I agree that Wodehouse's descriptions are masterful, in particular his abundant use of juicy, exaggerated visual similes/metaphors (e.g. "A sound like two or three pigs feeding rather noisily in the middle of a thunderstorm" to describe a snore).
I also love the feeling of mounting anticipation as Wodehouse expertly lays the groundwork of all the possible plot twists in the first half of the book. Somehow we know we're in for a good time without knowing exactly what we're in for... Pitch-perfect comedic tone is an elusive quarry, and yet Wodehouse hits it everytime! 😱
What I Liked Less...
I'm not a fan of the shifting third person narration. The writing is funny and engaging enough to carry us through the detours and perspective jumps, but overall I find the choice of POV slows down the madcap action and lacks cohesiveness.
This might not be fair as I've always had a soft-spot for Wodehouse's Jeeves & Wooster books, and I found myself consciously missing Bertie's first person narration while reading Leave It To Psmith. However, to me, the first person feels like it would've been a better choice for reinforcing the impression of an endless cascade of comic complications. (Perhaps because there's less dramatic irony as a result?)
A couple of quotes I enjoyed enough to dog-ear their pages:
"Lady Constance conveyed the impression that anybody who had the choice between stealing anything from her and stirring up a nest of hornets with a short walking-stick would do well to choose the hornets."
"He (Baxter) placed the letter on the pile beside his plate; and, having decapitated an egg, peered sharply into its interior as if hoping to surprise guilty secrets."
I'm thoroughly enjoying visiting Wodehouse's world, which has just as little connection to reality as a land of elves and fairies. And why not? It's pure, light, enjoyment, done at the highest level, like world-class pastry.
Douglas Adams wrote about Wodehouse (the piece is collected in his book The Salmon of Doubt) and describes how he'd write a story or a chapter, and pin each page of the draft around the walls of his office. He'd remove a page, revise it, and then pin it higher depending on his assessment of its quality. The story/chapter wasn't finished until every page had been pinned to the highest position on the wall. I love this as an illustration of the value of rewriting, as well as the humble craft of patiently and systematically looking for more and better jokes, cleaner expression, and tighter storytelling.
Contrary to your take, it did take me a minute to get into the novel. All the set up felt like it took a bit to me, though it’s crucially important. Particularly that long first chapter. I think I have some leftover PTSD from being forced to read olde English lit like Jane Eyre in HS, which I found utterly boring (sorry fans). So traveling around Blandings Castle and getting all the different people straight took me some time to get into.
Once the set up was done and the different characters began to collide, I was definitely enjoying it all though. I’d never heard of Wodehouse before, so shame on me. As you pointed out, the descriptors were very on point and something worth emulating.
One question I’m curious about others perspectives. Do you find yourself laughing out loud when reading books of this type? I find that I rarely do, instead giving an occasional chuckle or a mental acknowledgment that a part was clever. I feel the same reading something like Confederacy of Dunces. And I’m wondering if that’s just my style or if it’s maybe the medium of a fictional comedic novel vs something like live comedy.
PSmith did make me laugh out loud several times. And, yeah, that's rare for written humor, but also I read a ton of prose humor, so maybe my standards have gone up over time.
Hardest laugh of the book for me was: "Can’t quite work that one out,” he confessed. “Do you mean you will tell him or you won’t?”
I love it when a writer can accurately capture true human confusion.
I feel that. I feel like I do laugh loudly more at other written formats but the comedic fiction prose really has to strike me unexpectedly to get me going
For what it's worth, I rarely muster more than a soft chuckle while reading...even when it's something absolutely hilarious. Same for most comedies I watch on TV too.
Not a specialist on the subject, but I suspect live/shared comedy experiences trigger stronger laughs at least in part due to the social context in which they take place...
That said, even when he's watching comedies alone, my partner laughs out loud like a choking donkey (and it's one of the reasons I love him)...so I could be wrong.
I think that's surely true. We laugh more and harder when we're around other people. This makes a laugh from pure prose all the more earned.
But that said, I'm sure there are large individual differences in how we all experience humor and physically respond to it. None of them are "right" they just are.
