Yeah, one of the things I got told early on by someone, is that Sayers brought in Harriet to be Peter's romantic interest, and then realized that Peter wasn't good enough for her. So Sayers had to have Peter do some growing first -- that's one of the reasons it's five or six years between their meeting and their getting together. Because I agree with you (and eventually Peter does, too): the way he behaved in Strong Poison is NOT ON.
Another thing I found annoying is that, following after Unnatural Death where Peter's playing with detection leads inadvertently to some terrible consequences (even if he wasn't to blame for them), there wasn't any growth in Lord Peter's personality. He ends one book wishing he hadn't got involved and being terribly down on himself and then starts the next one in full arrogant meddling mode.
That'll come up again in Gaudy Night -- he brings up that exact outcome from Unnatural Death, in a discussion about inadvertent consequences and guilt and what one's responsibility for them is. But I'd also say that he often feels like that toward the end of a novel -- wishes he hadn't meddled, feels guilt about his role in things, doesn't want to have to give the murderer up to the police, and so on. Sayers eventually gets around to explaining where that's coming from, and given that eventual explanation, I'd argue that character growth for Peter isn't "learning from the experience" and meddling less, but the opposite: becoming less in thrall to that negative reaction when it's time to put away the murderer.
But ultimately, I think this is one of the things that people mean when they say Sayers' writing improves over the series: at the beginning, Peter is all shallow wish-fulfillment fantasy. Very static, with very little growth and change from book to book. Happily, that changes as one gets farther into the series: he becomes a much deeper character, and he starts evincing growth and change. I think that's particularly noticeable over the run of the Harriet books, for the reasons noted above: he's NOT good enough for her at the beginning of those four novels, and needs to learn to get his act together.
no subject
Another thing I found annoying is that, following after Unnatural Death where Peter's playing with detection leads inadvertently to some terrible consequences (even if he wasn't to blame for them), there wasn't any growth in Lord Peter's personality. He ends one book wishing he hadn't got involved and being terribly down on himself and then starts the next one in full arrogant meddling mode.
That'll come up again in Gaudy Night -- he brings up that exact outcome from Unnatural Death, in a discussion about inadvertent consequences and guilt and what one's responsibility for them is. But I'd also say that he often feels like that toward the end of a novel -- wishes he hadn't meddled, feels guilt about his role in things, doesn't want to have to give the murderer up to the police, and so on. Sayers eventually gets around to explaining where that's coming from, and given that eventual explanation, I'd argue that character growth for Peter isn't "learning from the experience" and meddling less, but the opposite: becoming less in thrall to that negative reaction when it's time to put away the murderer.
But ultimately, I think this is one of the things that people mean when they say Sayers' writing improves over the series: at the beginning, Peter is all shallow wish-fulfillment fantasy. Very static, with very little growth and change from book to book. Happily, that changes as one gets farther into the series: he becomes a much deeper character, and he starts evincing growth and change. I think that's particularly noticeable over the run of the Harriet books, for the reasons noted above: he's NOT good enough for her at the beginning of those four novels, and needs to learn to get his act together.