Modernism and the Moral Mystery of the Mind: Sam Spade

Returning to the paragon of crime fiction, Sherlock Holmes, we see it’s common for readers to be shut out of the detective's mind. Whatever is there is privileged information, and no matter who is narrating – whether it's a Watson, the detective, or some omniscient narrator, the closer we get to the solution of the case, the more closed off the detective's mind is. For Sherlock Holmes, this is accomplished by having Watson narrate, replete with well-documented and studied instances of Watson's inability to understand what is going on in Holmes' mind.

An interesting result of this is to what extent we can trust the detective to be a moral individual. As discussed in the last post, it isn't much of a stretch for a detective to go the way of his antagonists, especially in the cynical time dubbed modernism. Spade becomes less like Holmes and more like Gatsby: inhabiting a kind of moral no-man's land where they can bend and break the laws and manipulate the information they share with others to suit their own ends: not the law, not the civil or social good, but their own selfish interests.

Holmes we can guarantee is a moral, upstanding fellow because of Watson's own social position and Holmes' interest in mystery and righting wrongs. For Holmes to suddenly turn criminal would be contrary to his character. Even if he has dalliances with criminality, Holmes laughs them off, justifies them for the sake of the case, all while reassuring us of his stalwart nature.

We don't have that same confidence with Sam Spade, in part because the mystery he's investigating is an odd mix of personal and professional (his partner was murdered – there's a sense of professional pride even if nobody cared for Archer) and potentially lucrative: he appears willing to go along and be part of Gutman’s scheme until the end of the novel, only after they discover the falcon was a fake.

We must spend the novel wondering just where Spade falls morally. Of course, come the end, he makes the right decision so everyone will be arrested for their involvement in the crimes: arson, murder, smuggling, etc, and Spade is careful to remain unattached, suggesting his moral dubiousness was for the sake of the case.

Spade is therefore an unsolved mystery in his own right. We receive no resolution as to Iva Archer, and there's always the possibility Spade could have been bought out. As the saying goes, everyone has their price and it's possible Gutman just wasn't willing to pay Spade enough. After all, before Cairo joined Gutman's side, Gutman had offered more to Spade. Without access to Spade's thoughts or a confession on his part, it's possible his scenario about a “fall-guy” was a last minute concoction to get Gutman who had reneged on a previous deal.

So is Spade a man you shouldn't cross, or a man you shouldn't try to buy? Is he moral, or cautious? Does he have a price, or is he too upstanding? If he has principles, then why the affair with Iva Archer? Did Spade do what was right, or did he do what's right merely because it was the safest thing to do?

We like to consider protagonists to be like Holmes: characters of high moral standing who always do right regardless of consequence, and, even better, their right choices yield the best outcome for them. However, as discussed before, Hammett was writing at a particular time in the history of English Literature: modernism. Such a positive ending and depiction of a protagonist doesn't fit with the era and the novel as a whole. There's just too much going on for a Sherlock Holmes style resolution to easily fit. Just as the writing is cynical, we need to approach it cynically: doubting and wondering whether or not we really know just what’s going on in Spade’s mind, if it’s moral clarity or dubious desires. All we can say is Spade, like the enamel lacquer of the Maltese Falcon itself, is hiding whatever is inside.