This does remind me of an old improv comedy teacher I had, Miles Stroth, who said he didn't really laugh at anything any more. If something was funny, he'd just flatly say, "that's funny."
That makes a lot of sense too. I do laugh out loud at other written formats more readily, but for me the fiction prose really has to strike from an unexpected angle to nab me.
So far, my three biggest laughs out loud were from:
“The p, I should add for your guidance, is silent, as in phthisis, psychic, and ptarmigan. You follow me?”
“We must always remember that these disappointments are sent to us for some good purpose. No doubt they make us more spiritual.”
“As broke as the Ten Commandments” (biggest giggle so far. Thought about it multiple times throughout the day for more micro-giggles)
…Actually I found that entire paragraph pretty great:
“Are you really broke?”
“As broke as the Ten Commandments.”
“I’m hanged if I can believe it.”
“Suppose I brush my hat the wrong way for a moment?” said Psmith obligingly. “Would that help?”
It took me a little while to find my footing with all the characters and their connections early on, but as the story unfolded, it all fell into place. I'm glad I kept going!
His explanation of the silent 'p' also cracked me up. It's not merely clever, and a visual-linguistic gag, but it fits PSmith to a T. He's an eccentric guy who does what he can to stand out. Kind of an OG hipster.
For a plot hinged almost entirely on coincidences, I bought every one of them. Not a single "c'mon, really?" I love that. Maybe it's the farcical prose, my own prejudice of English people all being connected somehow, or the breakneck speed of events, but I think it also has to be a kind of magic in Wodehouse's craft.
I think they're easier to buy in Wodehouse's magical worlds.
For example, PSmith being old friends with Mike Jackson and Eve being an old friend of Phyllis Jackson's is a pretty big coincidence that slides under the radar just a tad but plays a big role in heightening Eve and PSmith love story. (It plays into both their misunderstandings of each other and their eventual reconciliation.)
Social coincidences like this happen all the time IRL, and honestly, in the world of 1920 London and surrounding areas, it was probably pretty common.
The one coincidence that maybe stretched a bit far was Aileen Peavey's old flame, the card sharp, miraculously showing up at Blandings Castle. Really!? But I'm jumping ahead now.
Agree here, it definitely felt like everything wove together perfectly.
I do agree with Alex that the card sharp was a pretty big character to just plunk down in the middle with such a connected backstory. It’s the one thing that stood out. BUT I really liked his character and the interactions he had with Psmith, so he gets a pass from me
I've only just made it to chapter 3. Construction is immaculate. Wodehouse would write 400-page outlines. It shows. I should have the remaining chapters covered in a couple of days.
It's a testament to how slow I read that I only just arrived at page 105, where I found my favorite quote so far (the same one TJ mentioned), "Lady Constance conveyed the impression that anybody who had the choice between stealing anything from her and stirring up a nest of hornets with a short walking-stick would do well to choose the hornets." I did also like the snoring like feeding pigs quote, but this one really hits home.
I've just finished Chapter One, but even so, I found this description and analysis of the characters and conflicts enjoyable. And it made me more interested in reading the book!
I may need to joins this club! Meanwhile, the first part of the documentary on Steve Martin was utterly fantastic! Some "Hidden Lessons" I drew... 😂 https://tinyurl.com/3x69paxu
I haven’t started the book yet so I’ll come back to this post when I do.
On another somewhat unrelated note: Alex, do you offer any sort of 1 to 1 consultations? To help with someone’s humour writing? Let me (us) know - thanks!
What I Liked...
I agree that Wodehouse's descriptions are masterful, in particular his abundant use of juicy, exaggerated visual similes/metaphors (e.g. "A sound like two or three pigs feeding rather noisily in the middle of a thunderstorm" to describe a snore).
I also love the feeling of mounting anticipation as Wodehouse expertly lays the groundwork of all the possible plot twists in the first half of the book. Somehow we know we're in for a good time without knowing exactly what we're in for... Pitch-perfect comedic tone is an elusive quarry, and yet Wodehouse hits it everytime! 😱
What I Liked Less...
