Talk:Dorothy L. Sayers/Archive 1

Australian Netguide
Congrats, this page was featured in the September 2006 issue of Australian Netguide!

Did Mac Fleming adopt John Anthony?
Query: I do not remember that Sayers and her husband ever actually adopted her son. There are letters where she says that Mac has agreed to the adoption, but I don't remember that he ever went through with it. Does anyone know specific details? --Joe R. Christopher —16:57, 11 February 2006‎ Joe R. Christopher


 * IIRC, no, Fleming did not adopt John Anthony. Sayers did not need to adopt him as he was her legal son by birth. I can confirm tonight (don't have Sayers biographies with me) JenKilmer 18:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Inklings
About Sayers and the Inklings (below):

Lewis did write a letter (in response to John Wain's _Sprightly Running_)in which he said that Sayers probably never knew about the Inklings. But in the Sayers-Charles Williams correspondence, Williams read some of her letters about Dante to the Tuesday pub group (not quite the same as the Thursday evening Inklings) and reported the reactions to Sayers. This suggests some knowledge of the group around Lewis and Tolkien. --Joe R. Christopher —16:57, 11 February 2006‎ Joe R. Christopher

Dorothy Sayers
From article "Dorothy Sayers":

I have taken the quotation marks away from "motor car salesman" (about DLS' first husband) since I can't see what purpose they serve. If he was an unemployed motor car salesman, then the quote marks are uneccesary. If 'motor car salesman' is a euphemism for something, then it would be better to explain it, since it's not apparent from the quotations. Floyd

This would be better moved under Dorothy L. Sayers under which name she is much better known. At least a Redirect should be established for DLS -> here. Ah! One exists. Dorothy Sayers is nevertheless sub-optimal. user:sjc


 * Should the articles be combined? JenKilmer 18:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Doctorate
Since the inaccurate "Dr" was added by a person who apparently has left (user:Isis) it would seem useless to inquire why it was added. So I'm removing it and putting in a note about her almost-doctorate, not a bad thing to mention anyway. Dandrake 00:28 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * All right, it's not inaccurate, and has been restored, with a proper account of her doctoral history.Dandrake 17:05 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Mystery or detective fiction, not thriller
This article shouldn't be under thriller writers as the word is understood in the States -- mysteries or detective fiction is more appropriate. I realize that in England many books are called, in a generic sense, "thrillers", but I think that as the years go by that word is used much more often to designate books that have movement, action, and suspense, as opposed to mere detective happenings.Hayford Peirce 04:17, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Literary criticism
I have tried to give the piece a more formatted feel and added a subsection for Literary Critism. I plan to add more details about Sayers' life and a list of her works, but I'm too tired to finish it tonight. I hope I haven't snipped out any valuable bits. This is only my second time to do this. Txqueen 05:42, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nitpicking belongs here and not in edit wars, however minor --

The "the" in her father's title seems to go in and out. Leaving out the definite article before Reverend is an American usage; I honor U.S. usage and it colors most of my writing. But this is an English writer, and by established Wikipedia convention, it should employ British usage consistently; if I were writing article text here, I should certainly honour that convention without reservation. So let's keep the definite article in the article, OK? She was, in fact, an English writer who had very little use for American usage, or for anything else from this side of the Atlantic (on which side the presence of anything other than the USA was rarely noticed in her work). The one exception, in the use of single and double quotation marks, was not a preference for anything American, but a logical and well-argued choice. So it's a bit disrespectful to abandon her national (and, in the case of Rev., rational) choices. Dandrake 19:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

As a proud Yank I must point out that leaving out the "the" when referring to the reverend gentleman, rather than when addressing him (of course), is always wrong in either country. -- Craig Goodrich 68.227.15.115 (talk) 04:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Harriet Vane "... collaborates with Wimsey to solve a murder but still finds Wimsey overbearing and superficial." No. Both Ms Vane and Lord Peter are presented in far too much depth here (Carcase) to support this stereotyped assertion. In fact, Ms Vane's inner conflicts about Lord Peter -- due to a combination of her own bitterness about love itself from her experience living with the writer in Strong Poison and a subconscious resentment of her debt of gratitude to Wimsey for saving her from the gallows (same novel) -- account for her consistent rejection of him as a suitor, although she is quite obviously attracted to him and enjoys his company. Ms Vane's inner conflict (of which she herself is, incidentally, acutely aware), and the gradual healing of the emotional scars left from her Poison experience, are a major subtheme of the novels Carcase and Gaudy Night; to describe her attitude towards Lord Peter as due to her finding him "overbearing and superficial" is so wildly wrong that one wonders whether whoever wrote it ever actually read the book. -- Craig Goodrich 68.227.15.115 (talk) 04:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Writer section
A paragraph in the Writer section seems to call for a good deal of reworking.
 * When she tired of grinding out detective stories, Sayers introduced detective novelist Harriet Vane in the arguably definitive Strong Poison. She remarked on more than one occasion that she had developed the "husky voiced, dark-eyed" Harriet to put an end to Lord Peter via matrimony. But in the course of writing Gaudy Night, Sayers imbued Lord Peter and Harriet with so much life that she was never able to, as she put it, "see Lord Peter exit the stage."

I'm not convinced of "grinding out", but the trouble starts a bit later. In what sense is Strong Poison definitive, even arguably? It marks a great change, certainly; calling it a watershed might be closer than saying it's definitive, since LPW's character is not fully redefined till 3 Harriet-Vane novels later. And it seems that it was in the writing of SP, not Gaudy Night, that her characters took on too much life to be pushed around arbitrarily. Finally, he did exit the stage, you know, rather slowly and quietly: Nothing was published after Busman's Honeymoon, nor anything written after Tallboys, more than a dozen years before she died. Anyone want to discuss a revision? If not, the para should just be hacked at when someone has the time. Dandrake 02:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Guinness Toucan
Dorothy L Sayers sould also be remembered for her work with S.H.Benson advertising agency, where she was employed in 1922. She became part of their writing team, and is credited with creating the Guinness Toucan which has been associated with the product for over 25 years. Sayers worked at the agency for 7 years and left in 1929. Her very popular design was reinstated by J.Walter Thompson in 1979 to promote Guinness in cans and so the toucan continued to be associated with Guinness and has been recognised alongside the brand for over 50 years


 * I agree it should be added JenKilmer 18:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Titles
I don't think the section titles are very good; creating a split between her "writing" and her Christian work seems wrong, as her Christian work largely consists of writing. I will try to fix that (tell me what you think of it). Also, is there not a better way to divide up the section about her personal life aside from quoting her letter to her cousin (especially when that same text is included in the article, anyway)? The section hardly describes the baby anyway; it deals more with Cournos and her husband.

Another thing: she fell in unrequited love with a man named Whelpton (Dorothy L. Sayers, Her Life and Soul by Barbara Reynolds) before she met Cournos, so I'm not sure whether calling Cournos her "first" adult love is accurate. Sophy&#39;s Duckling 05:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Turning heart and hands to God's work
This could use considerable expansion. It doesn't describe her plays at all--it just mentions CS Lewis liked one of them. I would also argue the title needs to be changed because there is considerable evidence that Sayers included Christian themes in her Wimsey books (consider The Seven Deadly Sins in the Work of Dorothy L. Sayers by Janice Brown). Sophy&#39;s Duckling 05:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

More suggestions
I just reread the article a couple of times, and it has a lot of excellent information, but it's not as well-organized or as informative as I think it could be. For instance, the only mention of her plays (and she mentioned in one of her letters that her switching to overtly Christian plays from the Wimsey books caused quite a scandal, so they're notable) is that CS Lewis liked one of them. And why is her friendship w/CS Lewis mentioned in her career section and not her personal life section?

Also, does anyone have a copy of the essay mentioned here (it'd be a good idea to get some solid quotes for the anti-semitism section)?

"In 1943-44, however, she wrote an essay for inclusion in a book The Future of the Jews by J. J. Lynx, in which it is definitely the authorial voice that asserts, for instance, that Jews are bad citizens with little or no loyalty to the country they live in. Critical discussion of this piece has been limited, as the essay was withdrawn from the collection at the last minute due to the demand of the other contributors, and was never published." Sophy&#39;s Duckling 06:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC) Bold text

Assumptions made on page
The bibliography section refers to the "Detection Club", but nothing on the entire page says who or what that might be.


