If you are looking for the beginning of the study of Dorothy Sayers’ Whose Body?then you can go HERE for a brief introduction. At the bottom of the introduction you will find the links to each section of the study guide as it becomes available. If you would like to see the growing list of available book studies available for free on this site you can go HERE. Enjoy!
Grammar Questions: (The Information of the Text)
What did Bunter wish to buy with the £60 left over from the sale?
Who came to visit Lord Peter and what about?
What was supposed to happen on the morning Sir Reuben Levy disappeared?
Who were some of the last people to have seen Sir Levy?
What one thing appears to have been done which was not in keeping with “Sir Reuben’s custom?”
What “trifling circumstance” did the housemaid notice?
What items did Sir Levy not take with him when he disappeared?
What was the cause of death for the man found in the bathtub?
Who had Inspector Sugg arrested in suspicion of the murder of the man in the bathtub?
What were at least three of the observations which Inspector Parker noticed about the dead body?
What did Lord Peter carry with him which he called his “vade-mecum?”
List the 6 apparent “contradictions” which Lord Peter enumerated in the case of the body in the bathtub.
Logic Questions: (Interpreting, Comparing/Contrasting, Reasoning)
What might we infer from the first few pages of this chapter in regard to Lord Peter and Bunter’s relationship?
Why did Lord Peter tell Parker that he ought not to glue his “faith to cadaveric lividity?”
“I’ll tell you afterwards. Go on.” Why might Wimsey have wanted to hear all of Parker’s observations before he commented on any of them?
Consider the case of the missing Sir Levy, which facts/observations mentioned do you think might be most important? Why?
Consider the case of the body in the bathtub, which facts/observations mentioned do you think might be most important? Why?
Do you think the case of the missing Sir Levy and the body in the bathtub are connected? Why or why not?
Do you think any of the information in this chapter seemed to further implicate the guilt of any of the known suspects? If so, who and how so?
Rhetoric Questions: (The Analysis of Ideas in the Text)
Lord Peter said, “I’ll tell you what, Parker, we’re up against a criminal – the criminal – the real artist and blighter with imagination – real, artistic, finished stuff. I’m enjoying this, Parker.” Do you think it is appropriate for Lord Peter to be “enjoying this?” To what extent, if any, can we have admiration for the genius of someone who is doing evil things? Further, do you think we can or ought to learn things by studying the works of evil men? Why or why not?
Theological Analysis: (Sola Scriptura)
Read Matthew 23:1-12. How might this passage impact the above rhetoric question?