So It Begins…

In contrast to both Gaudy Night and In the Last Analysis, The Alienist begins in another interesting way. It doesn’t begin with a murder, but rather the death of a beloved icon—Theodore Roosevelt. The first line states “Theodore is in the ground.” This engages the reader and encourages them to continue due to the narrator’s use of a metonymy (I hope that’s the right one), expressed by the word “ground” since it’s associated with death since people are buried in the ground. It’s also engaging because the reader is curious to know which Theodore the narrator is referring to. Having discovered that it’s Theodore Roosevelt, I am led to believe that the novel will have a political element to it, which again contrasts my previous novels since neither had a strong political presence in them. Because this one might, it proves that academic mystery novels can cover a wide range of topics.

Also in contrast with the other two novels, The Alienist is told from the first person point of view. This might be an advantage since now I’ll be able to truly know what that main character is thinking about, especially pertaining to the mystery at hand. However, at the same time, this could prove to be a disadvantage because now I am limited to the thoughts of only one character as opposed to several. I’ll have to see how this plays out in the novel.

Also, this novel is told in retrospect. Being told in the present, both Gaudy Night and In the Last Analysis followed the action and even the character didn’t know the outcome of the mystery. I wonder how this will change now since the narrator knows who’s responsible for the “ghastly murders of 1896.” Also, because this first person narrator is recalling past events, it’s possible that the author, Carr, might want me, the reader, to question the validity of certain events and discover the narrator’s bias, adding another layer of interest to the novel. The novel is set in 1919, which directly follows the First World War (1914-1918) (I wonder how this will affect events), but reverts back to New York in 1896 to tell the story of the murders. The narrator feels the need to tell the story “even though the public’s reaction…forced… [it to be kept] secret for so long” because Roosevelt is now dead and the narrator (who apparently knew Roosevelt) never felt closer to him and their friend Kreizler, than during that time. As a result, he’s decided to record the story in a book, but Kreizler thinks it will only “frighten and repel people, nothing more.” At the same time, this still leads me to the question of why the narrator has waited until the end of Roosevelt’s death to write about the murders. Sure it may scare the public but why now? Could it be perhaps because the murders would’ve tarnished Roosevelt’s career and Presidency since the murders took place in 1896 while Roosevelt served two terms as president from 1901 to 1909? (This leads me to the question of is this story in any way true?)

This presence of Roosevelt might have also introduced the academic aspect of the novel since already there have been several historical (people) allusions, Jacob Riis and Lincoln Steffens among them. Academically, the book is challenging my knowledge of American History. I can recall that in 1896, the famous Plessy v. Ferguson trial took placed, that Roosevelt was the 26th president of the US who advocated the Square Deal and introduced several reforms, and that Steffens and Riis were both muckrakers (people who exposed the corruption and other issues of society). I wonder how much more history I’ll need to know… Still, at the same time, the academic aspect may really be in the form of the character Kreizler since he seems to be the psychologist of the group. As a result of reading In the Last Analysis and about psychoanalysts, I can expect this mystery to be carefully analyzed and include inside into people’s minds and way of thinking.