In Poe’s "The Murders in the Rue Morgue," the ideas of observation, analysis, and perception are explored. Poe begins his tale with an explanation of the term analysis, pointing out that “to calculate is not in itself to analyse” (397). He later writes “the analyst is necessarily ingenious, the ingenious man is often remarkably incapable of analysis” (399). What exactly does Poe mean by this? Do you agree with the statement?
Also, the character Dupin is described as having “analytical ability,” (401) (clearly evident when he solves the mystery of the murders in the Rue Morgue). While the entire Parisian police are unable to see the answer, Dupin is able to objectively view the crime and effectively solve the case. He comments on the police’s inability to do this, specifically noting what Vidocq was doing wrong. He states “He impaired his vision by holding the object too close. He might see, perhaps, one or two points with unusual clearness, but in so doing he, necessarily, lost sight of the matter as a whole. Thus there is such a thing as being too profound. Truth is not always in a well” (412). What does Poe mean by this statement? How does it connect to the explanation of analysis offered in the opening of the story? Furthermore, how does this relate to what we were talking about in class regarding observation and display?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Poe means to place analysis on a much higher level than calculation. From his description of different games, it is evident that he believes calculation to consist of just paying close attention to detail, whereas analysis requires a high level of knowledge. For example, in chess one can win by paying close attention to the other player’s moves and their potential moves. However, in a game such as whist one can win by analyzing the other player’s facial expressions, body language, etc.
It seems that Dupin believes that Vidocq is merely calculating instead of truly analyzing. Paying close attention to details will not help Vidocq reach a solution if he does not use knowledge to properly analyze the problem at hand.
In class we discussed how something can look like something else superficially, but upon a closer look you find that it is not what it appears to be. For example, in Maggie, the bar Pete works at is meant to look very fancy with expensive materials, but it is all fake. However, Poe mentions how the reverse can be true. If you look too closely at something you won’t see what it really is. He mentions how looking at a star directly versus looking at a star indirectly. It is by looking at the star more indirectly that you can see it more distinctively.
In support of the quote that Ashley pulled from page 412 of the text, Poe's narrator stated that "the analytical power should not be confounded with simple ingenuity; for when the analyst is necessarily ingenious, the ingenious man is often remarkably incapable of analysis" (399). The narrator believes that one cannot be simply clever and inventive, but must be capable of analysis of the information/clues that he or she has found. The Parisian police were able to collect the evidence from the murder scene, but were unable to construct the pieces into a whole, and therefore being able to determine the murderer. The police "impaired their vision" by looking to closely at the evidence of the two "voices" that were heard when the murders took place. Dupin was able to view the evidence in a broader picture and piece it all together.
I think that this is a different type of observation and display than what we talked about in class. In class we talked about how one may be viewed or how that person views others, rather I think that Poe is challenging how we observe the world around us (not just people). Poe's writing toys with the minds' idea of "normal." By reconstructing this murder scene to involve an animal, that basically has no idea of right or wrong, the reader's mind is forced to reiterate the evidence and place the facts within the actual murder scene description. The unusual outcome of the case makes sense within the evidence, but not in actuality.
I agree with Tara’s explanation of calculation and analysis, in that calculation requires much more attention to detail. However in the story, it was exactly that attention to detail which made it nearly impossible for the police to solve the case. Dupin concludes that in regard to this case “The depth lies in the valleys where we seek her, and not upon the mountaintops where she is found”(412). Poe then relates the solving of a mystery to star gazing as Tara pointed out, showing that often the answer is found when looking from slightly different angle. This is precisely what Dupin does upon entering the home of Mademoiselle L’Espanaye. The narrator explains that before entering the house Dupin was “examining the whole neighborhood, as well as the house, with a minuteness of attention for which I could see no possible object”(413). Dupin clearly possesses this “analytical ability” which the entire Parisian Police force lacks.
I agree with Poe that in this case there is such a thing as being” too profound”. The police looked too closely at what the neighbors heard, and in doing so paid less attention to the actual crime scene. Dupin states, “The police are confounded by the seeming absence of motive-not for the murder itself- but for the atrocity of the murder”(414). The evidence itself was found in the evidence given by the neighbors. I agree with Tara that this can be related to Maggie, and how often in the novel she observed things differently perhaps because she was on the other side of the spectrum. She was by no means rich and therefore saw things in a different light because it was so new to her. To her the bars and “dance performances” were elegant. Similarly, Dupin is able to see the answer because he is not one of the police who experience this every day; he is farther removed from the scene.
"The ingenious man is often remarkably incapable of analysis" because as Tara P stated, they will try to pay close attention to several details, while leaving out the rest, unlike Dupin. Dupin believed the police were too distracted with the great brutality of the murder, how when they went to go pick up the lifeless corpse of Madam L'Espanye, the head fell off. They were concerned with the depositions of the neighbors who told them that they heard two distinct voices: one, deep Frenchman's voice, and two the higher voice of an uncertain ethnic background. In the end, they arrested a banker, leaving the identity of the second high shrilled voice unanswered. Vidocq wanted to get the perpetrator in custody. Ingenious men will try to find answers before looking at everything, that was the had "the object so close, that he was blinded by the facts.
