Sayers, feminists, and Holmes, oh my

[inmyriadbits]

One of the last things I did before leaving New York City and my college was return a bunch of library books. This grand undertaking involved three trips, several giant cloth shopping bags, and the assistance of my twin to achieve. I was most saddened by the necessity of returning a collection Dorothy L. Sayers essays, titled Unpopular Opinions. I'd only managed to work my way through two of the essays – "Aristotle on Detective Fiction," which rather awesomely uses Aristotle's Poetics to analyze the detective genre; I discuss the other essay further below.

Sayers is best known for her Lord Peter Wimsey detective novels from the 1920s and 1930s, which is how I was introduced to her work. In fact, it was the reason I even found Unpopular Opinions in the first place – I was having a crisis of faith, academia-style, and the best remedy I could imagine was a prompt application of Sayers' Gaudy Night.

It worked like a charm, with the bonus discovery of an entire two shelves of books that included Sayers' essays, plays, criticism, and collected letters. (I spent several hours sitting at a carrel doing good-parts-version re-reads of Strong Poison and Have His Carcase, and paging through her letters. Homework, what homework...) Anyway, I checked out Gaudy Night for a full re-read, and Unpopular Opinions for kicks. To give you an idea of why I mourned its loss, here's the book's opening:

"I have called this collection of fugitive pieces "Unpopular Opinions", partly, to be sure, because to warn a person off a book is the surest way of getting him to read it, but chiefly because I have evidence that all the opinions expressed have in fact caused a certain amount of annoyance one way and the other."

Who doesn't want to read a book starting off like that? In all seriousness, I adore Sayers' brain. She combines the intellectualism of an Oxford graduate with a refreshingly grounded, humanistic outlook on life, and a talent for effective and witty debate that she no doubt sharpened on friends like C.S. Lewis. The results make for great writing.

Anyway, I was reminded of the book for two reasons, the confluence of which led to my tracking down and buying a used copy of this (sadly out-of-print) book from a British vendor. 14-45 days shipping time, baby! But it's in great condition. :D?

Reason The First:

I was poking around on berserkide's journal, as one does with a new LJ friend, and encountered a post she'd written on women in the live music scene (here, but f-locked, sorry). I ran across the all-too-familiar statement in the comments that someone "doesn't think of [herself] as a feminist." Which, hey, I sympathize. I went to a women's college, after all; I am no babe in the woods here. God knows that word is so fraught with disputed meaning (over eras AND philosophies) and hateful connotation that it can be more of a burden than a help. For the record, it never fails frustrates me that those who believe in the principles of feminism have been partially deprived of a label around which we can rally; as much as hipsters scoff at labels and intellectuals quibble about their accuracy, there is a huge amount of power in identification. It's just a word, certainly, but it's also an identity; it's taking a stand, and doing it in the company of other people who have your back.

But I digress. Back to Sayers – who also was not inclined to declare herself a feminist. She opens her essay, an address to a women's society rather snarkily titled "Are Women Human?":

"When I was asked to come and speak to you, your Secretary made the suggestion that she thought I must be interested in the feminist movement. I replied — a little irritably, I am afraid — that I was not sure I wanted to "identify myself," as the phrase goes, with feminism, and that the time for "feminism," in the old-fashioned sense of the word, had gone past. In fact, I think I went so far as to say that, under present conditions, an aggressive feminism might do more harm than good. As a result I was, perhaps not unnaturally, invited to explain myself."

Sadly, only the first third or so of the essay can be found online, here. I fully plan to post the whole when I obtain my book. For your purposes, she still makes so good a number of her points in those pages that I recommend reading it – the "is this trousers, or is it braces?" bit alone makes me want to clap my hands and bounce around in the kind of glee only brought on by a really nicely-turned metaphor. I would like to quote the whole thing at you guys, but I will refrain. At least, until I really can quote the whole thing. :)

Sayers wrote those words in 1938, but she expresses almost exactly the same sentiment as a woman 70 years distant. I find that both astoundingly cool and, well, somewhat exhausting.

Reason The Second:

This reason is much more lighthearted. The book has an entire section devoted to "Studies in Sherlock Holmes" (I think you see where this is going). Sayers writes in her foreword:

"The game of applying the methods of "Higher Criticism" to the Sherlock Holmes canon was begun, many years ago, by Monsignor Ronald Knox, with the aim of showing that, by those methods, one could disintegrate a modern classic as speciously as a certain school of critics have endeavoured to disintegrate the Bible. Since then, the thing has become a hobby among a select set of jesters here and in America. The rule of the game is that it must be played as solemnly as a county cricket match at Lord's: the slightest touch of extravagance or burlesque ruins the atmosphere."

Most of the essays are also published, I believe, in Sayers On Holmes, along with the script for her contribution to a radio program "A Tribute to Sherlock Holmes on the Occasion of his 100th Birthday." Even if you don't know who Lord Peter is, READ THIS STORY! It's very short – barely 800 words – and possibly the most adorable thing on the face of the planet. It quite literally features a small adorable child and a kitten. And, of course, Holmes and Watson. I'll say that again: Sherlock Holmes kitten!fic. You know you want to read that. As a bonus, it's one of those rare pieces of legit author-written fanfic, seeing as Sayers has basically created a Holmes/Lord Peter Wimsey crossover fic. ♥

Anyway, in December, I barely remembered any of the Holmes canon I'd read as a kid, so I skimmed over these essays. Now, I think I'm going to find them as hilarious as intended. :D

Sayers could not have been a member of the Baker Street Irregulars, her being a woman and them being at the time a male-only organization. But she was one of the earliest contributors to the mock-criticism tradition to which she refers, and a contemporary of the BSI founder. (Nerds, the lot, bless their hearts.) The Baker Street Irregulars, by the way, have the best constitution and by-laws for a club I have ever seen in my LIFE. If they weren't an invite-only society, I would be joining up immediately. Because who doesn't love nerdy quotation battles, required drinking, and institutionalized prohibition of srs bzns?

(There...is maybe an associated Austin branch that meets every month? And I am maybe considering going to the next meeting? :D?)

All right, that's enough of that. See what my brain does? One tiny comment in someone's comments and one current fictional obsession, and I end up writing all this and linking all over the interwebs. And I'm restraining myself here. *shakes head*

Comments

[inmyriadbits.livejournal.com]

It's a great essay! I look forward to sharing it. :)

Ahahaha, that's amazing! I have not heard of that before, but I can most definitely see her doing it. (Clearly this is a good reason to eventually read her collected letters.) Oh, DLS. ♥