A satirical review of “The Mystery of Marie Rogêt” by Edgar Allan Poe
Constant repetition carries conviction.
- Robert Collier -
Any idea, plan, or purpose may be placed in the mind through repetition of thought.
Any idea, plan, or purpose may be placed in the mind through repetition of thought.
- Napoleon Hill -
Premise.
Hobby detective Monsieur Dupont, called “the Explanator,” and his assistant, who unfortunately has no name, and will further be referred to “the Transmitter” because he originally told the story and fulfilled other delivering tasks, live in a spooky house no one wants to go in. The couple likes that, they do not want to be visited. The Transmitter is a rich man, and he pays for everything since the Explanator lost all his former property – why, nobody really knows, it might not be by his fault. These men are very momentary: they decided to give “the Future to the winds” and to “slumber tranquilly in the Present” (150). See how educated they are? Consider their poetic language! Other people may call their ‘action’ as being very, very lazy, but in the way the Transmitter says it, it sounds to be something reeeeally important and elite.
The Transmitter is very proud of the Explanator because he solved an ‘unsolvable’ murder a couple of years ago. Just by the power of his brain, called inductive reasoning. Isn’t he a smart guy? Of course, he never told this to anyone, so the policemen really admire him since he is so much cleverer than they are. And now, the Police, also known as “the Incapables” have to ask the Explanator for explanations of a crime again. The story will start right now.
Part I: Facts.
The Transmitter is very proud of the Explanator because he solved an ‘unsolvable’ murder a couple of years ago. Just by the power of his brain, called inductive reasoning. Isn’t he a smart guy? Of course, he never told this to anyone, so the policemen really admire him since he is so much cleverer than they are. And now, the Police, also known as “the Incapables” have to ask the Explanator for explanations of a crime again. The story will start right now.
Part I: Facts.
A girl, Marie Rogêt, lower middle class, left the house one Sunday morning and did not come back. Later, she was found in the river. She was obviously killed because her body was treated very badly. But it was unknown how she was murdered. A woman said that it was a gang. However, this can’t be taken too seriously because this woman owns a small pub and on this day, there was a gang that bilked – so by accusing a gang, the woman only wanted to ensure that she will get back her money. After a week of no results, a reward was posted for any hints, and doubled after another week. But nothing happened. Additionally, there are even rumours that Marie Rogêt is not Marie Rogêt. A very sensation-seeking newspaper came up with this idea because it wanted the fiancée to be the murderer, or at least part of a conspiracy. It told the reader that the family did not seem to be shocked by the murder of the girl, and did not show up at the funeral. This was the evidence. The editor did not know or consider, though, that the mother was indeed really shocked, so shocked that she could not do anything during the next days. Circulation is not everything, dear editor.
Part II: more facts.
The Incapables eventually asked the Explanator for help. When he heard of the reward, he acceded. Oh well! He is not always the disinterested, philanthropic man… The Transmitter had to run around the town to get all the newspapers for further information. After one reading, the Explanator knew the newspapers were wrong. He is so smart! He did not even have to go to the crime scene! Unfortunately, the Transmitter was not that clever, so the Explanator had to explain the (logical) falsities. His explanations were very, very long, so here is just one example. “Due to the specific weight of water, at the same time taking into consideration the mineral content, tides, water pollution, a body, which is of the same specific weight, at least most of the time, unless this balance is destroyed by the factors afore mentioned, or human uncontrollable behavior […] the newspaper’s statement is not true.” The Explanator is a very scientific man, as you can see. Regrettably, this makes his way of talking pretty dry and kind of boringly complicated. But the Explanator would not be the Explanator if he did not repeat his explanations. I repeat: he always repeats his main points.
Part III: fade-out…
After reading the newspapers, and rereading them aloud to the Transmitter, he got it. Marie had a secret lover, got into a fight, was killed. Very romantic. Or maybe not? Poe, the author, based this story on a real one in New York. Shortly before publication, he found out that he was wrong: In fact, Marie died because of a fatal abortion. Clever as he was, and not wanting to be claimed for wrong solutions, he included some very small hints in his story that this was also a possibility. He went into the trap the Explanator accuses the police to do: there were lots of possibilities, and he chose the one he wants to be the reason. Just in case you did not get the hints in the story: reread it. The Explanator knows why he always repeats what he is saying. I repeat: he always repeats his main points.
