megan

//**WEEK 5: DRAFT #2 WITH REVISIONS**//

Detective and mystery fiction has frequently and quite successfully been adapted to the big screen. Do you prefer detection in print or on film? What can be done (or done better) in one medium that can’t be done (or done as well) as the other?

Detective and mystery fiction is a genre that has been successfully adapted to the big screen. When translated to the big screen, detective and mystery fiction is brought to life with the visualizations of the settings, the portrayals of the characters, and the plot-suggestive background music. Film versions of detective and mystery fiction is able to pack an entire story into a compressed amount of time and presents the viewers with everything that they need to know, as far as the setting, characters, and the detective‘s point of view. While these strengths are admirable, they are also the film’s weaknesses as the viewers’ imaginations are thwarted as far as the physical settings and characters as the chosen places and actors do not fit the readers’ visualizations. Print version allows the readers to be their own directors and carry out the story as they see fit by means of imagining the settings and characters. I prefer reading classic detection because I am more involved in the plot as the descriptions lead me to envision and use my perception to solve the case while I prefer watching hard-boiled detection for the fast-paced action.

When reading classic detection, I am right there in the story as a junior private eye, with my magnifying glass, notebook, and cape examining the crime scene, anxious to solve the case alongside the detective. In Edgar Allan Poe’s classic detection with Monsieur Dupin, I feel that I am right there with him attempting to see what he has already observed. For me Dupin is an intellectual icon to look up to. From “The Murders in the Rue Morgue” to “The Purloined Letter” I feel like I am able to learn from him – to think beyond the crime scene and even decipher the unexplainable and highly improbable. I feel that there is more suspense in detection in print as there is an adequate amount of description that paints a picture that I am able to make vivid with my own imagination. Even though I am simply a reader and spectator in my mind, I feel that classic detection allows me to play an active role as the narrator speaks to me as if I am in the room and my eyes are falling where the detective’s do. I don’t even mind when the brilliant detective outwits me, as I simply admire him more, though at times he acts criminally to solve his case to collect his pay. Classic detection in print allows me to play the role of detective as I take in the setting, characters, and tone of the story, which hard-boiled detection in film fails to deliver.

Hard-boiled detection in film follows the gun slinging, slang talking, women-wooing detectives as they go off on hunches and chance meetings to solve their cases and there is no difference when it is in print. Hard-boiled detection often requires a slang dictionary that the reader needs to consult while reading and can be difficult to follow as multiple plotlines begin to intertwine. When hard-boiled detection is translated to film, the plot becomes easier to follow, mostly due to the removal of some scenes that had been featured in the novel. In Hammett’s __The Maltese Falcon__ film interpretation leaves gaps in the plot when scenes are omitted. When I was watching the film I was expecting it to closely mirror the novel, which it did at times but then I was disappointed when some scenes that I was interested to see played out were left out. If I had not read the novel beforehand I would have been satisfied with the film because I wouldn’t know what I was missing. With certain scenes being omitted the length of the film is more in line with time standards that keep audiences’ attention and satisfying the plotline.

A novel’s translation to the big screen is the interpretation of someone else and when viewing a film based on a novel, I often think, that’s not what I was expecting; I didn’t think she would look like that; I imagined the fight to be different. Walter Mosley’s __Devil in a Blue Dress__ was set in 1948, though published in 1990, and for me it was a more contemporary novel. The film failed to strike me, as on the other hard boiled films as it was in color and featured Denzel Washington, an actor who is still around today starring in blockbuster hits. As the story began I could already tell that this was nothing that I had imagined - from the characters appearance to the settings, and surrounding area. Though the film interpretation has its shortcomings, as a viewer I enjoy seeing the interactions between the characters and how the plotline fluidly moves from beginning to end with a plot-suggestive soundtrack which makes up for the lack of some scenes and shortcuts in the story.

Print and film both have their strengths as well as their weaknesses, which could be worked with to create a new strength. Print, especially novels, need to be concise and thought provoking so that the reader is in the same state of mind as the author and is able to paint a mental picture that does the story and characters justice. Most people will not read because they do not want to read a long book when they can just watch the movie as it takes a fraction of the time. Films need to strive to stay as true to the story as possible so that audiences gets the whole picture without losing any of the key elements. By this I mean that a film does not necessarily have to include every line of dialogue and scene but they can at least mention it so that the audience is aware that it happened and can count it as part of the plot.

Detective and mystery fiction has been successfully translated to the big screen and therefore appeals to a wide variety of audiences. Classic detection is at home in print as the reader is able to be a junior detective involved in the case while hard-boiled detection is suited for film where audiences can see the dynamics between the criminal and the gun-slinging, smooth talking private eye. Both mediums allow the audience to appreciate the genre and I believe that one’s own preference and appreciation is determined only once both mediums and divisions of the genre have been experienced and evaluated.

______________________________________________________________________________


 * Week 5:: Detective and mystery fiction has frequently and quite successfully been adapted to the big screen. Do you prefer detection in print or on film? What can be done (or done better) in one medium that can’t be done (or done as well) as the other?**

Detective and mystery fiction is a genre that is successfully adapted to the big screen. When translated to the big screen, detective and mystery fiction is brought to life with the visualizations of the settings, the personification of the characters, and the plot-suggestive background music. The strengths detective and mystery fictions on film can be equated with their weaknesses. Film versions of detective and mystery fiction is able to pack an entire story into a compressed amount of time and presents the viewer with everything that they need to know, as far the appearance of the setting, the demeanor of the characters, and allows them to be in the detective’s perspective. While these strengths are admirable, they are also the film’s weaknesses as the viewers’ imaginations are thwarted in as far as the settings and characters as some actors do not fit the readers’ visualization. Print version allows the readers to be their own directors and carry out the story as they see fit by means of imagining the settings and characters. I prefer reading classic detection because I am more involved in the plot as the descriptions lead me to utilize my imagination and perception to solve the case while I prefer watching hard-boiled detection so I can see the dramatics of the story condensed in a shorter amount of time.

When reading classic detection I am right there in the story as a junior private eye, with my magnifying glass, notebook, and cape examining the crime scene anxious to solve the case alongside the detective. In Edgar Allan Poe’s classic detection with Monsieur Dupin I feel that I am right there with him looking beside him to even attempt to see what he has already observed and possibly concluded. For me Dupin is an intellectual icon to look up to, to see how he pieces the clues together to get his answer and later prove his theory valid. From “The Murders in the Rue Morgue” to “The Purloined Letter” I feel like I am able to learn from him – to think beyond the crime scene and even consider the unexplainable and highly unlikely. Though the classic detection stories are shorter than the hard-boiled novels, I feel that there is more suspense and an adequate amount of description that paints a concrete picture that I am able to make vivid with my own imagination and viewpoint. Even though I am simply a reader and spectator in my mind, I feel that classic detection allows me to play an active role as the narrator speaks to me as if I am in the room and my eyes are falling where the detective’s do. I don’t even mind when the brilliant detective outwits me as I simply admire him more, though at times he acts criminally to solve his case to collect his pay. Classic detection in print allows me to play the role of detective as I take in the setting, characters, and tone of the story, which hard-boiled detection in film fails to deliver.

Hard-boiled detection in film follows the gun slinging, slang talking, weak for women detectives as they go off on hunches and chance meetings to solve their cases and there is no difference when it is in print. Hard-boiled detection often requires a slang dictionary while you’re reading and can be difficult to follow as multiple plot lines begin to intertwine. When hard-boiled detection is translated to film, the plot becomes easier to follow, mostly due to the removal of scenes that had been featured in the novel. In Hammett’s __The Maltese Falcon__ film interpretation leaves gaps in the plot when scenes are omitted. When I was watching the film I was expecting it to closely mirror the novel, which it did at times but then I was disappointed when some scenes that I was interested to see played out were left out. If I had not read the novel beforehand I would have been satisfied with the film because I wouldn’t know what I was missing. With certain scenes being omitted the length of the film is more in line with time standards that keep audiences’ attention and satisfying the plotline.

