Eliot Glassheim, in his article "A Dogged Interpretation Never Bet the Devil Your Head" in "Poe Studies / Dark Romanticism", explains how Poe tells a story with seemingly no hidden message and he wants to look further into the story for the hidden meaning. Mr. Glassheim starts to explain how one the surface the tale is weak and one feels cheated. He talks about Poe's sheers at the practice of the scholars that say every fiction should have a moral, and that they found that every fiction does. He mentions the way Poe attacks the critics, such as those from the Dial and Down-Easter, who prefer stories with moral lessons that can be summed up in didactic tag lines. During the first few paragraphs of the story Eliot says that the narrators voice can be identified with Poe, who has been accused to have never written a moral tale. He goes on to say that Poe is setting out to prefect the perfect moral fable form, starting off better than his predecessors by announcing his moral in the title. Eliot says that the insult to Dial is an attack on Transcendental Idealists in general. He goes on to explain how the narrator simply characterizes Toby Dammit's behavior as queer. He then mentions how Poe says the other Transcendental critics of the time would explain Toby's behavior. According to Eliot the satire against transcendentalism is reasonable and convincing. However, he warns to be careful because the narrator isn't presented as normal either. He says that although at first he seems to be Poe's voice in mocking didactic tales, he reveals himself to be a pompous moralizer. Eliot says this is the narrators view on morality is shown when he explains Toby's behavior at first as immoral, then vulgar, discounted by society, and finally a forbidden act of congress. Eliot explains how the readers attitude towards the narrator is manipulated throughout the story. He mentions that at the start where the narrator talks about the critics, his voice is sensible, but afterwards he appears self righteous as he reveals the history of Toby's vices the sympathy changes here, and finally at the end when they are on the bridge he says the narrator is dense and cynical. The problem for the progressive dislike of the narrator, according to Eliot, is related to how one is meant to take the tale. The narrator announces how it will be a history "who's moral will be obvious and without question". He explains how the narrators attacks on transcendentalists manipulates the reader towards accepting the story at its simple face value. Eliot asserts that Poe is ahead of the reader and leaves clues "for the Dupins among us to find." He explains how the narrator compares himself to La Fontaine who wrote animal fables, then introduces his deceased friend Toby Dammit. He goes Further and shows, very convincingly, that Toby could in fact literally be a dog rather than metaphorically like it appears on the surface. Eliot believes that there is sufficient evidence to show that Toby is in fact a dog, but goes on to say that it doesn't matter for the point of the story. Depending on how the reader looks at the story, Toby can either be viewed as "a transcendentalist, a simple dog, or an immoral person." He says that the story shows the weakness of the Transcendental Idealists position who he associates with Toby. Furthermore, he associates the devil with the materialist and literalist position and the narrator with the conventional social or moralistic position. He explains how the correct position, Poe's position, is shown "through destruction of the worst parts of the three other attitudes. Although Poe's position is not directly mentioned, he believes it can be determined from what he attacks. Eliot finishes with "Thus Poe seems to be demanding in literalness which does not destroy metaphor, a morality which is superior to mores or legality, and a receptiveness to mysteries which exist but are, nevertheless, not transcendent." Eliot Glassheim's is an interesting take on the story "Never Bet the Devil Your Head." When reading it for the first time one does have a feeling of being cheated as the story just ends anticlimactically. It is obvious that the story is indeed an attack on transcendental ideas. One could know nothing about transcendentalism, but from the way Poe speaks of the Transcendental Idealist, it is easily realized. The satire against the transcendentalism is indeed reasonable and convincing as Eliot suggests. Poe makes them appear arrogant in their beliefs, because he says "when the proper time arrives, all that the gentleman ... did not intend will be brought to light..." This implies that they know more of the moral of a work of fiction than the writer. The idea of the narrator does seem to change as the story progress. The narrator does appear to be a moralizer as Eliot suggest. It is obvious when he explains how he tried to convince Toby to change his ways and also repeatedly mentioning how much he hated to hear Toby's "evil talk." Eliot's article shows that the story is not just a simple story with an obvious moral as it appears at first glance, but has an underlying meaning. When the article is read through the first time it just seems a pointless tell about the obvious moral of the title. With Eliot's interpretation it is easy to see how Poe did include a hidden meaning intending on it being found, but at the same time masking it by specifically speaking against looking for the hidden meanings in works. Eliot's finishing line seems to be the main point the entire article builds up to. It is basically interpreted that the transcendentalist are not entire wrong, but rather just over analyze something. It is saying that Poe believes not every story is what it appears to be on the surface, but to see the "hidden meaning", if there is one, one does not have to look too hard, rather just look at the clues left by the author.