Thanks for those who answered my question. I have also read quite a few books set in Oxford, but your posts made things a lot clearer.
I was really upset over the chess pieces. As soon as Harriet decided to keep them in her room at Oxford I was sure they would be targeted by the 'poltergeist'. I thought Peter would suggest keeping them safe for her or keeping them at her London home. Despite being fictional I was upset something so elaborate, that had survived many years in perfect condition was destroyed!
4. The novel is now 85 years old. What parts of it feel dated to you?
The book didn't feel dated, but the treatment of students certainly was, especially as others have explained, it was compulsory for students to live on site for at least part of their degree. The women students in particular were very controlled. I lived at home during university. In Australia most people study at one of their city's local universities and most people who live in university accommodation are from the country or international students. And even they can live in alternative accommodation if they want to. I wonder if it was partly due to 21, rather than 18, being the age you officially became an adult until 1970 in the UK - (it was 1974 in Australia). I know one of my great grandfathers joined up to fight in WWI at the age of 18 in 1916. He needed his widowed mother's permission, but she wanted him to stay and work on the family farm (there was no conscription for WWI in Australia). He forged his mother's signature and joined up anyway.
I seem to remember there was a real Chinese chess set somewhere in Britain at the time - either on exhibition or perhaps auctioned - which Sayers probably saw. Does any shipmate know about this? Perhaps it's in the Ashmolean!
This is the picture I've seen most often used to illustrate what Harriet's chess set might have looked like, but I haven't searched carefully enough to learn more about the actual set.
This is the picture I've seen most often used to illustrate what Harriet's chess set might have looked like, but I haven't searched carefully enough to learn more about the actual set.
Now I'm even MORE upset the dratted (fictional) thing got destroyed!!
I've always been slightly bemused by the chess set - it seems to be introduced just to be smashed up and Peter, who you'd expect to be distraught, is almost undisturbed by its loss, and Harriet not a lot more.
This is the picture I've seen most often used to illustrate what Harriet's chess set might have looked like, but I haven't searched carefully enough to learn more about the actual set.
Those are stunningly beautiful, even more than I imagined the fictional set. I'm another who was very upset by the destruction, and the one survivor made it even more poignant.
What is the why of this procedure ? And what then would be the real equivalent of (say) an American MA?
There are any number of cheeky responses possible to this question
An MA is, at root, a licence to incept (teach) in the faculty of arts. (It may amuse you to know that there used to be a point in the graduation ceremony where a new MA would promise not to teach in nor regard as a university any institution in England other than Oxford or Cambridge, and in particular not to give lectures at Stamford (a short-lived 14th century upstart institution). The oath to not lecture at Stamford was maintained until the early 19th century, some five centuries after the demise of that institution.)
At one point, the BA was an intermediate degree on the way to the MA, but as students began their university education later, and with more schooling, the BA grew to cover the scope of the MA, leaving the MA as a very nominal examination, which eventually evaporated.
Oxford does have a number of taught master's courses, but none of them are MAs. There are undergraduate masters degrees (science degrees that consist of an additional year of study on top of the standard 3-year BA: these are called MPhys, MChem, MBiol, MEng, and so on, and there are postgraduate taught masters programs (MSc, MSt, MLitt), and of course the MPhil, which is generally awarded to candidates who were engaged in research for a DPhil, but weren't going to make it, as something of a consolation prize
In general, as @Cathscats says, the UK and US education systems are quite dissimilar. A UK school pupil will sit GCSE exams aged 16, then spend two years specializing in usually three subjects at A-level. By contrast, a US high school student studies a broad curriculum throughout.
A US college student will be required to take some number of general education courses. That doesn't happen in UK universities: if you are granted a place at university to read Maths, then all the courses you take are Maths courses: nobody will try to teach you poetry, or chemistry, or anything.
The consequence of this different focus is that, in my experience, a new UK graduate has a year or two's advantage in specialist knowledge on their US equivalent, although less of a broad background.
I've always been slightly bemused by the chess set - it seems to be introduced just to be smashed up and Peter, who you'd expect to be distraught, is almost undisturbed by its loss, and Harriet not a lot more.
Did you read the same book that I did? Harriet is beside herself over the chessmen.
For about five minutes, Harriet was the prey of that kind of speechless rage which is beyond expression or control. If she had thought of it, she
was at that moment in a mood to sympathise with the Poltergeist and all her works. If she could have beaten or strangled anybody, she would
have done it and felt the better for it. Happily, after the first devastating fury, she found the relief of bad language. When she found she could
keep her voice steady, she locked her bedroom door behind her and went down to the telephone.
Even so, she was at first so incoherent that Peter could hardly understand what she said. When he did understand, he was maddeningly cool
about it, merely asking whether she had touched anything or told anybody. When assured that she had not he replied cheerfully that he would
be along in a few minutes.
Harriet went out and raged distractedly about the New Quad till she heard him ring--for the gates were now shut--and only a last lingering
vestige of self-restraint prevented her from rushing at him and pouring out her indignation in the presence of Padgett. But she waited for him in
the middle of the quad.
(For me, the most important part of the chessmen story is when Peter tells Harriet that of course he wouldn't have bought the set for her if there had been a fake pawn mixed in. Despite his deep feelings for Harriet, he will not betray his intellectual honesty even for her.)
Peter is naturally far more concerned for Harriet than for the chessmen, so his reaction is no surprise. Harriet is upset and angry (thanks for the great quotation!) and is pissed off at Peter for being so un-agitated. And of course the chess set was introduced to be smashed up--it plays any number of roles:
1) it's the first significant material gift Harriet has allowed Peter to give her;
2) it's a chess set, so fits in well with the whole intellectual theme, in particular the mystery solving, one step at a time;
3) it's both antique and exotic, which possibly references Peter's background (Wimseys go back how far in the peerage?) and Harriet's "not fish nor fowl nor good red herring" status as a mystery writer with a Past™
4) it ratchets up the danger level and thus the suspense, without requiring anybody to be actually injured;
5) It introduces Peter to Pomfret & Co(mplications), which is helpful in terms of plot;
6) It makes it clear that the perp is someone who presumably has easy access to people's rooms (i.e. a scout);
7) I can't find the quote right now, but it reveals to Harriet "that some of its value was bound up with her value for the giver."