A novel’s translation to the big screen is the interpretation of someone else and when viewing a film based on a novel I often think, that’s not what I was expecting; I didn’t think she would look like that; I imagined the fight to be different. Walter Mosley’s __Devil in a Blue Dress__ was set in 1948, though published in 1990, and for me it was a more contemporary novel. Upon seeing the film it failed to strike me as the other hard boiled films as it was in color and featured Denzel Washington, an actor who is still around today starring in blockbuster hits. As the story began I could already tell that this was nothing that I had imagined - from the characters appearance to the settings, and surrounding area. Though the film interpretation has its shortcomings, as a viewer I enjoy seeing the interactions between the characters and how the plotline fluidly moves from being to end with a plot-suggestive soundtrack which makes up for the lack of some scenes and shortcuts in the story.

Print and film both have their strengths as well as their weaknesses, which could be worked with to create a new strength. Print, especially in novels, needs to be concise and thought provoking so that the reader is in the state of mind as the author and is able to paint a picture in their mind that does the story and characters justice. Most people will not read because they do want to read a long book when they can just watch the movie and it takes a fraction of the time in comparison. Films need to strive to stay as true to the story as possible as that the audiences are getting what they had imagined and get the whole picture without losing any of the key elements. By this I mean that a film does not necessarily have to include every line of dialogue and scene but they can at least mention it so that the audience is aware that it happened and can count it as part of the plot.

Detective and mystery fiction is successfully translatable to the big screen and therefore appeals to a wide variety of audiences. Classic detection is at home in print as the reader is able to be a junior detective involved in the case while hard-boiled detection is suited for film where audiences can see the dynamics between the criminal and the gun-slinging, smooth talking private eye. Both mediums allow the audience to appreciate the genre and I believe that one’s own preference and appreciation is determined only once both mediums and divisions of the genre have been experienced and evaluated.

__** WEEK 4 - DRAFT #2 WITH REVISIONS

In what notable ways does hard-boiled detection differ from classic detection and what are the strengths and weaknesses of each?

Classic detective fiction was established by the Father of Detection – Edgar Allan Poe and then developed by authors such as Arthur Conan Doyle and Wilkie Collins. Classic detection is characterized by key elements – the question Whodunit?, the detective as an unattached observer, and a clean murder/crime scene. From classic detection evolved hard-boiled detection, made famous by Dashiell Hammett and Raymond Chandler, which poses the question “What the hell is going on?” Unlike classic detection, hard-boiled detection is comprised of an actively involved detective and a violent/bloody crime/murder scene. Though Classic and Hard-boiled detective fictions differ, they each possess their own strengths and weaknesses. Classic detection’s biggest strength is also its biggest weaknesses as it is an intellectual puzzle that needs to be solved, but for some readers the story can drag on and they are no longer captivated. Likewise, Hard-boiled’s biggest strength is also its biggest weakness as it has the ability to entertain but in turn diminishes the reader’s chance to become detectives as it is primarily done in first person narration. Classic and Hard-Boiled detection differ notably in the questions they ask, the role of the detective, and the physical appearance of the murder scene.

In detective fiction there is always a question to be answered. In classic fiction, the detective is trying to answer the question of “whodunit” while a hard-boiled detective questions, “what the hell is going on?” In Poe’s “The Murders in the Rue Morgue” Dupin is seeking out whoever is responsible for the double “murder” of the two women and in “The Case of the Speckled Band,” Holmes is looking for the murderer of Julia Stoner – in both cases a singular plot. Both Dupin and Holmes take note of the people associated with the victims but more importantly the witnesses of the crimes so they can go on to connect clues and motives together to arrive at a solution while also seeking justice.

In Dashiell Hammett’s hard-boiled detective novel, The Maltese Falcon, Samuel Spade is out to answer the question, “What the hell is going on?” through a series of interconnected plot lines. Spade is playing an ally to all of the involved parties – Cairo, O’Shaughnessy, and Gutman. Spade uses all of their information to not only figure out the mystery of the Maltese falcon but also who shot Thursby and who shot Archer. Spade is unaware of the mystery of the Maltese falcon until he already was involved in recovering it and piece-by-piece he has to assemble an answer and reason for the happenings and how he could play it out in his favor. Spade has to answer a slew of questions in order to answer his one big question – who had the Maltese Falcon. As the question differs from classic to hard-boiled fiction, the role the detective plays differs as well.

Edgar Allan Poe’s classic detective Dupin is seen as an analyst who is fond of conundrums and hieroglyphics. In the opening of the story, the narrator describes an analyst as follows:

[He] throws himself into the spirit of his opponent, identifies himself there with, and not unfrequently sees thus, at a glance, the sole methods by which he may seduce into error or hurry into miscalculation. (2-3)

Dupin is an analyst, comparing his investigations to childhood games that require knowing one’s opponent in order to be victorious. In “The Purloined Letter” Dupin identifies with the minister as they are both mathematicians and poets who are similar in their intellectual prowess. Dupin uses this advantage to distract the minister and obtain the letter in question while also getting revenge on D **__**_. Though Dupin is there to solve the case, he is very much uninvolved as he is given the evidence first by G and then goes to D_’s apartment to prove his theory valid and collect his reward.

In __The Maltese Falcon__, Spade remains within the interconnected plotlines at all times, as he involves himself with O’Shaughnessy and spends every second on a hot trail of the case as he goes from Gutman’s hotel room to Cairo’s hotel to O’Shaughnessy’s apartment. Spade’s active role in the investigation puts his life at risk, but he does not seem to care as long as he gets the answers he is looking for. Spade goes into his investigations with a hunch but acquires more from his involvement and interactions, as opposed to Dupin who knows every detail, solves the mystery, and proves his theory. From classic to hard-boiled, the detectives vary in their involvement in the case while the crime/murder scenes vary in their physical state.

Crime/murder scenes in classic detection are generally neat and orderly, contrasting greatly with the more grotesque scenes in hard-boiled detection. Classic detection stories such as “The Adventure of the Speckled Band” features a crime/murder that is clean. There is no evidence left behind and really no intrusion left in either case. Holmes’s investigation of Julia’s death relies heavily on the room and the evidence he gathers from the firsthand account of Helen Stoner. Holmes investigates the room and the overall positioning of room as he has no other evidence to go on, especially since the murder “weapon” is concealed in a safe in Doctor Roylott’s adjacent room. Also the medical reports from Julia’s autopsy revealed nothing to aid him, as the venom was undetectable in her blood stream and most of the testimony from Helen is sketchy. Even though the crime/murder scene is clean, Holmes is still able to arrive at a solution. Contrasting classic detection, hard-boiled detection is characterized by the use of violence and grotesque murder scenes.

Raymond Chandler’s The Big Sleep follows detective Philip Marlowe as he takes on a blackmail case for the Sternwood family, whose daughter Carmen’s nude pictures will surface if money is not paid. While hot on the trail to Geiger’s house, Marlowe hears a scream followed by three guns shots and when he stumbles into the house he sees Carmen Sternwood sitting naked on a chair, obviously drugged on a combination including ether, and Geiger dead on the floor.. The reader is unaware of what is to be held on the other side of the door as opposed to in classic fiction when the reader is introduced to all of the facts before ever reading about the crime scene. The violence in hard-boiled detection lends a hand to the bloody crime/murder scenes included in the story. While hard-boiled detection may be more gruesome than classic detection, it certainly keeps the audience entertained.

