Recent Reading: Dolly and the Bird of Paradise by Dorothy Dunnett

To most of my clients, bifocal glasses are asthma. All those words are spelled correctly. I looked them up.


All the Dolly mysteries (the Johnson Johnson series) feature bifocal glasses in the very first line. This is a sign, one of many in my opinion, that Dorothy Dunnett wrote them for fun and really enjoyed playing with them. I imagine the writing experience was very different for her compared to working on her massive historical series.


All of these mysteries are told in the first person, and all of them feature a (different) female pov character, who is always intelligent, young, pretty, and extremely competent in a particular field. Thus we have Dolly and the Cookie Bird (the pov character is, of course, a cook); Dolly and the Doctor Bird, and so on. As “bird” is no longer remotely the in slang for “girl,” all these books got new titles when they were re-issued. As it happened, I tracked them all down before they were re-issued (with some trouble, because this was before Amazon), so I have copies of them with their original titles. They were the very first out-of-print books I every deliberately set out to find.


So that’s one thing to know about these mysteries: I deliberately tracked them down when they were hard to find.


And another thing: they’re all first-person pov with female main characters.


Here’s one more: in a sense, the pov characters are not actually the protagonist.


Have you all read Dunnett’s Lymond series? The Game of Kings and all the others? Which I prefer to her even more massive Niccolo series, personally. Anyway: the Lymond series. Seven big historical novels set in the time of Mary Queen of Scots. I love them . . . most of them . . . at least, I love a lot of things about them. If you haven’t tried them, the first book is self-contained and probably the best. If you have read them, did you notice how we never, ever see anything from Lymond’s point of view? This is just about unique in my experience: Lymond is the protagonist, but never a point-of-view character. I was fascinated by this when I first read the series and tried to something of the same kind of thing with a big fantasy duology that sometimes, depending on my mood, I think is the best thing I’ve ever written. Someday it will find a home or else I will bring it out myself, but never mind, long story.


Anyway, these Dolly mysteries are a bit like that, because Johnson Johnson is in a sense the continuing protagonist through all of them, even though he is not the pov character. He’s also a bit like Lymond in some ways – incisive, sharp, ruthless. He’s a famous portrait-painter who owns the yacht Dolly. He’s also a senior intelligence agent for the British. He is the guy who knows what’s going on; he’s the one driving the action behind the scenes. Because he’s not the pov character, Dunnett is able to hide a lot from the reader. Which, as the reader, you know perfectly well. It makes for a unique style of writing and an unusual reading experience.


More than that, despite the first-person viewpoint, Dunnett frequently conceals a lot about the female leads from the reader as well. You should read them just for that – to see what you catch and what you miss and if you get what no one is saying out loud. I wish I remembered if I figured out myself that Rita, in Bird of Paradise, is dyslexic. It’s been too long since I first read it, but probably. Everyone knows about dyslexia these days.


In some ways, Dunnett’s mysteries remind me of Mary Stewart’s mysteries, because in Airs Above the Ground, for example, Stewart also has moments when she conceals something from the reader despite the pov first-person protagonist knowing it. It takes particularly good writing to pull that off without making it feel to the reader like you’re cheating.


I really enjoy the way Rita is presented. She’s one of my favorites from the whole Dolly series, and I like most of the pov characters from the whole series. When in doubt, attack, is her motto. She spikes her hair and dyes it orange and blue. She sometimes paints her face in stripes. She is smart and capable and brave and extremely loyal and the best makeup artist in the world – or near enough, anyway.


Bird of Paradise, like all the Dolly mysteries, is quick and cleverly plotted, with plenty of twists and turns. You might suspect these mysteries would have a strong romantic component because young/pretty/female pov characters, right? No. There’s one aspect where they differ dramatically from Mary Stewart’s mysteries, because Stewart’s could be read as romances-with-mystery as easily as the reverse. There is essentially zero romance in Dunnett’s series. So if that’s important to you, I’m just saying, don’t look for romance from these stories.


Clever plotting, yes. Clever writing, yes. Clever dialogue, yes. You have to be on your toes to catch some of Dunnett’s tricks with dialogue, in fact. But zero romance. In a way, in fact, they are more intellectual stories, and less emotional. But they have way more character depth than pure intellectual mysteries like the Sherlock Holmes stories or, say, the earlier Peter Whimsy stories by Dorothy Sayers. That’s important for me personally – I was always dead bored by Sherlock Holmes because I’m fundamentally a character reader. In contrast, I’ve really been enjoying re-reading Dorothy Dunnett and Mary Stewart lately.