8) Oh, and it makes the burgeoning Peter/Harriet love affair public, as she exhibits the gift in the SCR with any number of dons present--and the expected conclusions are drawn. This is a step forward from people whispering or making crude remarks.
What is the why of this procedure ? And what then would be the real equivalent of (say) an American MA?
There are any number of cheeky responses possible to this question
An MA is, at root, a licence to incept (teach) in the faculty of arts. (It may amuse you to know that there used to be a point in the graduation ceremony where a new MA would promise not to teach in nor regard as a university any institution in England other than Oxford or Cambridge, and in particular not to give lectures at Stamford (a short-lived 14th century upstart institution). The oath to not lecture at Stamford was maintained until the early 19th century, some five centuries after the demise of that institution.)
At one point, the BA was an intermediate degree on the way to the MA, but as students began their university education later, and with more schooling, the BA grew to cover the scope of the MA, leaving the MA as a very nominal examination, which eventually evaporated.
Oxford does have a number of taught master's courses, but none of them are MAs. There are undergraduate masters degrees (science degrees that consist of an additional year of study on top of the standard 3-year BA: these are called MPhys, MChem, MBiol, MEng, and so on, and there are postgraduate taught masters programs (MSc, MSt, MLitt), and of course the MPhil, which is generally awarded to candidates who were engaged in research for a DPhil, but weren't going to make it, as something of a consolation prize
In general, as @Cathscats says, the UK and US education systems are quite dissimilar. A UK school pupil will sit GCSE exams aged 16, then spend two years specializing in usually three subjects at A-level. By contrast, a US high school student studies a broad curriculum throughout.
A US college student will be required to take some number of general education courses. That doesn't happen in UK universities: if you are granted a place at university to read Maths, then all the courses you take are Maths courses: nobody will try to teach you poetry, or chemistry, or anything.
The consequence of this different focus is that, in my experience, a new UK graduate has a year or two's advantage in specialist knowledge on their US equivalent, although less of a broad background.
It does depend what school and university you go to in the UK. I did the international Baccalaureate rather than a-levels, (6/7 subjects including epistemology unexamined course in 6th form) and took a dual honours degree that also required you to take subsidiary courses. As I didn't get my desired grades I did as-levels in my gap year. The net result being by the time I graduated from my degree I'd studied 13 different subjects between 16 and 22.
Some of the complaints in that article might be justified, but the assertions that it begins with - that nowhere else do people employ cleaners - is absurd.
Every employer I've ever had has employed cleaners. My private office spaces have been "invaded" on a regular basis by people hoovering, washing, or polishing floors as appropriate. Hotels have cleaners. Bars and restaurants have cleaners. Streets have cleaners. The only place, in fact, where users of a space are typically expected to "clean up after themselves" in the manner described in the article is in a typical private home.
Interestingly, I read a blog post based on something Sayers had written where she said when she introduced the chess set she had NOT planned that fate for them -- the idea of having them destroyed came along later. I think it's in character that Peter sees the loss of an expensive (to Harriet, probably cheap to him) gift as a small thing when actual human lives are at stake. But Harriet certainly IS devastated at their loss. I love the scene where she cries over them and says she is so sad because "I loved them, and you gave them to me," and he points out that putting it that way around (as opposed to "You gave them to me and I loved them") makes them truly irreplaceable.
It's also noteworthy that Peter encourages her to cry on his shoulder at that moment, and she does, and when he speaks his voice is muffled by her hair, so he has taken her in his arms -- I believe (apart from dancing together in Have His Carcase) it's the only time we see any physical intimacy between them before Harriet accepts his proposal. It's such a lovely moment it's almost worth the destruction of the chessmen.
Some of the complaints in that article might be justified, but the assertions that it begins with - that nowhere else do people employ cleaners - is absurd.
Every employer I've ever had has employed cleaners. My private office spaces have been "invaded" on a regular basis by people hoovering, washing, or polishing floors as appropriate. Hotels have cleaners. Bars and restaurants have cleaners. Streets have cleaners. The only place, in fact, where users of a space are typically expected to "clean up after themselves" in the manner described in the article is in a typical private home.
But don't scouts clean the students' private rooms? Yes, all institutions employ cleaners for public spaces, but in other universities where students live in residence, keeping the residence room clean is the student's responsibility. Having a cleaner employed by the college come in and clean individual students' dorm rooms would be a very unusual practice anywhere in North America -- not sure about other places in the UK outside of Oxford, but the article says it's only at Oxford, Cambridge, and Durham that this practice persists. In any post-secondary institution I know of, a student's room in residence/dorm is considered a private space and their own responsibility to keep clean.
Your room is cleaned by housekeeping staff in a hotel, but not in most places where you're living permanently, except in very unusual circumstances. Like, I guess, at Oxford.
We had cleaners in several of the Halls of Residence at Imperial in the 1970s/1980s, who cleaned the rooms - I knew a lot of them well as I earned money as part of the cleaning team during some of the holidays when those rooms were let out as accommodation - to conference attendees and tourists.
Those halls were individual rooms with a basin, desk and bed, shared kitchen area, shower and bath plus two toilets between 8 rooms on a double landing - the kitchen was the corridor between the two groups of four bedrooms. Not a lot better than the hall room I had in my first year in the oldest existing building, where we had individual rooms with sinks along a corridor, shared bathroom with more than one bath in separate cubicles between 20 odd of us and a grim kitchen, that if I remember correctly was for all the floors in that hall, wooden cubicles to store individual food. Those were old enough to be single sex on each floor with originally chaperones next to the stairs. My room was cleaned too.