Hard-boiled detection’s biggest strength of thrilling action is also its biggest weakness and conversely classic detection’s biggest strength, the intellectual puzzle, is its biggest weakness. Hard-boiled detection’s combination of colorful language, violence, and an all-too-involved detective make it entertaining to read but in the meantime the audience is simply reading just for that entertainment. The audience is not looking forward because the detective is doing all of the work and the audience is not even led to believe that they have a chance to solve the case as in classic detection. The reader is lost as part of the investigation can no longer be considered a puzzle, which the audience is capable of solving. However, in classic detection the audience is let in on the case as a detective and has the chance to solve the case after being given all of the clues and information at the detective’s disposal. While the audience intellectually has to solve the puzzle they are also prone to the usually descriptive details, which can be deemed unnecessary, if not boring. This can turn a reader off to the material and just want to know the ending and what happened. Classic and Hard-boiled detection each have their pros and cons and the reader is the chief decider as to which they prefer to read and enjoy.

Classic detection is characterized by such elements as an intellectual puzzle, a rational/deductive/ratiocinative solution, a detached detective, and an investigation centered on science and analysis. Hard-boiled detection is based on a moral dilemma involving an involved detective who uses colorful language that most times needs to be decoded while he investigates a bloody crime scene. Classic and Hard-boiled detective fictions differ in various ways, but especially in the question they seek to answer, the role of detective – whether observant or involved, and the physical state of the crime/murder scene. Each variation of the genre offers something different to the reader. Classic detection and hard-boiled detection have their own strengths, which in turn are their biggest weaknesses. In classic detection one gets to play the role of detective but the analysis of the clues and evidence can be bothersome to read causing the reader to skip ahead and see what happened. Hard-boiled detection is entertaining for the reader but at the same time the reader is not actively engaged as a detective in the story and is therefore reading to see the story through to the end in hopes of twists, turns, and a few gun shots. Classic detection and Hard-boiled detection each have something unique to offer to their readers and it is my belief that one must sample both styles to appreciate the genre itself.

WEEK 4 - DRAFT #1

In what notable ways does hard-boiled detection differ from classic detection and what are the strengths and weaknesses of each?

Classic detective fiction was established by the Father of Detection – Edgar Allan Poe and then developed by authors such as Arthur Conan Doyle and Wilkie Collins. Classic detection is characterized by key elements – the question Whodunit?, the detective as an unattached observer, and a clean murder/crime scene. From classic detection evolved hard-boiled detection, made famous by Dashiell Hammett and Raymond Chandler, which poses the question “What the hell is going on?.” Unlike classic detection, hard-boiled detection is comprised of an actively involved detective and a violent/bloody crime/murder scene. Though Classic and Hard-boiled detective fictions differ, they each possess their own strengths and weaknesses. Classic detection’s biggest strength is also its biggest weaknesses as it is an intellectual puzzle that needs to be solved, but for some readers the story can drag on and they are no longer captivated. Likewise, Hard-boiled’s biggest strength is also its biggest weakness as it has the ability to entertain but in turn diminishes the reader’s chance to become detectives. Classic and Hard-Boiled detection differ notably in the ways of the question they ask, the role of the detective, and the physical appearance of the murder scene.

In detective fiction there is always a question to be answered. In classic fiction, the detective is trying to answer the question of “whodunit” while a hard-boiled detective questions “what the hell is going on?.” In Poe’s “The Murders in the Rue Morgue” Dupin is seeking out whoever was responsible for the double “murder” of the two women and in “The Case of the Speckled Band,” Holmes was looking for the murderer of Julia Stoner – in both cases a singular plot. Both Dupin and Holmes take note of the people associated with the victims but more importantly the witnesses of the crimes so they can go on to connect clues and motives together to arrive at a solution while also seeking justice.

In Dashiell Hammett’s hard-boiled detective novel, The Maltese Falcon, Samuel Spade is out to answer the question, “What the hell is going on?” through a series of interconnected plot lines. Spade is playing an ally to all of the involved parties – Cairo, O’Shaugnessy, and Gutman. Spade uses all of their information to not only figure out the mystery of the Maltese falcon but also who shot Thursby and who shot Archer. Spade was unaware of the mystery of the Maltese falcon until he was already involved in recovering it and piece-by-piece he has to assemble an answer and reason for the occurring events and how he could play it out in his favor. Spade has to answer a slew of questions in order to answer his one big question. As the question differs from classic to hard-boiled fiction, the role the detective plays differs as well.

Edgar Allan Poe’s classic detective Dupin is seen as an analyst who is fond of conundrums and hieroglyphics. In the opening of the story, the narrator describes an analyst as such:

[He] throws himself into the spirit of his opponent, identifies himself there with, and not unfrequently sees thus, at a glance, the sole methods by which he may seduce into error or hurry into miscalculation (p. 2-3)

Dupin is an analyst, comparing his investigations to childhood games that require knowing one’s opponent in order to be victorious. In “The Purloined Letter” Dupin identifies with the minister as they are both mathematicians and similar in their intellectual prowess. Dupin uses this advantage to distract the minister and obtain the letter in question while also getting revenge on D___. Though Dupin is there to solve the case, he is very much uninvolved as he is given the evidence first by G and then goes to the scene in question to prove his theory valid and collect his reward.

In The Maltese Falcon, Spade remains within the interconnected plotlines at all times, as he involves himself with O’Shaugnessy and spends every second on a hot trail of the case as he goes from Gutman’s hotel room to Cairo’s to O’Shaugnessy’s apartment. Spade’s active role in the investigation puts his life at risk but he does not seem to care as long as he gets the answers he is looking for. Spade goes into his investigations with a hunch but acquires more from his involvement and interactions, as opposed to Dupin who knows every detail, solves, the mystery, and proves his theory. From classic to hard-boiled, the detectives vary in their involvement in the case while the crime/murder scenes vary in their physical state.

Crime/murder scenes in classic detection are generally neat and orderly, contrasting greatly with the more grotesque scenes in hard-boiled detection. Classic detection stories such as “The Adventure of the Speckled Band” features a crime/murder that is clean. There is no evidence left behind and really no intrusion left in either case. Holmes’s investigation of Julia’s death relies heavily on the room and the evidence he gathers from the first hand account of Helen Stoner. Holmes investigates the room and the overall positioning of room as he has no other evidence to go on, especially since the murder “weapon” was concealed in a safe in Doctor Roylott’s adjacent room. Also the medical reports from Julia’s autopsy revealed nothing to aid him, as the venom was undetectable in her blood stream and most of the testimony from Helen was sketchy. Even though the crime/murder scene was clean, Holmes was still able to arrive at a solution. Contrasting classic detection, hard-boiled detection is characterized by the use of violence and grotesque murder scenes.

Raymond Chandler’s The Big Sleep follows detective Philip Marlowe as he takes on a blackmail case of importance to the Sternwood family, whose daughter Carmen has nude pictures that will be surfaced if money is not paid. While hot on the trail to Greiger’s house, Marlowe hears a scream followed by three guns shots and when he stumbles into the house he sees Carmen Sternwood sitting naked on a chair, obviously drugged on a combination including ether, and Greiger dead on the floor. This crime scene paints a violent picture, especially if Marlowe hadn’t been there. The reader is unaware of what is to be held on the other side of the door as opposed to in classic fiction when the reader is introduced to all of the facts before ever reading about the crime scene. The violence in the hard-boiled detection lends a hand to the bloody crime/murder scenes included in the story. While the hard-boiled detection may be more gruesome than classic detection, it certainly keeps the audience entertained.

Hard-boiled detection’s biggest strength of entertainment is also its biggest weakness and conversely classic detection’s biggest strength of being an intellectual puzzle is its biggest weakness. Hard-boiled detection’s combination of colorful language, violence, and an all-to-involved detective make it entertaining to read but in the meantime the audience is simply reading as just that entertainment. The audience is not looking forward because the detective is doing all of the work and the audience is not even led to believe that they have a say in the case as shown in classic detection. The reader is lost as part of the investigation as it can no longer be considered a puzzle, which the audience is capable of solving. However, in classic detection the audience is let in on the case as a detective and has the chance to solve the case after being given all of the clues and information at the detective’s disposal. While the audience intellectually has to solve the puzzle they are also prone to the usually descriptive details, which can be deemed unnecessary, if not even boring. This can turn a reader off the material and just want to know the ending and what happened. Classic and Hard-boiled detection each have their pros and cons and the reader is the chief decision as to which they prefer to read and enjoy.

