In “Death and the Compass” (1942) by Jorge Borges, reality’s tendency to stray towards meaninglessness and chance is revealed. Despite Lönnrot’s admission that “reality has not the slightest obligation to be interesting” (pg. 148), he prefers his hypotheses to be grandiose and intriguing, preferring that chance does not play “a disproportionate role” (pg. 148). Thus, he constructs from the evidence a magnificent theory that conforms to a symmetrical rhombus shape and a pattern embedded with Jewish references (pg. 156). However, this theory ends up being a trap. The initial three killings, which form an equilateral triangle, are the first three compass points (pg. 156). Due to his desire for symmetry, Lönnrot allows the compass, designed by Scharlach but pieced together by Lönnrot, to lead him to the final point as well as his ironic death (pg. 156). His focus on conformance to a pattern leads him to a labyrinth in which he can only see the single path ahead of him – the one laid out for him in the labyrinth – rather than beyond the walls or outside of the structure entirely. Furthermore, the pattern itself did not hold the meaning that he had been anticipating. The Jewish references he had noticed were simply used as tools of deception – they did not hold any deeper meaning in the context of the crimes (pg. 156). The first murder, as Treviranus had hypothesized, was simply due to chance (pg. 148 & 155). Lönnrot’s desire for a grandiose pattern ends up being his downfall, and this downfall serves as a warning that reality does not necessarily conform to patterns but rather often involves a significant degree of random chance.
Nice reading of the short story in relation to the notion of chance, Sara. You do a great job of noting how Scharlach uses Lönrott’s own strengths and obsessions against him.
Hey Sara! I really enjoyed your analysis of Lonnrot’s investigation in the story and just how convinced he was of his reality. I found it really interesting that as I was reading the text, I continued to trust him and his instincts, and there was nobody really to stop him from continuing to prove this hypothesis he was so sure about. I think it was really interesting that in the end, the smart detective was outsmarted by the criminal who is normally supposed to make mistakes and get caught.
Hello Sara! This is an interesting analysis of Lönrott’s investigation. It is cool how Borges took what the readers thought would happen and then totally subverted expectations with chance. We have been taught many times to trust the detective in a detective fiction to always make the right decision, so to have Lönrott get outsmarted by the criminal mastermind by pure chance is quite the breath of fresh air.
I love this observation!: “We have been taught many times to trust the detective in a detective fiction to always make the right decision.” This makes me think that Borges’s proposal an even more complex twist on Poe’s “detective reader”… a reader that even questions the detective! Nice observation, Vanessa.