I'm not a fan of the shifting third person narration. The writing is funny and engaging enough to carry us through the detours and perspective jumps, but overall I find the choice of POV slows down the madcap action and lacks cohesiveness.
This might not be fair as I've always had a soft-spot for Wodehouse's Jeeves & Wooster books, and I found myself consciously missing Bertie's first person narration while reading Leave It To Psmith. However, to me, the first person feels like it would've been a better choice for reinforcing the impression of an endless cascade of comic complications. (Perhaps because there's less dramatic irony as a result?)
I didn't notice the shifting narration POV, but now that you say it, I can see that.
I think it gives PSmith more of an ensemble feel compared to the Jeeves books—which I agree have a more cohesive narration style.
the "three pigs feeding" line made me laugh out loud and read it to my girlfriend
A couple of quotes I enjoyed enough to dog-ear their pages:
"Lady Constance conveyed the impression that anybody who had the choice between stealing anything from her and stirring up a nest of hornets with a short walking-stick would do well to choose the hornets."
"He (Baxter) placed the letter on the pile beside his plate; and, having decapitated an egg, peered sharply into its interior as if hoping to surprise guilty secrets."
I'm thoroughly enjoying visiting Wodehouse's world, which has just as little connection to reality as a land of elves and fairies. And why not? It's pure, light, enjoyment, done at the highest level, like world-class pastry.
Douglas Adams wrote about Wodehouse (the piece is collected in his book The Salmon of Doubt) and describes how he'd write a story or a chapter, and pin each page of the draft around the walls of his office. He'd remove a page, revise it, and then pin it higher depending on his assessment of its quality. The story/chapter wasn't finished until every page had been pinned to the highest position on the wall. I love this as an illustration of the value of rewriting, as well as the humble craft of patiently and systematically looking for more and better jokes, cleaner expression, and tighter storytelling.
That's a cool Adams anecdote. Real dedication to the craft there.
Contrary to your take, it did take me a minute to get into the novel. All the set up felt like it took a bit to me, though it’s crucially important. Particularly that long first chapter. I think I have some leftover PTSD from being forced to read olde English lit like Jane Eyre in HS, which I found utterly boring (sorry fans). So traveling around Blandings Castle and getting all the different people straight took me some time to get into.
Once the set up was done and the different characters began to collide, I was definitely enjoying it all though. I’d never heard of Wodehouse before, so shame on me. As you pointed out, the descriptors were very on point and something worth emulating.
One question I’m curious about others perspectives. Do you find yourself laughing out loud when reading books of this type? I find that I rarely do, instead giving an occasional chuckle or a mental acknowledgment that a part was clever. I feel the same reading something like Confederacy of Dunces. And I’m wondering if that’s just my style or if it’s maybe the medium of a fictional comedic novel vs something like live comedy.
PSmith did make me laugh out loud several times. And, yeah, that's rare for written humor, but also I read a ton of prose humor, so maybe my standards have gone up over time.
Hardest laugh of the book for me was: "Can’t quite work that one out,” he confessed. “Do you mean you will tell him or you won’t?”
I love it when a writer can accurately capture true human confusion.
I occasionally laugh at written, but not this time. There wasn't a moment reading, however, when the writing didn't fill me with joy.
I feel that. I feel like I do laugh loudly more at other written formats but the comedic fiction prose really has to strike me unexpectedly to get me going
For what it's worth, I rarely muster more than a soft chuckle while reading...even when it's something absolutely hilarious. Same for most comedies I watch on TV too.
Not a specialist on the subject, but I suspect live/shared comedy experiences trigger stronger laughs at least in part due to the social context in which they take place...
That said, even when he's watching comedies alone, my partner laughs out loud like a choking donkey (and it's one of the reasons I love him)...so I could be wrong.
I think that's surely true. We laugh more and harder when we're around other people. This makes a laugh from pure prose all the more earned.
But that said, I'm sure there are large individual differences in how we all experience humor and physically respond to it. None of them are "right" they just are.
This does remind me of an old improv comedy teacher I had, Miles Stroth, who said he didn't really laugh at anything any more. If something was funny, he'd just flatly say, "that's funny."
I laugh at some, and say, "nice" about other things that strike me as funny.