So, the Explanator found two fatal causes. A crime without a conviction, without a “that’s it, here is the murderer” ending? Very unsatisfying. Attention: this could be another hint. The crime might not be so important at all. But what else? Come on, use your logical capacities!
(A not so short) Explanation
We said that the beginning of detective stories was an intrusion into the Victorian privacy at the same time. The detective exposes what has been kept as a secret or at least was not made public. Dupin is a bit contradictory in this aspect because in "The Mystery of Marie Rogêt" he (arguably) solves the crime by discovering a very private affair, the secret lover, and thus would be able to publicly embarrass Marie's family and her reputation, but finds this out by referring to newspaper articles alone. This is a bit scary because it shows how easily a facade can be destroyed. Technically, this method is less intrusive than investigation on-site as Dupin does not get in contact with the family, but in reality, this procedure is rather unrealistic.
“The Mystery of Marie Rogêt” is, in my opinion, the driest of all three detective stories, despite some clever moments when Dupin exposes the ploys and falsities of the newspapers that only want to get a high circulation and therefore jump to conclusions. I mention this in my satire because it shows how sensationally minded the Victorian public can be despite the overall mention of the value of privacy. Besides, this critique is still very topical today.
My satire is divided into an epigraph and four parts. As the original opens with a quote by Novalis about coincidence and how humans and circumstances influence events, thus refers to the fact that the mystery of Marie Rogêt is complicated by a lot of different statements and “evidences,” my epigraph highlights repetition because it completely dominates the story. Dupin always repeats what he considers to be most important in order to ensure that his assistant (and thus the reader) will get the point. But honestly, I was kind of annoyed by the repetition of newspaper articles, so I exaggerated Dupin’s and the story’s repetition by the frequent use of same words in one sentence.
Also, this constant repetition reminded me of something we discussed at the beginning of the semester: the education system in Victorian England. In "Water Babies" and "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland," it is criticized that children have to "learn" through repetition/memorizing. By overemphasizing this, I criticize the lecturing character of the Dupin stories. We said that parents in the Victorian age often expected a story to be teaching. Though the Dupin stories are not children's books, the teaching moment can be found there, too. Dupin always explains how he gets to his conclusion/solutions. Poe allows the reader to follow Dupin’s /his way of thoughts, but makes it almost impossible to get to conclusions by oneself since not everything is told at the moment it happens. For example, it is not mentioned that Dupin picks up a bunch of hair when he examines the crime scene in the story “Murder in the Rue Morgue.” Only when Dupin needs it as evidence for his explanation, the reader gets to know it. So the reader relies on Dupin and his explanations in order to get to the solution. Therefore, I nicknamed the detective in my story, since nicknames can indicate a special character trait or behavior. The assistant is nicknamed, too. “The Transmitter” shall emphasize that he plays an important part in communicating the story to the reader, but does not contribute to the investigation through own observations. He only follows Dupin’s explanations. The police’s nickname, “the Incapables” is given from Dupin’s (arrogant) perspective and the general impression that is created by Poe.
The first part serves as an introduction to the main characters (and therefore not only bases on the story at hand but on “The Murder in the Rue Morgue” as well). There are some hints at the peculiar character of the detective and his assistant and their relationship, e.g. that they do not like visitations, and Dupin’s slightly decrying way to talk about the police and other “investigators” by highlighting his superior qualities and position at the same time. I found it interesting that Dupin, who, in his function as a detective, finds out other people's deepest secrets, is kind of a secret himself as we do not get to know a lot of his background. He can almost be seen as the representation of the Victorian demand of privacy.
I named the detective DuPont instead of Dupin because of two reasons. First, DuPont sounds alike to Dupin. Second, DuPont is one of the most popular last names in France, almost a cliché, the typical French name. Likewise, Dupin serves as a role model for following detectives such as Sherlock Holmes, and the composition of detective stories. "Part II: more facts", is titled this way as an allusion to the original, in which Dupin gathers facts from newspapers and reconsiders them. “More facts” also alludes to the repetitive character of the story, the re-told newspaper articles. Additionally, this title, as well as the title of Part I, is meant ironically because the newspaper “facts” are mostly guesses instead of proved evidence. And as mentioned above, Dupin does not go to the crime scene in order to prove the “evidence.” I picked up Dupin’s long, long way of explaining the situation at hand by giving an example of his argumentation – a completely fictitious one, but one that refers to the explanation of the “water density” discussion. This “quote” presents Dupin as a very scientific man, but also highlights that this makes his descriptions pretty complicated and dry. Again, this can be understood as a further reference to the education system and the rising importance of science in Victorian England.
