“A True Detective: Ideal or Real?”

Although Chandler’s theory of an ideal detective is intriguing and stimulating, it is not fully intact for a genre as complex as detective fiction. Firstly, Chandler’s ideal detective is too ideal, so much so that it is hardly realistic. It seems as if Chandler has too many expectations for this archetype. For instance, a detective cannot and, depending on how one interprets a particular story, should not be “a hero” who “is everything.” Some detectives, such as Sherlock Holmes, possess flaws that make them more relatable to the reader. If the reader cannot relate to the protagonist, there will inevitably be some lack of understanding on the reader’s part; he or she may not understand why the detective lied or acted in a certain way, hence the numerous novels written from the perspective of the detective’s sidekick. The protagonist cannot successfully and simultaneously embody a “hero” who “is everything” and also “complete… common… and yet an unusual man.” When a person is unusual, he or she is certainly not common; he or she may also either be missing a certain common quality that is expected in society or possesses too much of a quality that is either unexpected in society or is taken for granted. For example, in the television show Sherlock, Sherlock Holmes is unusually intelligent, precise, and skilled at his trade; he is also obsessed with gruesome experiments. However, he lacks in social skills and initially appears apathetic. In addition, even if a man simply felt or were actually “complete,” one must question why he would have the thirst for adventure. One must question why he would not be perfectly content with how his life already is.

Moreover, Chandler declares, “The story is his adventure in search of a hidden truth,” and the detective must thus be a “man fit for adventure.” If one is seeking “adventure” and a “truth,” then he or she must be somewhat dissatisfied with how they are without that “adventure” or “truth.” However, Chandler glorifies the detective archetype as nearly perfect and with very few flaws. One might also argue that the world would be “too dull to be worth living in” if there were such perfect detectives in abundance. In “A Philosophical View of the Detective Novel,” Ernst Bloch affirms that the mystery, the discovery and the solution of it, and most especially the reader’s fascination with it, cause him and many others to think, “There must be something to this case after all.” Many detective fiction writers have openly expressed their frustration with the genre, as well. Both people’s frustration and their fascination with the detective fiction genre stems from that first sense that something is off, wrong, or “uncanny,” according to Bloch. Some have speculated that the murderer’s mistake in his crime, however few or many of these mistakes, is what further draws the reader in. If the murderer’s mistake is so fascinating, why must the ideal detective not be flawed, less than a morally perfect hero, or less than the “best man in his world?” If the detective is so perfect, which would soon wear down the reader and bore him or her, then why would the world not be too dull to be worth living in or reading about? Why would there be any adventure if the detective were already so wise or so experienced?

It is said that the ideal mystery novel has no end, and there is no solution to the mystery; however, the reader would keep turning the pages. Perhaps this novel can exist, but the reader’s interest in it will be ephemeral. The story would be too long, and it would become bland. The same applies to Chandler’s perfect, heroic detective.