Classic detection is characterized by such elements as an intellectual puzzle, a rational/deductive/ratiocinative solution, a detached detective, and an investigation centered on science and analysis. Hard-boiled detection is based on a moral dilemma involving an involved detective who uses colorful language that most times needs to be decoded while he investigates a bloody crime scene. Classic and Hard-boiled detective fictions differ in various ways, but predominately in the question they seek to answer, the role of detective – whether observant or involved, and the physical state of the crime/murder scene. Each variation of the genre offers something different to the reader to which many come out with a preferred favorite. Classic detection and hard-boiled detection have their own strengths, which in turn are their biggest weaknesses. In classic detection one gets to play the role of detective but the analysis of the clues and evidence can be bothersome to read gearing the reader to skip ahead and see what happened. Hard-boiled detection is entertaining for the reader but at the same time the reader is not actively engaged as a detective in the story and is therefore reading to see the story through to the end in hopes of twists, turns, and a few gun shots. Classic detection and Hard-boiled detection each have something unique to offer to their readers and it is my belief that one must sample both styles to appreciate the genre itself.__

_ __WEEK 3 - DRAFT #3

In what ways do female sleuths diverge from their male counterparts, and what is significant about the differences between them?

Edgar Allan Poe and Arthur Conan Doyle gave audiences two stereotypical male detectives – Monsieur C. Auguste Dupin and Sherlock Holmes – who have become synonymous with the literary genre of detective fiction. In fictional works, such as “The Murders in the Rue Morgue” and “The Case of the Speckled Band,” Dupin and Holmes actively display their logical, analytical, and deductive nature as they investigate, theorize, and successfully solve their cases. In male detective fiction, the women characters are considered as insignificant persons concerned with mere trifles, who are better suited to the home than a crime scene as their emotions are correlated with weakness. Diverging from their male counterparts, are the emotional, intuitive females sleuths developed by female authors such as Agatha Christie, Anna Katharine Green, and Susan Glaspell. The most pronounced ways in which female sleuths diverge from their male counterparts are in the ways that they utilize their sixth sense of intuition in place of deduction and the way they make a connection to a person versus connecting with a criminal intellect.

Male detectives rely on their discovery and piecing together of clues to allow them to deduce a solution; in contrast, female detectives rely heavily on their sixth sense of intuition to lead them to their conclusion. Female detectives see and observe what male detectives don’t. In “A Jury of Her Peers,” Mr. Henderson and Mr. Peters have a discussion before deciding to investigate the bedroom and the barn, leaving the kitchen:

“I guess we’ll go upstairs first—then out to the barn and around there.” He paused and looked around the kitchen. You’re convinced there was nothing important here?” he asked the sheriff. “Nothing that would – point to any motive?” The sheriff too looked all around, as to re-convince himself. “Nothing here but kitchen things,” he said, with a little laugh for the insignificance of kitchen things. (162)

Mr. Henderson, Mr. Hale, and Mr. Peters closely resemble the police force in Poe’s trilogy led by G__. The three men are looking for answers in the places that they themselves would expect to find them, in this case in the bedroom where the murder occurred and the barn where the rope would most likely have been found. The men are narrowly limiting their search and therefore also the possibilities, motives, and emotional connections. While the men search the narrowly defined crime scene, the women are left downstairs to collect Mrs. Wright’s requested items. The men had joked that the women should let them know if they find anything pointing to a motive but, as even Mr. Hale says, “would the women know a clue if they did come upon it?”(164).

Simply going through the motions of their assignment to fetch some of Mrs. Wright’s belongings, Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters begin to build a picture of Mrs. Wright’s life before the murder. The women’s examination of the drab, much patched skirt leads them to characterize Mrs. Wright differently than a male detective would. The women are able to see that Mrs. Wright restricted in her spending and worked hard enough to cause distress to the dress. Considering her past as Minnie Foster, the shabby clothing most likely caused her to ashamed to be seen in public. Mrs. Hale notices that many of Mrs. Wright’s chores had gone undone, as if something had interrupted her. She had stopped emptying the sugar into the container and one half of the table cleared and clean with the other not. Upon closer investigation of the broken stove, Mrs. Peters notes that Mrs. Wright must have been discouraged and lost heart (167).

As Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters search through and observe the seemingly irrelevant evidence they go on to touch the items. With this touch the women are able to pick up on another angle of the evidence and in essence see the situation through Mrs. Wright’s eyes. They are able to make connections on a different level than the men, as they are able to gather much about her character and life from mere “kitchen things” and find a motive for murder with the discovery of the deceased canary. The women are connecting emotionally with Mrs. Wright, leading them to think as she would, even discovering where she would have kept her packaging paper and string. As the women move about the house in the kitchen they begin to act as Mrs. Wright most likely did – working mechanically to keep her mind busy as to be depressed by the hostile setting. This sixth sense of intuition ties Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters to Mrs. Wright and allows them to observe and deduce from a multitude of angles.

Male detectives mirror the criminal intellectually in order to solve the case but female sleuths identify with the suspect as a whole person, looking deeper into his/her life outside of the crime and investigation. Glaspell’s “A Jury of Her Peers” demonstrates a woman’s ability to look at a person as a victim, not as a murderer, through the characters of Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters. Mrs. Hale remembers Mrs. Wright as Minnie Foster – the pretty young thing who wore blue ribbons in her hair when she sung in the choir. In contrast, the men see the same Mrs. Wright as a murderous woman as they solely consider the crime scene, and neglect the womanly domains of the house. Left alone in the kitchen, the women observe Mrs. Wright’s life in her uncheerful home as they begin to piece together Mrs. Wright’s existence within the confines of the house’s walls.

While the men investigate the bedroom upstairs, the two women take note of the fruit preserves and the quilt pieces in the basket and they begin to try to paint a picture of the life that Minnie had been leading. Upon discovery of the bird cage and the strangled canary, the women see Mrs. Wright as clear as day – like the canary, she was caged in her house, forbidden not to sing anymore, forbidden to be happy, forbidden to fly free. Mr. Wright destroyed the canary just as he had destroyed Mrs. Wright from the inside out. Mrs. Hale blames herself for never visiting and Mrs. Peters makes a connection to Mrs. Wright when she recalls the murder of one of her own beloved pets and the effect it had on her. Both women are able to see a part of themselves in Mrs. Wright and therefore look to her as a fellow woman whom they have to save from male domination.

Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters were not friends with Mrs. Wright, but they are loyal to their sex (163) and consequently able to identify with Mrs. Wright through their common existence in the household as wives and see the murder of Minnie Foster that Mr. Wright penetrated throughout their marriage. With this the two women seek to save Mrs. Wright, using what was in their power and at their disposal; they fix the one poorly quilted square and remove the deceased canary from its hiding place and dispose of it. Though they are kept out of the murder investigation, the two women deduce that Mrs. Wright’s relationship she has with her husband. They discover clues and make inferences about the situation, that the men do not look for, and they stand united with Mrs. Wright. Together Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters form the peer jury for Mrs. Wright as they know both the law as well as the life of a farm wife, something the men cannot claim.

