It was well said of a certain German book that “er lasst sich nicht lesen” –it does not permit itself to be read. There are some secrets which do not permit themselves to be told. Men die nightly in their beds, wringing the hands of ghostly confessors, and looking them piteously in the eyes –die with despair of heart and convulsion of throat, on account of the hideousness of mysteries which will not suffer themselves to be revealed. Now and then, alas, the conscience of man takes up a burthen so heavy in horror that it can be thrown down only into the grave. And thus the essence of all crime is undivulged.

Opening paragraph, The man of the crowd By Edgar Alan Poe

When I first read the above passage at the beginning of this story I was somewhat enamoured by the idea of a book which doesn’t permit itself to be read. That bit of German, if your wondering also happens to translate to ‘it cannot be read’. A book that holds on to it secrets, and refuses to allow others to read it is a fascinating concept. What strange esoteric means does the book use to prevent people from reading it? Does it curse those who to do so with blindness, or just rip away their understanding of words? Do it cause strange deaths often mistaken for accidents to befall the prospective reader? Or perhaps it just send those who read it mad, thus unable to comprehend the words they have read let alone reiterate them to another?

What dark secrets could such a book hold, a book that actively refuses to be read and ‘prevents’ people from doing so? Who was the author (who clearly has no future in publishing creating books that won’t allow people to read them but that’s beside the point), who were they and why did they write it, did they go mad doing so, were the last pages written in their own blood and semen, sealing their soul, angry and haunted, within the pages of their final work, written on vellum made for the skin of their dead lover?

Or was it just print on demand from amazon?

Is it available in ebook? If so does the internet contain a new version of the demonic force that inhabits the book, or does it just screw up your kindle if you try and read it? How about audio, is it narrated by Christopher Lee and if so did he recorded it after his death?

Oh but this book sounds interesting my Dear Edgar, tell me more…

*cough

In actuality The Man of the Crowd does not mention this book again, nor is the book named in any way, neither does it have any baring on the story. Also, should you go to the trouble of a hunt around the darkest corners of the internet you will fined there is no mention of such a book anywhere in phrase or fable, be it German or otherwise, except for websites pointing back at this story from our Dear Edgar. Either Poe just made the whole thing up, or the book is very very good at avoiding been read, and is doing so by removing its very existence from the zeitgeist of human culture.

I like to think its the latter, call me a romantic.

In any regard, lets move on from all that and talk about the actual story shall we. The Man in the Crowd is a bit of an oddity and a lot of an allegory. Set in London, the biggest city in the world when Poe wrote this tale. It is a story about told us by a narrator who develops a monomaniacal obsession with a man he sees in a crowded street and determines that he needs to follow him discreetly to find out more about him. The man stands out because of all the people the narrator has observed he is the only one the narrator can’t categorize. There is in fairness something very odd about the man, if only that he seems to wander around the streets of London, without every arriving at a destination. Eventually, without ever speaking to the man, or indeed even being acknowledged by him, the narrator having followed him for the better part of thirty hours or more, just gives up his somewhat irrational pursuit.

This is after he has spent the whole day, and half the story, in a coffee shop watching the crowd pass by and going into detail about the various groups of people within it. Which is less interesting that you might imagine… Then comes ‘the man’ of the title.

There is a oddity to the man, just as there is an oddity to the title. A more logical title for this story would have been ‘The Man in the Crowd’. But it is not ‘in the crowd’ but ‘of the crowd’ as if the man is a function of the crowd itself rather than being part of it. An ethereal creature wandering the streets of London endlessly in ragged clothes, but ragged clothes that were once rich in nature. A man of dubious character with a concealed knife as the narrator notes. And wander he does, as the narrator follows him all around London through the night and into the dawn and all the following day. The man never speaks to anyone, never interacts with anyone, wandering in and out of shops and through markets but always seemingly alone and isolated amidst the greatest crowd of humanity imaginable.

This is interesting, but only interesting in terms of the title making it so, because the story itself doesn’t expand on the difference between been in the crowd and of it. Or who the man really is , or indeed what he is.

There are a great many interpretations of this story, people have ‘theories’ a plenty. Indeed I ended up swimming in interpretations while researching this story, many of which were far more interesting that the story itself. When you find far more analysis than plot however one is struck by the question, why? I have two theories on this one. the first is because the tale is so opaque, and frankly bland, it invites interpretation, as people try to find something interesting to say about what is in effect a story that is not overly interesting mainly because it just isn’t. The man is never explained and in the end the narrator simply stops following him. There isn’t so much as a sly grin of recognition in the end, or anything else, the man just carries on walking. If this is profundity, it is a profundity without profundity. Least ways nothing within the story makes it so, but people have certainly looked hard trying to find it.

So have I, as you may be able to tell. And yet alas I have come up somewhat lacking… But that is just the first of my theories…

The second theory, well. In the first paragraph Poe mentions a book that will not allow itself to be read, so perhaps that book changed this entire story around to hide itself within the tale, remaining unread as all the letters have separated from their words and formed new ones to tell a story other than the story the book doesn’t want you to read… If this is the case at least that would make the tale interesting, sadly there is no way to know…

TWO RAVENS CONTENPLATING A MURDER BUT NEVER BECOMING ONE.

Should you read it: Well, I am somewhat torn here, as the story in of itself is not overly interesting yet there is something here, clearly that so many people have tried to interpret. For me personally the idea of the book that shall not be read is by far the more interesting idea in the whole tale and that is only in the first paragraph. Besides if I say no, am I not just doing what the book wants?

Should you not read it: There are some minor antisemitic issues in the story. they are no more overt than Fagin in Oliver twist, but still, be warned…

Bluffers facts: Poe grew up in London, when fostered by the Allen family and would have known it reasonably well, but it is more likely that much of the London he describes here is based on the London of Charles Dickens rather than his own recollections. The London of Oliver Twist, though without the songs of the musical version.