If any of you have read these Dolly mysteries, chime in! What do you think of them?


 •  11 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on July 01, 2014 07:48
Comments Showing 1-11 of 11 (11 new)    post a comment »
dateUp arrow    newest »

message 1: by Sherwood (new)

Sherwood Smith I bombed out halfway through. I am not much of a mystery person; when I read them, I tend to skip all the clue jabber, puzzle stuff, and forensic yuck in favor of character development, if there is any.

I think the fourth Lymond book is the best, but I agree that the first is self-contained. And it was definitely a trick, that she very, very rarely lets his POV show up. (And when it does in the fifth book, it is with devastating effect.)


message 2: by Rachel (new)

Rachel Neumeier I thought the second Lymond book was the weakest. I too loved Pawn in Frankincense, but I think the first is the best because it *is* self-contained. On the other hand . . . Philippa! She is my favorite character, and it's true she doesn't really develop until Pawn.


message 3: by Sherwood (new)

Sherwood Smith You and I are exactly on the same wavelength here. The second is definitely the weakest, and oh, Philippa!!!


message 4: by Rachel (new)

Rachel Neumeier My advice to someone starting the series might be, Oh, just skip the second book! But be sure you pay attention to Philippa and her family.


message 5: by Sherwood (new)

Sherwood Smith Yes, a few times I've recommended people skip the second book. There are really only a couple of good scenes in it, and both were 'rehearsals' for similar, and better, scenes in later books. (Ditto the relationships, which just really do not work in the second book.)


message 6: by Rachel (new)

Rachel Neumeier We really are on the same wavelength! What did you think of the Niccolo series? I very nearly didn't finish it -- it go so grim in the middle. I doubt I'll ever re-read it.


message 7: by Janny (new)

Janny Wow - I could not disagree more (on skipping the second book/Lymond chronicles). This volume is where Lymond makes so many mistakes - he is not fully adult, though he is entrusted with adult responsibilities, and his wildly erratic handling of serious issues (even well intentioned, even brilliantly conceived and executed) creates lasting havoc - the seed decisions made here, the significant short sighted omissions and the spectacular failures, will haunt and come back to bite everything he does, later. Not the happiest or easiest read, but IMO, beautifully conceived and handled by the author, every step. If the character never stepped into the pitfalls of his own gifted brilliance - the stunning bits of the later books would not have unfolded with such poignant impact. My take, YMMV.


message 8: by Sherwood (new)

Sherwood Smith Janny, this is a very good point. But I still find it an unsatisfactory book in so many other regards. What's more, some of its themes, and even scenes, are repeated later.


message 9: by Sherwood (new)

Sherwood Smith I got bored somewhere between the second and third, and have yet to get back to it. Though I'm pretty sure I own most of them, just in case.


message 10: by Rachel (new)

Rachel Neumeier Janny, it seemed to me that, when writing the second book, Dunnett might not have decided yet where she was going to go with the story. I felt that random things were happening and that the second book was fundamentally shapeless. I think Dunnet then recovered from that to some extent, finding ways to tie the events of the second book into the continuing story after the fact, but that the second book never felt necessary to the story.

It's always fascinating to me how wildly different reader reactions are to any book. Plus, honestly, I have not read this series in quite a long time; if I read it straight through again, who knows what I would think of the overall shape and how the earlier books tie together?


message 11: by Janny (new)

Janny I have enjoyed re-reading this series many times. YMMV and of course, there are as many opinions as people, respect that totally.

Don't agree that Dunnett did not know where she was taking this, there are too many careful threads laid down that carry through later. In this volume, Lymond fails to carry through the fullest responsibilities as a leader, and on several other significant counts. Nothing random about any of the scenes that I have seen; there are so many subtleties and layers and even, symbolism built into this series - can't see it all in one take, or even two.

But what is of value to every reader is different - 'shapeless' can derive from a different contour of what is important. On so many levels, Dunnett's work has subtle and not so subtle connectivity. Many small details and the way she builds them make some of the misdirection she lays down so superb, it is quite easy to miss what is unreliable narration and what is not.

You don't need to subscribe to my POV - your take is respected. I definitely can't agree the author lost her way; definitely can see why the second book is not as enjoyably intriguing, there is a lot of uncomfortable stuff in the content.

There is a group for DD's work here on GR - might be fun to discuss your take there. Make for a lively topic, I'm sure.

I enjoy the mysteries she wrote for the extreme depth and cleverness - few books make me work - these do, and it's a glad thing. DD's grasp of language is sublime.


back to top