Part III is named “fade out” because I had the feeling that the original does not have a clear end, at least not an end as I expected it from a detective story. I reckoned with a clear solution, i.e. that the murderer is named and presented to the police. Instead, there is this ‘romantic’ (in its general meaning, not referred to the Romantic period) idea of a secret lover plus the confusion about the fatal abortion, a concept that is more than hidden in the text. It is more like one has to know this possibility in order to find the hints in the story. Inductive reasoning, as practiced by Dupin, is barely possible. Instead, the reader has to act like Sherlock Holmes or Poe, who use deduction.
Reference
Poe, Edgar Allan. "The Mystery of Marie Rogêt." Selected Tales. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. 149-92.
Poe, Edgar Allan. "The Murders in the Rue Morgue." Selected Tales. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. 92-122.
Part II: more facts.
The Incapables eventually asked the Explanator for help. When he heard of the reward, he acceded. Oh well! He is not always the disinterested, philanthropic man… The Transmitter had to run around the town to get all the newspapers for further information. After one reading, the Explanator knew the newspapers were wrong. He is so smart! He did not even have to go to the crime scene! Unfortunately, the Transmitter was not that clever, so the Explanator had to explain the (logical) falsities. His explanations were very, very long, so here is just one example. “Due to the specific weight of water, at the same time taking into consideration the mineral content, tides, water pollution, a body, which is of the same specific weight, at least most of the time, unless this balance is destroyed by the factors afore mentioned, or human uncontrollable behavior […] the newspaper’s statement is not true.” The Explanator is a very scientific man, as you can see. Regrettably, this makes his way of talking pretty dry and kind of boringly complicated. But the Explanator would not be the Explanator if he did not repeat his explanations. I repeat: he always repeats his main points.
Part III: fade-out…
After reading the newspapers, and rereading them aloud to the Transmitter, he got it. Marie had a secret lover, got into a fight, was killed. Very romantic. Or maybe not? Poe, the author, based this story on a real one in New York. Shortly before publication, he found out that he was wrong: In fact, Marie died because of a fatal abortion. Clever as he was, and not wanting to be claimed for wrong solutions, he included some very small hints in his story that this was also a possibility. He went into the trap the Explanator accuses the police to do: there were lots of possibilities, and he chose the one he wants to be the reason. Just in case you did not get the hints in the story: reread it. The Explanator knows why he always repeats what he is saying. I repeat: he always repeats his main points.
So, the Explanator found two fatal causes. A crime without a conviction, without a “that’s it, here is the murderer” ending? Very unsatisfying. Attention: this could be another hint. The crime might not be so important at all. But what else? Come on, use your logical capacities!
(A not so short) Explanation
We said that the beginning of detective stories was an intrusion into the Victorian privacy at the same time. The detective exposes what has been kept as a secret or at least was not made public. Dupin is a bit contradictory in this aspect because in "The Mystery of Marie Rogêt" he (arguably) solves the crime by discovering a very private affair, the secret lover, and thus would be able to publicly embarrass Marie's family and her reputation, but finds this out by referring to newspaper articles alone. This is a bit scary because it shows how easily a facade can be destroyed. Technically, this method is less intrusive than investigation on-site as Dupin does not get in contact with the family, but in reality, this procedure is rather unrealistic.
“The Mystery of Marie Rogêt” is, in my opinion, the driest of all three detective stories, despite some clever moments when Dupin exposes the ploys and falsities of the newspapers that only want to get a high circulation and therefore jump to conclusions. I mention this in my satire because it shows how sensationally minded the Victorian public can be despite the overall mention of the value of privacy. Besides, this critique is still very topical today.
My satire is divided into an epigraph and four parts. As the original opens with a quote by Novalis about coincidence and how humans and circumstances influence events, thus refers to the fact that the mystery of Marie Rogêt is complicated by a lot of different statements and “evidences,” my epigraph highlights repetition because it completely dominates the story. Dupin always repeats what he considers to be most important in order to ensure that his assistant (and thus the reader) will get the point. But honestly, I was kind of annoyed by the repetition of newspaper articles, so I exaggerated Dupin’s and the story’s repetition by the frequent use of same words in one sentence.
