The Cultural Gutter

dangerous because it has a philosophy

"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." -- Oscar Wilde

Murder and Intuition: Overlooking the corpses in the shrubbery

alex macfadyen
Posted March 8, 2012

“It’s very dangerous to believe people – I haven’t for years.”
– Miss Marple in Sleeping Murder

No matter how you cast it – intellectualized, implied, luridly depicted – murder isn’t nice. CSI upped the ante on graphic visuals of murder victims, spawning a host of procedurals which routinely include shots of dangling intestines and partially digested eyeballs, but even without the gore, murder mysteries are fundamentally unpleasant. Not that I don’t enjoy them, you understand. It’s just interesting to me that despite the equitable finality of violent death, the classic murder mystery somehow maintains its image as genteel and respectable while other related genres are often considered trashy.

My mother and grandma were big mystery buffs and also fans of PBS, so I watched a lot of episodes of Mystery! growing up. I have fond memories of Vincent Price sitting in his chair by the fire and the sketchy black and white Edward Gorey intro with lethal falling gargoyles and a flapperish woman sighing melodramatically on a ledge. The series were adaptations of British mystery novels – Agatha Christie, Dorothy Sayers, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, PD James – and although I found them entertaining, some of the murders and motivations were actually quite macabre.

In classic murder mysteries, the violence is intellectualized in a way that fosters emotional distance and allows the genre to be perceived as more respectable than other incarnations which sensationalize violence to a greater degree. In the Mystery! series, the nastiness is hidden under the proper British surface, whereas in a series like Bones, based on the novels by Kathy Reichs, the ick factor of the forensic details is part of the draw. I think the difference can be summed up by saying that my family often used to spend a pleasant evening watching Mystery! over dinner, whereas whenever my wife and I try to eat a meal during Bones, we end up deciding we’re never going to do that again.

Take, for instance, Miss Marple. In the opening credits to the PBS series, the camera pans over a watercolor sketch of the quaint English village of St. Mary Mead, accompanied by a pastoral score. It seems so picturesque one might easily overlook the corpse in the shrubbery or the woman giving you the evil eye from her veranda. But it’s precisely that juxtaposition of the civilized veneer of society and the unpleasantness of murder that highlights how social niceties serve to conceal human brutality.

Sometimes you see an actor play a character on screen and their interpretation just becomes how you envision the character in your mind. That was the case for me with Joan Hickson as Miss Marple. There was something very satisfying about how she used her quintessential old ladyishness to lull everyone into a false sense of security while she honed in on all their secrets with precise analytic intensity. She reminds me of my childhood cat, who used to hide under the bed and unexpectedly whip out her claws and scratch the feet of anyone foolish enough to walk too close to her.

Arguably one of the main intellectual focuses of murder mysteries is human psychology. Miss Marple works out what has happened and figures out who the murderer is because everything reminds her of someone or something she’s seen in St. Mary Mead, where apparently every human vice is to be found. I suppose that’s the point, though, that people keep doing terrible things to each other despite all attempts to pretend otherwise. It makes me think of the chorus of “the greater good” that motivated the creepy coven of villagers in Hot Fuzz.

Miss Marple is consistently underestimated and written off by other characters because she’s an old lady with a penchant for making intuitive leaps presented in the form of apparently unrelated stories about the town florist or her favorite niece. What she’s actually doing is using analogical reasoning. In Murder at the Vicarage, she talks about classing people “as though they were birds or flowers…genus this, species that,” using the micro level of behavior to understand and predict larger events. While those around her wallow in foolish stereotypes about dotty old ladies or “feminine intuition,” she’s busy reading them like a book.

One of the things I find most appealing about Miss Marple, though, is that she listens to those little voices a lot of us ignore because we can’t rationally support not trusting someone because they remind us in some random way of someone else it turned out we shouldn’t trust. We want our guts to be right. We don’t want to be crazy for feeling the way we do. We want it all to make sense.

In the end, good murder mysteries do that for us. Something unpleasant happens, and whether we prefer to dwell on the decomposing corpse or not, we still want all the loose ends wrapped up in a way that makes sense and is believable. And how do we know something makes sense? Because it feels right.

