It’s How You See the World*

Real-life and fictional sleuths need a certain kind of perspective as they investigate. They need to pay attention, of course, to details. Sometimes, small details such as something that looks out of place or a snatch of conversation can be key to a case. On the other hand, sleuths also need to keep “the big picture” in mind. If they lose sight of the overall tenor of a case, they can miss out on an important way of looking at it. Sometimes, the little details can lead the sleuth astray. It’s a delicate balance for the sleuth. Some sleuths are more detail-oriented, and others are more “big-picture” oriented but all of the good ones know that you need both perspectives to solve a case.

Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes is more detail-oriented. In fact, Conan Doyle wrote him that way. The idea was to create a detective who used evidence, science and deduction to solve a case rather than just guesses. In The Adventure of the Red-Headed League, for instance, Holmes meets Mr. Jabez Wilson, a pawnbroker who’s concerned about some puzzling events. He took a second job with a mysterious group called the Red-Headed League in order to earn some extra money. The job was easy enough – it was a matter of copying an encyclopaedia – and Wilson had settled in to it. But when he came to work one day, all he found was a sign saying the Red-Headed League had been disbanded. Now he wants to know what’s going on, and he visits Holmes to see if he can make sense of the matter. Holmes immediately makes a series of deductions about Wilson that are based on a dozen small physical clues. Wilson’s amazed at Holmes’ accuracy but when Holmes explains it, we see that he’s just paid attention to details. And it’s those details, together with details of what Wilson has told him that lead Holmes to the truth about the strange events.

Agatha Christie’s Hercule Poirot certainly notices details. For instance, in The Murder on the Links, he and Captain Hastings travel to France to investigate the stabbing death of Canadian émigré Paul Renauld. Renauld had written to Poirot asking him to come right away, as Renauld thought his life in danger. By the time Poirot and Hastings get there, though, it’s too late. Still, Poirot feels the obligation to investigate, and begins to ask questions. He notices several physical details of the case, such as a piece of pipe, a set of prints and a heap of old clothes. But here’s where we see the value of also looking at “the big picture.” Poirot forms an overall picture of the Renauld family, the kind of crime the murder is and so on. That perspective helps him make sense of the clues and fit them into their proper place in the crime. In the end, he and Hastings find out who Renauld’s murderer is, much to the chagrin of M. Giraud of the Sûreté. Giraud has seen the same physical clues, but because he pays attention only to details and not to “the big picture,” he misses the most important clues. In fact, Poirot often says that the details and the theory of a case are both important. If a detail doesn’t make sense given one’s theory, one has to adjust one’s theory. If a theory accounts for all of the details of a case, then it’s probably close to the truth.

Tony Hillerman’s Jim Chee also sees both the “big picture” and details. For instance, in The Ghostway, he’s trying to track down Albert Gorman, a Los Angeles Navajo who’s come to the Big Reservation. Albert Gorman is related to Ashie Begay, who’s lived on the Reservation all his life, so Chee visits Begay’s hogan hoping to find Gorman. That’s based on his “big picture” understanding of the Navajo culture. When he does, he finds the hogan empty and Gorman’s body not far away. Gorman’s body has been prepared for death in the traditional Navajo way. Or so it seems at first. And here’s where “the big picture” and the details work together for Chee. The details tell Chee that there are differences between the way Gorman’s body is found and traditional Navajo preparations for death. Chee also thinks about the case in the larger sense. His theory has been that Gorman was involved in something dangerous outside the reservation. And although he has to adjust that theory a little, he also uses it to tie together this mysterious death with the disappearance of another of Gorman’s kin, sixteen-year-old Margaret Billy Sosi. That ability to use both details and the “bigger picture” helps Chee make sense of the case, and puts him on the proverbial right track.

In Nevada Barr’s Track of the Cat, it’s Park Ranger Anna Pigeon’s use of both the clues – the details – she discovers and the “big picture” of a case that help her solve the murder of Sheila Drury. Pigeon has been assigned to the Guadalupe National Park. One day while on duty, she finds the body of fellow ranger Drury, who’s apparently been killed by a mountain lion. And some of the evidence certainly points that way. But Pigeon’s “big picture” of the case causes her to wonder. And in this case, the details lead her at first in the wrong direction. But Pigeon knows about mountain lion behaviour, and she also knows how most rangers behave. Those larger sets of knowledge help her to see that the evidence just doesn’t completely add up to a mountain lion kill. Then, little pieces of evidence begin to suggest that more than one person might have wanted Drury dead. As Pigeon follows up on that evidence, she finds that there were several clandestine things going on in the park. She also finds that she’s made some very dangerous enemies who don’t want the details of what’s been going on to get out. She’s able to make sense of this case by using the “big picture” of the kind of murder she’s dealing with and the smaller details.

Some sleuths focus on the “big picture”, at least at first. That doesn’t mean they pay no attention to the evidence. It does mean, though, that they start with a larger idea. That’s what happens with Lora King, whom we meet in Megan Abbott’s Die a Little. King is a teacher in 1950’s Pasadena, at Westridge School for Girls. All’s well enough until her brother Bill, with whom she’s always been close, falls in love with Alice Steele. Alice Steele is a former Hollywood wardrobe assistant who, so it seems, wants to settle down and live “the suburban dream.” King has the sense from very early on that there’s something wrong about Alice – that there is something unsettling about her. But there’s nothing concrete to prove that she’s right, and King herself even wonders whether it’s because she now has to “share” Bill with his wife. Still, she has a “big picture” sense that Alice may be not what she seems. Then, little pieces of evidence begin to crop up that support King’s larger idea. For example, Alice claims to have a teaching certificate, but no-one has any evidence of that. And Alice has some dubious friends, including Lois Slattery, who has a habit of needing to be rescued. Then there’s a death that turns out to be murder. King is sure, although she has no actual evidence for it, that Alice is somehow mixed up in the case, and begins to investigate. As she does, she finds herself getting closer and closer to the truth about Alice, and more and more mixed up in her life.

Most detectives have to think about both the “big picture” and small details when they investigate. Both are needed if cases are going to get solved. Where do your favourite sleuths start? With the larger picture? With the details?

 

Ps. The ‘photo is of a painting by Aimee Chappelle, an artist I befriended when we lived in the Midwest. As you look at it, what do you see? The “big picture?” The details? Both?

 

 
 

*NOTE: The title of this post is a line from Coldplay’s How You See the World.