Also, this constant repetition reminded me of something we discussed at the beginning of the semester: the education system in Victorian England. In "Water Babies" and "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland," it is criticized that children have to "learn" through repetition/memorizing. By overemphasizing this, I criticize the lecturing character of the Dupin stories. We said that parents in the Victorian age often expected a story to be teaching. Though the Dupin stories are not children's books, the teaching moment can be found there, too. Dupin always explains how he gets to his conclusion/solutions. Poe allows the reader to follow Dupin’s /his way of thoughts, but makes it almost impossible to get to conclusions by oneself since not everything is told at the moment it happens. For example, it is not mentioned that Dupin picks up a bunch of hair when he examines the crime scene in the story “Murder in the Rue Morgue.” Only when Dupin needs it as evidence for his explanation, the reader gets to know it. So the reader relies on Dupin and his explanations in order to get to the solution. Therefore, I nicknamed the detective in my story, since nicknames can indicate a special character trait or behavior. The assistant is nicknamed, too. “The Transmitter” shall emphasize that he plays an important part in communicating the story to the reader, but does not contribute to the investigation through own observations. He only follows Dupin’s explanations. The police’s nickname, “the Incapables” is given from Dupin’s (arrogant) perspective and the general impression that is created by Poe.
The first part serves as an introduction to the main characters (and therefore not only bases on the story at hand but on “The Murder in the Rue Morgue” as well). There are some hints at the peculiar character of the detective and his assistant and their relationship, e.g. that they do not like visitations, and Dupin’s slightly decrying way to talk about the police and other “investigators” by highlighting his superior qualities and position at the same time. I found it interesting that Dupin, who, in his function as a detective, finds out other people's deepest secrets, is kind of a secret himself as we do not get to know a lot of his background. He can almost be seen as the representation of the Victorian demand of privacy.
I named the detective DuPont instead of Dupin because of two reasons. First, DuPont sounds alike to Dupin. Second, DuPont is one of the most popular last names in France, almost a cliché, the typical French name. Likewise, Dupin serves as a role model for following detectives such as Sherlock Holmes, and the composition of detective stories. "Part II: more facts", is titled this way as an allusion to the original, in which Dupin gathers facts from newspapers and reconsiders them. “More facts” also alludes to the repetitive character of the story, the re-told newspaper articles. Additionally, this title, as well as the title of Part I, is meant ironically because the newspaper “facts” are mostly guesses instead of proved evidence. And as mentioned above, Dupin does not go to the crime scene in order to prove the “evidence.” I picked up Dupin’s long, long way of explaining the situation at hand by giving an example of his argumentation – a completely fictitious one, but one that refers to the explanation of the “water density” discussion. This “quote” presents Dupin as a very scientific man, but also highlights that this makes his descriptions pretty complicated and dry. Again, this can be understood as a further reference to the education system and the rising importance of science in Victorian England.
Part III is named “fade out” because I had the feeling that the original does not have a clear end, at least not an end as I expected it from a detective story. I reckoned with a clear solution, i.e. that the murderer is named and presented to the police. Instead, there is this ‘romantic’ (in its general meaning, not referred to the Romantic period) idea of a secret lover plus the confusion about the fatal abortion, a concept that is more than hidden in the text. It is more like one has to know this possibility in order to find the hints in the story. Inductive reasoning, as practiced by Dupin, is barely possible. Instead, the reader has to act like Sherlock Holmes or Poe, who use deduction.
Reference
Poe, Edgar Allan. "The Mystery of Marie Rogêt." Selected Tales. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. 149-92.
Poe, Edgar Allan. "The Murders in the Rue Morgue." Selected Tales. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. 92-122.
My favorite part: “Regrettably, this makes his way of talking pretty dry and kind of boringly complicated. But the Explanator would not be the Explanator if he did not repeat his explanations. I repeat: he always repeats his main points.” This was a very clever play b/w character, narrator, and author! And this is followed up with: “He went into the trap the Explanator accuses the police to do: there were lots of possibilities, and he chose the one he wants to be the reason. Just in case you did not get the hints in the story: reread it. The Explanator knows why he always repeats what he is saying. I repeat: he always repeats his main points.” Your satire does an excellent job of relaying the compounded effect of Poe’s detective fiction: neither character nor author are immune to the excess of possibilities and the desire to finally pinpoint only one. And this desire is precisely what could lead the reader to an understanding of Poe’s tales beyond any emphasis on an actual crime. Nicely done. And I love love love the fact that you brought your story back around to the beginning of the semester, and the so called didactic children’s texts that we read. The comprehensive explanation does an excellent job of tracing your thought processes and connecting these processes to the context of the course.
ReplyDelete