Blue Cross

: 2/2

As soon as Valentin runs across the criminals trace he sticks to it, goes along it at finally gets what hes looking for as any other normal investigator. But prior to it is the point from which a question to Chesterton, as the father of Aristide Valentin, arises.

Does Chesterton really believe that it should be reasonable in real life to rely upon the pure probability of running into something related to the crime or the criminal occasionally? The system of Valentin is original, smart and, no doubt, has the right to exist among the best examples of the world detective literature. But when it comes to the reality, it inevitably loses when compared to Poirots and Holmess approaches. The most evident reason for it is that Aristide Valentin must be a pure imaginary person, a fruit of Chestertons fantasy with no real roots, while Sherlock Holmes, Hercule Poirot and others all had living prototypes.

Theres one more weakness of Valentin that should be mentioned, inherent in his style of work, and noted by himself: The criminal is the creative artist; the detective only the critic. For most of his virtual colleagues, its visa versa: they are the artists, and they play the first violin, while most of the criminals have to follow it.

Nevertheless, while some aspects of Valentines system that can be considered as drawbacks, from literary point of view the character himself looks alive and natural, which adds to the art value of the story.

: 18/09/2007