I think it's in character that Peter sees the loss of an expensive (to Harriet, probably cheap to him) gift as a small thing when actual human lives are at stake.
And Peter was in the war and had seen men slain and even blown up around him. Experiencing that, the destruction of a mere physical object, no matter how loved, must seem merely regrettable.
And, of course, with Harriet initially "nearly incoherent" he probably feared that something had physically happened to her--learning it was "just" the chessmen must have come as something of a relief to him. As I recall, Peter admits when he examines the debris that he had previously thought that the Unknown was just "afraid" of Harriet. Seeing the destruction, he realizes for the first time "she hates you too."
But don't scouts clean the students' private rooms?
After a fashion - they'll push the hoover round whatever carpet is available, but that's really the extent of it. They probably clean private bathrooms (for those rooms that have en suite facilities) as well. They're certainly not tidying up, or making beds, or anything like that.
Your room is cleaned by housekeeping staff in a hotel, but not in most places where you're living permanently, except in very unusual circumstances. Like, I guess, at Oxford.
It never occurred to me to view a college room that I was occupying for three eight-week terms plus fringe effects as a place where I was "living permanently". Particularly when the college insisted that I move all my possessions out of my room during the Christmas vacation, so that they could rent my room out to the conference trade.
It does depend what school and university you go to in the UK.
Fair point (and I also said "UK" when I should have said "England and Wales" - Scotland is different, although not so dramatically so, and I have no idea about education in Northern Ireland) - but I think your experience is relatively unusual by UK standards. Last time I looked, about 250K kids took A-levels in a year vs less than 5000 taking the IB.
But don't scouts clean the students' private rooms?
It never occurred to me to view a college room that I was occupying for three eight-week terms plus fringe effects as a place where I was "living permanently". Particularly when the college insisted that I move all my possessions out of my room during the Christmas vacation, so that they could rent my room out to the conference trade.
That, I think, is one big difference -- perhaps between countries? Here in North America, the norm is to move your things into residence in September and leave them there until the school year ends in April. Students go home for Christmas vacation but everything stays in their room; universities often rent out rooms in the summer, when students are expected to have their personal belongings cleared out, but I don't think this is the norm over the two-week Christmas break anywhere that I know of. So your room in residence is pretty much your home for eight months of the year, even if you leave it for a short vacation break.
I can see how that would end up feeling much more like a private residence, than a place you were only in for three eight-week terms. That would feel far more like an extended-stay hotel kind of situation, and in that case I guess I could see having cleaning staff clean your room, although it would still seem strange to me (actually, it feels strange to me when I stay in a hotel for more that one night and the housekeeping staff come in and make up the bed during the day while I'm out!).
We had a cleaner in the room at university about once a fortnight, they did the carpet and the sink. Bedding was our job though - we had to take it to get changed one morning each week.
I have a BA, and an MA from another institution in an allied subject. Once the paperwork is done I will be starting a BSc in the autumn with work.
Non classified degrees have no real value these days due to employers demanding honours degrees, and often at least a 2:1 or 2:2 for jobs.
Back in the day, early 1980s in Aberdeen uni, when I was in halls we had our rooms cleaned every second day and the residence also provided and washed our sheets, though we had to change the beds ourselves (it was where I first had the experience of having a duvet). I know that if there were dirty mugs lying around the cleaner would wash them for us. Since our meals were also provided, except lunch, it was a nice gentle introduction to independence from the parental nest, as getting used to being away and university life was really enough to cope with for the first year or two: almost no one stayed in residence beyond second year and many not beyond first year.
Now I'm wondering if there are North American universities where there are also cleaners in the dorms, or if this is a Pond difference. My experience in an US college dorm in the 1980s and my daughter's in a Canadian university residence in the 2020s are the same -- your room is entirely your own responsibility, and only the common areas of the building are cleaned by housekeeping staff. In her case this includes the bathroom as it's a shared one for her floor, but in my college dorm we had two rooms with a shared bathroom between us and the housekeeping staff never saw the inside of that bathroom -- we had to learn to clean it ourselves. That kind of dorm life was, I thought, a pretty good transition to independent living.
It is interesting to me that something that I thought was very much of the Gaudy Night era in Oxford -- having the scout clean your room -- is in fact much more widespread than I'd thought and still happens in some places today. Quite a cultural difference.
Another thing in GN that I've never fully got the context of -- and I don't know if this an Oxford thing or a 1930s things or a combination of both -- is the conversation about drinking cocoa that Harriet has with the students when she meets with a group of them. There seems to be a lot of cultural baggage associated with cocoa-drinking that is lost on me, and the reference to the fact that "Groupists" drink cocoa and that Miss Layton used to be one has also sent me off Googling from time to time. I assume the implication is that cocoa is a less sophisticated drink than either alcoholic beverages or coffee, but despite my Googling I'm still not entirely sure who Groupists were and why they were associated with cocoa-drinking.
Also, in that same scene with the Third Year students, there are some other puzzling bits. Miss Milibanks, who invites Harriet back to her room after Harriet has given a talk, is the "Senior Student." What does this mean? And how to unpack this description of her: "She held a minor scholarship without emoluments, declaring publicly that she was a scholar only because she would not be seen dead in the ridiculous short gown of a commoner."
In this context, what is the difference between a scholar and a commoner, and how does gown length figure into it?
You can see that I posed the original discussion question about references that might be unclear to the reader because I have been carrying around a lot of unanswered questions about this book for nearly 40 years. @Marama, thanks for the helpful explanation of the SCR and the JCR.
I'll take a wild an ill informed punt at some of those question. I think she *might* have been referring to "the Oxford Group" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Group - they were evangelical movement around that period and the founders of Alcoholics Anonymous met in that context. Historically the temperance movement in Britain encouraged people to drink chocolate rather than alcohol - that is why so many Quaker families got into the production and manufacture of chocolate. So she may have been having a gentle pop at teetotallers.
