This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Congrats, this page was featured in the September 2006 issue of Australian Netguide!
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
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
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
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)
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)
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)
A paragraph in the Writer section seems to call for a good deal of reworking.
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)
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 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's Duckling 05:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
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's Duckling 05:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
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's Duckling 06:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC) Bold text
Why on earth are there no bibliography over her writings, preferable divided between say 'criminal fiction', 'plays' and 'essays'. Just to mention a title here and there in the running text without even mentioning the year it was written doesn't seem very encyclopedial to my mind. It assumes a great familiarity with her work before you read the article. Kurben 29 aug. 2006 15.35
I have added to the article a beginning of a bibliography. It concerns her criminal fiction which is my main interest in her as a writer. I don't know enough of her other writings to try a bibliography. Regarding the crime fiction I have excluded 3 novels she wrote together with the members of "The Detection club". I think it worked the way that they wrote a chapter each but i'm not sure. My argument is that they are not really a work of Sayers as a writer but of course they can be included. What do you think? Kurben 29 aug 17.43
Added those. Found some more in that category when I looked through my sources. But I admit that I feel a little reluctance if you out there think we should add "Thrones, dominations" too. When Sayers notes run out there is not even a murder or a plot running, just some family conversation you might say. I consider that book almost entirely a work of Paton Walsh. Used Sayers name too sell some more books, it worked but no, it doesn't belong in a bibliography over Sayers is my opinion. Kurben 22:00, 30 aug. 2006
The bibliography section refers to the "Detection Club", but nothing on the entire page says who or what that might be.
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)
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)
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).
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
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 Wikipedia: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)
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 Wikipedia: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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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 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.
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)
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)
Why would the use of Sayers's middle initial facilitate a particular pronunciation? AuntFlo ( talk) 15:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
"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)
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
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 07:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
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 [2], 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)
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
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)
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)
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
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 today Lindisfarnelibrary ( talk) 09:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Moments ago I put the standard {{ WikiProjectBannerShell}} around the six project banners, rearranged some, and inserted explanation of both this and the #2006 RE-ORGANISATION OF THIS PAGE.
Here is something that may be worth pursuing for the biographies of Sayers and Wimsey, the concluding line on them at 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 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)
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:
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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
—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)However, once again such views should be taken as a reflection of contemporary English society, and not as the author's own view.
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)
These bits of personal trivia may be put back into the article IF there are citations for them, or for the whole.
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. citation needed
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. citation needed 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" [2] 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." [3]
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)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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. [4] [5]
DeminJanu ( talk) 02:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
References
find
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
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.
They list needs to be trimmed by knowledgeable editors, please! - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 16:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Congrats, this page was featured in the September 2006 issue of Australian Netguide!
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
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
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
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)
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)
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)
A paragraph in the Writer section seems to call for a good deal of reworking.
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)
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 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's Duckling 05:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
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's Duckling 05:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
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's Duckling 06:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC) Bold text
Why on earth are there no bibliography over her writings, preferable divided between say 'criminal fiction', 'plays' and 'essays'. Just to mention a title here and there in the running text without even mentioning the year it was written doesn't seem very encyclopedial to my mind. It assumes a great familiarity with her work before you read the article. Kurben 29 aug. 2006 15.35
I have added to the article a beginning of a bibliography. It concerns her criminal fiction which is my main interest in her as a writer. I don't know enough of her other writings to try a bibliography. Regarding the crime fiction I have excluded 3 novels she wrote together with the members of "The Detection club". I think it worked the way that they wrote a chapter each but i'm not sure. My argument is that they are not really a work of Sayers as a writer but of course they can be included. What do you think? Kurben 29 aug 17.43
Added those. Found some more in that category when I looked through my sources. But I admit that I feel a little reluctance if you out there think we should add "Thrones, dominations" too. When Sayers notes run out there is not even a murder or a plot running, just some family conversation you might say. I consider that book almost entirely a work of Paton Walsh. Used Sayers name too sell some more books, it worked but no, it doesn't belong in a bibliography over Sayers is my opinion. Kurben 22:00, 30 aug. 2006
The bibliography section refers to the "Detection Club", but nothing on the entire page says who or what that might be.
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)
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)
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).
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
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 Wikipedia: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)
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 Wikipedia: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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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 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.
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)
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)
Why would the use of Sayers's middle initial facilitate a particular pronunciation? AuntFlo ( talk) 15:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
"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)
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
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 07:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
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 [2], 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)
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
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)
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)
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
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 today Lindisfarnelibrary ( talk) 09:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Moments ago I put the standard {{ WikiProjectBannerShell}} around the six project banners, rearranged some, and inserted explanation of both this and the #2006 RE-ORGANISATION OF THIS PAGE.
Here is something that may be worth pursuing for the biographies of Sayers and Wimsey, the concluding line on them at 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 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)
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:
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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
—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)However, once again such views should be taken as a reflection of contemporary English society, and not as the author's own view.
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)
These bits of personal trivia may be put back into the article IF there are citations for them, or for the whole.
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. citation needed
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. citation needed 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" [2] 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." [3]
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)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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. [4] [5]
DeminJanu ( talk) 02:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
References
find
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
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.
They list needs to be trimmed by knowledgeable editors, please! - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 16:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
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)