The Murders in the Rue Morgue Blog Post

a.  Logical

“It is clear that the assassins were in the room where Mademoiselle L’Espanaye was found, or at least in the room adjoining, when the party ascended the stairs.  It is, then, only from these two apartments that we have to seek issues.  The police have laid bare the floors, the ceiling, and the masonry of the walls, in every direction.  No secret issues could have escaped their vigilance.  But, not trusting to their eyes, I examined with my own.  There were, then, no secret issues.  Both doors leading from the rooms into the passage were securely locked, with the keys inside.  Let us turn to the chimneys.  These, although of ordinary width for some eight or ten feet above the hearths, will not admit, throughout their extent, the body of a large cat.  The impossibility of egress, by means already stated, being thus absolute, we are reduced to the windows.”  (Poe 215)

Dupin’s logic is clearly explicated in the above passage.  He has investigated the apartment with the police officers, inspecting the floors, ceiling, and walls.  Dupin utilizes deductive reasoning to explain how the doors were “securely locked”, meaning that no murderer could have entered or exited through the doorway into the apartment.  As a result, Dupin is “reduced” to believe that the murderer escaped through the “windows” .  According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the denotation of “reduce” is to “The word “reduce” means to “draw together or cause to converge.”  The connotation of “reduce” is to surmise or make conclusions.   Therefore, upon investigating the secure layout of the L’Espanaye’s apartment, Dupin reasons that the murderer did not break into the crime scene in a conventional way.  Dupin’s conclusion causes the reader to become curious about who the murderer is, as he or she acted unpredictably. 

b. Untenable Logic

“‘I do not know it,’ said Dupin.  ‘I am not sure of it.  Here, however, is a small piece of ribbon, which from its form, and from its greasy appearance, has evidently been used in tying the hair in one of those long queues of which sailors are so fond.  Moreover, this knot is one which few besides sailors can tie, and it particular to the Maltese.”  (Poe 222-223)

I found Dupin’s reasoning about the involvement of a sailor in the murder far-fetched.  His keen attention to detail and knowledge about an obscure knot used by sailors to tie their hair is impressive.  However, at first I was confused about the relevance of Dupin’s discovery.  He believes that a sailor was at the crime scene, due to the “greasy appearance” of the ribbon.  Greasy has the denotation of oily, with the connotation of being used frequently.  Dupin’s ability to make connections between a hair ribbon belonging to a sailor, who is ultimately revealed to be the owner of the guilty Ourang-Outang, is reminiscent of Sherlock Holmes’s noteworthy skills.   For example, Sherlock Holmes notices a missing dumbbell from the Douglas household, which led to the conclusion about a faked murder (Valley of Fear, Sir Conan Doyle).  After rereading the passage, Dupin’s observation proved to be essential to uncovering the murder.  However, upon my first reading, I was doubtful of Dupin’s credibility.  Similar to Sherlock Holmes, Dupin proves his talent as a detective because of how his attention to small details ultimately uncovers the mystery.

c. Confounding Plot

 “As the ape approached the casement with its mutilated burden, the sailor shrank aghast to the rod, and, rather gliding then clambering down it, hurried at once home — dreading the consequences of the butchery, and gladly abandoning, in his terror, all solicitude about the fate of the Ourang-Outang.  The words heard by the party upon the staircase were the Frenchman’s exclamations of horror and affright, commingled with the fiendish jabberings of the brute.”  (Poe 227)

I was confused with why Dupin readily believes the sailor’s implausible story.  What is the likelihood of an Ourang-Outang escaping a naval vessel with a razor, climbing a lightning rod, and brutally murdering two women?  The sailor’s story seems unbelievable.  He sounds guilty of the crime, especially since he admits to being a witness to the murder but then not reporting it.  As a result, I was confused about the credibility of the sailor’s story, and if he is guilty or innocent.