On the second point, the web tells me that currently:
Senior Status
Second undergraduate degree candidates may apply for ‘Senior Status’. This exempts you from the First Public Examination, so you can start directly in the second year of the degree. The criterion for achieving such status is a university degree obtained after courses extending over at least three years. We would usually expect a degree classification of 2:1 (or equivalent) or higher. The university should have a good academic reputation and selective entrance requirements.
A scholar would be someone recognised for having a high level of achievement, without emoluments would mean without getting a bursary / grant or salary. Normally, a scholarship to somewhere means your fees are paid, but I don't know if that is what is meant in this context.
We had room cleaning in undergrad in residence, but I suspect that was a holdover from earlier days and I’m fairly certain that it’s no longer around now.
I didn’t get around to re-reading much of GN this month, but I re-read it earlier this year. I remember thinking this time around that Wimsey ends up entering the picture as a bit of a Deus ex Machina in a story that arguably didn’t really need one. From the point of view of the broader plot, he kind of has to enter the picture, and of course he has to be there because he’s Sayers detective character. But I felt the earlier parts of the book we’re aiming for a greater feel of realism that couldn’t help falling by the wayside with Wimsey in the picture. By GN Wimsey is simply too idealized to be remotely believable, which is not really a problem in some of Sayers’ books but creates an odd effect in the context of what I think Sayers was trying to do at least in some parts of GN. I wonder how the book might have read if Sayers had left Wimsey out altogether and allowed Harriet to figure it out herself. Obviously not ending with Harriet accepting his marriage proposal, which I suspect would have defeated the purpose as far as Sayers was concerned.
I remember enjoying the book as a teenager and was happy to come back to it though.
A further, probably obvious, thing about SCR and JCR is that the terms are used metonymically for the members thereof.
A scholar in context is a student of some academic distinction. Some scholarships would include financial support. A minor scholarship without emoluments I guess is a kind of academic recognition with no financial support attached. Scholars and ‘commoners’ would have different gowns as a mark of their status. (Oxford information here (link).)
‘Senior student’ would be the equivalent of a student president, with responsibility for leading the JCR.
I'll take a wild an ill informed punt at some of those question. I think she *might* have been referring to "the Oxford Group" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Group - they were evangelical movement around that period and the founders of Alcoholics Anonymous met in that context. Historically the temperance movement in Britain encouraged people to drink chocolate rather than alcohol - that is why so many Quaker families got into the production and manufacture of chocolate. So she may have been having a gentle pop at teetotallers.
On the second point, the web tells me that currently:
Senior Status
Second undergraduate degree candidates may apply for ‘Senior Status’. This exempts you from the First Public Examination, so you can start directly in the second year of the degree. The criterion for achieving such status is a university degree obtained after courses extending over at least three years. We would usually expect a degree classification of 2:1 (or equivalent) or higher. The university should have a good academic reputation and selective entrance requirements.
A scholar would be someone recognised for having a high level of achievement, without emoluments would mean without getting a bursary / grant or salary. Normally, a scholarship to somewhere means your fees are paid, but I don't know if that is what is meant in this context.
In this context, what is the difference between a scholar and a commoner, and how does gown length figure into it?
A "commoner" is an ordinary undergraduate student. The commoner's gown is a waist-length sleeveless item that does look rather ridiculous. The scholar's gown is knee-length, with wide sleeves to elbow-length, and looks all together more like a garment and less like an old rag. These days, one is elected to a scholarship on the basis of performance in Mods (exams at the end of first year), and re-elected in subsequent years assuming one maintains reasonable academic performance. Most college scholarships have a rather nominal prize associated with them - generally a modest sum of money towards books.
In the context of scholarships, an "exhibition" is a minor scholarship, of lesser importance than a "scholarship".
With regard to Miss Millbanks, the "Senior Student" - from context, this does not refer to the university "senior status" mentioned by @Doublethink, but I think to a person who would these days generally be called the JCR President: someone who has an acknowledged leadership role among the college's undergraduates. I don't know whether her appointment to this role is by election, or by seniority and academic performance.
(PS - I see DT beat me to the link to the photos of academic dress. These days, one wears gowns for university exams, and in most colleges for dinner. Back in the day, one would wear gowns to attend lectures and tutorials; this is no longer current practice. These days, it's normal to see undergraduates eating dinner in t-shirt, shorts, and gown.)
I have been told that students in commoners' gowns, especially if a bit raggy, can get free bus rides on the tourist buses. Not sure if true, but from someone in the university.
1. How well did this book work for you as a mystery novel? Were you engaged with the mystery? Surprised and satisfied by the resolution? What worked and what didn’t, for you – evaluating this primarily as a mystery novel?
It was not my first read, so I knew who did it. This time I noted how Sayers was introducing references to Annie, quietly, unobtrusively – it’s there but the reader doesn’t notice. (My salutations to Mili who worked it out – I think most readers don’t!). I think the mystery is fine – but personally I find the romance plot and the philosophical debates more engaging. Surely the strength of the book is that it does all three, very effectively.
I'm another who didn't spot it on my first read, but saw the flags on the second (third, fourth... this time) readthrough. I think I notice them better on each subsequent reading - although this may just be because I hadn't re-read it for about a decade this time, so had forgotten about some of the less obvious parts!
Oh, and another UK graduate here who had her room hoovered by cleaning staff in the 2 separate years (first and final year) she was on campus. That was in the early 90s. (Second year was in a shared house with some friends, third year was an industrial placement and I lived in a YMCA - so also with a cleaner - for the whole 12 months of it!).
I think the wearing gowns for dinner now does depend on which college. I've blagged college meals off the paternal Knotweed on various occasions, and there's never been anyone in a gown at either lunch (not expected then AFAIK), or any of the dinners. Including the dinner where I was a last-minute sub as one of his tutees was unwell, my job just then was an office one just down the road from the college, and he knew I was already going to the lecture the guest of honour was giving! Only times I've ever seen students in gowns are exam season and degree days, and I mostly grew up in Oxford, and still live very very close to it.
