Strong Poison - SPOILER thread

[Susan]

Published in 1930, this is the novel where Lord Peter Wimsey first meets Harriet Vane. I will also open a non-spoiler thread, so please post there if you want to avoid any spoilers.

[Lady Clementina]

What I enjoyed best in this book was the characters- Lord Peter and Bunter as usual but best of all Miss Murchinson and Miss Climpson in particular. They showed such spunk and I loved the way they managed to find the information and clues needed despite apprehensions on their part. The summoning of the spirits and the ingenuity Miss C showed was such fun as well.

The mystery itself ended up being a tad disappointing because Lord Peter's investigation seemed to be almost entirely centred on the murderer and I also managed to guess the how as soon as the cracked Egg and Mr Urquhart having the servants keep it for the omelette was mentioned. The only thing I didn't work out was the immunity to the poison thing. But that the mystery did not surprise me left me coming away feeling not quite satisfied.

[Susan]

Yes, I also figured out the 'how' but then Sayers virtually wrote a big arrow, saying "Eggs!" didn't she?

I had never read this novel before - I am now onto new books, which is exciting for me. I also loved Miss Climpson and Miss Murchinson and I love the way that Miss Climpson obviously idolises LP and how he really trusts her. When he told her that he only trusted her to do that job for him, you knew she would go to the end of the world for him...

[Lady Clementina]

Susan wrote: "Yes, I also figured out the 'how' but then Sayers virtually wrote a big arrow, saying "Eggs!" didn't she?

I had never read this novel before - I am now onto new books, which is exciting for me. I ..."

The clues and Lord Peter's investigation taking the direction that it did made it too obvious. Agatha Christie is an expert at giving clues in comparison- she gives you such big ones but one never seems to notice until after the denouement.

[Susan]

It didn't really bother me that I realised how it was done. I enjoyed the chase against time to prove Harriet innocent.

[Nadine]

I don't think I realised how it was done when I first read it, and I'm still not much good at figuring out "How it is done". Agree that the exciting bit is trying to prove Harriet innocent when he only has 1 month and I love Miss C's working her way into Cremorna Garden's home...

[Diane]

Lady Clementina wrote: "What I enjoyed best in this book was the characters- Lord Peter and Bunter as usual but best of all Miss Murchinson and Miss Climpson in particular. They showed such spunk and I loved the way they ..."

The ladies were great. I loved that they were not totally at ease with what they were doing. They had fears, nervous attacks, guilty consciences, and excitement, all the emotions any ordinary person would have had. And yes, lots of spunk.

[Nadine]

I like how Miss C's religious principles sometimes yield to her human curiosity!

[Hilary (A Wytch's Book Review)]

I will confess that I like the way Bunter insinuates himself into the household (and I really wish we saw more of Miss Murchison)

[Lady Clementina]

Diane wrote: "Lady Clementina wrote: "What I enjoyed best in this book was the characters- Lord Peter and Bunter as usual but best of all Miss Murchinson and Miss Climpson in particular. They showed such spunk a..."
Exactly- she makes them very real and believable.

[Lady Clementina]

Hilary wrote: "I will confess that I like the way Bunter insinuates himself into the household (and I really wish we saw more of Miss Murchison)"

Me too- much more than just a Watson.

[Susan]

Bunter doesn't get the chance to 'come alive' that often, but the wonderful scenes where he makes himself at home in another kitchen and discovers what happened that evening are wonderful. There are several strands, but DLS ties them all together beautifully.

[Everyman]

I've read this several times, and probably won't re-read it now because although it has many elements I like, several of which have been mentioned here (Miss Climpson, Bunter with the servants, for examples), the basic premise doesn't work for me. I don't believe that LP would become infatuated just by a photograph of an accused murderess. I could see him getting interested in the problem as a problem, but his falling into such passionate love with somebody he's never met just doesn't work for me. And it is such a coercive situation; there she is on trial for her life, what can she do about this guy who seems to be able to invade her prison any time he wants to, say his silly things, and leave for the outside world leaving her there adding this unreasonableness to her burdens. It just doesn't work for me.

[Susan]

I could see him becoming infatuated, but the visiting scenes were a little uncomfortable. As you say, what could Harriet do (assuming she wanted him to work on her case) but sort of lead him on? I must say that Harriet never really came alive for me in this book - which doesn't mean I didn't like it, I did. However, you did wonder what future DLS imagined for the character when writing this?

[Nadine]

But it wasn't a photograph. He was at the trial, he saw her and believed she was innocent. OK DLS had to make him fall for her quickly I suppose, and it is nto that convincing that he fell for her at once..
But if he did want to help her even without any beig in love what can he DO but visit her? he needs to talk to her and find out more about her and the case

[Lady Clementina]

Nadine wrote: "But it wasn't a photograph. He was at the trial, he saw her and believed she was innocent. OK DLS had to make him fall for her quickly I suppose, and it is nto that convincing that he fell for her ..."

True and true. His being 'head over heels' in love quite so instantly doesn't seem that likely either and one did get the feeling that he presumed that she'd accept even though he seemed to say otherwise.

