Discussion Questions For Murder Must Advertise
1. In “Murder Must Advertise” Sayers makes some very
insightful comments that seem to apply even more now than when they were
written. On page 80, she writes about
the message of advertising:
Whatever you’re doing, stop it and do something else!
Whatever you’re buying, pause and buy something different! Be hectored into
health and prosperity! Never let up!
Never go to sleep! Never be satisfied, all our wheels will run
down. Keep going – and if you can’t, try
Nutrax for Nerves.
Is this attitude the result of sin, human nature, or
affluence? (If your society is not affluent, advertise is irrelevant)
2. Modern advertising began in the 1920’s with tobacco
ads. Large towns in the middle ages
would have more than one blacksmith or more than one cobbler. How did they compete and “advertise”? How is
that different from modern advertising?
3. This book is filled with less than perfect
characters. They did not say at the age
of 15 or 20 “I want to grow up to be a murderer " or “I want to grow up to
be a drug runner or addict”. How did these
characters end up going down that slippery slope and how does this remind you
of the Screwtape Letters.
“The Murderer” (I am not using his name in case you haven’t
finished the book yet)
Major Mulligan, Dian de Momerie, ...
4. I, personally, found the chapters dealing with “The Great
Nutrax Row” and it consequences very humorous.
Sayers does an excellent job of pointing out what fanned the flames of
the Row. What traits do you see there
that we have seen in The Screwtape Letters.
5. The question of whether or not one is a “gentleman” or
went to public school matters to members
of the firm and Dian and others use the
same set of standards to measure others.
What does make someone a “gentleman” and is this the same as “the inner
group” that Lewis touched on in many of his books? What of the snobbery of Tallboy who did not
attend a real public school himself but says of another, “I am not going to
have him playing in the cricket match,
anyhow.” pursued Mr. Tallboy, viciously.
“Last year he wore white suede shoes with crocodile vamps, and an
incredible blazer….” P 149
6. Does the murder accept any real responsibility for what
he has done? Does he feel any remorse
and do you agree with the “When I knew I’d succeeded, I didn’t care, I was
glad. And I tell you this, if I hadn’t
been found out, I shouldn’t care now”.
How does this attitude fit into the murder’s moral view, and do you
agree with the sentiment?
7.In many Agatha Christie stories and in several of Sayers,
the detective allows the murders to commit suicide as a way out instead of
making sure the person could be
arrested. Do you agree with this? Why or why not? Is it truly “moral” to allow a person to not face the consequences of their
actions? Is this type of solution, the
“gentlemanly one” peculiar to that era?
Is it a choice in our mysteries today?
If not, why do you think things have changed?
8. Is this a murder mystery, or a novel about money and
class; money and consumption; or money and truth?
9. Wimsey does not seem to grasp how important the public
school experience really is. He says to
“If only you people could get it out of your heads that these things matter a
damn, you ‘d be a darn sight happier.”
Do you think that by the end of the novel he has gained any real
understanding of “how the other half lives”.
10. Do you think the experience of “working
for a living” changed Wimsey at all?
No comments:
Post a Comment