The shortness of the commoner's gown has led to what is known as "slut fusc" (Sub fusc being the gown, white shirt/blouse and black tie with a carnation in the button hole that is worn for exams) - I nearly crashed my bike when I encountered this first, the idea being to liven up your sub fusc by wearing something racy underneath it, and the young lady concerned was cycling against the strong wind I was cycling with...
Oh my, I can't imagine how the Shrewsbury dons would have felt about slut fusc, given how hard they tried to stop the students sunbathing in the quad in their undergarments.
The shortness of the commoner's gown has led to what is known as "slut fusc" (Sub fusc being the gown, white shirt/blouse and black tie with a carnation in the button hole that is worn for exams) - I nearly crashed my bike when I encountered this first, the idea being to liven up your sub fusc by wearing something racy underneath it, and the young lady concerned was cycling against the strong wind I was cycling with...
Sub fusc is the technical term for the most formal wear of a member of the university. Worn, as you say, at exams. But also at certain ceremonies (after all these years I've forgotten which). At university matriculation, for example, or when getting a degree. For a man it's a dark gray or black suit, white bow tie, gown, cap (mortarboard) and, if applicable, hood. I know the regs for women have changed since my day -- I gather women are now allowed to wear caps instead of the soft black things that used to be required.
Oh my, I can't imagine how the Shrewsbury dons would have felt about slut fusc, given how hard they tried to stop the students sunbathing in the quad in their undergarments.
After I read the book I watched videos of the T.V. series episode on Youtube. So many people commenting on how it was such a lovely show with no swearing, or sex, or graphic violence and everyone dressed so well back then. I had to comment how in the novel the older generation is critical of the younger generation, including their grubby clothes and lack of clothes they wear for summer bathing! I also thought it the comments were funny given the crimes committed, but I guess there is not much blood and the swearwords are not shown and it's true they haven't tried to make it more raunchy like some of the recent Austen adaptions.
My memory, no doubt flawed by the passage of time, is that carnations might appear on the last day of schools (along with bottles of champagne, but I digress). As I was doing graduate work and never sat schools, I was not part of the normal unseemly brawl. I do know, though, that flowers were not part of the drill when sub fusc was being worn at other times and in other places.
@Trudy wrote:
8. What about the other characters, other than Peter and Harriet? This novel has a large cast – do you have a favourite?
I've read all the Wimsey books at least twice and some several more times than that. Gaudy Night isn't really a favourite. I find the cast of characters a bit too large, some of the incidents there to illustrate points about women, education and marriage, and the love story doesn't quite work. Which is odd as I've now gone on to start re-reading Busman's Honeymoon, which I always enjoy. Maybe because Sayer's wasn't trying so hard the whole thing works much better for me. My favourite is probably Murder Must Advertise. Again a lot of characters, but somehow they seem more defined.
I find the cast of characters a bit too large, some of the incidents there to illustrate points about women, education and marriage, and the love story doesn't quite work.
I think the love story works very nicely, but I agree with you that most of the other characters are ciphers to help the story along and illustrate a point, and aren't really developed. In particular, none of the dons really stand out as being people.
I do rather enjoy the description of young Jerry, though: the discussion he has with Harriet where he discovers that Uncle Peter has given him a blank cheque is rather good.
I think the love story works rather well, myself, but maybe that's because a huge part of what Peter has to do is to withdraw himself from Harriet's business (so to speak) and let her have back her own agency. So he's not Johnny-on-the-spot throughout the book--which is rather odd in a love story.
I wouldn't read Gaudy Night purely for the mystery, as there's way too much else going on than just that, which would have made perhaps a novella by itself, no more. But as the occasion for Peter and Harriet to iron out their issues, the little mystery works very well.
I think the love story works in Busman's Honeymoon, not sure why it doesn't do it for me in Gaudy Night.
I loved Jerry, and was rather miffed to find out that Jill Paton Walsh killed him off in the Battle of Britain in one of her follow on stories.
I wondered about that, and should look it up -- was Jerry's death indicated in any of the things Sayers wrote about the Wimseys during the war? I know that in the first JPW book, Thrones, Dominations, she was largely building on things Sayers herself had already sketched out. I can't remember, but wouldn't be a bit surprised, if Jerry's death were something Sayers had already indicated, both because he is so exactly the type of person you would expect to be killed as an RAF officer, and also because it does open the possibility of Peter eventually becoming Duke of Denver.
The references to the possibility of war in Gaudy Night are the sort of thing I sometimes find in books that make me think, "Oh, this is some really heavy-handed foreshadowing" until you realize it was actually written before the event in question (my other favourite example is realizing that The Great Gatsby was written before the stock market crash, because it feels so much like a book about the 20s that is quite obviously foreshadowing the collapse of this whole gilded world). I guess it feels like foreshadowing because people in 1935 really were quite aware of and dreading the possibility of another war, and that comes through in Peter's work for the Foreign Office in GN. He does seem to feel that war is inevitable. In that light Jerry would read to me almost like a character who is marked out for death, except that, of course, Sayers couldn't have foreseen the war that specifically when she was writing GN. All this to say that while I was sad about Jerry's death in Thrones, Dominations (I think that's the one he dies in), I wasn't surprised -- it seemed narratively very right, and is one of the JPW authorial decisions that I agree with.
Hmm. Have done some checking and my memory is not quite correct as I don't think Jerry does die in T,D; apparently it's in The Attenbury Emeralds that we learn he died during the war. In The Wimsey Papers Sayers has the Dowager Duchess write that "Denver is worried about Jerry...because he's in the RAF" and later that he "shot down a German bomber last week." Apparently while the Battle of Britain was going on, Sayers said to a friend that "I'm afraid young Jerry has had it," so that's the backup for the suggestion that having Jerry die in battle was her idea not JPW's.
Sayers did write something in which she said that she was afraid Jerry would die in the war and the duchy go to Peter and his line, but I don't remember where she wrote it.