Gender roles dictated by a male dominated society have Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters considered farm wives before amateur detectives. The men express that women in general are concerned with mere trifles and question if they would know a clue if they saw one. The women mirror these society roles established by the men in their interactions with one another. Like Mrs. Wright, Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters have lost their pre-marital identities, as they have now assumed their husbands names. Even in conversation, the women address one another by either Mrs. Hale or Mrs. Peters, losing any sense of individuality and independence. This allows the women to identify with Mrs. Wright because they are in the same position she is--under a man’s jurisdiction. Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters do not regard themselves as detectives, which in turn allows them to not be lost in the pressures, dangers, and superiority associated with the profession. Male detectives’ lives tend to revolve around the case as their daily lives concern getting the next break and solving the case. Women detectives, on the other hand, go on to lead ordinary daily lives while at times going off to work on a case. This provides the women with more information and insight particularly when women are involved. Female detectives play more than one role, and it is this ability to wear different hats that allow them to be more thorough and intuitive in their cases.

Male sleuths are deductive, creative, and even criminal in their intellect while female detectives are personable, and intuitive. Female sleuths are able to read deeper into their observations and draw conclusions utilizing the past, present, and the future. Reading a piece of fiction that utilizes a female detective allows the reader to see just how differently men and women think and approach a problem. Their ability to emotionally connect and utilize their intuition allows female sleuths significant advantage over the male detectives. The female detectives do not identify themselves solely through a profession as the male characters pigeonhole them into a society driven gender role. The women detectives are merely amateurs but by not defining themselves solely as detectives they are more apt to connect to the people involved in a case/crime on a variety of levels and consider all aspects in a given case and still answer whereisit?, whodunit?, howdunit?, and whywazitdun?.

WEEK 3 - DRAFT #2

In what ways do female sleuths diverge from their male counterparts, and what is significant about the differences between them?

Edgar Allan Poe and Arthur Conan Doyle gave audiences two stereotypical male detectives – Monsieur C. Auguste Dupin and Sherlock Holmes – who have become synonymous with the literary genre of detective fiction. In fictional works, such as “The Murders in the Rue Morgue” and “The Case of the Speckled Band,” Dupin and Holmes actively display their logical, analytical, and deductive nature as they investigate, theorize, and successfully solve their cases. In male detective fiction, the women characters are considered as insignificant persons concerned with mere trifles, who are better suited to the home than a crime scene as their emotions are correlated with weakness. Diverging from their male counterparts, are the emotional, intuitive females sleuths developed by female authors such as Agatha Christie, Anna Katharine Green, and Susan Glaspell. The most pronounced ways in which female sleuths diverge from their male counterparts are in the ways that they utilize their sixth sense of intuition in place of deduction and the way they make a connection to a person versus connecting with a criminal intellect.

Male detectives rely on their discovery of and piecing together of clues to allow them to deduce a solution; in contrast, female detectives rely heavily on their sixth sense of intuition to lead them to their conclusion. Female detectives see and observe when male detectives don’t. In “A Jury of Her Peers,” Mr. Henderson and Mr. Peters have a discussion before deciding to investigate the bedroom and the barn, leaving the kitchen:

“I guess we’ll go upstairs first—then out to the barn and around there.” He paused and looked around the kitchen. You’re convinced there was nothing important here?” he asked the sheriff. “Nothing that would – point to any motive?” The sheriff too looked all around, as to re-convince himself. “Nothing here but kitchen things,” he said, with a little laugh for the insignificance of kitchen things. (162)

Mr. Henderson, Mr. Hale, and Mr. Peters closely resemble the police force in Poe’s trilogy featuring G __and his police force. The three men are looking for answers in the places that they themselves would expect to find them, in this case in the bedroom where the murder occurred and the barn where the rope would most likely been found. The men are narrowly limiting their search and therefore also the possibilities, motives, and emotional connections. While the men search the narrowly defined crime scene, the women are left downstairs to collect Mrs. Wright’s requested items. The men had joked that the women should let them know if they find anything pointing to a motive but, as even Mr. Hale says, “would the women know a clue if they did come upon it?”(164).

Simply going through the motions of their assignment to fetch some of Mrs. Wright’s belongings, Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters begin to build a picture of Mrs. Wright’s life before the murder. The women’s examination of the drab, much patched skirt leads them to characterize Mrs. Wright differently than a male detective would. The women are able to see that Mrs. Wright was confined monetarily and worked hard enough to cause distress to the dress. Considering her past as Minnie Foster, the shabby clothing mostly likely caused her shame to be seen in public, which she had restrained from doing. Similarly when Mrs. Hale notices that many of Mrs. Wright’s chores had gone undone, as something must had interrupted her- emptying the sugar into the container and one half of the table cleared and clean with the other not. Upon closer investigation of the broken stove, Mrs. Peters notes that Mrs. Wright must have been discouraged and lost heart (167).

As Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters search through and observe the seemingly irrelevant evidence they go on to touch the items. With this touch the women are able to pick up on another angle on the evidence and in essence see the situation through Mrs. Wright’s eyes. They are able to make connections on a different level than the men, as they are able to gather much about her character and life from mere “kitchen things” and find a murderous motive with the discovery of the deceased canary. The women are connecting emotionally with Mrs. Wright, leading them to think as she would, even discovering where she would have kept her packaging paper and string. As the women move about the house in the kitchen they begin to act as Mrs. Wright most likely did – working mechanically to keep her mind busy as to not take in the hostile setting. This sixth sense of intuition ties Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters to Mrs. Wright and allowed them to observe and conclude from a multitude of angles.

Male detectives mirror the criminal intellectually in order to solve the case but female sleuths identify with the suspect as a whole person, looking deeper into his/her life outside of the crime and investigation. Glaspell’s “A Jury of Her Peers” demonstrates a woman’s ability to look at a person as a victim, not as a murderer, through the characters of Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters. Mrs. Hale remembers Mrs. Wright as Minnie Foster – the pretty young thing who wore blue ribbons in her hair when she sung in the choir. In contrast, the male police force see the same Mrs. Wright as a murderous woman as they soley consider the murder and crime scene, and neglect the “womanly domains” of the house. Left alone in the kitchen, the women observe Mrs. Wright’s life in her uncheerful home as they begin to piece together Mrs. Wright’s existence within the confines of the house’s walls.

While the men investigate the bedroom upstairs, the two women take note of the fruit preserves and the quilt pieces in the basket and they begin to try to “paint” a picture of the life that Minnie had been leading. Upon discovery of the bird cage and the strangled canary the women see Mrs. Wright as clear as day – like the canary, she was caged in her house, forbidden not to sing anymore, forbidden to be happy, forbidden to fly free. Mr. Wright destroyed the canary just as he had destroyed Mrs. Wright from the inside out. Mrs. Hale blames herself for never visiting and Mrs. Peters makes a connection to Mrs. Wright when she recalls the murder of one of her own beloved pets and the effect it had on her. Both women are able to see a part of themselves in Mrs. Wright and therefore look to her as a fellow woman whom they have to save from male domination.

Mrs. Hale, Mrs. Peters were not friends with Mrs. Wright, but they are loyal to their sex (163) and consequently able to identify with Mrs. Wright through their common existence in the household as wives and see the murder of Minnie Foster that Mr. Wright had committed throughout their marriage. With this the two women seek to save Mrs. Wright using what was in their power and at their disposal; they fix the one poorly done patch and take the deceased canary from its hiding place and is stuffed inside Mrs. Hale’s coat. Though they were kept out of the murder investigation, the two women deduce that Mrs. Wright’s relationship she has with her husband. They discover clues and make inferences of the situation, that the men are failing to look for, and they stand united with Mrs. Wright. Together Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters form the peer jury for Mrs. Wright as they know both the law as well as the life of a farm wife, something the men cannot claim.

Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters are primarily considered farm wives before amateur detectives as they are following the roles dictated by the male dominated society in which they live. The men express that women in general are concerned with mere trifles and question if they would know a clue if they saw one. The women mirror these society roles instated by the men in their interactions with one another. Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters have lost their pre-marital identities as Mrs. Wright had, as they have now assumed their husbands names. Even when in conversation, the women regard one another by either Mrs. Hale or Mrs. Peters, losing any sense of individuality and independence. This allows the women to identify with Mrs. Wright because they are in the same position she is--under a man’s jurisdiction. Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters do not regard themselves as detectives, which in turn allows them to not be lost in the associated pressures, dangers, and superiority. Male detectives’ lives tend to revolve around the case as their daily lives are at the mercy of getting the next break and solving the case. Women detectives on the other hand go on to lead an ordinary daily life while at times going off to work on a case. This provides the women with more information and insight that lends itself to solving a case. Female detectives play more than one role, and it is this ability to wear different hats that allow them to be more thorough and intuitive in their cases.

Male sleuths are deductive, creative, and even criminal in their intellect while female detectives are personable, and intuitive. Female sleuths are able to read deeper into their observations and draw conclusions utilizing the past, present, and the future. Reading a piece of fiction that utilizes a female detective allows the reader to see just how differently men and women think and proceed throughout their investigations all while leading to a possible solution. Their ability to emotionally connect and utilize their intuition allows female sleuths significant advantage over the male detectives. The female detectives do not identify themselves solely through a profession though the male characters pigeonhole them into a society driven gender role. The women detectives are merely amateurs but with them not defining themselves they are more apt to connect on a variety of levels and consider all aspects in a given case and still answer whereisit?, whodunit?, howdunit?, and whywazitdun?.

Week 3 - Draft #1 In what ways do female sleuths diverge from their male counterparts, and what is significant about the differences between them?

Edgar Allan Poe and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle gave audiences two stereotypical male detectives – Monsieur C. Auguste Dupin and Sherlock Holmes – who have become pseudonymous with the literary genre of detective fiction. In fictional works, such as “The Murders in the Rue Morgue” and “The Case of the Speckled Band” Dupin and Holmes actively display their logical, analytical, and deductive nature as they investigate, theorize, and successfully conclude their cases. In male detective fiction, the women characters are considered as insignificant persons concerned with merely trifles, who are better suited to the home than a crime scene as their emotions are correlated with weakness. Diverging from their male counterparts, are the emotional, intuitive females sleuths developed by female authors such as Agatha Christie, Anna Catherine Green, and Susan Glaspell. The most pronounced ways in which female sleuths diverge from their male counterparts are in the ways that they utilize their sixth sense of intuition in place of deduction and the way they make a connection to a person versus connecting with a criminal intellect.

Males detectives rely on their acquisition of and piecing together of clues and information to allow them to deduce a solution; in contrast female detectives rely heavily on their sixth sense of intuition to lead them to their conclusion. Female detectives see and observe when male detectives don’t. In “A Jury of Her Peers,” Mr. Hale and Mr. Peters have a discussion before deciding to investigate the bedroom and the barn, leaving the kitchen:

“I guess we’ll go upstairs first—then out to the barn and around there.” He paused and looked around the kitchen. You’re convinced there was nothing important here?” he asked the sheriff. “Nothing that would – point to any motive?” The sheriff too looked all around, as to re-convince himself. “Nothing here but kitchen things,” he said, with a little laugh for the insignificance of kitchen things. (162)

Mr. Hale and Mr. Peters closely resemble the police force in Poe’s trilogy featuring Monsieur Dupin. They are looking for answers in the places that they themselves would expect to find them, in this case in the bedroom where the murder occurred and the barn where the rope would most likely been found. The men are narrowly limiting their search and therefore also possibilities, motives, and an emotional connection. While the men search the narrowly defined crime scene, the women are left downstairs to collect Mrs. Wright’s requested items. The men had joked that the women should let them know if they find anything pointing to a motive but, as even Mr. Hale says “But would the women know a clue if they did come upon it?”(164).

Simply going through the motions of their assignment to fetch some of Mrs. Wright’s belongings Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters begin to build a picture of life before the murder. The women’s examination of such articles of the drab, much patched skirt perceive more than would be seen by a male detective. The women are able to see that Mrs. Wright was confined monetarily and worked hard enough to cause distress to the dress, which mostly likely also caused her shame to be seen in public, which she had restrained from doing. Much the same when Mrs. Hale noticed that many of Mrs. Wright’s chores had gone undone – emptying the sugar into the container and one half of the table cleared and clean with the other not. Upon closer investigation of the broken stove, Mrs. Peters notes that Mrs. Wright must have been discouraged and lost heart (167).

As Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters unknowingly search through and observe the seemingly irrelevant evidence but they go on to touch the items. With this touch the women are able to pick up on another angle on such evidence and in essence seeing the situation through Mrs. Wright’s eyes. They are able to make connections on a different level than the men, as they are able to gather much about her character and life from mere “kitchen things” and find a murderous motive with the discovery of the deceased canary. The women are connecting emotionally with Mrs. Wright leading them to think as she would, even discovering where she would have kept her packaging paper and string. As the spent time in the house the women begin to act as Mrs. Wright most likely did – working mechanically to keep her mind busy as to not take in the hostile setting. This sixth sense of intuition tied Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters to Mrs. Wright and allowed them to observe and conclude from a multitude of angles.

Male detectives mirror the criminal intellectually in order to solve the case but female sleuths identify with the person as a whole, looking deeper into their lives outside of the crime and investigation. Glaspell’s “Á Jury of Her Peers” demonstrates a woman’s ability to look at a person as a victim, not as a murderer, through the characters of Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters. Mrs. Hale remembers Mrs. Wright as Minnie Foster – the pretty young thing who wore blue ribbons in her hair when she sung in the choir. However, the male police force see the same Mrs. Wright as a woman who murdered her husband by strangulation as they observe the crime scene and not taking note of the “womanly domains” of the house. Left alone in the kitchen, the women observe Mrs. Wright’s life in her uncheerful home as they begin to piece together Mrs. Wright’s existence within the confines of the house’s walls.

While the men investigate the bedroom upstairs, the two women take note of the fruit preserves and the quilt pieces that had been left and they began to try to “paint” a picture of the life that Minnie had been leading. Upon discovery of the bird cage and the strangled canary do the women see Mrs. Wright as clear as day – like the canary, she was caged in her house, forbidden not to sing anymore, forbidden to be happy, forbidden to fly free. Mr. Wright destroyed the canary just as he had destroyed Mrs. Wright from the inside out. Mrs. Hale blames herself for never have visited and Mrs. Peters makes a connection to Mrs. Wright when she recalls the murder of one of her own beloved pets and the effect it had on her. Both women are able to see a part of themselves in Mrs. Wright and therefore look to her as a lost comrade whom they have to save from a male dominated jurisdiction.

The women were not friends, but are loyal to their sex (163) and consequently able to identify with Mrs. Wright through their common existence in the household as wives and see the murder of Minnie Foster that Mr. Wright had committed throughout their marriage. With this the two women seek to save Mrs. Wright using what was in their power and at their disposal; they fix the one poorly done patch and take the deceased canary from its hiding place and is stuffed inside Mrs. Hale’s coat. Though they were kept out of the murder investigation, the two women observed Mrs. Wright and the relationship she had with her husband. They discover clues and make inferences of the situation, that the men are failing to look for and regard, and they stand united with Mrs. Wright. Together Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters form the peer jury for Mrs. Wright as they know both the law as well as the life of a farm wife, something the men cannot claim.