 * There is info on it in the biographies I have - shall I add a section? It's a British writer's club she helped found & led, IIRC. JenKilmer 18:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Added link to Detection club JenKilmer 22:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, the abbreviation "PW" should not be used, because it's not an abbreviation that the average reader knows. Of course, if you read this whole page from top to bottom you can figure it out. But we don't write "FB" for "Frodo Baggins" on the Tolkien page, nor do we write "LM" for "Lady Macbeth" on the Shakespeare page. - Lawrence King 04:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed JenKilmer 18:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Fixed JenKilmer 22:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Biography or "Personal life"
Much of Sayers' life is discussed in the "Career" section. Might it not make sense to call the "Biography" section "Personal Life"? JenKilmer 05:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

2006 RE-ORGANISATION OF THIS PAGE

 * ''Sections above this line were created by User: Jen Kilmer 18:16, 13 November 2006‎.. They do contain more recent contributions.
 * ''Two subsequent new sections (2007-06 and 2011-09) were moved down from the top into sequence by User: P64 (talk) 19:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

GK Chesterton
Nothing about Chesterton? She began publushing by writting to G.K. Weekly's anonimusly —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Domingo Portales (talk • contribs) 06:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

Sayers' plays and the Final Lord Peter Piece
Both the biography and the bibliography are lacking Sayers' plays. (A brief mention of _The Man Born to be King_ is tied to the reference to C. S. Lewis.) In the booklet _Sayers on Holmes_ appears a brief radio address as by Lord Peter Wimsey, telling of his visit to Holmes when he, Wimsey, was a child; Sayers wrote it for a B.B.C. program (on Holmes' 100th birthday) after World War II--at a time when she was assumed to have given up Lord Peter altogether. --Joe R. Christopher —01:58, 2 June 2007‎ 204.56.177.248

Fair use rationale for Image:DorothyLSayers MuderMustAdvertise.jpg
Image:DorothyLSayers MuderMustAdvertise.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. Radagast3 (talk) 14:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TheFloatingAdmiral.jpg
Image:TheFloatingAdmiral.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Image removed. Radagast3 (talk) 08:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Plays
Should her plays be separated out in a new section of the bibliography? I've added a link for Man Born to be King to its own wikipedia page; but it seems to be in the wrong section. It's under essays or non-fiction; but the plays are a fictionalization of Jesus' life. -- Duae Quartunciae 15:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The son and the royalties
I found the information on Tony and the inheritance of the royalties extremely interesting, and many thanks to the contributor who found and added it, but it is still in need of inline citations and was probably in the wrong place in the article. I have tidied it a bit for clarity and grammatical accuracy, and have moved it to a position following the bulk of the article, because it obtruded awkwardly into the info about DLS herself (who is, after all, the subject of the article). I'm not sure it's in the right place even now, but I do think it's more appropriate than where it was. Or does it perhaps merit a new article of its own? --Karenjc (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I did find it rather odd... as you say, the subject of the article is DLS. Is Tony a notable person within the Wikipedia meaning of that word?  I would rather doubt it; his notability seems to come from his relation to DLS, and thus I'd suggest the material could be removed without harming any information about DLS.    Accounting4Taste: talk 19:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * John Anthony clearly isn't notable, but some information on him is an essential part of a DLS biography. The material on the royalties is interesting, but perhaps not essential. I doubt that the section it's in needs to say anything about the alleged background to the birth of John Anthony's wife. Xn4  03:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * (Note that the alleged grammatical errors, were the correct use of the pronoun 'that' where the less educated would have used - and heve amended the text to - 'which' and 'who', that are non-defining pronouns that would be inappropriate to use there. These are common gramatical errors, even amongst those that consider themselves well-educated - See Strunk & White 'Elements of Style, Collier MacMillan 1979, ISBN 0-02-418200-1. 'That' is the correct 'defining' pronoun to use in the situation concerned.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.234.130 (talk) 18:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

As uses of the word 'that', I'm afraid none of these is very good English: I have made these changes. Xn4 19:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "born to Lilian Ethel Davis that worked in the drapery department" ("who worked" is very much better)
 * "then to Balliol College, Oxford, that was Lord Peter Wimsey's old college" ("which was" is much better)
 * "two children that both died young" ("who both died" is better)


 * Lolol - am I supposed to duck? If opposing the odd Strunkenwhitism makes me "less educated" in your view then so be it, even though more recent authorities - Fowler, for one - have a different take on this point.  "That" is indeed a defining pronoun, and an appropriate one in many situations, but the acid test is majority and accepted current usage, and I'm afraid nobody would say "Sayers, that was an only child" today, whatever a thirty-year-old style guide might advise.  The purpose of Wiki is the provision of useful and readable information in a co-operative enterprise, not intellectual one-upmanship on arcane and arguable points of grammar.  --Karenjc (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This section is rather odd, and in need of better references (what is given is a book review on a web). I would suggest deleting it, moving some material into the main body if it can be better cited. Radagast3 (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Radagast3 (talk) 08:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sayers's son
I seriously call into question the accuracy, neutrality, and intent of the information in the section on Sayers's son. It is a mixture of unsubstantiated gossip (he was a bastard who married another bastard, and then "an Hispanic," got mysteriously rich, and then everybody died under "suspicious circumstances"?) and implicit accusations of shadiness. It is also added by someone calling hirself "Tony Sayers" and those are the only edits they have made. I suggest that it be removed until there is more substance and we know something of "Tony Sayers" and hir sources. Pinksisket (talk) 05:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed a (further) paragraph on the son and his legacy from Sayers. It read as follows.
 * 'On the death of Dorothy, all of her property, including the royalties for her work, was left to her son, but when he divorced on 8 January 1973, the royalties passed to Gabrielle as a part of the settlement. Payment of royalties will come to an end in 2027, seventy years after Sayers's death.'

The paragraph was uncited, not very relevant to a biography of Sayers herself, and referred by name presumably to the son's wife, though she was not mentioned before in the current version of the article. If someone wants to source this, make it relevant, and rewrite to avoid mysterious names, go for it! Martinp (talk) 01:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Reorganisation
I've rearranged her non-fiction work a little, in order to better match the introductory blurb "renowned British author, translator and Christian humanist." Radagast3 (talk) 02:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would also like to see a section on her philosophy/theology of work, and perhaps also on her feminist writings. Radagast3 (talk) 10:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Q.D. Leavis and Sean Latham on Sayers
I have added one of the more substantial charges that Q.D. Leavis makes against Sayers, because it seems to me that Sayers' reputation as a writer is genuinely controversial. I admire Wilson and Leavis more than I do Sayers and I think that there is some substance in what they say. However, I am not interested in just throwing mud at her, and I would like Radagast3 to add some more of Sean Latham's defence of Sayers' fiction against the charges that Wilson and Sayers made. Right now the Latham para seems oddly worded, as if Latham really does believe Sayers to have been a "popular-culture hack", which is not something that a writer of Sayers' ambitions would probably like to have thought about herself and is probably not what Latham meant.


 * Latham is of course suggesting that Leavis was a snob, and viewed Sayers as a "hack" with pretensions. I've reworded slightly. Radagast3 (talk) 09:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

In the interests of demonstrating my unwillingness to just throw abuse at Sayers, I might have added the quote I have from a letter by philosopher and crime novel fan Ludwig Wittgenstein, in which he describes one of Sayers' novels as "bl[oody] foul", but I didn't, because it seemed to be just mud-slinging. :) Lexo (talk) 22:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what to do with this section. Yes, many people don't like Sayers' writing, including the two critics cited.  Others do: Sayers' novels have remained in print when most novels of her time haven't.  The lengthy quotes from Wilson and Leavis simply reveal that they are in the category of those who don't like Sayers, and the Latham quote shows that those criticisms have themselves been criticised.  It would be nice to find some criticisms of Sayers that get a bit more precise, and identify specific flaws. Wilson at least says that there is too much background material for his taste, which is a legitimate criticism, but Leavis seems to mostly just engage in unjustified abuse (and I'm tempted to cut the quote for that reason -- what does "no [such] novelist [...] could ever amount to anything" mean, for example?).  Similarly, the Wittgenstein quote is unhelpful if he gives no reasons for his dislike.  Does anyone know of more reasoned critiques of Sayers, either in book form, or in literary journals? Radagast3 (talk) 09:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have added a little more of Latham, and mentioned Wittgenstein's name (although a citation of the letter is needed). Radagast3 (talk) 10:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I am interested to learn that Sayers' novels have remained in print. Not being a crime novel fan, I hadn't noticed.  I think that Leavis' criticism of Sayers probably needs to be interpreted in the light of the Leavises' general critical attitude, which tended (annoyingly enough) to be much more implied in their own works, and in the works of their circle (basically, the Scrutiny critics), than stated directly.  The gist of Leavis's complaint about Sayers, as I understand it, is that Sayers was a frivolous cultural snob who thought (wrongly, in Leavis's opinion) that a university degree (and, a fortiori, a professorship or fellowship) was somehow a mark of good character, and who imported this belief into her fictional characters, portraying an idealised version of university life that was more an expression of romantic nostalgia for her own student days than a realistic assessment of what people who taught and worked in universities actually thought and believed.  Sean Latham's comments miss the point of Leavis's criticism, since it would have part of her critical standpoint that a crime novel would be necessarily too hidebound by genre convention to ever represent the sort of all-round criticism of life that she and her circle demanded from the best literature, no matter how sophisticated or erudite a crime novel it was.  If you like, I will fillet the Leavis review for something more specific; part of the problem with it is that she was, to a certain extent, writing for a readership who would mostly have either heartily agreed with her or utterly disagreed with her, and it was in her nature to be combative, so she doesn't really try to persuade.  The Wittgenstein quote is from a letter to his former pupil Norman Malcolm, which is reproduced in its entirety on p. 109 of Malcolm's Ludwig Wittgenstein: A Memoir, O.U.P., 2001, ISBN 0199247595.  Incidentally, many novels of Sayers' time have remained in print.  In the same letter that Wittgenstein complains about Sayers, he lavishly praises a crime novel called Rendezvous With Fear by a US pulp novelist named Norbert Davis.  This novel was republished in 2001 by Rue Morgue Press under its original title The Mouse in the Mountain.  I have a copy of it.  It's one of the very few crime novels I have managed to get to the end of. Lexo (talk) 23:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * One more thing: the only work by Dorothy Sayers that I have ever actually read was her translation of Dante's Inferno, which is also the worst translation of the Inferno that I have ever read. Lexo (talk) 23:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's had its fans and its critics as well. Radagast3 (talk) 10:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * One final, final thing: the 'snob' accusation is of course a tough one to defend oneself against. Latham seems to argue that Leavis is a snob because she thinks that a crime novelist can never write anything better than hackwork.  Leavis argues that Sayers is a snob because Sayers, in Leavis's version, attaches undue importance to the mere outward appearance of cultural literacy: the ability to speak French, to know a lot about English prosody, to be a college professor, etc.  I hope this clarifies the way that Latham is not accusing Leavis of the same thing that Leavis is accusing Sayers of. Lexo (talk) 23:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * My memory tells me that the most interesting -- well, okay, to me the most amusing -- thing that Mrs. Leavis said about Sayers' work hasn't been quoted here, and I'm not sure if my memory is precise: "(Miss Sayers') work presents the appearance of intellectual activity to people who would very much dislike that sort of thing if they were forced to actually undergo it." I hope I'm forgiven for thinking that this is somewhat relevant.  I've been following this discussion with interest, because my understanding is that Mrs. Leavis's criticism is much better known than Mr. Latham's; he makes a good point, though.  Accounting4Taste: talk 00:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Good memory, although the actual quote is this: "And in the matter of ideas, subject, theme, problems raised, she similarly performs the best-seller's function of giving the impression of intellectual activity to readers who would very much dislike that kind of exercise if it were actually presented to them; but of course it is all shadow-boxing." Leavis, op. cit., p.143 Lexo (talk) 00:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That's interesting, because a criticism of Sayers I've heard from friends is precisely that she forces the reader engage in too much "intellectual activity" -- in contrast to Agatha Christie, say. I've used one of Sayers' novels as set reading for a university lecture, and that is, well, odd. The fact that I could do that helps, I think, to explain both some of the criticisms and some of her popularity. Radagast3 (talk) 10:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I must confess to never having heard of Leavis before this. It sounds like her (very brief) page could do with some editing too! I also don't have access to the whole of her review (the part I've read still seems poorly argued to me).  The criticism by Auden carries more weight with me, since he's a poet, but all I've read of that is what Latham mentions (does anyone have more on Auden's critique?). I also suspect that Leavis is one of the set satirised by Sayers, which could explain some of the vitriol.  Radagast3 (talk) 10:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way, I strongly agree that the criticisms of Sayers' work should be represented here, as part of the NPOV policy, and because she clearly does not appeal to everyone. The Leavis quote might perhaps be a trifle long (does anyone know the legal limit?) but I have no burning desire to cut it. Radagast3 (talk) 10:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The page on Leavis is definitely underwritten; check out the page on her husband and chief collaborator F.R. Leavis for more info on how influential they were. I have the whole review in an anthology of Scrutiny pieces that F.R.L. edited in the late 60s.  I have not been able to locate a free version of it, but it's reprinted in this book.  I don't know who Sayers was satirising, but all I can say is that if she was having a go at Leavis and company in the novels, Leavis got her own back; as negative book reviews go, it's the equivalent of a bullet in the back of the head. I don't think that her review was motivated by stung vanity, though, as the Leavises were famous for having harsh critical standards and for leaving famous writers out of their canon of great literature.  To name but four, they had little time for Laurence Sterne, Dylan Thomas, Virginia Woolf and (my own favourite writer) James Joyce. Lexo (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah - they also didn't like Auden.(!) Lexo (talk) 15:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My memory tells me also that Colin Watson's 1971 book-length essay, "Snobbery With Violence", would have something useful to contribute on Sayers, her audience, and their mutual snobbism. I can't say that I could identify any character in the Sayers novels which could be said to be satirising Mr. and/or Mrs. Leavis, or indeed any of their circle, but perhaps I am overlooking something that is obvious to others?  It seems likely to me that Philip Boyce in Strong Poison is based on Sayers' first lover, and he's the only writer whom my dim memory can recall.  Accounting4Taste: talk 16:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Accounting4Taste: if you have a copy of the Watson book, why not have a look? Sorry, Radagast3, I recast your sentence in the first sub-section, in which you said that Leavis' suggestion that Sayers would never amount to anything was "misplaced".  There are three reasons why I did this: one is that it constitutes a violation of WP:NPOV, with the chivalrous Radagast3 coming to the defence of Miss Sayers.  It is not up to us to decide whether Leavis was right or wrong; the only criterion should be whether she is a notable critic, and I think the consensus is that she is.  The second is that even if it were up to us, we couldn't possibly know if it's true - if Leavis hadn't attacked Sayers, Sayers might be even more popular now than she already is, but we have no way of knowing.  The third, and by far the least relevant to this discussion, is that Leavis was not talking about Sayers' commercial success but her artistic credibility.  Sayers was already a very successful author when Leavis wrote her review, and Leavis was not saying that Sayers wouldn't remain in print; Leavis did not equate commercial success with artistic success.  By "never amount to anything", Leavis meant that Sayers would never mature into an artist on the level of the writers she (Leavis) admired - DH Lawrence, Jane Austen, Hardy, Conrad, George Eliot.  I did mention that she had tough standards.  Lexo (talk) 23:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have found better (more specific and less mud-slinging) quotes in the Leavis review than the existing ones, and I will put them in immediately. Lexo (talk) 23:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Those quotes are great - less vitriol, and more legitimate criticism. And the whole section reads much better now. Radagast3 (talk) 02:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation
The IPA given for Sayers' preferred pronunciation of her name includes an /r/. As we're talking about her own pronunciation, and as RP is non-rhotic, that should be absent. At best, one could include an r-colouring diacritic, but I'm strongly of the opinion that that's inappropriate in this instance. I know the WP policies on pronunciation varients, and that non-rhotic pronunciations are assumed to drop such sounds automatically, but we are talking about Sayers' own preferred pronunciation here. --Che Gannarelli (talk) 09:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The cited reference says "SAIRS". I could once write RP in IPA symbology, but that was back in high school, and I for one am prepared to accept expert opinion here. Radagast3 (talk) 10:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Why would the use of Sayers's middle initial facilitate a particular pronunciation? AuntFlo (talk) 15:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Because the "L" would take the emphasis, discouraging the pronunciations "SAYers" and encouraging a shorter vowel. Radagast3 (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Reference needed
"J. R. R. Tolkien, however, read some of the Wimsey novels but scorned the later ones, such as Gaudy Night."

