When I first read this book about two years ago it disgusted me profoundly. I found the main character, Lord Peter Wimsey, exasperant, his servant too 'servile' and the language bewildering. Two years later I am inclined to be a little less partial; still...

"Whose body?" was the first mystery story Dorothy L. Sayers wrote, where she introduced us to her sleuth, the debonair, rich, book collector and nonsense-talking Lord Peter. He lives in a posh Picadilly apartment with a manservant by the name of Mervyn Bunter. I always thought Bunter could have been further developed; simply because he seems to have much more of a head on his shoulders and his feet on the floor than his employer does. In this, their first adventure, Lord Peter is made aware by his mother, the enchanting and very shrewd Dowager Duchess of Denver, of an unknown body being found on a neighboor's bathroom. No one seems to know who the unfortunate individual was, nor how he happened upon the bathroom of poor old Mr. Thipps. So in comes Lord Peter with his nonsense talk and his charming ways to investigate. He has a good friend who 'just happens' to be an actual detective and who will, in time, facilitate his work through official channels. I must say one thing that surprised me is how Lord Peter can make all the deductions until he finally elucidates the crime, while still being so much devoid of bright comments; but there we have it.

There is a lot of dialogue in this novel and I find that a plus. I am a big fan of dialogue in fiction because I find it a great tool for natural development of the story. However, not everyone will understand a Londoner's words and mannerisms and this could be confusing, even irritating, at times. Sayers is not, and I repeat, is not, your typical mystery writer 'a la Christie'. She was a scholar and a Christian writer at that and likes to bring these ideas into her stories. I think that's why she also decided to show in this book such anti-semitic ideas against the Jews, that not even the now deceased Dowager Duke of Denver (Lord Peter's father), could tolerate them in his castle. Anti-semitism aside, this book is not for everyone. It demands a bit of an open mind and a good knowlegde of both British customs and language.

What I did like about the book is what I always try to find in mysteries: the description of the different settings. Fine rare books and mahogany furniture, prime dining and a big estate in the country surround Lord Peter's life. Idealistic? Maybe, but no less charming.

"Whose Body?" is the first Lord Peter Wimsey novel written by Dorothy Sayers in the 1920s, and was the second I read after "Gaudy Night." As someone who generally likes to read series in order, I still have to say it was fun knowing the type of put together gentleman that Lord Peter will become even as I enjoyed reading of his casual manner and clever impulsiveness in his first big fully-recorded case.

Lord Peter must figure out what happened to a naked dead man that an architect friend of his mother's finds in his London bathtub one night wearing only a pair of pince-nez glasses. Meanwhile a rich London financier has turned up missing. Peter is not the first to make the connection, but no one but he can possibly figure out that what connection there is to be made wasn't quite the one the police came up with.

"Whose Body?" is short, clever and enjoyable. Sayers is an excellent and sympathetic writer who respects both her characters and the reader. Her very much alive English settings, both the cold wet bogs and the warm dry fireplaces make Wimsey's world feel like a place I could happily call home. And if you like this one they keep getting better as the series progresses. Cheers!

I would say that Sayers' writing only gets better from here except for the fact that it's been said too many times in the previous reviews and that it doesn't. Now this not to say that her following mysteries are not good, they are excellent - but when considering 'Whose Body?' in the context I'm considering it, which is to say, 'one of the greatest mysteries ever written'.
Most would probably disagree with me, but there's one thing I desire for every mystery and that's for the writer to not just focus on the mystery, but on the characters. This is because in real life there are 2 types of mysteries: those that will never be solved and those that can be solved with the regular investigation done by the police.
I think Sayers pulls off the 'perfect' mystery that balances realism with entertainment. She can be said to be an incredibly humorous writer that does mystery on the side, but to say that would be almost sacrilege lol.
I could and would go on, but of course I'm only stating my opinion and why debate that? Suffice it to say that I prefer 'Whose Body?' to Sayers' other mysteries (though I love those too) :D.

