Check the following link for psychoanalytic theorist Jacques Lacan's take on "The Purloined Letterhttp://www.lacan.com/purloined.htm
Ok--since this may be one of the more overtly philosophically challenging stories of the semester, I'll put some issues on the virtual table here.
Keeping clear a few facts, of plot and character, may help with analyzing this somewhat perplexing story.
First, who‘s who: The narrator moves things along for us, as he narrates events, but doesn’t have much of an identity in the story beyond that, though we can say he is intellectually curious.
“Monsieur G is the “Prefect of police,” more or less equivalent, in American terms, to a police chief or commander.
Minister D, part of the royal cabinet, is the thief, and also a “poet and mathematician.”
Dupin, a friend of the narrator, a sort of amateur detective (i.e., not a “professional”) solves the crime that the Prefect couldn’t. Dupin also admits to being a poet—though again not by “profession” (he has dabbled in “doggerel,” as he calls it) and also knows quite a bit about mathematics, though again, not by “profession”; his “liminal” position vis a vis these “professions” allows him to slip between the cracks of ideology of each.
As revealed by the ending (the contents of Dupin’s substitute letter), the conflict is between Dupin and the Minister D.
But one of the main themes of the story is how various “ways of seeing,” or ideologies, affect not only how we understand the world, but even what exactly we perceive.
As you read the story, consider the limitations of various points of view, how the inspector can “read” the world in intense detail from one perspective, but completely misread it when from a non-empirical perspective. On one side we have science, measurement, objectivity, logic and on the other poetic perception or apperception, “reading” of that which is not quantifiable or subject to exactitude—expressions, character. Notice that, ironically, the ability to read what is illegible, from the standpoint of pure “policial” detection methods, as represented by the Prefect, is what enables the “amateur,” Dupin, to solve the crime. Note that Dupin distinguishes between “mathematical reason”—logic applied only to quantity--and a higher form of “reason” that can blend science and imagination. Note that both Dupin and the Minister D challenge this dualistic division of the world into poet-“fools” on the one hand and scientific, “rational” authority on the other, as both blend these points of view, without being completely invested in either world view.
Other things to consider—doublings of plot and setting—: how many times is the letter “stolen”? The letter must run a circuit (through the narrative of the story, in a sense) to arrive—where?
What is the relationship between the Minister D’s and Dupin’s letters? Where are they similar and where different, and how does this connect with other issues noted above?
In what setting does Dupin solve the crime? How is this different from the setting in which the Prefect attempts to solve it, and what does this suggest?
We distinguish the Prefect, above, and the world view he represents, from Dupin, but how does the fact that he sought to “consult” Dupin somewhat complicate his “role” a s the figurehead of a certain world view?
How does the story play with “foreshadowing”: certain comments and actions by Dupin at the beginning of the story in relation to events and themes as they develop during the course of the story?
What is the relevance of the conflict between Dupin and D? Note the similarity of (in) their names.
How is power figured in the story—what is it, specifically, that gives one power over others, and how might this connect with the main theme outlined above?
Don’t worry about the French and Latin; but, following is a translation of Dupin’s letter (end of story), and a brief summary of the two allusions to classical mythology:
“Such a baleful scheme, while not worthy of Atreus, is worthy of Thyestes”
Gloss:
ATREUS: The son of Pelops and brother of Thyestes. The two brothers quarrelled about the succession and Atreus served up most of Thyestes' children to him at a feast. Atreus was father of Menelaus and Agamemnon.
THYESTES: The son of Pelops and brother of Atreus. He seduced his brother's wife, Aerope, and she gave him the golden lamb which was the symbol of Atreus' power. Atreus took revenge by killing most of Thyestes' children and serving them up to him. The story forms the background to the Oresteia and is told by the Roman author, Seneca, in his tragedy, Thyestes.
Make of it what you will...
Ok--since this may be one of the more overtly philosophically challenging stories of the semester, I'll put some issues on the virtual table here.
Keeping clear a few facts, of plot and character, may help with analyzing this somewhat perplexing story.
First, who‘s who: The narrator moves things along for us, as he narrates events, but doesn’t have much of an identity in the story beyond that, though we can say he is intellectually curious.
“Monsieur G is the “Prefect of police,” more or less equivalent, in American terms, to a police chief or commander.
Minister D, part of the royal cabinet, is the thief, and also a “poet and mathematician.”
Dupin, a friend of the narrator, a sort of amateur detective (i.e., not a “professional”) solves the crime that the Prefect couldn’t. Dupin also admits to being a poet—though again not by “profession” (he has dabbled in “doggerel,” as he calls it) and also knows quite a bit about mathematics, though again, not by “profession”; his “liminal” position vis a vis these “professions” allows him to slip between the cracks of ideology of each.
As revealed by the ending (the contents of Dupin’s substitute letter), the conflict is between Dupin and the Minister D.
But one of the main themes of the story is how various “ways of seeing,” or ideologies, affect not only how we understand the world, but even what exactly we perceive.
As you read the story, consider the limitations of various points of view, how the inspector can “read” the world in intense detail from one perspective, but completely misread it when from a non-empirical perspective. On one side we have science, measurement, objectivity, logic and on the other poetic perception or apperception, “reading” of that which is not quantifiable or subject to exactitude—expressions, character. Notice that, ironically, the ability to read what is illegible, from the standpoint of pure “policial” detection methods, as represented by the Prefect, is what enables the “amateur,” Dupin, to solve the crime. Note that Dupin distinguishes between “mathematical reason”—logic applied only to quantity--and a higher form of “reason” that can blend science and imagination. Note that both Dupin and the Minister D challenge this dualistic division of the world into poet-“fools” on the one hand and scientific, “rational” authority on the other, as both blend these points of view, without being completely invested in either world view.
Other things to consider—doublings of plot and setting—: how many times is the letter “stolen”? The letter must run a circuit (through the narrative of the story, in a sense) to arrive—where?
What is the relationship between the Minister D’s and Dupin’s letters? Where are they similar and where different, and how does this connect with other issues noted above?
In what setting does Dupin solve the crime? How is this different from the setting in which the Prefect attempts to solve it, and what does this suggest?
We distinguish the Prefect, above, and the world view he represents, from Dupin, but how does the fact that he sought to “consult” Dupin somewhat complicate his “role” a s the figurehead of a certain world view?
How does the story play with “foreshadowing”: certain comments and actions by Dupin at the beginning of the story in relation to events and themes as they develop during the course of the story?
What is the relevance of the conflict between Dupin and D? Note the similarity of (in) their names.
How is power figured in the story—what is it, specifically, that gives one power over others, and how might this connect with the main theme outlined above?
Don’t worry about the French and Latin; but, following is a translation of Dupin’s letter (end of story), and a brief summary of the two allusions to classical mythology:
“Such a baleful scheme, while not worthy of Atreus, is worthy of Thyestes”
Gloss:
ATREUS: The son of Pelops and brother of Thyestes. The two brothers quarrelled about the succession and Atreus served up most of Thyestes' children to him at a feast. Atreus was father of Menelaus and Agamemnon.
THYESTES: The son of Pelops and brother of Atreus. He seduced his brother's wife, Aerope, and she gave him the golden lamb which was the symbol of Atreus' power. Atreus took revenge by killing most of Thyestes' children and serving them up to him. The story forms the background to the Oresteia and is told by the Roman author, Seneca, in his tragedy, Thyestes.
Make of it what you will...