Male sleuths are deductive, creative, and even criminal in their intellect while female detectives are relatable, personable, and intuitive. Female sleuths are able to read deeper into their observations and draw conclusions utilizing the past, present, and the future. Reading a piece of fiction that utilizes a female detective allows the reader to see just how differently men and women think and proceed throughout their investigations all while leading to a possible solution. Their ability to emotionally connect and utilize their intuition allows female sleuths significant advantage over the male detectives. The female detectives do not identify themselves solely through a profession though the male characters pigeonhole them into a society driven gender role. The women detectives are merely amateurs but with them not defining themselves they are more apt to connect on a variety of levels and consider all aspects in a given case and still answer whereisit?, whodunit?, how, and why.__**

__EDIT #2

Detective fiction has had a vast and rich history that many renowned authors are associated with, including Sir Conan Doyle and Dashiell Hammett. From such authors have come memorable detectives and plot lines following specific conventions that audiences have come to associate with detection – murder, suspense, clues, and an intelligent, quick, deductive detective, usually toting a sidekick. Such conventions were used first in the mid 1800s when the Father of the Modern Detective Story, Edgar Allan Poe, created the great character of Monsieur C. Auguste Dupin and his trilogy, comprising “The Murders in the Rue Morgue,” “The Murder of Marie Roget,” and “The Purloined Letter.” “The Murders in the Rue Morgue” is the epitome of a modern detective story as it has all of the characteristics of a “textbook” detection story, most importantly the analytical examination of clues and the double nature of the –creative and intuitive but also highly rational detective (handout-//Detective Conventions Established by Poe)//.
 * Most critics regard Edgar Allan Poe’s “The Murders in the Rue Morgue” as the first modern detective story. What is your assessment of it? Does it correspond to, fall short of, or exceed your notion of what detective and mystery fiction should be? **

In detection, observation triumphs over merely seeing, as the narrator mentions in the beginning pages when introducing the power of analysis, through the analogy of a game of whist:

He makes, in silence, a host of observations and inferences. So perhaps, do his companions; and the difference in the extent of the information obtained, lies not so much in the validity of the inference as in the quality of the observation. The necessary knowledge is that of //what// to observe. Our player confines himself not at all; nor, because the game is the object, does he reject deductions from things external to the game. ( 3-4) Stories of detection are marked by their abundant clues both in the crime scene but also in the attitudes and behaviors of the people involved. From a variety of clues, the detective is therefore able to formulate a theory tat accounds for the facts of the case. Like the whist player, Dupin knows what he is looking for and then goes on to observe it. However, he also allows for outside influence if it could be relevant to the case. In “The Murders in the Rue Morgue” Dupin is acquainted with all of the evidence of the “murders” before even entering the crime scene from reading contradictory eyewitness testimonies in the newspaper. Already, Dupin is able to gather that the second scream, which no witness could identify-despite numerous ethnicities being present- was something peculiar. When it comes time to investigate the crime scene, Dupin begins outside of the building and then takes in the primary crime scene of the locked room where he continues to make connections. Moving inside the locked room to analyze more clues that could not be seen from the outside enabled Dupin to formulate a theory that the explains the facts of the case.

Using the clues of the tufts of hair, the rusted nail, the unidentifiable shrill scream, the size of the finger impressions on the one victim, the brutality of the razor blade murder, and the hair ribbon associated with Maltese sailors, Dupin pieces the clues together to theorize and deduce exactly how the crime occurred. The narrator seems almost clueless as to the relevance of the clues as he only “sees." Dupin tells him, “You have observed nothing distinctive. Yet there was something to be observed” (17). Dupin’s collection and connection of the clues of the killings demonstrates the importance of the observation occuring from all possible angles and not leaving anything untouched or unconsidered. Dupin’s analytical examination of the clues results from his possession of a double nature, being both creative and resolvent.

The character of Dupin is both highly creative and resolvent as he goes on to solve the locked-room murders of the two women in the Rue Morgue. Dupin’s creativity is evident at various points in the story, most particularly when he connects the pieces of the mystery but also when he summons the owner of the “murderous” Ourang-Outang. Throughout the story Dupin is presented with the facts of the case from first and second hand sources and accounts. With the presentation and acquasition of the evidence he formulates and refines his theory leading to his solution. He creatively considers possible scenarios, which then leads him to putting out an ad in hopes of luring the owner of the Ourang-Outang, a Maltese sailor, to him to prove his theory valid.

Instead of placing an ad searching for the owner of a murderous primate, Dupin decides to advertise the recovery of a lost primate instead so that the owner has no fear of the consequences of the meeting and come without reservations. Despite Dupin’s following through on his intended plans and his apparent confidence in his theory, he has no guarantee that his assumptions are right and if his plans will even work. In talking with the narrator in terms of the owner of the primate, Dupin states, “I do //not// know it…I am //not// sure of it” (25). Despite his self-proclaimed uncertainty to the narrator, Dupin’s intuition serves him well and works to his advantage in this particular case as he is proven correct through the sailor's testimony. Dupin’s apparent uncertainty makes him more relatable to the audience because there is a possibility that he is fallible and won’t succeed; however, the audience wants the hero to succeed and in this case Dupin does.

Stories of detection should have suspense, crime, obscure clues, misleading testimonies, an incompetent police force, but most importantly an observant, rationcinative, and intuitive detective. Poe’s “The Murders in the Rue Morgue” delivers every expectation of the genre. Dupin embodies what a fictional detective should be and the story is exactly what detection mystery should aspire to be. Edgar Allan Poe and his story “The Murders in the Rue Morgue” deserve all of the credit and recognition that they have received for being the first detection author and the first detective mystery.

Class Handout – Conventions of Dectection Mystery (May 18, 2009) Poe, Edgar A. “Murders in the Rue Morgue.” __Classic Mystery Stories __. Greene, Douglas G.  Mineola, N.Y: Dover Publications, 1999. EDIT #1 **
 * Works Cite**

Detective fiction has had a vast and rich history that many renowned authors can be associated with, including Sir Conan Doyle and Dashiell Hammett. From such authors have come memorable detectives and plot lines following specific conventions that audiences have come to associate with detection – murder, suspense, clues, and an intelligent, quick, deductive detective, usually toting a sidekick. Such conventions were used first in the mid 1800s when the Father of the Modern Detective Story, Edgar Allan Poe, created the great character of Monsieur C. Auguste Dupin and his trilogy, comprising “The Murders in the Rue Morgue,” “The Murder of Marie Roget,” and “The Purloined Letter.” “The Murders in the Rue Morgue” is the epitome of a modern detective story as it has all of the characteristics of a “textbook” detection story, most importantly the analytical examination of clues and the double nature of the –creative and intuitive but also highly rational detective (handout-//Detective Conventions Established by Poe)//.
 * Most critics regard Edgar Allan Poe’s “The Murders in the Rue Morgue” as the first modern detective story. What is your assessment of it? Does it correspond to, fall short of, or exceed your notion of what detective and mystery fiction should be? **

In detection, observation triumphs over merely seeing, as the narrator mentions in the beginning pages when introducing the power of analysis, through the analogy of a game of chess:

He makes, in silence, a host of observations and inferences. So perhaps, do his companions; and the difference in the extent of the information obtained, lies not so much in the validity of the inference as in the quality of the observation. The necessary knowledge is that of //what// to observe. Our player confines himself not at all; nor, because the game is the object, does he reject deductions from things external to the game. ( 3-4) Stories of detection are marked by their abundant clues both in the crime scene but also in the attitudes and behaviors of the people involved. By using the variety of clues, the detective is therefore able to deduce a likely solution. In “The Murders in the Rue Morgue” Dupin is faced with all of the evidence of the “murders” before even entering the crime scene from reading contradictory eyewitness testimonies in newspaper clippings. Already, Dupin is able to gather that the second scream, which no witness could identify-despite numerous ethnicities being present- was something peculiar while also an important piece of the puzzle that was yet to be amassed. When it comes time to investigate the crime scene, Dupin begins outside of the building and takes in the primary crime scene of the locked room where he is continuing to make connections. Moving inside the locked room to analyze more clues that could not be seen from the outside enabled Dupin to formulate a theory that the explains the facts of the case.