This was a hopelessly difficult task for Ms. Walsh to undertake in the first place, but could she not have at least had the decency to take some care in emulating Sayers style, rather than just keeping to the original plot as it stood???? For example, since when did Domina become Peter's prime nickname for Harriet, used at least twice per conversation, and so carelessly?? Further, why does our well-established detective novelist find it necessary to consult Peter on small details which she must obviously have used twenty thousand times in her own work? These aside, I also found it annoying that each person in this novel, despite their supposed education level, had the abillity to speak with perfect clarity, and the same accents all around. Every detail in the book screamed IMITATION. Even though I am very happy at a new installment in the Lord Peter-Harriet Vane collection, I am at the same time exceedingly glad that it must be the last, since Walsh must percieve that to continue it of her own accord would be a travesty and an outrage.

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.

I approached this book with a good deal of fear and trepidation, being sure in my mind that it would be yet another case of PSS (Pale Sequel Syndrome). However my mood shifted to pure delight in the first scene of the book, where the four main characters in the book -- Lord Peter and his Harriet, a West-end producer and his much younger wife -- are introduced via a conversation between Paul Delegardie (Lord Peter's bon vivant "Uncle Pandarus") and his Parisian luncheon guest.

Delegardie asks his companion to speculate on the two couples. The Frenchman, with assumed expertise in all things having to do with "amour", gives an analysis of the two relationships that is pompous, long-winded and, as Delegardie is delighted to point out, totally inaccurate. This type of scene is vintage Sayers -- pinpoint characterization, witty dialogue, and just a soupcon of British superiority. Ms Paton got it exactly right -- as she has in so many other parts of this wonderful book.

Most of the major characters are back in fine fettle: Peter, Harriet, Parker, the two Duchesses of Denver (the Dowager and Helen) and, of course, Bunter. A number of the supporting players have returned as well, such as Freddie Arbuthnot and Rumm, and the new characters -- Harriet's unusual "ladies' maid" especially -- are worthy additions to the list.

I disagree with several of my fellow readers/reviewers on a couple of points.

First, I don't fault Ms. Paton for the relative lack of light badinage between Lord Peter and Harriet. In Sayers' books, there is a definite progression from piffle to plain speaking that parallels the deepening of their relationship. As Harriet and Peter open to each other, they have less need to hide their strong emotions behind wordplay and epigram.

I also disagree with the readers who find "90's" sentiments in the book. Issues such as the male/female roles in marriage, to have/not to have children, and whether women should work or stay home are all much discussed today, but they were of vital importance to Sayers and her contemporaries as well. In Gaudy Night, Harriet laments the waste of a scholarly mind in a woman who left academe to become a farmer's wife. In Thrones, Dominations, Harriet tells the producer's wife to pursue her own interests instead of sitting around waiting for her husband to come home. Two sides of the same coin. The fact that these sentiments seem so "modern" only points out how little has changed, or as "Domina" Sayers would say (without translation) "Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose."

My only quibble with this book is a minor one. Paton does not have Sayers' keen ear for regional dialect, so a couple of her local characters, such as the country housekeeper and her daughter, are pretty flat compared Puffet, Rumm, and others of Sayers' inspired creations.

All in all, Ms. Paton has made a great success of Thrones, Dominations. Dare we hope for an encore?

The plot of A PRESUMPTION OF DEATH is relatively simple. The time is 1939 and England is at war. Lord Peter Wimsey is off doing his duty while his wife Harriet Vane --- mother, mystery writer and involved citizen --- has fled to the English countryside with her children and their cousins. After a practice air raid drill, a young woman of questionable virtue is found dead. Superintendent Kirk of the local constabulary calls upon Harriett to help solve the murder. Lord Peter usually undertakes this kind of investigation, but he is unavailable and a dead girl's killer must be found. "I don't know which way to turn, Lady Peter, and that's the truth," says Kirk, when he proposes that Harriet help him. She reluctantly agrees to step in: "It isn't easy ' [s]tanding in for Peter", but this is "' in various ways what I seem to be for, at the moment."

That particular murder is the epicenter around which Jill Paton Walsh builds her tale. She uses the "Wimsey Papers", a collection of works that Dorothy L. Sayers had published in The Spectator in the 1930s and 1940s. These papers comprise a series of letters written by the Wimsey family to each other and to friends. They become the voices of the characters, both familiar and new, that Sayers wrote about. Walsh comments: "In A PRESUMPTION OF DEATH all I had to use were propaganda letters, and so I had a completely free hand with the plot."

