(no subject)

[skygiants]

I really enjoyed reading Mo Moulton's The Mutual Admiration Society: How Dorothy L. Sayers and her Oxford Circle Remade The World for Women, even though in some ways I think it fails in its central argument.

The book is a kind of joint biography of a group who became friends as students at Somerville College in Oxford in the years leading up to WWI, following them through the rest of their lives and careers. The so-called Mutual Admiration Society had a number of members over the years, but the four focal women include:

Dorothy L. Sayers (referred to by herself and in the book as DLS), by far the most famous of the lot, which is why she gets to be in the title; author of the Lord Peter Wimsey books as well as a number of theological works

Muriel St. Clare, Tudor historian, playwright, collaborator of DLS on Busman's Honeymoon, lesbian with a complex love life

Dorothy Rowe, amateur dramatist and founder of a collaborative theatrical club

Charis Frankenburg, happily married, ambivalently Jewish, author of several books on parenthood and ardent campaigner for the importance of family planning clinics

The protagonists are all intensely interesting and worth reading about, in some ways groundbreaking and in other ways fully dug into the conventional prejudices of their time and class. Moulton does a good job of not shying away from that complexity; one moment that struck me is when Moulton notes, early on, that given their status and education, many of them would probably have made for rather boring men. True and fair! It's easy to imagine a male DLS who drifted quietly into the tenured life of a theologian, and never had the contacts or experiences that produced her most compelling books.

(Also, as a fan of the Wimsey books, I found Moulton's suggestion that Muriel's relationship with her long-term partner probably impacted the exploration of equality in the Harriet/Peter relationship as much or more as Sayers' own romantic history extremely interesting!)

The part of the thesis that fails for me is when Moulton discusses that part of what draws her to focus on these four, in particular, is the fact that they remained in contact after Oxford and impacted each other's work in significant ways. It's easy to make a case that DLS and Muriel St. Clare were profoundly impactful on each other -- they were lifelong friends, and actively collaborated -- and Dorothy Rowe acted as a kind of aunt to the Frankenberg family throughout her life, though I don't remember any evidence that D. Rowe was much involved in Charis' political work, or Charis in D. Rowe's theatrical endeavors. But that's a book about two sets of friends; the way that a group develops ideas and mutual influence in the way its members interact with the world is a different and differently interesting thing and I'm not sure the book ever successfully demonstrates that for me.

Comments

[sovay]

I really enjoyed reading Mo Moulton's The Mutual Admiration Society: How Dorothy L. Sayers and her Oxford Circle Remade The World for Women, even though in some ways I think it fails in its central argument.

This is useful information to me, as I read an excerpt recently and was wondering whether to track down the book or not!

[skygiants]

I found it interesting and worth reading, although not everything that I wanted it to be!

[sovay]

I found it interesting and worth reading, although not everything that I wanted it to be!

I am sorry that its title/premise overreaches, since "here is a group of very interesting people, please enjoy a book about them" is a completely reasonable premise for a biography.

I always remember that Busman's Honeymoon started life as a play (and that the film is not supposed to be any good, despite the spot-on casting of Robert Newton as Frank Crutchley), but always forget that it was co-written. I would love to read more about that.

[skygiants]

Then you should definitely read this book because there is a great deal about that process and it's all extremely interesting; honestly I could have read the whole book focused only about that.

[sovay]

there is a great deal about that process and it's all extremely interesting; honestly I could have read the whole book focused only about that.

Sold!

[antisoppist]

Was it a thesis first? I wonder if that very reasonable biography premise doesn't quite hack it for a thesis and you have to kind of Prove Important Links.

(I have asked for it for Christmas so haven't read it myself yet)

I want to read a lot more about the co-writing process of the play and the process of turning the play into a book (by putting all the good relationship bits in). I have seen the play (Edward Petherbridge & Emily Richard) and the poster which says firmly "by Dorothy L Sayers and Muriel St Clare Byrne" is on my living room wall so I can't forget it was co-written but I'd really like to know how they went about it.

The dedication of the book to Muriel St Clare Byrne, Helen Simpson and Marjorie Barber, apologises for wearing them all out talking about it and sacrificing them "on the altar of that friendship the female sex is said to be incapable" and I'd like to know more about that as well. I've got all five volumes of Sayers' edited letters and there really isn't enough included about any of this - unless they didn't write each other any letters about it, but Sayers wrote people letters about everything, so you would think there would be some.

In other words following skygiants' comments, I definitely need to read the book now.

[skygiants]

I'm not entirely sure, but it may well have been!

I forget exactly what role Helen Simpson played in the creation of the book except that she and Sayers were friends, but Marjorie Barber was Muriel St. Clare Byrne's long-term partner and the uneven Muriel/Marjorie dynamic, in which Marjorie went to great efforts to accommodate herself around Muriel's emotional needs, affected (Mo Moulton posits) a great deal of what went into the intensive relationship discussions between Peter and Harriet.

[sovay]

I have seen the play (Edward Petherbridge & Emily Richard)

NICE.

[troisoiseaux]

This is definitely on my to-read list!

[skygiants]

I feel a little bad saying 'it's extremely worth reading for the Sayers stuff alone' because the book goes to such effort to be about more than just Sayers, but ..

[lirazel]

Interesting insights! I've been looking forward to reading the book for a while and I think I'll still enjoy it as a biography of four interesting women.

[skygiants]

Yeah, it's honestly worth reading simply as an examination of the different paths that educated women could take in the early to mid-twentieth century -- all of them led interesting and fulfilling lives in extremely different ways. (Dorothy Rowe, who did not leave a particularly large footprint, seems honestly to have had the most fun. So many years of dedicated amateur theatrics!)

[obopolsk]

I just came across a mention of this book the other day and was intrigued and wondering whether to read, so I'm glad you posted this! I think I will check it out.

[skygiants]

I think you would enjoy it! It's not groundbreaking but definitely interesting and thoughtful.

[osprey_archer]

I just saw this book at the library and nearly nabbed it. It sounds like it's super interesting even if it doesn't actually nail its thesis; is that accurate?

[skygiants]

I would say that is both generally accurate, and that the book is specifically relevant to your interests - the bits on Sayers alone are fascinating for anyone who's been reading Wimsey, but it's also just really interesting to look at what things were like for one of the early generations of university girls and what they went on to make of their lives.

[osprey_archer]

I do love early university girls! And I don't know nearly as much about English university girls as I would like: my research has focused much more on America.

Have put the book on hold! (Am sixth in line for two copies, so it will be a while.)