If he did so, this clearly calls for a reference as to WHERE he did so. GeneCallahan (talk) 03:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point. Radagast3 (talk) 12:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Guinness Toucan-ad.jpg
The image Image:Guinness Toucan-ad.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --07:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. Radagast3 (talk) 12:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

"The Sultry Tiger"
I'm wondering if anyone can provide information about the entry for a Sayers book (putatively written under a pseudonym) called "The Sultry Tiger". Her official website gives no such citation, I've read two biographies and never heard a mention of this, and there is no such book mentioned on either Amazon or ABEBooks. I'm going to tentatively suggest that this is a hoax. Accounting4Taste: talk 22:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That item was added clear back in December 2006 by an anonymous IP that has continued to do considerable editing, through the present. The edit: . If it's a hoax, it's been a pretty good one. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Bias
It seems to me that the following comment is an original thought. If it isn't, it should be cited.

"On the other hand, this characterization of Wilson's omits some of the complexities of Lord Peter's character, and these same complexities are what have endeared him to readers fond of protagonists who transcend the standards of the genre."

This is from the "Criticism of major character" sub-section of the "Criticism of Sayers" section.

I find that in at least a couple of places the article is not perfectly objective and can be defensive of Sayers. See the comment I'm about to post in the Anti-Semitism part of this talk page. (Sorry for any improper use. Never done this before.) Ganacka (talk) 03:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)Ganacka

Relevance
A generally very good article -- but can someone tell me what the point is of the paragraph under Bio that begins "The 1920s in Britain was a time of social upheaval"? It's a general comment about women in post-WWI Britain (and the U.S., for that matter) but it has nothing to say specifically about Sayers. --Michael K Smith Talk 19:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Good point. I've remoed it; let's see if anybody thinks otherwise. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Advertising career
In the section on Sayers' advertising career at Bensons' the article states that Sayers is 'widely credited' with having coined the phrase 'It pays to advertise'. In fact this phrase was used by PG Wodehouse in 'A Damsel in Distress' which was published in 1919, some three years before Sayers started work at Bensons. It occurs in Chapter 7, as part of a description of a pub meal, in a manner which suggests it was a phrase with which Wodehouse expected his audience to be familiar: "There is a "shilling ordinary"--which is rural English for a cut off the joint and a boiled potato, followed by hunks of the sort of cheese which believes that it pays to advertise'91.109.158.193 (talk) 19:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Location of Great James Street
It's wrong to describe Great James Street as being in St Pancras. Bloomsbury or Holborn would both be accurate, but it's a long way south of what could reasonably be described as 'St Pancras'. I write as a local resident, not a Wikipedian, and as there's a link to the article about St Pancras incorporated in the description, I've not altered, but someone competent should. 188.29.95.170 (talk) 19:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)Alan Trench, 30 June 2011
 * Okay. It would be extraordinarily helpful if you called on your knowledge as a local resident to find a reliable source to indicate that the street is in either Bloomsbury or Holborn. If you can find one, you or I or anyone can safely make the change. Rivertorch (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

"What would I want a student to know most about D.L. Sayers?" might mean...adding a few more sections here!
For instance, since this article is a First Acquaintance for many persons researching her, why not say a bit more about her writings concerning WORK---the importance she placed on doing one's job well...and her theology of WORK. (This theme is covertly repeated in her detective novels, for instance, and is discussed in some of her essays. Miss Climpson (in the Whimsey novels) versus the silly Miss Milson in the non-Whimsey mystery "The Documents in the Case" come to mind.) In one essay on Work...and the importance of doing it WELL...Sayers suggests that stockholders should ALSO demand...that the product made be of good quality (i.e. shareholders  should loudly object if the beer their company produced made was second rate)!!!

A section detailing Sayers' overt and covert original views on feminism would be helpful to students, others who have little or NO exposure to Sayers. This Christian scholar/writer phrased the argument for treating women as full human beings...in incredibly concise, potent language. Here, I refer to her short book "Are Women Human", but (as you do mention) her fiction abounds with covert evidences of feminist concerns. Lord Peter may well be the first significant feminist male character.

And what of the pagan-neo pagan world versus the Joudaeo-Christian world? In "Creed and Chaos" Sayers defines the two world views colliding...i.e. historic Christianity (as briefly summarized in the key Christian Creeds--) versus a general, sometimes amorphous return to pagan or semi pagan ideas. Imagine the uproar (yet...fascination) if she spoke this speech today at the typical (U.S) university! Here, she is more truly controversial than she was with her mild anti semitism which (for her time) was much less than most others--of her day.

"What would I want a student to know most about D.L. Sayers?" might mean...a few sections more. These named added sections could briefly highlight more of her main themes. Work (and its value), Feminism, the historic Christian faith versus the current neo pagan thought, the value of teaching students to think logically (so they are not manipulated by mass media propaganda) ...and perhaps more key themes could be quickly summarized in more named sections. Some of these themes are briefly mentioned in this article, but they are swallowed up by other, usually more secondary topics.

Am hoping that some of you serious scholars above can more fully introduce this amazing thinker to inquirers todayLindisfarnelibrary (talk) 09:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a literary research journal. We inform the public what reliable sources have said, preferably in linkable form so readers can double-check it. All these intresting ideas would have to be echoes of statements by legitimate sources (and, frankly, "imagine the uproar" is the sort of speculation that doesn't belong in wikipedia at all. There are LOTS of other places for that) - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Written like an essay
This whole article is written like an essay or a magazine article, not an encyclopedia entry ("Lord Peter burst upon the scene..."?? Really?) Some of the phrases and even whole paragraphs feel as though they were lifted wholesale from a book; the article is not written in proper Wikipedia style. I plan to come back in the next day or two to do a thorough re-write, which will involve removal of all the peacock language and the changing of many passages like the one in parentheses to straight prose. If the main editors/watchers of this page wish to do so themselves, have at it. It's going to read very differently after I'm done, so this is the time to fix it yourselves.--TEHodson 11:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine - just a suggestion: If you're doing a major rewrite, it's a good idea to save it paragraph by paragraph or section by section, so it's easier for other editors to see what changes have been made. Top-to-bottom rewrites put up all at once can be so overwhelming that minor disagreement with one place is hard to spot and can sometimes lead to over-reverting. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I second that request; the article has long been on my ever-growing to-do list and I'd be glad for a collaborative effort. Thanks for getting the ball rolling. One thing, though: not all colorful language is peacock language. The latter isn't a good thing, but the former makes for a much more interesting, less dry encyclopedia. Rivertorch (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I always do it section by section, else I lose my mind, which doesn't help much in such an effort! It's also impossible for others to revert one piece if it's all done at once, and there are always legitimate reasons for reverting some edits, so I leave plenty of room for others and will do so here. If you check out my work I think you'll find it is not dry, but it is very clean and clear (I am a writer and editor in real life). Right now this article reads like a piece about an actress in a magazine or something. It's very strange, and ironic that an author of such excellent scholarship and exacting standards should have such an unscholarly article about her. And all that gossip which is unsourced has got to go. In cases like this, with sections like that, I cut and paste them into the Talk page rather than just eliminate them wholesale, so that they can be put back in when, and if, someone finds a source to back up their claims. I would also suggest that anyone who has DLS's biography get it out and read it so that the article can be expanded in the sort of way it should be. I have at least one essay about her life and work in a book here, and will consult that before I start, but I do not have her biography. I will check to see if the library does, but that's another, separate piece of the puzzle. Right now I just want to make it read like an encyclopedic piece, rather than a fluff piece out of People Magazine. It may be a shock to see it so much shorter, but that should make room for what does properly belong here, and should set a standard for both scholarship and the kind of prose we want to see. She is a favorite of mine, and I happen to be re-reading (for the squillionth time) the whole Peter Wimsey series, which is why I came by to see what the article looked like. I will get started on it when I have some time in the next day or so. Thanks for the support.--TEHodson 20:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "Squillionth", sir, is not in indefinite and fictitious numbers, so I'm not sure its use is allowed on wikipedia ... - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * First of all, I'm not a "sir," but a "madam." And I have Dame Edna's permission to use "squillionth" anytime, anywhere, and what she say, goes.--TEHodson 00:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Er, uh, I meant "sir" in the gender-neutral sense .... - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed.--TEHodson 01:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No opinion on gender-neutral forms of address (or squillions, for that matter, although I took you to mean a sort of hybrid lion-squill thing, which seems just a bit implausible). I do have a biography of Sayers—a rather old one. I haven't checked yet but would be surprised if there isn't a newer one. I also have a volume encompassing (I think) all the LPW short stories which also includes an interpretive essay or two which might be of some help. (Maybe that's what you have?) I'll see if I can lay my hands on them. Rivertorch (talk) 05:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Barbara Reynolds was her authorized biographer, I believe. I have the LPW stories with their essays in them, too. There should be squillions of lions, in my opinion (but then, I'm a Leo, so what can you expect?). Will follow your link and see what the heck you're talking about, though.--TEHodson 05:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Couple of discrepancies
The blue plaque on the front of 23-24 Great James Street (illustrated) says 'lived here 1921-1929'. But your copy mentions 'the flat at 24 Great James Street... that she maintained for rest of her life' Slightly odd wording anyway. Can you clarify?

