Natalia's Reviews > Thrones, Dominations

** spoiler alert ** It’s time to finally write a review for this book and possibly its sequels.
First of all, I would like to clarify that I do not in the least consider the Jill Paton Walsh “continuations” Lord Peter canon. However, I have read them and read about them, and I can appreciate what Walsh was trying to do and their redeeming qualities.
Backstory: Dorothy Sayers began an unfinished Lord Peter novel, to occur after the events of Busman’s Honeymoon (book 11 of the LPW novels) and just before the Second World War. From what I have read, she had written six chapters worth of scenes and several notes, besides a color-coded plot chart. However, she encountered a hang-up with the story and she abandoned it, especially with the events of the King’s abdication and relationship with Mrs Simpson in the late 1930s, which would be known to Sayers’ audience and might be distracting with the plot of “Thrones, Dominations” which contrasts Harriet and Peter’s married relations with those of other couples. By the mid 1980s, there were plans to publish it unfinished with several other fragments, but this apparently fell through with the death of Dorothy’s son, Anthony. In 1996, trustees of the estate approached mystery writer Paton Walsh to finish it. I do give her snaps for being able to make sense somewhat of Dorothy’s notes. According to what I have read, the scenes were unnumbered and unordered and Walsh had little information to go on besides what Dorothy mentioned in a letter to her goddaughter Barbara Reynolds, and whatever notes Dorothy left that made it clear who the murderer was.

“Thrones, Dominations” starts smoothly enough with Uncle Paul pointing out couples in a restaurant in France to a friend, and making social observations on classic British reticence and the like. Among the couples is Paul’s nephew Lord Peter Wimsey and his bride Harriet née Vane, who have just returned from finishing their honeymoon in Spain after the emotional events of “Busman’s Honeymoon”; also present are Laurence and Rosamund Harwell, famously the only married lovers in London. Laurence is a “theater angel” and Rosamund is a former model whom Laurence rescued Cinderella-style. Rosamund appreciates Laurence for this and renounces all claims on her former life, including most ties to her father, Warren, whose hanging with the wrong people led to the loss of fortune that forced him to make Rosamund work. This is contrasted throughout the book with Harriet and Peter’s story: Harriet resents Peter before their marriage for “being a King Cophetua” and when married to him, does not renounce her claims on her past, but instead continues her literary career as a mystery-writer.
Rosamund is also a very vain and a silly woman, though sympathetic to the reader. She is a foil in a way to Harriet’s practicality and independence.
But very soon, the POV switches for a scene to the Harwells. Now, the NUMBER ONE rule of Golden Age Fiction is that the thoughts of the murderer may never be shown to the reader. THE NUMBER ONE RULE. This may be of no consequence, but if Walsh is trying to finish “T, D” in the spirit of Sayers, then she should have to adhere to the rules of the genre, right?
Anyhow, this is something Sayers never did in eleven novels and numerous short stories; reflecting that some of the rules were occasionally broken, seen only as guidelines by Sayers and others of the age is true but one thing, but she never broke that one, making this the first technical error that Walsh makes.
Frequently throughout the novel the POV switches and scene switches, often abruptly. Instead of helping the book maintain cohesiveness and helping the narrative along, these are frequently confusing (especially in an e-book format) and unnecessary.
Though Sayers employed scene switches in several of her novels, especially the later ones, notably “Gaudy Night”. You may remember the POV switch in “Gaudy” is when Peter is shown reading Harriet’s letter when abroad, and certainly the switches in “Strong Poison” and “Unnatural Death” to show Miss Climpson’s movements. In both these instances POV was only switched after a letter from a character was featured. (Besides, I did not need the picture of Uncle Paul soaking his dentures in disinfectant.)

Ignoring how stilted the conversation is in its dialogue tags between the Harwells, the Wimseys, Daumier, and Uncle Paul can be passed over; my issue with the scene is when Peter called Paul “Uncle Pandarus.” Now, certainly Peter would have called him that in private to himself, and he certainly did in the canon books (nor is the comparison inaccurate) but never ever would he call him that to his face.
I mean, really.
I read a review where someone criticized the excerpts of the Dowager Duchess’s letters. I think they’re just as delightful, though probably not as fluffy as usual. But it isn’t really important because she isn’t a major character in the book.

Finally. Chapter two. I enjoy this chapter, and I refer to it when about to write my own dinner scenes sometimes. Helen and Gerald’s tussle with the seating chart is delightful. I particularly like Gerald’s ire at St. George when he finds out about the events of “Gaudy Night” featuring Peter’s miscreant nephew. A good throwback to the previous books. Gerald’s flustered attempts to understand his new sister-in-law are also endearing. The dinner scene is also when Gerald first begins to nudge Peter about having children in order to supply a back-up for St. George whose reckless behavior is infamous, and to help keep the estate together. Reference is made to St. George’s younger sister Winifred. You may wonder where she came from. She is actually mentioned in the canon novels, not in “Clouds” or “Dragon’s Head”, but later in “Gaudy Night”, making her probably close to ten years younger. The name Winifred is never mentioned in the novels, but is in a fragment. Winifred is canon. (Also, Gerald would not have called Peter by the school nickname Flim, I’m just saying.) At the end of the chapter the news is announced that the King is dying. A good way to show the end of an era, and in the way, the past. Peter and Harriet are foraying into the future, together.
With this, we move to the third chapter, where we learn about Harriet’s new domestic life. Sometimes it bothers me in “Busman’s” when Harriet is “relieved that she is not called upon to “make a home” for Peter” but it makes sense a little I suppose with Peter’s position as lord and master. She’s deferring a little to him here. But no mind. Mango is a little too much explained. She is from Miss Climpson’s bureau and is her practical lady’s maid with an eye for glamour. It’s cute how it’s shown how Harriet asks questions about the way everything is done, like the servant hierarchy of shining silver and such as this is a whole new world. Peter’s trainer is also shown. (Hmph. I don’t believe it. Why isn’t he shown in the canon novels if he exists? I’d like to believe Peter keeps himself together.) It has been noted by someone else, but it bears to mention that Peter would have sat right next to Harriet at the table. He would not obsess over such things. According to “T, D”, after all he did to get Harriet he insists on setting ten feet of mahogany between them. I just don’t think so.
His peculiarities for these kind of traditions are portrayed, I think oddly as facets of his personality. He would use the tradition of sending a footman with compliments as a cute quirk, and wouldn’t he, like the table thing, go and see her himself? Peter’s exploits as a landlord are a nice touch.
Chapter three also includes an adorable interview between Harriet and Peter’s godmother Lady Severn-and-Thames. It’s so cute. Definitely Sayers’ writing. She and Harriet get along very well; Lady S likes Harriet’s practicality and thinks her eyebrows are amusing; Harriet is in turn amused by Lady S. Altogether, a delightful scene. Harriet’s writing difficulties are well done too, and the scene where Peter helps her with her research is sweet.

Chapter four includes a random anecdote from Uncle Paul then circles back to the Harwells. Rosamund is shown to be a bored childless wife and playing with Claude Amery, who’s ridiculously devoted to her. As at the end of chapter two, the King dies, so by now the somber populace has ventured out in search of mourning wardrobe. Harriet visits her dresser. Nice touch. Peter talks to Parker, and Parker says, “I always knew you were an intellectual snob.” What?? Parker would never have said that!
Uncle Paul is shown (again!) He is in too much of this book.