But re Harriet not coming alive, I don't know if I agree entirely - we get to see some shades of her character- as an author and as a person too- her refusal of (now I've forgotten the victim's name) proposal and more so her reasons for doing so did tell one a lot about her.

[Everyman]

Susan wrote: "I must say that Harriet never really came alive for me in this book - which doesn't mean I didn't like it, I did. However, you did wonder what future DLS imagined for the character when writing this?
.."

I agree, and good question.

[Everyman]

Nadine wrote: "But it wasn't a photograph. He was at the trial, he saw her and believed she was innocent.."

Am I remembering incorrectly, or didn't he first see the clippings in the paper and only then go to the trial to see her in person?

But my memory could well be faulty.

[Nadine]

no he was at the trial. He had just returned from abroad, and so hadn't been around when Parker was investigating...
I think that it is possible that having seen her in court and heard how she had rejected Philip Boyes, when most people would have felt that any woman would have grabbed at his proposal and been glad of it, made him think she was an exceptional woman.

[Susan]

I wasn't clear whether he was at the trial to see Miss Climpson or, as you say Everyman, had seen the clippings in the paper and then gone. Perhaps I have glossed over that bit somewhere, but it was both an unlikely coincidence, and yet a touch of genius, to have Miss Climpson on the jury...

[Nadine]

well possibly he went to see the Trial because Miss C was on the jury...

[Lady Clementina]

Nadine wrote: "well possibly he went to see the Trial because Miss C was on the jury..."
The case would have perhaps interested him anyway so there seem to be more than one reason to have gone- the problem, Miss C, and Harriet (if her picture piqued his curiosity or more).

[Judy]

I've finished the novel now and I do love it - it might be my favourite. The whole business of the spiritualism is brilliantly done, and although I agree whodunit is probably a bit obvious, the idea of immunising himself to the arsenic is very clever. I think I might have come across another book with a similar plot, but I might just be remembering it from reading this one before!

Am I right in thinking we see more of the story from Wimsey's viewpoint in this book than in the previous ones?

I think we usually see him from outside in the earlier books, but I did notice a few moments in Bellona Club when readers share his viewpoint - but I think there is more of it in this book and it gives Sayers a chance to reveal more aspects of his character.

[Judy]

Everyman wrote: "Am I remembering incorrectly, or didn't he first see the clippings in the paper and only..."

I've just started watching the TV adaptation, and in that he starts off by clipping her photo out of the paper, so you might be remembering it from that, Everyman, assuming you've seen it? I didn't notice a mention of newspaper clippings in the book.

[Nadine]

no, there's noting about newspapers. I dont rate those adaptations very highly I must say.. but the book implies that he went tot the trial because Miss C was on the jury and also i suppose because it was a high profile trial that he had missed the detecting of, because he was away. Actually Im not sure, if at that time, there WOULD be a pic of Harriet in the paper pre or during the trial...
I dotn really have a problem wiht "who dunnit" I can't recollect what I felt when I first read the novel whethter it seemed very obvious that it was "you know who".

[Susan]

The eggs were heavily hinted at, so he had to have been poisoned either at dinner with his cousin, or when having a hot drink with Harriet. As we were assuming Harriet's innocence, it was pretty clear to the reader at some point in the novel (if not to Wimsey until Bunter got the 'clue' about the eggs) where the crime happened. Again, that did not spoil it for me - I really enjoyed this novel and loved all the side stories/characters.

[Diane]

Susan wrote: "I wasn't clear whether he was at the trial to see Miss Climpson or, as you say Everyman, had seen the clippings in the paper and then gone. Perhaps I have glossed over that bit somewhere, but it wa..."

What I wasn't clear on was how or why was Miss Climpson on the jury. It would be a mighty strange coincidence that out of all the possible eligibles in London, she was selected. Or did someone pull strings and if so, who.

[Everyman]

Diane wrote: "What I wasn't clear on was how or why was Miss Climpson on the jury. ."

Well, you have to allow some unlikely coincidences in almost any story.

[Nadine]

As I recall Miss C lived nearby, and Im not sure what the procedure for selecting jurors was then.. but it might be within an area...
I dont think you could pull strings to have someone on a jury, and why would they? Peter had been away, he knew nothing about the trial till he came back, and presumably heard that there was a big murder trial and Miss C was on the jury

[Nadine]

Susan wrote: "The eggs were heavily hinted at, so he had to have been poisoned either at dinner with his cousin, or when having a hot drink with Harriet. As we were assuming Harriet's innocence, it was pretty cl..."
But they thought of thte eggs, didn't they and then thought well it could not be the eggs becuase Mr Urq shared the omelet with Philip

[Susan]

I meant it was pretty clear to the reader, Nadine. I agree that, to LP, it looked unlikely he was poisoned at his cousins.

[Nadine]

Not to me Im afraid. I tended to go by what peter etc said, that if Urq had shared the meal, how could it be the eggs?

[Susan]

Because we learn that some eggs *(an egg?) were/was cracked, which is a pretty good clue, and that his cousin tells the cook to use those first. If an egg is cracked, you can put something into it. So my reasoning went anyway...

