LITERATURE AND THE CITY

May Wu

            Before In “The Murders in the Rue Morgue”, the narrator is portrayed as a less ingenious figure who accompanies Dupin along the whole story. The narrator only responds to Dupin generally, echoes his messages and positions Dupin as an unattainable genius to readers. The invention of a less intelligent narrator or a detective’s close companion has become a key feature in many detective stories. Their main functions are to characterize the unreachable analytical skills of the detective and to stimulate reader’s participations throughout the story. In regard of such a significant feature, many scholars have discussed the functions of the narrator and the relationship between the narrator and Dupin. In the article of “Death as Truth in Edgar Allan Poe’s “The Murders in the Rue Morgue””, Kozaczka claims that Dupin is the “autonomous master of his own narrative” and that he actually renders the narrator as a text that he can manipulate and control (62). Kozaczka also points out that the unnamed narrator is only an instrument to preserve Dupin’s sacred position (63). However, I argue that Kozaczka overlooks the significance of the narrator merely because he is a less intelligent figure than Dupin. I argue that the narrator is equally significant and ingenious as Dupin. They are complementary to each other with each of them taking up a different role in the story. The narrator is dedicated to illuminate the brilliant side of Dupin by consciously diminishing himself while Dupin is responsible for demonstrating his unattainable analytical skills to the readers. Together they complete a page turning detective story to the readers.

            In Kozaczka’s article, he points out that Dupin uses his ingenuity to capture the soul of the narrator and as a result, to influence and control his thoughts (62). He supports his claim by explaining the way Dupin uses “the vast extent of his reading” to “enkindle” the soul of the narrator and later, Dupin’s detailed revelation of his analytical method to “fathom” him again (62). Kozaczka also suggests that Dupin is able to secure his authority over the narrator by seducing the narrator to enter a homoerotic relationship (63). It seems that Kozaczka has made some insightful observations given that the narrator repeatedly confesses how he “could not help remarking and admiring a peculiar analytical ability in Dupin” at the beginning of the story (Poe, 144). In fact, the narrator deliberately compliments Dupin constantly so as to highlight his ingenuity and to direct reader’s attention to Dupin only. In the following, I argue that the homoerotic relationship created in the preface is just one of the ways to distract readers from noticing the deliberate efforts narrator spent on putting the spotlight on Dupin. By constructing these effects, the narrator also implicitly displays equally brilliant observation and analytical skills as Dupin in the story. The narrator spends a large portion in the preface to illustrate the qualities of a genius analytical mind. While the description seems to be referring to Dupin alone, the narrator is also making inferences about himself too. In other words, the preface applies to both Dupin and the narrator. The narrator begins his detailed illustration by stating that, “I am not now writing a treatise, but simply prefacing a somewhat peculiar narrative by observations very much at random” in a casual and laid­back attitude (Poe, 141). He pretends to disarm himself in front of the readers in an attempt to deny any of the forthcoming constructed narrative effects. Using game analogy, the narrator compares analytical mind to chess and draught. The analogy implicitly reveals his observation skills in helping the narrator to deceive the readers. The narrator asserts that, “Deprived of ordinary resources, the analyst throws himself into the spirit of his opponent, identifies himself therewith, and not infrequently sees thus, at a glance, the sole methods (sometimes indeed absurdly simple ones) by which he may seduce into error or hurry into miscalculation” (Poe, 142). He implies that what he does as an analyst is to delude readers by seducing them into error or hurrying into miscalculation. With his attentive observation of the reader’s behaviour, he clearly understands that readers will just skim the preface to learn the more exciting murder later on so he is not afraid to imply his deception strategy between the lines. He later goes on explaining his edges as an analyst are that “he makes, in silence, a host of observations and inferences” and he possesses the “necessary knowledge [...] of what to observe” (Poe, 142).

            What attracts reader’s attention the most in the opening is the mysteriously intimate relationship between Dupin and the narrator. The narrator describes their relationship in a sensual way, which they isolated themselves (“Our seclusion was perfect”) and exist within themselves (Poe, 144). They light “tapers, which strongly perfumed” in their room and “sail forth into the streets, arm in arm” (Poe, 144). While the narrator is ostensibly indulging in the intimacy with Dupin, what he has been doing is to portray himself as an admirer of Dupin so as to make himself sound more innocent to the readers. On the other hand, by merging himself into Dupin’s character through the homoerotic relationship, the narrator also decentralizes his role in the story. The narrator understands every focus and curiosity of the readers will be attracted to wonder the kind of relationship he is having with Dupin. Despite spending a lengthy proportion to infer the tricks he is playing and the brilliant analytical skills he has, the narrator successfully draws reader’s attention away from those previous implications simply by creating a mysterious relationship.