Comments
I was really upset over the chess pieces. As soon as Harriet decided to keep them in her room at Oxford I was sure they would be targeted by the 'poltergeist'. I thought Peter would suggest keeping them safe for her or keeping them at her London home. Despite being fictional I was upset something so elaborate, that had survived many years in perfect condition was destroyed!
4. The novel is now 85 years old. What parts of it feel dated to you?
The book didn't feel dated, but the treatment of students certainly was, especially as others have explained, it was compulsory for students to live on site for at least part of their degree. The women students in particular were very controlled. I lived at home during university. In Australia most people study at one of their city's local universities and most people who live in university accommodation are from the country or international students. And even they can live in alternative accommodation if they want to. I wonder if it was partly due to 21, rather than 18, being the age you officially became an adult until 1970 in the UK - (it was 1974 in Australia). I know one of my great grandfathers joined up to fight in WWI at the age of 18 in 1916. He needed his widowed mother's permission, but she wanted him to stay and work on the family farm (there was no conscription for WWI in Australia). He forged his mother's signature and joined up anyway.
Now I'm even MORE upset the dratted (fictional) thing got destroyed!!
Those are stunningly beautiful, even more than I imagined the fictional set. I'm another who was very upset by the destruction, and the one survivor made it even more poignant.
There are any number of cheeky responses possible to this question
An MA is, at root, a licence to incept (teach) in the faculty of arts. (It may amuse you to know that there used to be a point in the graduation ceremony where a new MA would promise not to teach in nor regard as a university any institution in England other than Oxford or Cambridge, and in particular not to give lectures at Stamford (a short-lived 14th century upstart institution). The oath to not lecture at Stamford was maintained until the early 19th century, some five centuries after the demise of that institution.)
At one point, the BA was an intermediate degree on the way to the MA, but as students began their university education later, and with more schooling, the BA grew to cover the scope of the MA, leaving the MA as a very nominal examination, which eventually evaporated.
Oxford does have a number of taught master's courses, but none of them are MAs. There are undergraduate masters degrees (science degrees that consist of an additional year of study on top of the standard 3-year BA: these are called MPhys, MChem, MBiol, MEng, and so on, and there are postgraduate taught masters programs (MSc, MSt, MLitt), and of course the MPhil, which is generally awarded to candidates who were engaged in research for a DPhil, but weren't going to make it, as something of a consolation prize
In general, as @Cathscats says, the UK and US education systems are quite dissimilar. A UK school pupil will sit GCSE exams aged 16, then spend two years specializing in usually three subjects at A-level. By contrast, a US high school student studies a broad curriculum throughout.
A US college student will be required to take some number of general education courses. That doesn't happen in UK universities: if you are granted a place at university to read Maths, then all the courses you take are Maths courses: nobody will try to teach you poetry, or chemistry, or anything.
The consequence of this different focus is that, in my experience, a new UK graduate has a year or two's advantage in specialist knowledge on their US equivalent, although less of a broad background.
Did you read the same book that I did? Harriet is beside herself over the chessmen.
1) it's the first significant material gift Harriet has allowed Peter to give her;
2) it's a chess set, so fits in well with the whole intellectual theme, in particular the mystery solving, one step at a time;
3) it's both antique and exotic, which possibly references Peter's background (Wimseys go back how far in the peerage?) and Harriet's "not fish nor fowl nor good red herring" status as a mystery writer with a Past™
4) it ratchets up the danger level and thus the suspense, without requiring anybody to be actually injured;
5) It introduces Peter to Pomfret & Co(mplications), which is helpful in terms of plot;
6) It makes it clear that the perp is someone who presumably has easy access to people's rooms (i.e. a scout);
7) I can't find the quote right now, but it reveals to Harriet "that some of its value was bound up with her value for the giver."
8) Oh, and it makes the burgeoning Peter/Harriet love affair public, as she exhibits the gift in the SCR with any number of dons present--and the expected conclusions are drawn. This is a step forward from people whispering or making crude remarks.
https://cherwell.org/2017/06/12/the-scout-system-at-oxford-must-be-scrapped/
It does depend what school and university you go to in the UK. I did the international Baccalaureate rather than a-levels, (6/7 subjects including epistemology unexamined course in 6th form) and took a dual honours degree that also required you to take subsidiary courses. As I didn't get my desired grades I did as-levels in my gap year. The net result being by the time I graduated from my degree I'd studied 13 different subjects between 16 and 22.
Some of the complaints in that article might be justified, but the assertions that it begins with - that nowhere else do people employ cleaners - is absurd.
Every employer I've ever had has employed cleaners. My private office spaces have been "invaded" on a regular basis by people hoovering, washing, or polishing floors as appropriate. Hotels have cleaners. Bars and restaurants have cleaners. Streets have cleaners. The only place, in fact, where users of a space are typically expected to "clean up after themselves" in the manner described in the article is in a typical private home.
Interestingly, I read a blog post based on something Sayers had written where she said when she introduced the chess set she had NOT planned that fate for them -- the idea of having them destroyed came along later. I think it's in character that Peter sees the loss of an expensive (to Harriet, probably cheap to him) gift as a small thing when actual human lives are at stake. But Harriet certainly IS devastated at their loss. I love the scene where she cries over them and says she is so sad because "I loved them, and you gave them to me," and he points out that putting it that way around (as opposed to "You gave them to me and I loved them") makes them truly irreplaceable.
It's also noteworthy that Peter encourages her to cry on his shoulder at that moment, and she does, and when he speaks his voice is muffled by her hair, so he has taken her in his arms -- I believe (apart from dancing together in Have His Carcase) it's the only time we see any physical intimacy between them before Harriet accepts his proposal. It's such a lovely moment it's almost worth the destruction of the chessmen.
