itself. I don't think Sayers's long-time fans will be disappointed.

I should have known better. I thought that the pleasurable reading experience arose from Lord Peter and his brother, Denver, his formidable dowager mother, and all the other interesting characters from Bunter to Harriet and back again. But it wasn't created by them, it was Sayers. The characters she created were the instrument, but it was the lines they were given that I was enjoying. Without the wit and erudition Lord Peter comes across as a paper mache copy. Parker walks through his scenes, and Bunter is a shallow version of a gentleman's gentleman.
The writing is not bad; but it's not Sayers

I intensely enjoyed reading this book. It had been a while since I'd read the Lord Peter books, and I'd always wondered what happened after Busman's Honeymoon, and I really liked finding out more. It was lovely to see old friends, including the wonderful Dowager Duchess. I did enjoy the integration of history with the story; I think this is actually an improvement on Sayers, who had the disadvantage of actually living it and therefore not regarding it as history. And... I have to confess that I loved Bunter's subplot, however non-canonical it may be. However... I have to admit that the more I thought about it afterwards, the less satisfied I was.

It's not as weighty a book as Gaudy Night or Busman's Honeymoon, which I adore, but that's fine. One problem is that the literary allusions, which in Sayers are tossed up effortlessly, here seem to be a bit clunky: "Look!! John Donne!!" But that's a relatively minor concern. I think my main problem with Thrones, Dominations is that Harriet and Peter seem to have a Mary Sue-ish relationship. Although you might expect traditionally difficult parts of their marriage to be much easier for them (e.g., Harriet's vocation, or Peter's sexual history), one would imagine that two such strong and complex personalities could have other issues (while still having a happy marriage, of course); Busman's Honeymoon-- and to a lesser extent, Gaudy Night-- cover some of these and how they are resolved. Now, this is a much lighter book in many ways (plus which presumably they've worked through many of their issues by now), and accordingly the issues are much lighter, but... Neither of them are ever in a bad mood? Nothing ever goes wrong? They never disagree? We see Rosamund and Laurence disagreeing on something important to them, and working out that disagreement in one way, a way that Peter and Harriet utterly rejected in Busman's Honeymoon. It would have been nice to see some disagreement between Harriet and Peter worked out in the way they have chosen. Also, I certainly hope that in such a marriage of true minds that they had more of a family planning discussion than a single (though awesome) conversation during their engagement, as this book seems to imply.

So... the upshot: I recommend it; I think Walsh has done as good a job as possible, and I even think it's as enjoyable as, say, Strong Poison (though perhaps with a lighter, less convoluted plot, as other reviewers have said). Just don't read it too close to Gaudy Night or Busman's Honeymoon, as it does suffer in comparison to those books.

The Dorothy L. Sayers saga has been continued by Jill Paton Walsh in THRONES, DOMINATIONS as the duo proceed through their early days of Marriage in 1936. Although sketched out by Sayers, the mystery was fleshed out by Walsh some 60 years later in a highly readable and enjoyable mystery. Sayers fans may find the language and texture somewhat lacking, but I found the husband and wife protagonists to be to be credible and in keeping with the original. Those who admired the superb writing of Sayers should enjoy the trilogy of Walsh mysteries that take Lord Peter and Harriett into two decades of marriage.

When I finished Busman's Honeymoon, I was dissapointed that there were no new Lord Peter mysteries left to relish. When I noticed Thrones, Dominations in the library, I was sceptical. I doubted that another author could give the Wimseys the authentic Sayers touch. But I couldn't have been more delighted. Walsh brings all of the Wimsey humor to the book, and lovingly brings out the psychological aspect of Peter and Harriet that Dorothy Sayers began in both Gaudy Night and Busman's Honeymoon. She also continues to bring Donne quotations into Lord Peter's lovemaking, which delighted me in Busman's Honeymoon. Not only is the book psychologically realistic, but I couldn't tell where Dorothy left off and Jill began. As a hard-core purist and a devoted Sayers fan, I can offer no better commendation.

I should have known better. I thought that the pleasurable reading experience arose from Lord Peter and his brother, Denver, his formidable dowager mother, and all the other interesting characters from Bunter to Harriet and back again. But it wasn't created by them, it was Sayers. The characters she created were the instrument, but it was the lines they were given that I was enjoying. Without the wit and erudition Lord Peter comes across as a paper mache copy. Parker walks through his scenes, and Bunter is a shallow version of a gentleman's gentleman.
The writing is not bad; but it's not Sayers

I intensely enjoyed reading this book. It had been a while since I'd read the Lord Peter books, and I'd always wondered what happened after Busman's Honeymoon, and I really liked finding out more. It was lovely to see old friends, including the wonderful Dowager Duchess. I did enjoy the integration of history with the story; I think this is actually an improvement on Sayers, who had the disadvantage of actually living it and therefore not regarding it as history. And... I have to confess that I loved Bunter's subplot, however non-canonical it may be. However... I have to admit that the more I thought about it afterwards, the less satisfied I was.

