"One Hour" by Dashiell Hammett - Character Review
"One hour", by Dashiell Hammett, is a gritty detective fiction following of course a detective as the protagonist. The short story follows the detective character as he attempts to solve what appears to be a grand theft auto, and manslaughter, but turns out to be connected to an even more corrupt scheme.
The character of the detective seems to follow the traditional role that detectives typically take in literature- they tend to be, in this case and many others, less like complex beings and more-so the vessel for the mind of the sleuth. In Hammett's narrative the detective has little perceivable personhood beyond their role, and it is the only action they partake in. Often the roles of detectives in literature and film are given an almost superhuman ability to reason, which is seen in "One Hour", as the detective is seemingly able to entirely deduce the antagonist's scheme chronologically even after being severely beaten. The detective is also given free rein in the story and pursues leads without backup or supervision. This bending of realism might not be entirely accurate to the portrayal of a true crime story, but it does make the narrative more interesting to read in the long run, as even the climax would not have occurred with such action without it. The detective can be seen as similar to a lot of popular characters in the media, and I first thought of Agent Jim Hardie from the Tales of Wells Fargo tv series, or Hercule Poirot from Murder on the Orient Express.
Archetypes seem to be a common thread in the story throughout: the greedy fat cat businessman, the European criminal mastermind, the mindless drunk, the villain's cronies, and even to some extent the bumbling cops who failed to follow up with key witnesses.
The bulk of the story follows that of the typical detective drama, with building clues and less exposition as the story progresses- climaxing with an action-packed battle between the detective and the antagonist. These are stories that are widely popular and exciting to read, even if the characters tend to fall a little short of three dimensional, because it allows the reader to fill in the details with their own imagination. People like to see themselves in the detective characters, and often feel like they are solving the mystery with them, so it may help the author to keep this sort of character nameless.
Hey there! I really like your reflection here. Comparing the detective to someone like Poirot was an interesting comparison. If I remember right, and correct me if I'm wrong, they share a very similar taste of confidence in their cases. I really liked the mention about the archetypes, though. You're right, we've got a set of pretty 2 dimensional characters running amuck in the story. I think that's what makes the story so interesting. Specifically the character of the detective. It works, him being totally 2 dimensional because then the reader can (as you said) fill in the gaps in the story/exposition. The detective doesn't outright solve much until the end of the fight scene, which also could lead the reader on a goose chase as they try to solve it on their own. An easy perpetrator (who is innocent) is Mr. Chroswaite. His two character traits is that he's drunk most of the time, and not very patient. When we first meet Soules we are unaware of him being an antagonist, but we are aware that Mr. Chroswaite is calling the establishment demanding his shipment be sent out right away. This paints him in a bad light, and can lead some readers to assume that he is the murderer instead of Soules and Van Pelt. I think the effectiveness of the story comes from the surprise action scene, that the reader spends most of their time blinded alongside the detective. It helps paint the surprise twist of Soules and his group being the main antagonists of the story, and allows the reader to piece it together along with the detective.
ReplyDeleteI really liked your insight, and I cannot wait to see more of your writing in the future!
If I remember correctly, the author of this story once worked as a detective, which makes it all the more ironic that he would create such stereotypical characters. However, isn't that where fiction is at it mechanisms? Real life can sometimes be ultimately boring--we have to create a world that seems almost impossible to exist in order for the mind to fully embrace the illusion that is character creation and storytelling. It is refreshing to read a reflection that doesn't hinge on whether or not the reader liked this story, but what they pulled from it. I actually had to go back and look: I didn't realize that the detective was left so anonymous as to not even have a name, but then again, even an ardent reader as myself was lured into the fantasy of storytelling from the first person point of view.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your take on the detective. It's often difficult to view them as a character in the gothic mystery, as they seem more like a narrative tool guiding the story. My former neighbor, the creator of Dick Tracy, might disagree, but I share your view that the detective's role is often overshadowed by the crime they investigate. The fact that many detectives are interchangeable between stories further supports your analysis.
ReplyDeleteI like how you analyzed the story's archetypes. I didn't get that in-depth with my analysis, but I want to express my full agreement with your insights. You are correct in how you sectioned out the characters and the drama itself.
Your comparison of 'One Hour' to old radio dramas is truly thought-provoking. It's as if the story was meant to be a dramatic radio program, and your insight adds a new layer of appreciation to the narrative.
First off, I'd like to say that this is very well thought out and written. Your first paragraph reads like the back cover of a book. Kind of half summary, half hook. I like your idea that detectives in a traditional role are “less like complex beings and more-so the vessel for the mind of the sleuth”. I don’t really read detective style stories so I suppose I wouldn’t know but I have never thought of it like that before. It kind of reminds me of a side character that’s there for only one purpose and nothing else. The other think I liked that you talked about was archetypes, I’ll be honest I forgot that archetypes could apply to story characters as well, granted I don’t often think about them very often in general. I already knew I could say my literary analysis was/would be weak, but you have given me something to strive towards.
ReplyDelete