Dupin on the other hand took a wide scope of the situation before finding a good place to pinpoint his observation. He realized the shrill voiced remained un-IDed. He noticed the broken nail in the window and how the 'thing' that commited the crime was of superhuman strength and how the hair on the corpse's fingers was not human. He later put the pieces together and the killer was an Ourang-Outang!
With 'truth not always being found in a well,' Poe means that its not always obvious. Sometimes it takes good observation and analysis to find out the truth. Poe believes that if you look really hard at something, it won't see what it really is...observation is more than just staring at an object...look at things from all different perspectives.
I think one facet of Poe's opinion on ingenuity and analysis is the idea that answers and insight at not simple answers, rather “The depth lies in the valleys where we seek her, and not upon the mountaintops where she is found" as Erin said (412). I think what the police attempted is some sort of knowledge to come to them, some sort of ultimate answer to the crime revealing itself. Therefore, those who can come up with these answers are not always analytic, as the quote would imply, but are instead just ingenious because they are able to come up with an answer. Simply: its easy to call someone genius, but how they got their earn that distinction is not always through analysis.
I think this idea lends itself also to the quote of truth lying on wells. When I picture a well, I see a depth of water that seems deep, but on further inspection we can confirm that there is indeed water there. If then, truth does not reside there as Poe states, I think he means to say that truth is not simple to arrive at and just delving deeper for an answer won't suffice. Again, the police used the same routine investigative techniques to solve the crime, and this lead them to the assumption that the perpetrator was human (an obvious misstatement). Also, when reading the depositions of the many witnesses, I noticed that they too tried to rationalize some truth or definitive detail from the crime. Unaware of the possibility of it being an orangutan, the many witnesses tried to label the beasts speech as a certain language, allowing them to perceive the crime as something more than it was. "They have fallen into the gross but common error of confounding the unusual with the abstruse" (414).
Poe separates calculation from analysis right from the start, saying that analysis is much more prominent and valuable. People that use calculation pay fastidious attention to detail, but are unable to see the big picture, according to Poe. I agree with Tara in the fact that it was because of the police paying such close attention to detail that they missed the truth of the case entirely. The police, unlike Dupin, were not able to see one step ahead of the situation. They were much more affected by the sheer atrocity of the murder and that distracted them from the reality. They focused too much on big details so many of the smaller ones were left unnoticed. The crime itself was inhumanly cruel, and the decapitated body distracted the other investigators. Dupin was able to see outside the box and into the abnormal.
It seems to me that Poe exaggerates Dupin's ability to see through the crime. I mean come on, how would anyone guess that a freakin monkey was the murderer? The difference illustrated between the police and Dupin is almost too great. Dupin's brilliance and analytical ability is in sharp contrast to that of the Police's, and I don't know if Poe meant it to sound a little ludicrous. But ultimately I do think that he means to say that if you hold the objective to close to you, calculative analysis, than you will lose sight of the matter as a whole. You can't eliminate certain conclusions or perspectives simply because they sound impossible, for you must remain objective.
It seems that in the case of the Parisian detectives, people are often blinded by their presuppositions about the world around them. As Poe notices about the losses of a simple analytic thinker, rather than looking merely at facts there is an element of imagination in crimes that the mind can’t develop simply by casting about in its own consciousness- to succeed in observation, one “notes every variation of face as the play progresses, gathering a fund of thought from the differences in the expression of certainty, of surprise, of triumph, or chagrin” and “what is played through feint”, therefore making themselves aware of the “true state of affairs”. By our imaginings, as the Police do with the shutters, or the appearing handprints around the girl’s neck, we shut out the possibilities that our brains simply do not comprehend, though they are the truth of the situation. By closing our minds to everything but the evidence of the scene about us, Poe seems to suggest, we actually open up a whole realm of possibility and ‘clews’ previously unavailable and unknown.
Poe seems to think that display as it was found on Maggie or Pete can be overcome, if we don’t force our conceptions of the world on the people around us. Due to the rarity of Dupin’s talent, it is clear that this is an uncommonly difficult thing to accomplish. In his own writing style he utilizes the reader’s weakness on that front in a teasing manner- he uses purposefully vague labeling of streets to keep the time and location indistinguishable, though we seem to be in Paris. His main character is one who possesses a talent many, like Max, view as a preternatural ability to be denied in the face of reason. In writing off his success, we effectively fall into the well of reasoning- the logic of his character is sound- perhaps his existence is not quite as impossible as one would first suspect.
(Professor: I am feeling a bit ill- I do not believe I will be in for class tomorrow.)
Post a Comment