It's not as weighty a book as Gaudy Night or Busman's Honeymoon, which I adore, but that's fine. One problem is that the literary allusions, which in Sayers are tossed up effortlessly, here seem to be a bit clunky: "Look!! John Donne!!" But that's a relatively minor concern. I think my main problem with Thrones, Dominations is that Harriet and Peter seem to have a Mary Sue-ish relationship. Although you might expect traditionally difficult parts of their marriage to be much easier for them (e.g., Harriet's vocation, or Peter's sexual history), one would imagine that two such strong and complex personalities could have other issues (while still having a happy marriage, of course); Busman's Honeymoon-- and to a lesser extent, Gaudy Night-- cover some of these and how they are resolved. Now, this is a much lighter book in many ways (plus which presumably they've worked through many of their issues by now), and accordingly the issues are much lighter, but... Neither of them are ever in a bad mood? Nothing ever goes wrong? They never disagree? We see Rosamund and Laurence disagreeing on something important to them, and working out that disagreement in one way, a way that Peter and Harriet utterly rejected in Busman's Honeymoon. It would have been nice to see some disagreement between Harriet and Peter worked out in the way they have chosen. Also, I certainly hope that in such a marriage of true minds that they had more of a family planning discussion than a single (though awesome) conversation during their engagement, as this book seems to imply.

So... the upshot: I recommend it; I think Walsh has done as good a job as possible, and I even think it's as enjoyable as, say, Strong Poison (though perhaps with a lighter, less convoluted plot, as other reviewers have said). Just don't read it too close to Gaudy Night or Busman's Honeymoon, as it does suffer in comparison to those books.

The Dorothy L. Sayers saga has been continued by Jill Paton Walsh in THRONES, DOMINATIONS as the duo proceed through their early days of Marriage in 1936. Although sketched out by Sayers, the mystery was fleshed out by Walsh some 60 years later in a highly readable and enjoyable mystery. Sayers fans may find the language and texture somewhat lacking, but I found the husband and wife protagonists to be to be credible and in keeping with the original. Those who admired the superb writing of Sayers should enjoy the trilogy of Walsh mysteries that take Lord Peter and Harriett into two decades of marriage.

When I finished Busman's Honeymoon, I was dissapointed that there were no new Lord Peter mysteries left to relish. When I noticed Thrones, Dominations in the library, I was sceptical. I doubted that another author could give the Wimseys the authentic Sayers touch. But I couldn't have been more delighted. Walsh brings all of the Wimsey humor to the book, and lovingly brings out the psychological aspect of Peter and Harriet that Dorothy Sayers began in both Gaudy Night and Busman's Honeymoon. She also continues to bring Donne quotations into Lord Peter's lovemaking, which delighted me in Busman's Honeymoon. Not only is the book psychologically realistic, but I couldn't tell where Dorothy left off and Jill began. As a hard-core purist and a devoted Sayers fan, I can offer no better commendation.

I was sincerely looking forward to revisiting Peter, Harriet, Parker and the rest as I love the other Peter Wimsey books and own them all. While the characters are there, the feel of the original is missing, and not only is the writing style here busier - it seems to be trying to analyze the characters far more than we need to. The relationships seem more distant than previous and the characters far more superficial.

I don't think it's a spoiler to mention there's no mystery and no Bunter in the first quarter of the book.

If you'd like to see a totally different author write about Lord Peter and his family and associates, this book is worth a look. If you're hoping to recapture the actual style and substance of Dorothy Sayer's books and characters, better re-read the originals and skip this one entirely.

Reading this was, at first, very much like reuniting with an old dear friend after a long separation-a lot of emphasis on the good old days, the telling over of favorite stories about the high times, maybe a little over-polished in the reminiscence. Then one finds out whether there is any real resonance in the present relationship. In this case, it took a while, but the characters began at last to show some real development and the story finally took off, with something new and real to add to the canon, as well as standing strongly on its own.

While it was gratifying to know "what happened next," Ms. Walsh's handling of Ms. Sayers' plot was, at best, a weak outline of what would have, I'm sure, been a powerful insight into Ms. Sayers' views on the substance of love, had Ms. Sayers been able to write it. Compared even to that lighter of her works, Busman's Honeymoon, the pale, almost nonexistant portrayals of the inner character of Lord Peter and of Harriet made it clear that one was reading an outsider's re-telling of someone else's story. The effect was similar to hearing a joke competently told by someone who, nonetheless, is unsure of why it is funny. The prose was, at best, rudimentary and school-girlish making it painfully clear throughout that Ms. Sayers did NOT write the finished version of this book. Local vernacular, so brilliantly employed by her, is totally lacking. The lesser known characters are not fully developed causing their actions to seem mechanical and without that 'humaness' so easily acheived by Ms. Sayers. Had we not already been familiars of the 'regulars', we would have been at a loss to explain their roles entirely. Further, and as a direct blow to Ms. Sayers' reputation, the crime did not occur until nearly half way through the book and then the perpetrator was easily guessed shortly thereafter. The real crime, in my opinion, was the pallid glossing over of Bunter's character and total lack of development of his own love story, making that story, especially to those of us who know and love him, entirely non-believable. All in all, except for the giving of certain bare facts pertaining to the Wimsey/Vane match, thus allowing their affectionate followers to imagine the full story, the book, offered as "the last of the Dorothy Sayers" was, in her own words; a washout.

