“Then you won’t marry me?”
The prisoner shook his head.
“No, that wouldn’t be fair to you…”
“Okay,” said Wimsey. “Don’t worry. It’s not fair. Abuse of my privilege.”
—(strong poisonCh. 21)
The backstory for the above conversation begins like countless other romances. When a woman is in trouble, she continues until a man comes to her rescue. In Dorothy L. Sayers’ 1930 novel, strong poisonHarriet Vane is accused of murdering her lover. With so much evidence against her, even those who have read the story several times may wonder if she really did it. She would definitely have been condemned had it not been for the tireless efforts of Lord Peter Wimsey, a successful amateur detective in many novels.
Naturally, Peter falls in love with her. It’s also not a spoiler to reveal that Harriet is innocent and the protagonist rescues her (the tension of the story revolves around the means of rescue, not whether she is rescued). So far, so romantic.
How does Harriet feel about all this? Does it matter?
After all, she was originally a disposable presence, a means for Sayers to get rid of Peter so he could move on to other literary projects. In an essay written several years later, strong poison (The title is “Gaudy Night,” but do not confuse it with her novel.) flashy night), Sayers confessed that he “wrote the novel with the infanticidal intention of eliminating Peter.” That means marrying him and getting rid of him. ”But she soon realized that Harriet could not and would not cooperate. It is worth quoting Mr. Sayers at length here.
I could not have Peter marry the young woman he had saved from death and infamy (in the traditional Perseus way). Because she could not find the form of words that would allow her to accept Peter without losing her self-respect. I’ve landed my two main dolls in a situation where, according to all the conventional rules of detective fiction, they have no choice but to fall into each other’s arms. but they didn’t do that. (“Flashy Night” 1937)
According to her author, it would have been a violation of her character for Harriet Vane to fall in love after such a traumatic ordeal.
It’s not that Peter doesn’t wish otherwise. Early in the novel, Sayers depicts an awkward marriage proposal, especially to a kind person like Peter. When he first visited her in prison, while the warden looked on, he introduced himself and ended by declaring: that. “I highly recommend watching the BBC version strong poison To get the most out of his terrible timing. It’s like I’m looking at the end Romeo and Juliet—You know it’s coming, but you hope it doesn’t.
Sayers’ novel clearly depicts something rare in rescue romances: the heroine’s conflict, the protagonist’s learning process, and their mutual respect.
Harriet replies with “disgust.” “Oh, are you one of them?” That makes 47. ” (strong poisonCh. 4). Thus begins a realistic love story, which is not resolved until two novels later. Lord Peter eventually frees Harriet from the trap, but she doesn’t exactly accept him because He delivered her. Moreover, he is an aristocrat while she is not. Since he is wealthy, she has to work for a living. Peter also feels inequality and hates it. he asked her, long after she had been acquitted. “I think it’s fun for a man who has feelings for a woman, just as I do for you, to have to keep fighting with this damn burden of ingratitude.” “I know I’m being very ungrateful,” Harriet replied, and Peter burst out, “Thank you!” Good God! Will I never be able to escape the sound of that dirty adjective? ” (take his corpseCh. 1)
This passionate account of 1930s romance is a great read and contains a lot of wisdom, especially when compared to many popular modern love stories.
Many women in the Christian world have read or seen it. redeem love Written by Francine Rivers (film version produced by Universal Pictures in 2022). The film tells the story of Angel, a woman who was manipulated by a prostitute as a young girl, trained throughout her life, and ultimately forced out of prostitution by the unfailing love of her suitor, Michael. In the film version, Michael finds her one morning after she has been brutalized by one of the story’s villains and proposes to her again. Through her swollen lips she answered, “Of course.”
CAPC author Tegan Cooper pointed out the problems with such love stories in her article, “Redemptive Love Harms Hosea and the Woman” (February 28, 2024). However, what struck me were the similarities between this story and this work’s proposal. strong poison. Just as Michael, who has no other way out, proposes to Angel, Sir Peter also proposes to Harriet in prison. Angel, understandably desperate, agrees and enters a life in which she has nothing to contribute except her beauty. After all, Michael is a good farmer and Angel is an abused city girl. She is clueless about everything from fishing to cooking to living as an emotionally complete human being. Meanwhile, Harriet refuses Peter’s advances both in and out of prison. If he gives her space, appreciates her work as a writer (she is a novelist), respects her scholarship (she is an Oxford University graduate), and if she does not despise her, It literally takes chapters before you can trust it.
To be fair to Francine Rivers, redeem love It certainly shows the difficulty of Michael and Angel’s situation and Angel’s need to maintain a level of self-sufficiency. On the other hand, Michael’s salvation of Angel is part of the romance. As Sayers writes, Sir Peter’s rescue of Harriet is actually an obstacle. Sure, she lives, but they spend the rest of their literary lives trying to overcome the hurdles of inequality that such emancipation creates.
Cooper concludes his article with the following observation: “Confusing God’s unrelenting, unconditional love with literal romantic love between a man and a woman is ultimately harmful.” I agree. Furthermore, in Harriet Vane, Sayers offers a counterexample of the strained aftermath of a relationship based on unequal status.
Four of Sayers’ novels feature Harriet Vane. strong poison, take his corpse, flashy nightand busman’s honeymoon. In the 1980s, the BBC produced a miniseries version of the first three books. The BBC version is well worth a look, but perhaps it’s time for an update. However, these books are irreplaceable because they clearly depict the heroine’s conflict, the protagonist’s learning process, and mutual respect, which is rare in rescue romances.
There’s an important moment at the end flashy night when peter and harriet—We’re about to fall into each other’s arms, but we still need to work out some things.—Candidly discuss their early encounters.
“Harriet, please forgive me for the last five years,” said Peter.
“I think so,” said Harriet. “It should be the other way around.”
“I don’t think so. I remember when we first met.—”
“Peter, don’t think about that horrible time. I was physically and mentally exhausted. I didn’t know what I was doing.”
“And I, like a damn arrogant idiot, chose to impose and demand on you that moment when I should have been thinking only about you…”
(Flashy Night, Chapter 23)
This interaction goes beyond the rescuer and the rescued. It reveals the hearts of two flawed individuals in a relationship. These words remind us that the only person worthy of this terrible gratitude of ours should be our infinitely loving God, not another human being or even the Lord Peter. Let me do it.
Source: Christ and Pop Culture – christandpopculture.com