            Throughout the story, the narrator demonstrates his observation skills by taking note of the expression of both Dupin and other characters, just like the qualities an analyst possesses: “he notes every variation of face as the play progress gathering a fund of thought from the differences in the expressions of certainty, of surprise, of triumph, or of chagrin” (Poe, 142). When Dupin is resolving the case, the narrator describes Dupin’s expressions comprehensively: “his voice, although by no means loud, had that intonation which is commonly employed in speaking to some one at great distance. His eyes, vacant in expression, regarded only the wall” (Poe, 155). He also describes the sailor comprehensively when he enters his house, “He was a sailor, evidently, ––a tall, stout, and muscular-looking person, with a certain dare-devil expression of countenance, not altogether unprepossessing. His face, greatly sunburnt, was more than half hidden by whisker and mustachio. He had with him a huge oaken cudgel, but appeared to ne otherwise unarmed. He bowed awkwardly, and bade us “good evening,” in French accents, which although somewhat Neufchatelish, was still sufficiently indicative of a Parisian origin” (Poe, 164). The narrator can even notice the origin of the sailor’s accents.

            On the other hand, the narrator is also responsible for keeping the readers in suspense and curiosity in a detective story. In other words, the narrator needs to give appropriate responses to Dupin and satisfy reader’s curiosity step by step. In doing so, I argue that the narrator’s genius analytical and observation skills also lie on how he fathoms reader’s mind by revealing the right amount of information at different stages. When Dupin and the narrator are discussing the peculiarity among the testimonies given by different witnesses, Dupin asks the narrator that “Let me now advert––not to the whole testimony respecting these voices––but to what was peculiar in that testimony. Did you observe any thing peculiar about it?” (Poe, 155). Without any further deduction, the narrator simply responds by generalizing the fact that the gruff voice is unanimously agreed to be a Frenchman whereas the harsh voice is still in debate. This unconstructive response is deliberately made to downplay his own intelligence and to contrast with Dupin’s remarks. Dupin told the narrator “You have observed nothing distinctive. Yet there was something to be observed” (Poe, 156). The unhelpful response also helps to create a narrative gap, which the readers are invited to relate how the harsh voice can possibly be led to the revelation of the murderer. At the same time, the narrative gap manifests Dupin’s intelligence by allowing him to explain directly to the readers regarding the peculiarity and the significance of the harsh voice: “The witnesses, as you remark, agreed about the gruff voice; they were here unanimous. But in regard to the shrill voice, the peculiarity is not that they disagreed —but that, while an Italian, an Englishman, a Spaniard, a Hollander, and a Frenchman attempted to describe it, each one spoke of it as that of a foreigner. Each is sure that it was not the voice of one of his own countrymen. […] No words––no sounds resembling words––were by any witness mentioned as distinguishable” (Poe, 156).

            Later, Dupin guides the narrator further to the truth of the murder by asking the narrator to “combine the ideas of an agility astounding, a strength superhuman, a ferocity brutal, a butchery without motive, a grotesquerie in horror absolutely alien from humanity, and a voice foreign in tone to the ears of men of many nations, and devoid of all distinct or intelligible syllabification” (Poe, 161). The narrator, once again, intentionally makes a wrong speculation by saying that the murder is committed by “a madman” who “has done this deed —some raving maniac, escaped from a neighboring Maison de Sante” (Poe, 161). The narrator makes such an assumption because he anticipates the same answer from the readers as well. Meanwhile, the narrator is unraveling the mystery by allowing Dupin to disclose each of the significant evidence step by step. When Dupin explicitly brings out the two important clues (the kind of language that does not belong to any nation and the strange type of hair), the narrator finally replies “Dupin! This hair is most unusual —this is not human hair” (Poe, 161). The narrator decides to tell the readers that the murderer is actually an animal at this point because he anticipates the readers will have enough clues to reach the correct answer like him. It seems to the readers that it is Dupin who is guiding the narrator to find out the real murderer step by step. Yet, it is important to note that without the narrator’s unconstructive responses and wrong speculations, Dupin cannot be contrasted as the ingenious figure as presented now, not to mention attracting the readers to read until the last page of the story.

            In response to Kozaczka’s arguments, rather than seeing the narrator as an instrument rendered by Dupin, we should not overlook the intentional effects achieved by the narrator. The homoerotic relationship and the seemingly inferior status of the narrator are nothing but narrative strategies. It is not legitimate to simply disregard the narrator’s significance based on the way in which Dupin is characterized as the highlight of the story. The narrator devotes his efforts into carefully selecting what kind of information to be revealed and making conscious decisions by observing reader’s minds closely. He should be seen as equally intelligent as Dupin. They are collaborating by allocating their analytical and observation skills to different aspects of the story. The narrator is responsible for engaging the readers in the story and positioning Dupin as the unattainable genius whereas Dupin needs to present impressive analysis to the readers. The duality, which has become a conventional feature in detective genre nowadays, is indispensable for making a compelling story. Therefore, we should by no means neglect the importance of either of them. Works CitedPoe, Edgar Allan. The murders in the Rue Morgue. Random House, 2009.Kozaczka, Edward. "Death as Truth in Edgar Allan Poe's" The Murders in the Rue Morgue"."The Edgar Allan Poe Review 12.1 (2011): 59-71.