Using the clues of the tufts of hair, the rusted nail, the unidentifiable shrill scream, the size of the finger impressions on the one victim, the brutality of the razor blade murder, and the hair ribbon associated with Maltese sailors, Dupin pieces the clues together to theorize and deduce exactly how the crime occurred. The narrator seems almost clueless as to the relevance of the clues as he only “sees”, as Dupin tells him, “You have observed nothing distinctive. Yet there was something to be observed” (17). Dupin’s ability to collect and connect the clues of the killings shows the emphasis on the observation of the situation and doing so from all possible angles and not leaving anything untouched or unconsidered. Dupin’s analytical examination of the clues results from his possession of a double nature, being both creative and intuitive.

The character of Dupin is both highly creative and resolvent as he goes on to solve the locked-room murders of the two women in the Rue Morgue. Dupin’s creativity is evident at various points in the story, most particularly when he connects the pieces of the mystery but also when he summons the owner of the “murderous” Ourang-Outang. Throughout the story Dupin is presented with the facts of the case but he still continues to theorize and changing such theories as new information and insights are acquired from first and second hand sources and accounts. He creatively considers possible scenarios, which then leads him to putting out an ad in hopes of luring the owner of the Ourang-Outang, a Maltese sailor, to him to prove his theory valid.

Instead of placing an ad searching for the owner of a murderous primate, Dupin decides to advertise the recovery of a lost primate instead so that the owner would feel no fear of the consequences of the meeting and come without reservations. Despite Dupin’s following through on his intended plans and his apparent confidence in his theory, he has no guarantee if his assumptions are right and if his plans will even work. In talking with the narrator in terms of the owner of the primate, Dupin states, “I do //not// know it…I am //not// sure of it” (25). Despite his self-proclaimed uncertainty, Dupin’s intuition serves him well and works to his advantage in this particular case as he is proven correct through the sailor's testimony. Dupin’s uncertainty makes him more relatable to the audience because there is a possibility that he is fallible and won’t succeed; however, the audience wants the hero to succeed and in this case Dupin does.

Stories of detection should have suspense, crime, uncalculated, obscure clues, misleading testimonies, an incompetent police force, but most importantly an observant, rationcinative, and intuitive detective. Poe’s “The Murders in the Rue Morgue” delivers every expectation of the genre. Dupin embodies what a fictional detective should be and the story is exactly what detection mystery should aspire to be. Edgar Allan Poe and his story “The Murders in the Rue Morgue” deserve all of the credit and recognition that they have received for being the first detection author and the first detective mystery.

Class Handout – Conventions of Dectection Mystery (May 18, 2009) Poe, Edgar A. “Murders in the Rue Morgue.” __Classic Mystery Stories __. Greene, Douglas G.  Mineola, N.Y: Dover Publications, 1999.
 * Works Cited**

Most critics regard Edgar Allan Poe’s “The Murders in the Rue Morgue” as the first modern detective story. What is your assessment of it? Does it correspond to, fall short of, or exceed your notion of what detective and mystery fiction should be? ** Detective fiction has had a vast and rich history that many renowned authors can be associated with, including Sir Conan Doyle and Dashiell Hammett. From such authors have come memorable detectives and plot lines following specific characteristics that audiences have come to associate with detection – murder, suspense, clues, and an intelligent, quick deducing detective, usually toting a sidekick inferior to their intellect. Such conventions were used first in the mid 1800s when the Father of the Modern Detective Story, Edgar Allan Poe, created the great character of Monsieur C. Auguste Dupin and his trilogy, including “The Murders in the Rue Morgue”, “The Murder of Marie Roget”, and “The Purloined Letter”. “The Murders in the Rue Morgue” is the epitome of a modern detective story as it has all of the characteristics of a “textbook” detection story, most importantly the analytical examination of clues and the double nature of the detective –creative and intuitive but also highly rational (handout-//Detective Conventions Established by Poe)//.
 * Draft #1

In detection, observation triumphs over merely seeing, as the narrator mentions in the beginning pages when introducing the power of analysis, through the analogy of a game of chess.

He (the player) makes, in silence, a host of observations and inferences. So perhaps, do his companions; and the difference in the extent of the information obtained, lies not so much in the validity of the inference as in the quality of the observation. The necessary knowledge is that of //what// to observe. Our player confines himself not at all; nor, because the game is the object, does he reject deductions from things external to the game. (Narrator) (“The Murders in the Rue Morgue” – p. 3-4, //Classic Mystery Stories//) Stories of detection are marked by their abundantamount of clues both in the crime scene but also in the attitudes and behaviors of the people involved. The culmination of these clues then leads to a deduction by the detective. In “The Murders in the Rue Morgue” Dupin is faced with all of the evidence of the “murders” before even entering the crime scene from reading newspaper clippings of witness testimonies. Already, Dupin is able to gather that the second scream, that no witness could identify-despite numerous ethnicities being present- was something peculiar while also an important piece of the puzzle that was yet to be amassed. When it comes time to investigate the crime scene, Dupin begins outside of the building and takes in the secondary crime scene where he is continuing to make connections. Moving inside the locked room to reveal more clues that could not be seen from the outside allowed for an arrival of an ultimate conclusion. Using the clues of the tufts of hair, the rusted nail, the unidentifiable shrill scream, description of the finger impressions, brutality of the razor blade murder, and the hair ribbon associated with Maltese sailors, Dupin concludes his findings by piecing the clues together to theorize and deduce exactly how the crime occurred. The narrator seems almost clueless as to the relevance of the clues as he only “sees” as Dupin told him, “You have observed nothing distinctive. Yet there was something to be observed” (“The Murders in the Rue Morgue” – p.17, //Classic Mystery Stories//). Dupin’s ability to collect and connect the clues of the murder shows the emphasis on the observation of the situation and doing so from all possible angles and not leaving anything untouched or unconsidered. Dupin’s analytical examination of the clues is possible as a result of his possession of a double nature, being both creative and intuitive.

The character of Dupin is both highly creative and intuitive as he went on to solve the locked-room murders of the two women in the Rue Morgue. Dupin’s creativity is evident at various points in the story, most particularly when he compiles the pieces of the mystery but also when he plots to summon the owner of the “murderous” Ourang-Outang. Throughout the story Dupin is presented with the facts of the case but he still continues to theorize and changing such theories as new information and insights are acquired from first and second hand sources and accounts. He creatively theorizes possible scenarios, which then lead him to putting out an ad in hopes of luring the owner of the Ourang-Outang, a Maltese sailor, to him. Instead of placing an ad searching for the owner of a murderous primate, Dupin decides to advertise a lost primate instead so that the owner would feel no fear of the consequences of the meeting and come without reservations. Despite Dupin’s following through of his intended plans, he has no guarantee if his assumptions are right and if his plans will even work. In talking with the narrator in terms of the owner of the primate, Dupin states, “I do //not// know it…I am //not// sure of it” (“The Murders in the Rue Morgue” – p.25, //Classic Mystery Stories//). Despite his self-proclaimed uncertainty, Dupin’s intuition serves him well and works to his advantage in this particular case as he is proven on all accords of the mystery as to how it happened, what happened following, and how he could lure the sailor for questioning. Dupin’s uncertainty makes him more relatable to the audience because there is a possibility that he is fallible and won’t succeed; however, the audience wants the hero to succeed and in this case Dupin does.

Detection stories should have suspense, crime, uncalculated, obscure clues, faulty testimonies, a humorous police force, but most importantly the observation of the minute and vast by a detective who is both intuitive and creative. Poe’s “The Murders in the Rue Morgue” delivers every expectation of the genre. Dupin is the embodiment of whom and how a fictional detective should be with the story being exactly what detection mystery should aspire to be. Edgar Allan Poe and his story “The Murders in the Rue Morgue” deserve all of the credit and recognition that they have received with being the first detective mystery and detection author.

Class Handout – Conventions of Dectection Mystery (May 18, 2009) Poe, Edgar A. “Murders in the Rue Morgue.” __Classic Mystery Stories __. Greene, Douglas G.  Mineola, N.Y: Dover Publications, 1999.
 * Works Cited**