Second, a little quibble. The illegitimate son, John Anthony, was born in January 1924, when she would have been 30, not 29. 86.180.157.118 (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

John Cournos
Why isn't Cournos mentioned at all? This is both a biographical and literary encyclopedic entry is it not? The article on Cournos mentions Sayers, why not the other way around? Ylgehwelwicne (talk) 04:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * In general terms, many things aren't mentioned in many articles because Wikipedia is only a little over a decade old and still very much a work in progress. You should feel free to add missing content yourself—we're all equals here. One caveat specific to this case: the bit about Sayers in the Cournos article is unsourced. Better to find a reliable source before adding it. (I'd take this on myself but have mislaid my Sayers biography.) Rivertorch (talk) 07:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of her gentleman detective?
Moments ago I put the standard WikiProjectBannerShell around the six project banners, rearranged some, and inserted explanation of both this and the.

Here is something that may be worth pursuing for the biographies of Sayers and Wimsey, the concluding line on them at gentleman detective:
 * (quote) In an essay by one of her Golden Age rivals, Ngaio Marsh (see below), Sayers is accused of having 'fallen in love' with Wimsey.[8]Gentleman detective

I suppose that the cited posthumous collection of "short fiction of Ngaio Marsh" includes some nonfiction or an editorial introduction that is a useful source, perhaps for many Golden Age articles. It has not been used in her own biography so I have mentioned it also at Talk: Ngaio Marsh.

Probably this article should "See also" Gentleman detective. --P64 (talk) 19:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The Meaning of the Word 'Criticism'
The author(s) of this page evidently believe criticism means "to be critical of", ie, to criticize - in the sense that word is usually used, rather than in the sense it's used when referring to criticism in the arts. One would not believe, reading the criticism section, that anyone liked Dorothy Sayers at all. But here as I take up a collection of writings by the eminent cultural historian/critic Jacques Barzun, what do I find? Why, here's a tribute to Dorothy Sayers! He likes her immensely. Why is this, a warm reflection by a 90+ year old intellectual legend on the merits of a writer dead 40 years, any less relevant than the contemporary (ie, more likely to have somewhat ulterior motives) review of an Edmund Wilson? It's a wonder Dorothy Sayers even has a wikipedia page, dead so long as she's been, and having received nothing but such scathing reviews in her lifetime. Do you see the problem here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.77.90 (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do see the problem! Reading this article seems to give a negative impression of her works, which so many people simply love.  I don't know what should be done about it but surely mentioning Edmund Wilson's criticism twice seems like giving to much space for someone who appears to have ulterior motives beyond fair and objective review of her work.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.94.173.129 (talk) 07:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Page reorganisation

 * ''This page was reorganised 2006-11-13/14 by arrangement in sections with headings (sections 1 to 14 except 6.4).
 * This page was reorganized 2012-05-31 by moving two sections down from the top into sequence (2011-09, 2007-06 ) and by insertion of this note and its companion . -P64

Anti-semitism
Someone else should look at what I added on anti-Semitism: I'm not a Sayers expert, though I like her work. Also, would it be reasonable to discuss class and regional bias in the books, or am I the only person who's noticed this (in which case it might fall under the "no original research" rule)? Vicki Rosenzweig 23:45, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Vicki, who never seems to sleep, entered the preceding note while I was editing the following paragraph:


 * Since the question of anti-Semitism has been raised, I've put in my

own version, with an attempt to let both views be heard. I really don't want to get into an edit war about this. If anyone wants an uncritical defender of DLS's position, I'm not the one, as you can see from the second paragraph that I put in. So if I've swung the pendulum past the NPOV point, let someone re-balance the presentation. But the question must not be treated as if it were open-and-shut.


 * Now, I hereby free you of the onus of original research! Yes, in the matter of class and regional and national bias, it's not hard to put DLS's human race in concentric circles, with Jews at the fringe of England, and Americans beyond the pale, and hardly anyone else (besides the French) existing.  It would be awfully nice if such subjects got more coverage.  But this isn't the best place for that discussion, so I'm not sure how we get the NPOV properly established in the DLS article.  BTW there are Yahoo mail-list groups LordPeter and DorothyLSayers. (The first is quite active, and the second resists all efforts to bring it to life.)  Attempts at serious discussion are not out of place there. Dandrake 00:04, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * These comments are almost three years old. I wonder what threshhold is required to accuse a deceased person of anti-semitism without any documented proof. How about if we delete this entirely as of now? 69.109.182.238 07:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm restoring the section saying that some of Sayer's characters express anti-Semitic views and that she portrays Jews in a manner that conforms to Jewish stereotypes. Both can easily be verified by reading her books. I'm not restoring the section saying that she wrote an anti-Semitic article or criticzed G.K. Chesterson for his anti-Semitism since, as you point out, there's no documentation given for either of these things.


 * Which books and which characters? Just show where. If I went back and re-read all of Sayers I could say "No you're wrong" and all you would have to say is "No I'm right." That could go on forever. One quote might help. 69.109.177.22 15:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Jewish characters in Wimsey books
These accusations of anti-semitism are dangerous things. The wikipedia article is being quoted all over the web giving erroneous information. There are literally thousands of google hits. I wonder how poor old Dorothy would have felt about it. Notably, it's such a hot-button topic we're not even using our screen names...

I'm not sure which books and characters the earlier editor meant, but since I've read the books a lot, I'll try to sum up my observations in re anti-Semitism. Personally, I think Sayers' anti-semitism should certainly be noted in the article, but perhaps not given as much attention as it has at present. Candle-ends 16:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably Sayers' most important Jewish character is Levy, victim in Whose Body?. He's supposed to have been devoted to his wife and daughter, tidy in his habits, etc, but he's pretty much just a corpse; I never get the feeling that he was very alive as a character even before he got murdered. The stupid but sympathetic Freddy Arbuthnot goes on the marry 'the beautiful' Rachel Levy in synagogue, having finally won round Mrs. Levy by a single Biblical quote put on top of years of courtship. He has promised any children can be raised Jewish, observing that it will be all to their advantage to be in the "Levy and Goldberg crowd", particularly if the boys "turn out anything in the financial way." ([[Strong Poison]) He observes that these Jews all "stick together like leeches, and as a matter of fact I think it's very fine of them." Which seems a typical comment from the actually major characters; willing to allow virtues to the Jews, but viewing them as a homogenous set of people quite different from themselves.
 * I'm afraid I'm being too lazy right this minute to dig up any of the instances of rabid anti-semitism that crop up among the more minor characters; I think they're fairly randomly scattered, and have much the same tone as references to Bolshie conspiracies.
 * However, even Peter replies to Bunter's announcement of "a financial individual" in Busman's Honeymoon with the question "Name of Moses?" The individual is actually named MacBride; Peter says "A distinction without a difference." Young MacBride, who represents th solicitors MacDonald and Abrahams and has come to try to get a debt paid, is referred to at least once as a 'Hebrew.'
 * All that said, I can't pass over an exceedingly minor but rather charming Jewish character who turns up in the short story 'The Piscatorial Farce of the Stolen Stomach' (see the Lord Peter story collection); one Nathan Abrahams, a seller of precious stones and friend of Peter's. Stereotypical in many ways - but he really does love the beauty of the stones, complains about selling fine stones to "stupid Americans who think only of the price and not of the beauty", and teases Peter about how he should get married. 'Fraid that last's pretty much just airing POV, though.


