skygiants

I'm fairly sure the Harlequin parts of this book are singlehandedly responsible for, like, the entirety of Dorothy Dunnett. All of her everything. I leave it to the reader to determine whether this was a good thing for humankind on the whole

Ahaha, I think between Turner, Wein, Kay, Max Gladstone, Ellen Kushner etc. and all the authors they influenced or will influence in turn, it's a net positive...even though Dunnett is also indirectly responsible for all those fanon versions of Draco Malfoy, so mixed bag?

I think she needs to believe in the sacrosanct nature of those high Oxford principles as much as Harriet and Peter do
That's one of the parts I've grown out of since the age when I first read these books--the idealization of academia, and how it's considered completely separate from and superior to labour/other types of work. It's partly that that aspect hasn't aged very well, and partly the Sayer's views on class leaking through.

"really? because I'm pretty sure what you just saw were his Romantic Depths, and you got a lot more of his actual weakness in the previous books."
I think when Sayers wrote that she already planned to deliberately show Peter's weakness to make him more appealing like she said in the essay, so what ended up happening was that she either consciously or unconsciously wrote them as Weaknesses That Are Romantic instead of just plain character flaws. Granted, if she did, Peter & Harriet might not have gotten together (if they did at all) until they were both grey haired like she feared.

Oh God I've internalized so much from reading these books at a formative age. Even now that I see more of its flaws I'm pretty sure any successful relationship I try to write will have echoes from Sayers. It's going to be interesting once I receive my new copies and go on a reread.