The story started with a conversation between Mr. Mayherne who is a lawyer and an investigator, and Leonard Vole who is accused with of killing a rich old lady. All the evidences suggest that Leonard Vole is the murderer because he has a strong motivation which, is money. However, the lawyer tends to believe him because he says that he was in contact with the victim because he liked to be mothered by her since his mom was deaddied when he was very young. That psychological reason seemed enough for the lawyer to believe him.
So as long as the lawyer believed in his innocence, us as readers believed in that too. Since the implied readers are regular(word choice) to this situation in this genre where the accused ones are usually innocent. That was very manipulative by the writer (implied author) because what happened here does not really match the generic expectation of the story. Now after the lawyer found Leonard Vole innocent he will try to figure what really happened and will look for a proof to end this case, so he goes to Leonard Vole’s wife, Romaine.
Wives are typically loyal for to their husbands and would do anything for their spouse. This was not the case. The wife was so mean and even accused her husband with the murder (she appeared to be unfaithful). Which, again shocked the readers because that was not expected from a wife. Since women have a reputation to lie and to be untrusted, and especially because she accused her husband (betrayed him) these two reasons shook her reliability and made Mr. Myaherne even more convinced that the husband is innocent. What makes her even more unreliable is that she was foreign and above all she is an actress.
The readers were even more convinced with Leonard Vole’s honesty and innocence because Mr. Mayherne is as well. That is very manipulative of Romaine since she is manipulating the cultural expectations into her favor (saving her man). She clearly could manipulate the readers since she succeeded in manipulating Mr. Mayherne since the implied readers get the story from his perspective. Later in his mission to find the truth Mr. Mayherne meets with an old lady who unmasks the unfaithful wife. She accused the wife with of cheating.
Just then the lawyer finds Leonard Vole totally innocent, which, is again Romaine manipulating the investigator and the lawyer into thinking that Leonard Vole is innocent, and as a result the implied readers get manipulated as well. The old lady is Romaine herself. Sshe could trick Mr. Mayherne so easily since she is an actress. The old lady showed the lawyer letters that they are apparently sent from Romaine to her “lover?. ” In the letters Romaine confesses the truth to her “lover ? that Leonard can’t hurt a fly, but she is going to hang him anyway to get her happiness with her “lover Max?. This way Romaine acquitted her man Leonard.
At this point the investigator thinks that he solved the mystery. Thus the implied reader would think that the gap was filled and everything is clear. That was so manipulative of the writer. She tricked the readers into thinking that the gap was filled while it is not. At the trial, after the wife’s testimony against her husband, the lawyer exposed the wife shameful deeds. That when she confesses the “truth ? that her husband was home and did not kill any old lady. That’s when the court sets Leonard Vole free. This is when Romaine was on top of her game, she manipulated all the people on in the court and the implied readers.
Her man is free. Later on after the readers were happy with the fair ending. The writer surprised them that the Leonard Vole is the killer, and his wife is faithful to him. Leonard Vole’s motivation was the money. Mr. Mayherne relates the weird hand gestures that Romaine was doing and the old lady same weird gestures. That when he realized that they are the same person. Romaine the actress tricked him. That is when the real gap of the story gets filled and the true events where are shown to Mr. Maherne who the readers see the story according to his prospective.
We now know who is the murderer is and how the murder took place and when. All the questions were answered. That was fair ending where the smart work pays off, and the stupid punished with death. The detective was not smart enough to uncover the matters early. That was another surprise to the implied readers because detectives are normally good at their job (true, but he’s not a detective). The writer was really manipulative and that is pure genius. Overall, a good discussion of the question in a fairly concise and focused manner. Requires a bit of attention to occasional language and structure.