 * That's a pretty thorough review for being off-the-cuff, Candle-ends! My main concern is that this wikipedia article has been picked up all over the web as a final authority on Sayers. Someone at some point called her treatment of Jews an "unblushing anti-semitism" (see italicized segment directly below), which is nice phraseology, but which sentiment does no good for a deeper understanding of Sayers' personality and authorship. I didn't remember the offhand remarks from my reading oh-so-many years ago, and it's all a bit complex. I just wouldn't want it to go down in history that Sayers was some kind of rabid Jew-hater. Any input welcome by my account. Guernseykid 11:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism or pre-WWII 'European culture'?

 * Can anybody please tell me the reason for discussing Sayer's alleged anti-semitisim in a Wikipedia article in the first place? Anti-semitism was a normal part of 'European culture' before World War II, so it's possible to find traces of it in virtually any book published back then. Sayers was certainly not the worst, even if you read her stories with the worst possible intentions. Ascribing any utterance from any character to the author herself has nothing to do with serious reading. However, you could find lots of other 'politically-incorrect' views in her books even without reading them like that. Whether each of these views, which might be seen as offensive to some ethnic or cultural groups, deserve a section of their own in any brief presentation, or if they're better forgotten after being wrapped up in the term 'eurocentric' (or perhaps 'anglocentric'), deserves the same consideration as the discussion of the 'anti-semitism' issue. And what about the outspoken propaganda for death penalty in some of the novels? Even worded by Harriet V., who would have been innocently executed was it not for the extraordinary intervention of Lord Peter. This is a moral-political issue of much greater relevance for Sayers' authorship – if moral-political issues should at all be discussed in a context like this. T.B.Hansen (visitor) 23 August, 2006
 * The accusations of Anti-Semitism are a fact, and deserve a mention. I've expanded the section with more quotes, and references to the recent thesis by Sørsdal, and reorganised to discuss different forms of alleged prejudice in a logical order.  The problem of course is that, shocking as it sounds to the modern ear, "Wot this country wants is a 'Itler" is something English people really did say in the 1930s (as you so rightly point out). Accurately recording this doesn't make Sayers a Nazi. The death penalty issue is a serious topic of discussion in Gaudy Night, but independent: I don't know if it should go into the article.  Radagast3 (talk) 10:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

In the first paragraph of "Alleged racism and anti-semitism in Sayers' Writing" I've changed: "Though perhaps offensive to the modern reader, the views expressed by characters in the novel must thus be taken as a reflection of the 1930s English society in which the novel was set, rather than as the author's own view." Basically I replaced "must" with "can be". Before it seemed like a claim that couldn't be made uncited. This paragraph in general seemed like it defended Sayers too much instead of just stating the facts about the speculation over Sayers possible anti-Semitism.Ganacka (talk) 03:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think your change is appropriate, but the underlying source is both poor and doesn't support the claim in the first place. It's just a student's thesis, not a properly published scholarly paper or book or other high-quality reliable source.  Additionally, it doesn't make a single claim about anti-semitism in connection with the named quotation (which has no connection to Hitler's antisemitism; the book was published three years before Kristallnacht).  Jews are mentioned on just two pages of the essay, some 40 pages before, in a different book.
 * I've saved the ref on the theory that a weak source is better than none at all, and moved the text that it actually supports (about feminism) out of the racism section and tagged the racism section as needing sources. (IMO, a supportable criticism would be "Some of these characters -- usually the villains or uneducated blue-collar workers -- had very mild versions of their culture's endemic racism!", which is about as astonishing as Captain Louis Renault saying he is "shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!")
 * Of course, if someone has a much better source, I'd support its use instead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You are surprised at her attitudes? Her "world view"? What else would you expect from a person who passed their own son off as a nephew? A paragon of moral courage? A font of insight and understanding? Forget it. She wasn't a very good author and it would seem her personality matched her penmanship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.151.233 (talk) 08:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Her penmanship, huh? Omigosh. Good thing they had printing presses in those days! Rivertorch (talk) 17:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Inklings, anti-Semitism, Wimsey's faith
Failed to turn up any source for the story of her relations with the Inklings. On the contrary, Humphrey Carpenter asserts that she never met with that group. Though he's no expert on Sayers, he seems a good source for the Inklings. Changed the text accordingly. Dandrake 23:53, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

One of the members of the DorothyLSayers list has found a text in which C. S. Lewis says she never met with the Inklings and probably never knew of the group's existence. (That last part seems dubious, but there's no reason to doubt the substance of what he said.) On the other hand, she did go with him to some of the meetings of his Socratic Club. Perhaps this was the source of the confusion. Dandrake 01:14, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Dandrake is correct. The association with Inklings is frequently declared to be an error by scholars and fans of both, Lewis and Sayers (I have never heard the story that she was unaware of the group).  On a separate subject, this text is of doubtful accuracy:


 * Many have found in the novels an unblushing anti-Semitism which was marked even for the time and place of their writing; others cite the most offensive passages in the Wimsey novels as the talk of characters who do not represent the authorial voice. The case is made less clear by the fact that the author's own voice tends to be patronizing at best toward any persons who are not the right sort of Christian English people. 


 * That statement sounds difficult to prove, since Wimsey himself is portrayed (explicitly in more than one of the books) as not professing Christian faith. Mkmcconn 02:38, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Got me there. Not only does LPW not call himself a Christian (and Sayers was quite annoyed by people who thought she should make him one), but conventional Christians did not come off very well at times in her work; see the uncomforatble Sunday breakfast in Clouds of Witness.  And "nominal Christian" won't do, and "gentile" doesn't seem to work well.  But the attempt was to characterize people who really belonged to that Christian (or once-Christian) nation, as opposed to foreigners and outsiders.  Among the latter, in Sayers's view, were Jews, though the places where she was quite explicit about this are not well known and largely unpublished.


 * But I'm digressing a bit here; the reference you quoted was not to unpublished stuff. It was to what can be found right there in the Wimsey books–or so I claim.  I mention the obscure sources just to say that the attitude is consistent with her other work.  None of which solves the problem of wording the claim to get rid of Christian or properly qualify it. Dandrake 18:21, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Original research in the Anti-semitism section
I see that no one has commented on the anti-semitism bit in some time. Frankly, I'm not sure what it's doing here (at least in its current state). If there are critics who have leveled the charge of anti-semitism against Sayers, please cite them. Otherwise, all you are doing is pulling quotes from the books and leveling the charge yourself. On the other side, there are lots of uncited apologies explaining why Sayers wasn't an anti-semite and was merely reflecting the world around her. Both sides of the debate appear to be presented largely as original research, which leads me to believe that there isn't much actual critical debate on the topic — in which case, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Thoughts? TremorMilo (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify: I see that there *are* critical citations in the last paragraph, but they are vague, single-sentence references. Do these critics write specifically about the preceding three paragraphs of material?  If so, those citations belong in the more extensive paragraphs rather than in a quick wrap-up at the end.  (I hope I am making sense here, and not just coming off as a complainer.)  TremorMilo (talk) 20:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The section certainly could use additional sourcing, especially the first two paragraphs, and this sentence in the third paragraph—"However, once again such views should be taken as a reflection of contemporary English society, and not as the author's own view."—deserves both a citation and a rewrite to remove its didactic tendencies. Overall, however, the section isn't quite in crisis: it cites five separate sources and makes no outrageous claims. I have placed some tags to indicate problem areas and tagged the entire section, for good measure. For help with improving the sources, you might put in a request at either of the WikiProjects listed at the top of this page. Rivertorch (talk) 22:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a source for Sayers' personal anti-Semitism. In the Brabazon biography (pp. 216-217) is a letter in which she explains that the English at the beginning of the war are taking to anti-Semitism it was because they had been driven past endurance by "bombs, black-out, restrictions, rations, coal-targets, bread-targets, clothes-coupons, call-ups, income-tax, lack of domestic help and general bedevilment." On p. 217, her letter describes the behavior of Jews that the English people see. She names British Jewesses announcing they're sending their money to America, the children who won't learn "the common school code of honour," Jewish renters who bribe the landlady and then report her to the "billetting authorities," everyone taking their turn as fire-watchers except "the houseful of Jews in the middle [of the block]." She concludes "it all really boils down to the same thing: 'bad citizens.'" There's also a problem with the characterization in the article of Heilburn's reaction to accusations of anti-Semitism in the Brabazon bio. She didn't "refute it." On page 11 of "Dorothy L. Sayers: The Centenary Celebration", she criticized Brabazon for "his complacent acceptance of Sayers's anti-Semitism, which, expressed mainly in private letters, need not have been so ardently defended." She writes that Sayers disliked the "Jewish religion because of its refusal to recognize Jesus as the savior." She praises Ralph Hone's biography because "he understands Sayers better as a woman and as a feminist and as an anti-Semite." Bpeschel (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

But there is more, and far clearer, evidence of her attitudes, and pretty disturbing to anyone who likes her work, as I do. Why is it not in Wikipedia? Because it is in copyrighted material for which permission to publish is not about to be granted. One could cite the stuff in paraphrase without violating copyright, but that would be Original Research! So, no way of properly arguing the case in Wikipedia. BTW it's generally accepted that there is no Fair Use for unpublished material. Catch-22, anyone?

