This Story's Veracity Is To Be Noted

By Kenyon Geetings

TRUTH. What is it? One might conjecture that it is simple. Truth is what we know to be true, it is what actually happens in accordance with reality. While this definition offers a great foundation, Edgar Allan Poe plays on this assumption in his story “The Murders in the Rue Morgue.” An argument can be made that there are two types of truths, one which refers to the truth of reasoning, while the other refers to the truths of fact. The truth of fact can be thought of as knowing that something IS a fact because science can verifiably prove what we know and see. The truth of reasoning can be thought of as using deductive thinking to jump from one fact to another. Unfortunately, jumping from one conclusion to another can ultimately lead us in the wrong direction as one false assumption will throw us off track. With the knowledge that the truth of reasoning can lead us in the wrong direction, we can begin to understand how Poe's Dupin in the story “The Murders in the Rue Morgue” actually emphasizes the limits of reason and the shortcomings of rational thought.

On the surface, truth might appear to have a simple black and white answer, a right and a wrong, but Poe's story offers us an alternate explanation. Poe goes on to explain how looking in the wrong spot can lead to incorrect assumptions. In reference to the Parisian police, Dupin elucidates why the truth is not always WHAT it seems when he says “he erred continually by the very intensity of his investigations. He impaired his vision by holding the object too close” (Poe 8). Dupin makes an astute observation regarding the Parisian Police that they see what they want to see and nothing more. They are capable of drawing conclusions from the information that they have, but in doing this, they effectively lose “sight of the matter as a whole” (8). The problem with the police is not that they are attempting to gather information for the truth, but rather that they are simply being too diligent in this activity that they become focused on gathering the wrong evidence. The police discovered that the windows were all locked, and therefore reasoned that no one could have escaped from them (11). This rationalization led them to only conduct a simple search of the backyard, resulting in them losing sight of what truly happened and eventually leading them in the wrong direction of the truth.

In addition to truth not always being black and white, truth is also not always found easily. Dupin asserts that the truth is “not always in a well. In fact, as regards the more important knowledge, I do believe that she is invariably superficial” (8). While Dupin may or may not be talking about a physical well, one stream of thought is Dupin believes that we often look for truth in the wrong places, and truth can appear real until examined more closely. In their newspaper article on the murders, WE can see the Gazette's shortcomings of rational thought as they fail to look in the correct location for the truth. The Gazette's perilous mistake is believing in the acumen of the police, and in doing this they fall “into the gross but common error of confounding the unusual with the abstruse” (9). One of the reasons that truth is not always easily found is because it can be difficult to understand. The Gazette was content with reasoning that what had happened was unusual and decided to leave it at that, while the real truth remained hidden. This further explains why Dupin does not fall into the traps of rational thought and is able to 'dig deeper' or rather, dig less, for the truth, as his “ultimate object is only the truth” (12). Dupin's research involves a conscientious examination of evidence while he is simultaneously able to remove his rational thinking and focus on the more abstract process. It is not until we NEED to remove our analytic thoughts that we can clearly find the real truth hidden right in front of us.

Consequently, in the same way that truth is not always found easily, IT can sometimes be the hardest for others to speak out about. The sailor, the owner of the murdering orangutang, comes to face this exact problem of not wanting to share what he knows to be the truth. The sailor reasons that no one will suspect “that a brute beast” was the one responsible for the crime and that naturally, he must be “innocent” (14). The flaw in his reasoning is only exacerbated when Dupin makes an advertisement for the missing animal and the sailor shows up TO meet him. Dupin questions the sailor about the murders and very quickly we see the sailor's reluctance to answer for “He spoke not a word” (15). The sailing Frenchman's unwillingness to contribute to the ordeal at the beginning only causes him stress later on. Worst of all, though, is just how hard it was for Dupin to share the truth about his knowledge of the killer. It is not until near the end of the story that Dupin finally gets to the critical point of letting the narrator know who the real murderer is. As one can see, sharing the truth can BE hard no matter if it is in your favor or against it.

Now, you might think that this is all that there is to the definition of truth, but what if I told you that your own critical thinking of this paper has helped emphasize the shortcomings of reason and rational thought? Go back through this paper and pay close attention to the words that are fully capitalized. Once again, Poe shows us how our brains trick us into making the truth be what we need it to be. The way our minds piece together information into rational thoughts is a slippery slope for ruining the truth of fact. Between the fact that truth is not a simple right or wrong, that it is not always easily found, and that it does not always want to be shared, the reasoning behind truth only emphasizes the limits of reasoning and the shortcomings of rational thought.