But don't scouts clean the students' private rooms? Yes, all institutions employ cleaners for public spaces, but in other universities where students live in residence, keeping the residence room clean is the student's responsibility. Having a cleaner employed by the college come in and clean individual students' dorm rooms would be a very unusual practice anywhere in North America -- not sure about other places in the UK outside of Oxford, but the article says it's only at Oxford, Cambridge, and Durham that this practice persists. In any post-secondary institution I know of, a student's room in residence/dorm is considered a private space and their own responsibility to keep clean.
Your room is cleaned by housekeeping staff in a hotel, but not in most places where you're living permanently, except in very unusual circumstances. Like, I guess, at Oxford.
Those halls were individual rooms with a basin, desk and bed, shared kitchen area, shower and bath plus two toilets between 8 rooms on a double landing - the kitchen was the corridor between the two groups of four bedrooms. Not a lot better than the hall room I had in my first year in the oldest existing building, where we had individual rooms with sinks along a corridor, shared bathroom with more than one bath in separate cubicles between 20 odd of us and a grim kitchen, that if I remember correctly was for all the floors in that hall, wooden cubicles to store individual food. Those were old enough to be single sex on each floor with originally chaperones next to the stairs. My room was cleaned too.
And, of course, with Harriet initially "nearly incoherent" he probably feared that something had physically happened to her--learning it was "just" the chessmen must have come as something of a relief to him. As I recall, Peter admits when he examines the debris that he had previously thought that the Unknown was just "afraid" of Harriet. Seeing the destruction, he realizes for the first time "she hates you too."
After a fashion - they'll push the hoover round whatever carpet is available, but that's really the extent of it. They probably clean private bathrooms (for those rooms that have en suite facilities) as well. They're certainly not tidying up, or making beds, or anything like that.
It never occurred to me to view a college room that I was occupying for three eight-week terms plus fringe effects as a place where I was "living permanently". Particularly when the college insisted that I move all my possessions out of my room during the Christmas vacation, so that they could rent my room out to the conference trade.
Fair point (and I also said "UK" when I should have said "England and Wales" - Scotland is different, although not so dramatically so, and I have no idea about education in Northern Ireland) - but I think your experience is relatively unusual by UK standards. Last time I looked, about 250K kids took A-levels in a year vs less than 5000 taking the IB.
How the hell did I miss that? You are quite, and utterly, correct.
That, I think, is one big difference -- perhaps between countries? Here in North America, the norm is to move your things into residence in September and leave them there until the school year ends in April. Students go home for Christmas vacation but everything stays in their room; universities often rent out rooms in the summer, when students are expected to have their personal belongings cleared out, but I don't think this is the norm over the two-week Christmas break anywhere that I know of. So your room in residence is pretty much your home for eight months of the year, even if you leave it for a short vacation break.
I can see how that would end up feeling much more like a private residence, than a place you were only in for three eight-week terms. That would feel far more like an extended-stay hotel kind of situation, and in that case I guess I could see having cleaning staff clean your room, although it would still seem strange to me (actually, it feels strange to me when I stay in a hotel for more that one night and the housekeeping staff come in and make up the bed during the day while I'm out!).
I have a BA, and an MA from another institution in an allied subject. Once the paperwork is done I will be starting a BSc in the autumn with work.
Non classified degrees have no real value these days due to employers demanding honours degrees, and often at least a 2:1 or 2:2 for jobs.
It is interesting to me that something that I thought was very much of the Gaudy Night era in Oxford -- having the scout clean your room -- is in fact much more widespread than I'd thought and still happens in some places today. Quite a cultural difference.
Another thing in GN that I've never fully got the context of -- and I don't know if this an Oxford thing or a 1930s things or a combination of both -- is the conversation about drinking cocoa that Harriet has with the students when she meets with a group of them. There seems to be a lot of cultural baggage associated with cocoa-drinking that is lost on me, and the reference to the fact that "Groupists" drink cocoa and that Miss Layton used to be one has also sent me off Googling from time to time. I assume the implication is that cocoa is a less sophisticated drink than either alcoholic beverages or coffee, but despite my Googling I'm still not entirely sure who Groupists were and why they were associated with cocoa-drinking.
Also, in that same scene with the Third Year students, there are some other puzzling bits. Miss Milibanks, who invites Harriet back to her room after Harriet has given a talk, is the "Senior Student." What does this mean? And how to unpack this description of her: "She held a minor scholarship without emoluments, declaring publicly that she was a scholar only because she would not be seen dead in the ridiculous short gown of a commoner."
In this context, what is the difference between a scholar and a commoner, and how does gown length figure into it?
You can see that I posed the original discussion question about references that might be unclear to the reader because I have been carrying around a lot of unanswered questions about this book for nearly 40 years. @Marama, thanks for the helpful explanation of the SCR and the JCR.
On the second point, the web tells me that currently:
Senior Status
Second undergraduate degree candidates may apply for ‘Senior Status’. This exempts you from the First Public Examination, so you can start directly in the second year of the degree. The criterion for achieving such status is a university degree obtained after courses extending over at least three years. We would usually expect a degree classification of 2:1 (or equivalent) or higher. The university should have a good academic reputation and selective entrance requirements.
A scholar would be someone recognised for having a high level of achievement, without emoluments would mean without getting a bursary / grant or salary. Normally, a scholarship to somewhere means your fees are paid, but I don't know if that is what is meant in this context.
Gowns can be seen here https://www.ox.ac.uk/students/academic/dress
I didn’t get around to re-reading much of GN this month, but I re-read it earlier this year. I remember thinking this time around that Wimsey ends up entering the picture as a bit of a Deus ex Machina in a story that arguably didn’t really need one. From the point of view of the broader plot, he kind of has to enter the picture, and of course he has to be there because he’s Sayers detective character. But I felt the earlier parts of the book we’re aiming for a greater feel of realism that couldn’t help falling by the wayside with Wimsey in the picture. By GN Wimsey is simply too idealized to be remotely believable, which is not really a problem in some of Sayers’ books but creates an odd effect in the context of what I think Sayers was trying to do at least in some parts of GN. I wonder how the book might have read if Sayers had left Wimsey out altogether and allowed Harriet to figure it out herself. Obviously not ending with Harriet accepting his marriage proposal, which I suspect would have defeated the purpose as far as Sayers was concerned.