But in comments it's surely all right to name the source: the collection of manuscripts for an essay to be published in The Future of the Jews, by J. J. Lynx. This essay was accepted for publication and then suddenly removed under circumstances never explained well. The papers are in the collection of the Marion E. Wade Center at Wheaton College (Illinois). I believe they are now available for inspection by anyone with a scholarly interest.

Note, by the way, that the text in question comes from about 1943, long after the detective series ended. IMO they show a much hardened attitude compared to the published texts.

All right, now I ought to censor the OR in this post and put it in the main entry, since the existence of the documents is valid data. Hope I get around to it. Dandrake (talk) 08:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Some bits that may be preservable
These bits of personal trivia may be put back into the article IF there are citations for them, or for the whole.


 * Although he never lived with them, Tony was told that "Cousin Dorothy" and Fleming had adopted him when he was ten. (As the legal parent, Sayers had no need to adopt him. Fleming had agreed to adopt her son when they married, but the legal process was never carried out.) Sayers continued to provide for his upbringing, although she never publicly acknowledged him as her biological son.


 * She had purchased 20–24 Newland Street, Witham (subsequently known as Sunnyside) in 1925 as a home for her mother following the death of her father, but on the death of her mother on 27 July 1929 at The County Hospital, Colchester, she occupied it herself.

Since when do we have sections called Motherhood????

===Motherhood=== When she was 29, Dorothy Sayers fell in love with novelist John Cournos. He wanted her to ignore social mores and live with him without marriage, but she wanted to marry and have children. In 1922, she learned that Cournos had claimed to be against marriage only to test her devotion, and she broke off her relationship with him. Sayers rebounded by becoming involved with Bill White, an unemployed motor car salesman. After a brief relationship, Sayers discovered that she was pregnant. White reacted badly, storming out "in rage & misery" when Sayers announced her pregnancy.

Sayers hid from her friends and family in fear of how her pregnancy might affect her parents, who were then in their seventies. She continued to work until she was six months pregnant; she then pleaded exhaustion and took extended leave. She went alone to a "mothers' hospital", Tuckton Lodge, Iford Lane, Southbourne, Hampshire (now in Dorset, following boundary changes) under an assumed name and gave birth to John Anthony on 3 January 1924. She remained with John for three weeks, nursing and caring for him.

Her sole responsibility for her child prevented Sayers' return to her former life and work. She investigated a family connection. Her aunt and cousin, Amy and Ivy Amy Shrimpton, were supporting themselves by fostering children. Sayers' mother had visited the Shrimptons and had written a glowing account to Dorothy of the good job they did with their charges. Sayers wrote to Ivy, relating a sad story about "a friend" and enquiring about boarding fees and whether Ivy had room for an additional baby. After Ivy agreed to take the child, Sayers sent her another letter in an envelope marked "Strictly Confidential: Particulars about Baby" which revealed the child's parentage and swore her to silence. Neither Sayers' parents nor Aunt Amy were to know. Sayers' friends learned of John Anthony's existence only after her death in 1957: he was the sole beneficiary under his mother's will. However Sayers corresponded frequently with her son by mail. Shortly before he died in 1984 John Anthony said that his mother "did the very best she could."

Ivy continued to look after John Anthony at her house, "The Sidelings", Wooton Barton, Oxfordshire, until he grew up. He assumed the surname of Fleming after his mother married, although nothing formal was ever attempted to register that change. Tony regarded Ivy as his mother for all practical purposes. When she died on 29 March 1951 at Horton General Hospital, Banbury, he arranged the funeral.

In 1924–25, Sayers wrote eleven letters to John Cournos about their unhappy relationship, her relationship with White, and that with her son. The letters are now housed at Harvard University. Both Sayers and Cournos would eventually fictionalize their experience: Sayers in Strong Poison, published in 1930, and Cournos in The Devil Is an English Gentleman, published in 1932.

Some of this is of interest because (and only because) of the way she may have used it in her own work, but none of it can be restored to the article without references. If someone wants to preserve these details, they must be pared down to essentials (with no language such as "the sad story" or the rest of the novelistic prose), and sticking closely to that which can definitely be tied to her work. We are not The Daily Mail. --TEHodson 06:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * We are not The Daily Mail. Quite! :-)
 * But I must say, some of that material is fascinating - especially the for/against marriage stuff with Cournos, so clearly the basis of the start of Strong Poison. So if someone could (as you point out) source it, and get rid of the purple, I feel it would improve the depth of the article's portrayal of Sayers. After all, we go on at some length about the personal relations of male writers (see, e.g. Ernest Hemingway and Robert Graves), and I don't think one can deny that those parts of their lives had a significant impact on their professional careers. And I'd love to see more detail on her advertising career, too. Noel (talk) 23:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, I have acquired some of the Sayers bios, and so now I can provide sourcing for most of that content. The Cournos relationship is not covered in detail in Kenney, which is most a literary bio (i.e. focuses on her works). Reynolds, however, covers him extensively: consult the index for details, but pp. 109-112 and 135-137 (St. Martins hardback edition) cover everything above. Kenney does a tiny bit on John Anthony, but nothing like as much as Reynolds (and apparently Brabazon, although that hasn't arrived yet). Some cites already exist in the text above; again, there are many places where he's covered (see the index), but some of the main ones are pp. 124-128, 141-151, 268-269, 341-346 (same edition as above). Finally, for White, Kenney has nothing, but Reynolds has considerable coverage (again, see the index); principally pp. 117-122, 129, 143-145.
 * So I'd propose that we reinstate the whole section, as the things described therein were major factors in her life, and had direct and indirect results in her books. Noel (talk) 13:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