That makes a lot of sense too. I do laugh out loud at other written formats more readily, but for me the fiction prose really has to strike from an unexpected angle to nab me.
That’s a great question!
So far, my three biggest laughs out loud were from:
“The p, I should add for your guidance, is silent, as in phthisis, psychic, and ptarmigan. You follow me?”
“We must always remember that these disappointments are sent to us for some good purpose. No doubt they make us more spiritual.”
“As broke as the Ten Commandments” (biggest giggle so far. Thought about it multiple times throughout the day for more micro-giggles)
…Actually I found that entire paragraph pretty great:
“Are you really broke?”
“As broke as the Ten Commandments.”
“I’m hanged if I can believe it.”
“Suppose I brush my hat the wrong way for a moment?” said Psmith obligingly. “Would that help?”
It took me a little while to find my footing with all the characters and their connections early on, but as the story unfolded, it all fell into place. I'm glad I kept going!
His explanation of the silent 'p' also cracked me up. It's not merely clever, and a visual-linguistic gag, but it fits PSmith to a T. He's an eccentric guy who does what he can to stand out. Kind of an OG hipster.
For a plot hinged almost entirely on coincidences, I bought every one of them. Not a single "c'mon, really?" I love that. Maybe it's the farcical prose, my own prejudice of English people all being connected somehow, or the breakneck speed of events, but I think it also has to be a kind of magic in Wodehouse's craft.
This is a great point!
I think they're easier to buy in Wodehouse's magical worlds.
For example, PSmith being old friends with Mike Jackson and Eve being an old friend of Phyllis Jackson's is a pretty big coincidence that slides under the radar just a tad but plays a big role in heightening Eve and PSmith love story. (It plays into both their misunderstandings of each other and their eventual reconciliation.)
Social coincidences like this happen all the time IRL, and honestly, in the world of 1920 London and surrounding areas, it was probably pretty common.
The one coincidence that maybe stretched a bit far was Aileen Peavey's old flame, the card sharp, miraculously showing up at Blandings Castle. Really!? But I'm jumping ahead now.
I’ll reply to that next time.
Agree here, it definitely felt like everything wove together perfectly.
I do agree with Alex that the card sharp was a pretty big character to just plunk down in the middle with such a connected backstory. It’s the one thing that stood out. BUT I really liked his character and the interactions he had with Psmith, so he gets a pass from me
I've only just made it to chapter 3. Construction is immaculate. Wodehouse would write 400-page outlines. It shows. I should have the remaining chapters covered in a couple of days.
The 400-page outline seems especially helpful for PSmith which has so many characters and is way more tightly plotted than most of Wodehouse's books.
I'd love to see the outline.
It's a testament to how slow I read that I only just arrived at page 105, where I found my favorite quote so far (the same one TJ mentioned), "Lady Constance conveyed the impression that anybody who had the choice between stealing anything from her and stirring up a nest of hornets with a short walking-stick would do well to choose the hornets." I did also like the snoring like feeding pigs quote, but this one really hits home.
One more thing: as I read it, I picture Cary Grant as Psmith. That insouciant charm you can't help but love.
I've just finished Chapter One, but even so, I found this description and analysis of the characters and conflicts enjoyable. And it made me more interested in reading the book!
Wodehouse can still teach modern writers a thing or two about writing humor, which can easily not be said for most of the writers of his generation.
Some old school sass. I like it.
Someone left a long and interesting comment then deleted it before I could respond. To whoever that was, dang why'd you delete that ha ha
I may need to joins this club! Meanwhile, the first part of the documentary on Steve Martin was utterly fantastic! Some "Hidden Lessons" I drew... 😂 https://tinyurl.com/3x69paxu
I haven’t started the book yet so I’ll come back to this post when I do.
On another somewhat unrelated note: Alex, do you offer any sort of 1 to 1 consultations? To help with someone’s humour writing? Let me (us) know - thanks!
I'm focusing on building Comedy Bizarre for now. That's plenty! :)
Totally fair!
Matt, try Ysabel Yates. I know she's actively coaching
https://ysabelyates.com/humor-coaching