Jill Paton Walsh does a fairly good job of staying true to the tone of the Sayers novels - most of the time. (Of course, this is occasionally done by re-using jokes and phrases from the other books, but writers borrow from their own earlier work sometimes, too.) Harriet's maid, for instance, writes letters that combine Ms. Climpson's from one novel with Bunter's from another.

In the area of human sexuality Ms. Walsh is a bit too modern. Ms. Sayers had elegant circumlocutions for the "interesting revelations of the marriage-bed"; Ms. Walsh is reserved by modern standards, but goes too near, and dwells too much upon, sexual aspects. The historical politics, too, are too self-consciously evident; they upstage the story, rather than providing firm background for it.

While Ms. Walsh does a good job with Peter and Harriet Wimsey, some other characters don't ring quite true. The Dowager Duchess' diary is far too on-point for that free-associating lady. Helen is a bit too low-class in her treatment of Harriet. And the idea of Bunter (a) with many siblings and (b) in love is a bit hard to visualize. (It departs from the older English trope of the perfect gentleman's gentleman, devoted only to his master.)

The book was a very good read, and I'm glad I bought it. It just cannot quite match Ms. Sayers' finished works.

As you must have gathered from other reviews, this is an enjoyable book in the Lord Peter Whimsey tradition. I was thoroughly enough interested in it that I entirely forgot that it was not all written by Sayers. Nevertheless I was critically conscious enough to be disturbed by some minor things. Thoughts such as, "this interview isn't nearly as amusing as it ought to be" were easily repressed. But the conversations between Lord Peter and Harriet were more troublesome. "Is that what was meant then, in Busman's Honeymoon, or in Gaudy Night..?" Of course, having set the book down and noticed the second name on the cover, I realize that it isn't necessary to alter my understanding of those past books on anything found here. The fact that I realize this as something obvious which I need not, for my own peace of mind, discover or conclude fascinates me. I would not have guessed, before, that an author mattered so much to me in reading a novel. Unless you are quite certain that the author does not matter to you, you will likely find those aspects of this book that affect the previous books disturbing. I also would not have guessed how difficult it might be to disregard what I read here. Even if you were absolutely certain that an acquaintence of yours had never, say, been engaged, are you able to look at that person in exactly the same way after having heard the rumor? I'm not sure we are able to easily forget such things (which implies, in harmony with actual practice, that unfounded slander which no one believes should still be considered harmful). Since I've found that I value what Dorothy Sayers is conveying, I regret the new context in which I have to try not to view her own works.
Now, what if you don't care what Dorothy Sayers is conveying, but are simply interested in more Lord Peter Whimsey stories? This is how I approach something like X-files (a show written by multiple writers to begin with anyhow). I'm happy to take fan fiction seriously if I find it improves upon the X-files world. I don't think, even if I approached the Lord Peter Whimsey books this way, that I would find the alterations caused by this book defendable. Thrones, Dominations does not improve upon the Sayers canon as a whole. Problems of character are introduced that are not satisfactorily resolved, so that the characters are less Themselves -- and less interesting -- than they had been. There are some plot elements that are unsettling... these kinds of things don't happen in Lord Peter Whimsey mysteries. And so on. My judgement stands:
It is a decent book, but it detracts from some much better books. Approach with caution and handle with care. If Gaudy Night or Busman's Honeymoon is your favorite book, I recommend you avoid this. If you are not particularly attached to Lord Peter Whimsey mysteries at all, go ahead and read it. If you you are not particularly attached to Lord Peter Whimsey mysteries but are familiar with them, and want a really strange experience reading a book finished by another author, I recommend it.

Just as a forged painting is ultimately recognized as a product of its own time, every completion or pastiche of a dead author's work reveals itself as of our time. "Thrones, Dominations" is no exception. A few examples: There are too many mentions of genuine 1930's historical figures, something Dorothy Sayers rarely did. The language slips occasionally; would Lord Peter really say that London is not someone's "scene"? Jill Paton Walsh also doesn't take the class system of prewar England seriously enough; I doubt if Lord Peter would ask any young actor to call him "Peter" on the strength of a few minutes' acquaintance. Nonetheless, for a fan who has read Dorothy Sayers again and again over the last 30 years, this book is far better than nothing - certainly closer to the real thing than I had imagined anyone getting. And it does have some wonderful things. Best new idea: That Bunter is a high Anglican. Best new character: Mango. Best capturing of the "real voice": The Dowager Duchess. If you are a Dorothy Sayers fan, you should read it. If you are not yet a fan, don't start with this. Try "Whose Body" or "Murder Must Advertise". But get around to this one.