GA/FA
I'd love to see this article brought up to FA status. Can we start discussing what needs to be done to get there? -- phoebe / (talk to me) 16:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I assume you have ready access to multiple good sources. I don't, but I'm willing to lend a hand as best I can. Rivertorch (talk) 06:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Quite a lot of the article was written back in 2006/2007 in the Golden Age of Wikipedia when people wrote what occurred to them (sometimes very eruditely), without the intrusion of inline references to break the flow. So, a fair bit of commentary comes over in Wikipedia's voice, making remarks I can often agree with, but which might be difficult to reference retrospectively. And now an irrelevant aside. I found this fascinating edit by User:TonySayers (who made other edits) mostly about Sayers' son Tony who died in 1984. All this material has by now been removed, with some of it copied to the talk page above in case it could be restored with citations. Thincat (talk) 09:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If we're making a concerted push to improve the article, we should be able to write as we did in the Golden Age and put a premium on articulate, smooth-flowing prose. With several of us involved, we can rely on one another to ensure that everything that needs sourcing gets sourced by the time we're done; it shouldn't have to happen sentence by sentence as we go along. Rivertorch (talk) 17:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * +1 :) I do have access to all of the major Sayers biographies [I've got access to a good university library]. I'm not sure I have time to read them all; but, can take a crack at it. I don't have a good sense of what's missing, though; what periods of her life do you think need expansion? -- phoebe / (talk to me) 18:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, to avoid disappointing either of you in future, my only qualification is that I have read all her Peter Wimsey novels recently! My (public) library does not hold Barbara Reynolds' biography but I see I can buy it cheaply and would be rather keen to read it with an uncluttered mind. Thincat (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I have a really old biography—can't lay my hands on it or remember the author's name—and am up for reading a newer one. If you're going to read the Reynolds, Thincat, maybe I should try to get my hands on a copy of the Brabazon, which sounds sort of interesting in that it supposedly refutes the earlier ones (presumably including the one I have). The Reynolds is newer, of course. If it's considered definitive, maybe I should read it too. Any thoughts on this? Rivertorch (talk) 05:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I certainly thought Reynolds was definitive but I can't remember why I thought so (I ordered it last night but it is the 1993 edition because it is much cheaper). She certainly has ideal qualifications and I'll add some more to her article. Thincat (talk) 09:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Since it's newer, I think I'll try to get hold of a copy of the Reynolds, at least for starters. Then we can be working from the same source. (It will probably take me a week or so.) Rivertorch (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC) (Update: I have ordered the Reynolds book. Rivertorch (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC))
 * The really old biography is perhaps Janet Hitchman, Such a Strange Lady, New English Library, 1975. Justinbb (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * cool! I started in with Kenney, Catherine, The Remarkable Case of Dorothy L. Sayers recently, which is more literary criticism than bio. But she puts the biographies in context: Brabazon was the family-authorized first comprehensive biography. It's therefore a bit dry and less critical than the others, but he did do a good job of bringing lots of primary sources together. Reynolds may be more definitive. Kenney also lists the major Sayers archives, which I will add to the article. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 19:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Excellent. I'm plodding along with the Reynolds. It's very readable, but I'm finding I don't have a lot of time for it. Maybe in a few days. Rivertorch (talk) 20:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I went through Reynolds and pulled out cites for all the removed content (Cournos, White, and John Anthony, all of whom are covered in great detail in Reynolds); see above (with the removed material). I definitely feel we should put all that back; they were major things in her life, and had direct and indirect effects on her books. Noel (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dorothy L. Sayers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150211075331/http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/dlsayers.htm to http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/dlsayers.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Shrimpton
This article has been edited and rewritten many times. It's quite possible that the information once was here. It's not unlikely that the man is a household name on the auld sod. But for those of us not resident, who is this R H Shrimpton who married DLS's mother's sister? Or maybe he's not particularly notable. Neither am I, so I wouldn't hold that against him. Then again, I'm not mentioned in her bio info. rags (talk) 10:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Good point - I can find no information about him, so I've removed that whole unnecessary sentence. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Good call. If you go far enough back in the history, the sentence was longer: "Dorothy's aunt Amy, her mother's sister, married Henry Richard Shrimpton, a fact that was to become important later in Dorothy's life." The Shrimptons helped out when Dorothy had her kid, but as far as I can tell there was never anything to indicate why Amy's marriage to Henry was an important fact. Yet another mystery! Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   14:28, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It looks like the result of a clumsy edit which didn't cut quite enough. Would that this were the only or the worst such case; thanks to DavidWBrooks for cleaning it up. I'd add only that "helped out when Dorothy had her kid" is in my view rather a serious understatement: Cousin Ivy raised young John Anthony (Tony) from earliest infancy to adulthood; and of course she cooperated in keeping a lid on this (as it was at the time) deep dark secret. So the "important" was well justified by the facts, even if it's superfluous in the present state of the article. Dandrake (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Alleged anti-Semitism
"Biographers of Sayers have disagreed as to whether Sayers was anti-Semitic. In Sayers: A Biography,[32] James Brabazon argues that she was. This is rebutted by Carolyn G. Heilbrun in Dorothy L. Sayers: Biography Between the Lines.[33]"--Wikipedia as of the time of this posting

"Probably the most glaring flaw in Brabazon's biography is his complacent acceptance of Sayers's anti-Semitism, which ... need not have been so ardently defended. Brabazon excuses Sayers on the grounds..."--Carolyn Heilbrun in the work cited there

That's a rebuttal to his charge of anti-Semitism? (Much less a "refutation" as the article said at one time.) Well, no; it's unequivocally in strong agreement with his conclusion that she showed anti-Semitism, only objecting that he did not take it seriously enough.

This is not an exercise in context-fiddling or goalpost-moving. If you doubt it, you can check the reference for yourself. Thereby you will gain two advantages: you may be the second person to check the reference in 10 years; and you will see Heilbrun's article, which is quite a good one IMHO, and not centrally on anti-Semitism but on a feminist analysis of Sayers's position on "the proper job".

I mean to repair the text later today. Dandrake (talk) 18:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Fixed that. BTW, the citation-needed for the assertion about the Chief Rabbi appears to have been been there for a year and a half. If no one can supply the citation (I can't, or I would) I propose to delete the questionable bit. Is there any cause not to? Dandrake (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

'Having Jewish friends' is an irrelevant gambit often used to deflect the charge of antisemitism. Sayers certainly seems to have been obsessed with Jews, 'Semites' and 'Hebrews' - her books are full of references to 'Semitic' bankers and so on, whose Jewishness is always irrelevant to the plot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk) 13:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I was reaching for the "thank" button to acknowledge your recent edit to the article, but it wasn't there because you're not logged in. Rivertorch FIREWATER  16:15, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * No worries - appreciated! (Also your personal message: fair enough!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Wrong use of "graduate"
If, in 'Denstone College graduate and part-time car salesman William "Bill" White', Denstone College is the school, then it is not something that one can graduate from. I have changed it. 109.158.118.222 (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 January 2021 and 16 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Deemodango.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

her friends
There is needed a very substantial section on her female friends, who were at least as much a part of her life as her male lovers or husbands. I'm going to add a section from the new Mo Moulton book,The Mutual Admiration Society: How Dorothy Sayers and her Oxford circle remade the world for women, and make sure we have bios on the other people in this group--at least 4 of the other 6 are notable enough for articles here. It was a group of 7 (or perhaps 6) women friends from University who did call themselves that and remained in close contact all their lives. It's been discussed in the other bios of her also. (Moulton is a 2019 book, so it's understandable that it hasn't been used before; it is perhaps less understandable why this entire aspect of her life wasn't included. This makes for an interest note on our superficial coverage of feminists.)

To start with. I add a sentence from that book on the nature of her relationship with Cournos; there are other good quotes also. An understanding of John Cournos is relevant here also, and we may need an article on him, though he's much less imprortant than any of the women. It's particularly relevant with respect to anti-semitism--the current article suggests, rather weirdly, that her having had a Jewish lover was evidence of her antisemitism, when in fact the effect of the affair was likely to have been quite the opposite.  DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Sounds great. But please revert the current sentence until it's made clear who's saying what and why. And fix the mis-spellings. It makes no sense as is. Anna (talk) 13:13, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll be adding a section of friends including the MAS and C.S. Lewis, it's in progress in sandbox. however 'friends' seems like such a odd section in itself... any ideas on how to organise it? feel free to edit if it's already added at the point of reading this Deemodango (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Huh?
"Often pronounced /ˈseɪ.ərz/, but Sayers herself preferred /sɛərz/ and encouraged the use of her middle initial to facilitate this pronunciation." How does the use or non-use of the middle initial have any effect on the pronunciation of her last name? --Khajidha (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess it creates further separation from the long EE sound in "Dorothy". StAnselm (talk) 22:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There was a contemporary actress named Dorothy Sayers. So I have read in a credible source, but I have no idea where, though it may well be in either the Brabazon or the Reynolds biography. Anyway, the reason for her favoring the middle initial seems to be disambiguation rather than pphonetics. Dandrake (talk) 04:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Acclaim to balance Criticism?
The "Criticism" section is well flushed out, but leaves a reader wondering if that's all she ever received.

However, it seems that she may have also received some acclaim for her work. Perhaps the "Criticism" section can be balanced by an "Acclaim" or "Awards" section. It seems there are some writers and scholars who highly recommend her work.

DeminJanu (talk) 02:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Too much "further reading"
We currently have 19 works listed in the "further reading" section - several were just added. It's starting to look like any article or book with "Dorothy L Sayers" in the title is being listed. This is not useful for readers; there's no indication to them which of these would provide new information and which would just rehash the article in more detail.It's just a long, context-free list.
 * from Further_reading: The Further reading section may be expanded until it is substantial enough to provide broad bibliographic coverage of the subject. However, the section should be limited in size. Wikipedia is not a catalogue of all existing works. ... When the list needs to be trimmed, preference in retention should normally be given to notable works over non-notable works.

They list needs to be trimmed by knowledgeable editors, please! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Alleged anti-Semitism
It's rather a pity that her main expression of her opinions of 'the Jews' was in an essay contributed to the book The Future of the Jews, by J J Lynx, which was deleted from the published book when it was already in galley proofs. This, being now an unpublished work (however involuntarily on her part), is still under copyright and will remain so for a long time. Hence, since Sayers' literary estate does not permit publication of the work or excerpts therefrom, the entire matter of her attitudes on the subject must be considered an open question until later in this century. Dandrake (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)