The Murders in the Rue Morgue

1.     Genuinely impressive – “ “Upon those two words I have placed my hopes of finding a full answer to this horrible question. The words were an expression of horror. This means that a Frenchman knew about these murders. It is possible — indeed it is probable — that the Frenchman himself did not help the orangutan to kill. Perhaps the animal escaped from him, and he followed it to the house on the Rue Morgue. He could not have caught it again. It must still be free somewhere in Paris.” (57)

This passage is from Part Five of The Murders in the Rue Morgue. By this point, Dupin has figured out that these murders were committed by something animalistic. I didn’t think that how he found that out was very impressive, because the whole fingerprint-size and animal hair trope has been done in crime shows before and seems pretty simple. However, the one thing that stumped me was the second voice, and I think it is very impressive how Dupin was able to deduce the entire story by just guessing. Later, we find out that Dupin’s guess is true; a Frenchman did in fact lose his murderous orangutan, and did not participate in the killings.

2.     Baldly untenable - “But, Dupin. How can you know that the man is a sailor?” “I do not know it. I am not sure of it. I think the man is a sailor. A sailor could go up that pole on the side of the house. Sailors travel to strange, faraway places where such things as orangutans can be got. If I am right….” (58)

This passage is also from Part Five of The Murders in the Rue Morgue, after Dupin puts out an ad saying that they’ve caught an orangutan and know that it belongs to a sailor. I think it is very unrealistic for Dupin to deduce that the owner was a sailor just on the basis of pole-climbing abilities and opportunities to travel. It could have very well been his other theory, a circus performer, because they too have incredible athletic abilities and travel to strange places. I think it might actually be more reasonable to assume that it was a circus performer, because it is far more realistic for a circus performer to have an exotic animal than a sailor.

3.      Confusing  - “Then we came to a small street where they are putting down street stones which they have cut in a new and very special way. Here your face became brighter and I saw your lips move. I could not doubt that you were saying the word stereotomy, the name for this new way of cutting stones. It is a strange word, isn’t it? But you will remember that we read about it in the newspaper only yesterday. I thought that the word stereotomy must make you think of that old Greek writer named Epicurus, who wrote of something he called atoms; he believed that the world and everything in the heavens above are made of these atoms.” (40)

This paragraph is from the beginning of The Murders in the Rue Morgue where Dupin is telling the narrator how he managed to deduce that the narrator was thinking about an actor in a play that they had both seen just by observing. I had to read this part several times, because I couldn’t figure out how Dupin went from stereotomy to Epicurus. That seems extremely far-fetched, since stereotomy and Epicurus seem extremely unrelated. Atoms also seem to be unrelated to stereotomy, so I still can’t figure out how they’re related. The narrator could have thought of any other Greek writer. What is it about Epicurus and atoms that relates so specifically to stereotomy and cobblestones?