[Nadine]

yeah but the thing is that Norman ate the omelet as well, and how could one egg be kept separate?

[Susan]

Well, we find out why later, but the honest answer is that there were only three possibilities for him to be poisoned: at Harriet's (I assumed her innocence), in the pub or at his cousins. Therefore, the eggs had to be a possibility. I didn't work out the why, but I worked out how and where.

[Susan]

Or rather, I didn't work out how, but I did work out where!

[Judy]

I was mystified by this - it seems to be impossible! Clever how the description of Urquhart's appearance contains clues but I think anyone who picked up on them would have to be a chemistry expert!

[Nadine]

Susan wrote: "Well, we find out why later, but the honest answer is that there were only three possibilities for him to be poisoned: at Harriet's (I assumed her innocence), in the pub or at his cousins. Therefor..."

I think that suicide was also a possiblity. He was a whiny sort of person, and maybe he might have poisoned himself...

[Judy]

It was clever how his letter read as if it could just be a suicide note. Sayers has been so clever all through this book.

[Susan]

Yes, suicide was a possibility - but I couldn't see DLS opting for that. I have to say that I am hopeless at working out clues, but normally you would just say, 'well, he wanted an omelette.' To say that an egg was cracked so you wanted to use it up is fair enough, but to prepare it at the table showed forethought and alibi creating... However, it COULD have been suicide. I really enjoyed the book.

These months books were opposites, in a way, for me. With The Man in the Queue I quite liked the plot/setting, but never felt a thing for any of the characters. With this one, I was enjoying the characters so much that I just rolled happily along with the plot.

[Nadine]

She has used suicide before though in COW....and I think that when I first read it, I didn't entirely discount someone else bumping hm off because he was a whiny pain... Maybe someone whose wife or girlfriend he slept with, or someone he insulted in an article or novel

[Lady Clementina]

Susan wrote: "Because we learn that some eggs *(an egg?) were/was cracked, which is a pretty good clue, and that his cousin tells the cook to use those first. If an egg is cracked, you can put something into it...."

Those were my thoughts exactly. I did wonder about Urqhart also eating the omelette and wondered how he avoided eating it while seeming to do so. The immunity thing didn't strike me at all.

[Mark Pghfan]

I think that some of the confusion over how Lord P ended up at the trial may have to do with a bit of a difference between the TV adaptation and the book. I think it was the TV adaptation where he just saw the photo and became interested. He likely knew who Harriet Vane was given that she was already an accomplished author of detective stories and that his Mother had read at least one and probably commented to him about it.

[Nadine]

Pghfan wrote: "I think that some of the confusion over how Lord P ended up at the trial may have to do with a bit of a difference between the TV adaptation and the book. I think it was the TV adaptation where he ..."
I Expect so. I cant watch that adaptation. I think anyway that it would not be possible to have a photo of Harriet in the papers pre trial

[Susan]

I do not think you can show a photograph from inside the Court, but you can show a photograph of someone on trial before the verdict in the newspapers, so LP could have seen it.

I read somewhere that in NY Randolph Hearst (I think that was who it was) used to use carrier pigeons and employ artists to draw pictures, which they would then attach to the pigeons, so he could get the news/pictures (drawings not photos obviously) into his newspapers before his competitors.

I am also thinking of photographs of Crippen being arrested on the ship - which were shown in newspapers at the time - before his trial for murder. Actually in Court though, you can only use court artists still I believe.

[Nadine]

But thats in the US, I think the law in Britain was that you couldnt, as it might prejudice the trial? I think that it is still the law in UK that you can only use a court artist?

[Susan]

No, in the UK you can definitely show photographs of people in newspapers when they are on trial. You just can't take photographs in court. There you can only use a court artist. The Moors Murderers (Ian Brady and Myra Hindley) were photographed, for example, coming in and out of court and those photos appeared in the newspapers.

Here is a link of Denis Nilsen on the front pages of a newspaper, after being charged with murder:
http://i4.mirror.co.uk/incoming/artic...

[Damaskcat]

Lady Clementina wrote: "What I enjoyed best in this book was the characters- Lord Peter and Bunter as usual but best of all Miss Murchinson and Miss Climpson in particular. They showed such spunk and I loved the way they ..."

I think if you've read a lot of true crime and crime fiction you are probably very aware that you can build up an immunity to arsenic. I remember when I first read this I wasn't aware of it so it was a revelation to me.

[Damaskcat]

Everyman wrote: "I've read this several times, and probably won't re-read it now because although it has many elements I like, several of which have been mentioned here (Miss Climpson, Bunter with the servants, for..."

Harriet could have refused to see him while she was in prison.

[Damaskcat]

I'm just listening to the audio version again - for the umpteenth time and I've only just noticed how much humour there is in parts of this book. The scenes towards the end when LP is trying to convince Parker that Urquart did it. Bunter says something and LP asks him not to speak like Jeeves because it irritates him. I think P G Wodehouse was writing the Jeeves stories at the time this was published.

I just love the Miss Climpson and Miss Murchison scenes - they are marvellous characters.