Differences Between Who Solves the Mystery?

To answer your question, I think that a mystery being solved by a detective is more suspenseful than that of one being solved by a psychiatrist. The reason I say this is that the detective is willing to embark on journeys and be put in dangerous situations in order to track down the culprit. On the other hand, the psychiatrist is more likely to analyze the situation thoroughly before doing anything. He/she tries to think about what the culprit would do and what motivates him/her to commit the crimes accused of; ultimately, the psychiatrist analyzes the human mind. For example, Detective Lord Peter Wimsey (Gaudy Night) comes to Shrewsbury College when Harriet calls, risking his life in the process, in order to speak to the suspects and look at the evidence in hopes of finding the culprit. Similarly, Detective Reed (In the Last Analysis) brings evidence to Kate, who then analyzes it (because of her knowledge of psychoanalysis, from her friend Emanuel) and interviews people. It’s ultimately her thinking in the end that leads them to solving the mystery.

If anybody has any other ideas about this, they would be greatly appreciated!

Teaming Up at the Crime Scene

The narrator begins to tell his story, going back to New York City in 1896. He, John Moore, is a police reporter for the New York Times, which is once against suggestive of the academic aspect since reporters write articles and it’s apparent that some form of schooling was involved. Living with his grandmother, having broken off an engagement two years earlier, Moore is awakened at two in the morning by Stevie, his friend Kreizler’s errand boy, to go to a crime scene. (side comment: Why do the main characters of these novels always have bad luck with love and seem to have just ended a relationship? Is it because these novels involve them finding new love? Gaudy Night’s Harriet supposedly murdered her last husband/lover while In the Last Analysis’s Kate ended a relationship before Janet’s murder. However, in the end, both found love (detectives). Is this in store for John Moore as well?)

At the crime scene, Moore sees an indescribable sight: a badly injured dead man that left people thinking “what had been done to the body.” Apparently the body was carved up very badly and body parts were removed, giving the impression of an obscene and grotesque picture. Theodore Roosevelt was already at the scene since at this time he was the NY Police Commissioner. Kreizler, who had already left, was “the eminent physician and alienist” (doctor who specializes in the treatment of mental illness). To me it’s clear that these three have emerged as a team. Together they will solve the case, which will be interesting since all three will be discovering new leads and shedding light on the case and evidence they’ve found. This team contrasts the other two novels since in those, the reader mostly followed the main character who only presented her views and progress on the case. As a result, I might be able to compare the advantages and disadvantages of having more people on a case and determine how this “fits in” with the genre.

However, at the same time, both characters in the other novels needed assistance as well. Harriet called on Wimsey to help her, who ultimately solved the case—with little help from Harriet. Similarly, Kate employed the help of her nephew-to-be Jerry and her detective friend Reed, but unlike Harriet, this strong independent female character was able to piece the puzzles of the case together herself (while using the males’ help of course). So I wonder how this team (Roosevelt, Moore, and Kreizler) will turn out, especially since each person seems to be dominant and have a specific role (Commissioner, reporter, and alienist, respectively) as opposed to playing the part of a detective (Kate and Harriet). I think it will be interesting to see how this team works together and to explore the male perspective in the academic genre mystery as well.