To recreate Harriet Vane in A PRESUMPTION OF DEATH, Walsh says, " ' [Sayers] didn't exactly promote Harriet, who is not, by any means, an idealized character. Just compare her with Peter. Look how grumpy she is, how bad-tempered, how sometimes cool she is. She's not beautiful, and has a hard, chilly-eyed view of life. And that's what gives her [a] convincing quality." She is bored with "just" being Lady Peter and, while she adores her children, she yearns for the freedom she had before motherhood and the war imposed their restrictions upon her. Readers and fans will have to decide for themselves how they feel about these issues, but the truth is they do not detract from an otherwise well-told story.

Agatha Christie and many other writers kill off their central characters in order to preserve their place in the canon. Sayers did not do this and, clearly, she left the "Wimsey Papers" for someone to "keep alive" with her/his ideas. The challenge for Walsh is to decide whether or not she wants to "adopt" the Wimsey clan with all of their eccentricities, lordly ways, manners and humor, or if she will decide that two is enough. When asked if she would consider this proposition, she said, "I would be fascinated, but I would be increasingly careful. Each step you take away from an authentic piece of work the harder it's going to be to maintain authenticity and I would need to think really hard. I mean Lord Peter and Harriet are lovely fun, they're awfully entertaining to write about, and I can think of loads of books about them that I'd love to write --- that's not the problem. I would need to be sure I could do it well. And by well, I mean really consistent with Sayers's work."

Jill Paton Walsh is a writer in her own right. She is the author of several children's books and six adult novels. She was invited to complete a Sayers manuscript (THRONES, DOMINATIONS): I "' had a lot of fun doing it" and she was applauded for her efforts. For this second book she had the "papers" to help bolster and frame her story. A PRESUMPTION OF DEATH is a good read. Fans will find that it is faithful to the personalities Dorothy L. Sayers created and the plot is one that certainly resembles the original Wimsey/Vane pattern.

--- Reviewed by Barbara Lipkien Gershenbaum

I very much enjoyed this book, primarily for its insights into Wimsey home life. The mystery plot was thin and a bit facile, but the book is well-written and engaging.

There are, however, a couple of flaws that prevented me from giving the book a higher rating. There are anachronisms sprinkled through the novel, particularly in the form of phrases that I cannot imagine Harriet Wimsey (or, indeed, anyone else) using in 1940. The use of prior Sayers novels is also a trifle heavy-handed. Ms Walsh must know that her readers have read all the Sayers/Wimsey books, probably more than once. Given this fact, her fairly constant tendency to include and summarize materials from the other novels can become oppressive. Would Harriet Wimsey's train of thought upon seeing Miss Twitterton really include a total recall of her contact with Miss Twitterton on her (Harriet's) wedding night? It is now four years later, and I cannot imagine that Harriet would have no more recent memories of Miss Twitterton upon which to call. To summarize this criticism: there is too much of Busman's Honeymoon in this book.

Despite these criticisms, I did enjoy the book. It is worth reading. Moreover, the print is so large that those who are compelled to wait for large print editions need not do so: they will probably be able to read this one just fine.

In 1940,the siren testing the warning system goes off in a remote English village. Except for the Methodists, everyone including Harriet Vane, better known as Lady Peter Wimsey, enter the cave used as the air raid shelter. After a long time, the siren finally ends signifying all clear. Everyone leaves the cave only to find the corpse of a Land Girl, "Wicked" Wendy Percival, lying in the street.

Knowing he is already shorthanded due to the war effort and her experience as a crime novelist, Superintendent Kirk asks Harriet to investigate the murder that is clearly not the work of a Nazi. He wants her to perform the role of her spouse Lord Peter, overseas on government work, to make inquiries and report back to him, but not take risks. Reluctantly Harriet begins her investigation starting with the other eight Land Girls, but quickly she finds reality much more complex and stranger than fiction.