I remember enjoying the book as a teenager and was happy to come back to it though.
A scholar in context is a student of some academic distinction. Some scholarships would include financial support. A minor scholarship without emoluments I guess is a kind of academic recognition with no financial support attached. Scholars and ‘commoners’ would have different gowns as a mark of their status. (Oxford information here (link).)
‘Senior student’ would be the equivalent of a student president, with responsibility for leading the JCR.
Oh, the explanation about gowns with photo is very helpful, thanks!
A "commoner" is an ordinary undergraduate student. The commoner's gown is a waist-length sleeveless item that does look rather ridiculous. The scholar's gown is knee-length, with wide sleeves to elbow-length, and looks all together more like a garment and less like an old rag. These days, one is elected to a scholarship on the basis of performance in Mods (exams at the end of first year), and re-elected in subsequent years assuming one maintains reasonable academic performance. Most college scholarships have a rather nominal prize associated with them - generally a modest sum of money towards books.
https://www.ox.ac.uk/students/academic/dress
has some images.
With regard to Miss Millbanks, the "Senior Student" - from context, this does not refer to the university "senior status" mentioned by @Doublethink, but I think to a person who would these days generally be called the JCR President: someone who has an acknowledged leadership role among the college's undergraduates. I don't know whether her appointment to this role is by election, or by seniority and academic performance.
(PS - I see DT beat me to the link to the photos of academic dress. These days, one wears gowns for university exams, and in most colleges for dinner. Back in the day, one would wear gowns to attend lectures and tutorials; this is no longer current practice. These days, it's normal to see undergraduates eating dinner in t-shirt, shorts, and gown.)
Oh, and another UK graduate here who had her room hoovered by cleaning staff in the 2 separate years (first and final year) she was on campus. That was in the early 90s. (Second year was in a shared house with some friends, third year was an industrial placement and I lived in a YMCA - so also with a cleaner - for the whole 12 months of it!).
I think the wearing gowns for dinner now does depend on which college. I've blagged college meals off the paternal Knotweed on various occasions, and there's never been anyone in a gown at either lunch (not expected then AFAIK), or any of the dinners. Including the dinner where I was a last-minute sub as one of his tutees was unwell, my job just then was an office one just down the road from the college, and he knew I was already going to the lecture the guest of honour was giving! Only times I've ever seen students in gowns are exam season and degree days, and I mostly grew up in Oxford, and still live very very close to it.
Sub fusc is the technical term for the most formal wear of a member of the university. Worn, as you say, at exams. But also at certain ceremonies (after all these years I've forgotten which). At university matriculation, for example, or when getting a degree. For a man it's a dark gray or black suit, white bow tie, gown, cap (mortarboard) and, if applicable, hood. I know the regs for women have changed since my day -- I gather women are now allowed to wear caps instead of the soft black things that used to be required.
After I read the book I watched videos of the T.V. series episode on Youtube. So many people commenting on how it was such a lovely show with no swearing, or sex, or graphic violence and everyone dressed so well back then. I had to comment how in the novel the older generation is critical of the younger generation, including their grubby clothes and lack of clothes they wear for summer bathing! I also thought it the comments were funny given the crimes committed, but I guess there is not much blood and the swearwords are not shown and it's true they haven't tried to make it more raunchy like some of the recent Austen adaptions.
Carnations are traditional, though
The rule was always that you'd wear a white one for your first exam, a red one for your last exam, and a pink one for the middle exams
We had gerberas cos we woz well rebellious innit.
I've read all the Wimsey books at least twice and some several more times than that. Gaudy Night isn't really a favourite. I find the cast of characters a bit too large, some of the incidents there to illustrate points about women, education and marriage, and the love story doesn't quite work. Which is odd as I've now gone on to start re-reading Busman's Honeymoon, which I always enjoy. Maybe because Sayer's wasn't trying so hard the whole thing works much better for me. My favourite is probably Murder Must Advertise. Again a lot of characters, but somehow they seem more defined.
I think the love story works very nicely, but I agree with you that most of the other characters are ciphers to help the story along and illustrate a point, and aren't really developed. In particular, none of the dons really stand out as being people.
I do rather enjoy the description of young Jerry, though: the discussion he has with Harriet where he discovers that Uncle Peter has given him a blank cheque is rather good.
I think the love story works rather well, myself, but maybe that's because a huge part of what Peter has to do is to withdraw himself from Harriet's business (so to speak) and let her have back her own agency. So he's not Johnny-on-the-spot throughout the book--which is rather odd in a love story.
I wouldn't read Gaudy Night purely for the mystery, as there's way too much else going on than just that, which would have made perhaps a novella by itself, no more. But as the occasion for Peter and Harriet to iron out their issues, the little mystery works very well.
I loved Jerry, and was rather miffed to find out that Jill Paton Walsh killed him off in the Battle of Britain in one of her follow on stories.
The references to the possibility of war in Gaudy Night are the sort of thing I sometimes find in books that make me think, "Oh, this is some really heavy-handed foreshadowing" until you realize it was actually written before the event in question (my other favourite example is realizing that The Great Gatsby was written before the stock market crash, because it feels so much like a book about the 20s that is quite obviously foreshadowing the collapse of this whole gilded world). I guess it feels like foreshadowing because people in 1935 really were quite aware of and dreading the possibility of another war, and that comes through in Peter's work for the Foreign Office in GN. He does seem to feel that war is inevitable. In that light Jerry would read to me almost like a character who is marked out for death, except that, of course, Sayers couldn't have foreseen the war that specifically when she was writing GN. All this to say that while I was sad about Jerry's death in Thrones, Dominations (I think that's the one he dies in), I wasn't surprised -- it seemed narratively very right, and is one of the JPW authorial decisions that I agree with.