Vane vs. Russell: smackdown!

[cahn]

okay, so I went to Gaudy Night last night to look up one of the conversations, and was blown away. I had forgotten how utterly fantastic the book is, and how much deeper than the Russell books. (And how much deeper it is than the pre-Harriet Lord Peter books, for that matter, a couple of which I've been rereading lately.) There's no comparison. The external mystery and the internal narrative and the bigger questions (of which there are many: woman's role, personal loyalty vs. principles, what is owed to one's work...) work together seamlessly. (Whereas in the Russell books I do get the sense that she's trying to do something like that... but it doesn't really work.) And it is still compulsively readable for all that.

That being said, Russell is still delightful-- I identify with her probably more than I do with Harriet (which is as it should be, as Russell is a bit of an anachronistic 21th-century-girl (oh, yeah, this reminds me: can you read double subjects at Oxford, as Russell claims to do? I think not!), and Harriet is clearly a product of the early-20th-century; another reason I love Gaudy Night more), and I find her geektastic!weirdnesses and weaknesses rather charming in a completely-nerdy sort of way.

In RL news, the Kid is visiting. She shall tell me what clothes to buy and what clothes in my closet to throw out and what glasses to buy and how to put makeup on, and I shall force-feed her books (ok, I already started that part) and we shall watch Veronica Mars together and have a most excellent time! She has already approved my recent shoe purchase (inspired by A's wedding), which is possibly a first in our lives.

Comments

[charlie-ego.livejournal.com]

cool. have done. I'm not such a fan of early Harriet-- I think she didn't really hit her stride until Gaudy Night-- but hey, Sayers is still pretty awesome, so.