Using fictional letters that the late great Dorothy L. Sayers wrote in support of the English World war II efforts, Jill Paton Walsh paints a powerful amateur sleuth tale that fans of the Wimsey tales will enjoy and will appreciate the cleverness of the endeavor. The story line insures that the regulars remain true to their known personalities while WW II in a remote village is used to provide the background of a strong who-done-it. Still, this tale belongs to the cast especially Harriet who provides a fine time for series fans and historical mystery readers.

Harriet Klausner

The book provides an excellent overview of the cricketing history of Hong Kong, with some focus on all the competitions, teams and players that have graced the local playing fields over the 150 years.

However, the most conspicuous items in this book are the omissions - the major events and matches, both domestic and international, which are not mentioned at all. The statistics and records are also notable for their glaring inaccuracies - which is rather remarkable considering that all the data and information is readily available. It seems odd that the author was unable to provide correct and complete information for cricket played in the late eighties and early nineties !

That said, it is still an interesting read - though I suspect it will be enjoyed mostly by those who have played or participated in the Hong Kong cricket scene.

The idea behind this book is unique. Taking passages out of Lord Peter Wimsey novels and turning them into practical cooking. You get the added fun of remembering the passages and feel that you are one of the company.

There are no slang recipes as Spotted Dick or Toad in a Hole. Evidently these people are too sophisticated for that sort of thing. However what may have proved to be a good recipe is expanded into the exotic.

I did find one I could make with out buying things like kidneys, PIPER'S PARRITCH:

"In general, porridge is not a regular feature of Lord Peter's breakfast table, although he does on occasion, 'tak` a bit o' paritch' with is eggs and bacon while on holiday in Scotland (Five Red Herrings.)"

In chapter 4 "An Orgy of Teas" just about every recipe from cookies to sandwiches require an inordinate amount of butter.

"The lord Peter Wimsey Cookbook" does make a nice coffee table conversation book.

This was the first Dorothy L. Sayers books I read and it took me FOREVER to read it. Not that it's a long book, it's just extremely confusing. One of the things I like about mysteries is trying to figure out whodunit, and with this book that was practically impossible. One of the other reviewers used the phrase "incessant clutter" and I have to agree with them.
On the other hand, the idea was good. An artist dies, and six people absolutely hate him. Five are red herrings. Also, Wimsey is a rather likeable character, so I give it two stars. Definitely not my favorite mystery book.

At her best, Dorothy Sayers was able to juggle a complex writing style, complex characters, and complex plot to tremendous effect--and such novels as GAUDY NIGHT and BUSMAN'S HONEYMOON have remained landmarks of the murder mystery genre for well over sixty years. But some of Sayers' work has a tendency toward incessant clutter--and no where is that more apparent than in this 1931 novel, which finds Lord Peter investigating a suspicious death in Scotland.

The plot of THE FIVE RED HERRINGS begins with some promise: the victim is a man despised by virtually everyone in town, so no one is greatly shocked when his body is found in a creek at the bottom of a ravine. But the story soon acquires a mechanical feeling: of six possible suspects, HALF are unexpectedly and mysteriously out of town--and tracking them down allows Sayers to indulge her love of time-tables and train schedules to the nth degree. It makes for some very dry narrative indeed. At the same time, Sayers attempts to duplicate the Scottish accent of the locals on the page itself, and the result is page after page of phonetic spellings and oddly placed aphostrophes. It is more than a little off-putting.

In spite of these drawbacks, the book does have its graces, chiefly in Sayers' knack for turning a witty phrase and in her ever-developing portrait of Lord Peter Wimsey. And to do Sayers justice, the gimmicky plot and the emphasis on time-tables, etc. is rather typical of 1920s and 1930s murder mysteries. Such books often have a great deal of period charm, but frankly, THE FIVE RED HERRINGS is not among them. Die-hard Sayers fans will certainly want to read this novel, and many will get a good degree of pleasure from it... but newcomers to Dorothy Sayers' work should start with one of her later successes, and I specifically recommend MURDER MUST ADVERTISE to them instead.

This is not the place to start reading the Lord Wimsey books--it is clear that Dorothy Sayers was trying a more complex plot with The Five Red Herrings. Read the books in order and you will better appreciate this effort. It should be remembered that Sayers was not a simple little mystery writer--she was a complex, multi-talented writer who would be expected to stretch the genre.