“…a guess is either right or wrong.  If it is right you call it an intuition.  If it is wrong you usually do not speak of it again.”
– Hercule Poirot in The A.B.C. Murders

 

~~~

alex macfadyen wants it all to make sense, but in the meantime he’s pondering other uses for his own loose ends. ideas?

Comments

2 Responses to “Murder and Intuition: Overlooking the corpses in the shrubbery”

  1. Carol Borden
    March 8th, 2012 @ 6:52 pm

    I love this line: “Miss Marple works out what has happened and figures out who the murderer is because everything reminds her of someone or something she’s seen in St. Mary Mead, where apparently every human vice is to be found.”

  2. Murder and Intuition | Mysterious Order of the Skeleton Suit
    April 4th, 2012 @ 1:14 pm

    […] FULL ARTICLE This entry was posted in Literature. Bookmark the permalink. ← Gandahar […]

Leave a Reply





  • Support The Gutter

  • The Book!

  • Of Note Elsewhere

    Get your own copy of the Satanic Temple’s The Satanic Children’s Big Book of Activities!

    ~

    At The Atlantic, Ta-Nehisi Coates writes about Dr. Doom: “Comics are so often seen as the province of white geeky nerds. But, more broadly, comics are  the literature of outcasts, of pariahs, of Jews, of gays, of blacks. It’s really no mistake that we saw ourselves in Doom, Magneto or Rogue.”

    ~

    Actor Ken Takakura has died. Takakura starred in films such as Brutal Tales of Chivalry (1965); Red Peony Gambler (1968); Miyamoto Musashi: Duel at Ichijoji (1955) and Miyamoto Musashi: Duel at Ganryu Island (1956); as well as in co-productions like The Yakuza (1974); The Bullet Train (1975); Black Rain (1989) and Riding Alone For Thousands Of Miles (2005).  The Japan Times, The South China Morning Post and The AV Club have obituaries. Japan Subculture has an interview with Takakura. Here Takakura sings the theme to Abhashiri Prison (1965)

    ~

    Producer, writer and director Glen A. Larson has died. Larson was responsible for creating tv series such as Battlestar Galactica, Magnum P.I, Knight Rider, The Fall Guy, Quincy M.E., The Hardy Boys/Nancy Drew Mysteries and Buck Rogers In The 25Th Century, about which the Gutter’s own Keith wrote here. The New York Times, The Hollywood Reporter and The AV Club have obituaries. Watch Larson’s interview from 2010 at “Battlestar Galactica: The Exhibition”.

    ~

    At Re/Action, Maddy Myers writes about how important the Metroid franchise, in both game and manga form, and its protagonist, Samus Aran, were to her. “Samus still represents a breakthrough. She first took off her armor to reveal a woman’s form back in 1986, the year that I was born. Samus and I grew up separately, kindred spirits who did not find one another until 2007. A best friend, a fraternal twin sister, a clone separated at birth. Or so I felt, as I let myself slip behind that visor. I wasn’t Samus myself – not yet. I stood behind her, hanging back. Did I dare? Did I dare pretend, role-play, allow myself to act as Samus? Could I be that cool?”

    ~

    Maddy Myers writes about playing violent games, wanting to be powerful and internalized sexism. “Given my lifelong history of playing at war, and my desperate wish to feel strong, big, and powerful, it made sense that I would gravitate towards Counter-Strike and its ilk around the age of 15. But Counter-Strike, with its all-male selection of avatars and predominantly male player base, allowed no room for princesses — and the guys I played with didn’t either. I developed some traits during that time that I regret now — the belief that I was ‘special,’ and that I was ‘better’ than other women I knew because I liked playing violent games and they didn’t. The guys I played with encouraged and reinforced this behavior, assuring me that I was ‘different from those other girls,’ that my liking violence made me ‘cool.’ Girl stuff is stupid, I told myself, as I bought pants from the men’s section, told sexist jokes, and mocked all the ‘girl stuff’ that I’d liked, not so many years prior.”

    ~

  • Spilling into Twitter

  • Obsessive?

    Then you might be interested in knowing you can subscribe to our RSS feed, find us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter or Tumblr.

    -------

  • Weekly Notifications

  • What We’re Talking About

  • Thanks To

    No Media Kings hosts this site, and Wordpress autoconstructs it.

  • %d bloggers like this: