Elisabeth Jeremko

After reading Borges’ non-fiction essay “The Labyrinths of the Detective Story and Chesterton”, I was actually surprised at how “Death and the Compass” turned out. I thought it would be the classic detective story, such as those with Dupin or Sherlock Holmes, but in the end, Lonnrot was killed! That was quite the plot twist. I was stunned at the first reading. Going back through the story, however, I see that Lonnrot was not exalted to the invincibility of the classic detectives. Within the first paragraph, it is mentioned that Lonnrot was a reasoning machine, BUT also a gambler. The idea of a gamble is not something that would be used to describe the classic detectives – instead with these guys, the power of reason and logic by the detectives always prevails. As far as the events of the story went, these followed the logical order and use of details that would normally follow the scheme (outlined in the non-fiction essay). But the ending really diverges from the normal scheme. That’s why I was rather surprised…I had expected Borges to completely follow the detective story as described in his labyrinth essay. The fact that Scharlach uses the word “labyrinth” in his triumph over Lonnrot makes me feel that Borges is maybe poking fun at the ever-present reliance and trust in order and logic. Maybe not everything can be solved or taken care of through the pure reliance on order and logic? Lonnrot’s job (and ultimately) his life depend on the success of logical deductions. When he dies, it raises the question, is everything just a gamble? Can order really prevail, or prove to be meaningful?