This deck's symbolism makes sense if you are familiar with Tolkien's the Lord of the Rings, however it does not have any traditional Tarot symbolism in its pictures. I don't agree with most of the interpretations in the sketchy booklet. I can't get detailed readings from this deck, although I can get accurate general readings. The cards are good for telling the atmosphere of a situation, but little else. As for the artwork, the pictures are beautiful, but small. Most of the scenes are of landscapes, and people are not usually the focus. However, I LOVE the Queen of Swords card - Eowyn is perfect!!!! If you are a deck collector or want a Tolkien novelty, then this would suit you. A serious reader should look for another deck.

If you're a serious student of the tarot, you may be disappointed with the cards (they double as a card game and therefore have extraneous symbols on them that may distract during a reading, and the prominent captions do little to open the intuitive mind to symbolic meanings beyond the surface). Still, the artwork is fine, if too small (another artifact of the gaming aspect), and the choices of characters and situations is well-thought-out. If you approach this set as a Tolkien fan FIRST, and a tarot afficionado second, you'll probably find it delightful. But don't buy it as a primary (reading) deck--buy it as a collectible.

Wow, has this deck gotten slammed!

I am a 'new' Tolkien fan. After seeing the Lord of the Rings movie and loving it.. I decided I had to read the books. The characters / story just fascinates me. I also enjoy the Tarot quite a bit - so when I remembered that there was a Lord of the Rings Tarot - I got excited... Until I read the reviews. OUCH!

I am not in any way saying the reviews are wrong. From what I understand, there are a lot of "technical differences"... and ALOT of questioning of why certain people / things were chosen for the cards they depict. I understand and agree with most of this... which is why it took me a long time before I broke down and purchased the deck...

I realized the reason I like the deck is because I am approaching it differently. 1. I like the artwork. Some of the pictures are quite intuitive to me - irrespective of the story. 2. I find the sentences on the cards helpful in remembering some of the aspects of the card meaning. 3. I like seeing the characters I enjoy on the cards - It helps me relate better to the deck as a whole.

While I realize there is a lot wrong with this deck, personally, I find that if I approach it loosely, it can be fun and I can get a lot out of it. I find that I just enjoy using cards that remind me of a story I love - I read the cards as they make me feel when I look at them - and I don't take the rest of it too seriously.

This deck may or may not be for you. Take all of the reviews / information into consideration, look at the cards yourself, and then make your own decision.

As numerous people have mentioned, Tolkien was a Catholic, but I don't think that would have anything to do with why he wouldn't like this deck, as the Tarot was invented and primarily used by the Catholic culture of medieval and Rennaisance Europe. As a historian, he would have appreciated that. This deck makes a mockery both of the ancient symbolism and complex history of the Tarot, as well as the beauty and mythic scope of Tolkien's works. The symbolism is all wrong, the artwork is mediocre at best, and all of the meanings of both Tolkien's works and the Tarot cards are completely twisted and taken out of context. If you are a serious Tarot reader or collector, or have any respect for the venerated author, don't buy this deck.

Okay, I completely agree with the other reviews on this book in that it is completely garbage. I wouldn't buy it if you gave me $100. It's just totally out of the question! I don't see how anyone could publish this(word that I won't write). Just because Tolkien isn't living anymore, doesn't mean people can take advantage of his woks! Pathetic. Thats all I have to say. Pathetic.

Those who have read biographies about Professor J.R.R. Tolkien would know that if he were living he would be absolutley abhorrent of this book. Tolkien was a very religious person, and his religion was Catholic, which is completely against tarot cards. This is the kind of thing that would make him turn-over in his grave. I'm sure that a lot of Tolkien fans would agree with me in saying that Tolkien Enterprises has stooped pretty low in using Tolkien tarrot cards. If Tolkein were alive and knew about this he would be greatly angered. So, please, to all you fans of Tolkien out there, and those who respect his ideas, DO NOT BUY THIS BOOK! IT IS COMPLETELY AGAINST WHAT TOLKIEN STOOD FOR! There are many other good Tolkien books so go check it out for yourself.