COMMENT. In “Imagination” the author has directed his skill toward
revelation of character--a free revelation produced by subtle
provocation. A man has reacted under a certain stimulus in a given way;
under recollection of the incident, twenty years later, he reacts in a
manner that intensifies and gives significance to his earlier behavior.
PLOT, then, is minified; situation is magnified. At his club,
Orrington, literary adviser, is dining with the narrator and Reynolds,
a popular writer. Orrington relates an incident of the day, about a
story and its author: what might have been imagination proved to be
fact--the author of the story was hungry. Orrington has found a job
for him. The conflict, by virtue of which the story interest develops,
lies in the opposing views of Orrington and Reynolds. The latter holds
“It’s a very great pity that young men without resources and settled
employment try to make their way by writing.” Orrington then cites the
case of twenty years ago. On the very day that he, a young editor of
a magazine on its uppers, was offered a “peach” of a job, he read a
manuscript which seemed to indicate that the author might be starving.
He surrendered his chance of the new position, recommending the author
of the story. He has never received a line of thanks; he has often
wondered how the man “got on.” Incidentally, as an apparent by-product
of his quixotism, his own stock began to rise from that time. Reynolds
states, at the close of Orrington’s story, that he was the author who
had been given the “boost,” and that he had been too busy writing the
articles to send a note of thanks. He had supposed that he was the
recipient of a usual “tip.” He declares, further, that he had not been
in extremes, and that his story was solely the product of imagination.
After he leaves the club, Orrington then reveals to the narrator: “Of
course I knew. Later, of course, much later. The man who had hired him
to do those articles bragged about it to me,” etc.
The author has skilfully used the incident of the day to force out the
larger incident wherein Reynolds figures. They are similar, and yet
bear to one another a peculiar contrasting relation. The young man of
Orrington’s immediate experience had written from facts; there is a
rather strong suggestion that he may amount to something. Reynolds had
written from imagination; the whole characterization of his success,
great as it seems, indicates that it is an “output,” so much the worse
for literature.
CHARACTERIZATION. “You add to my pleasure by bringing our friend”--what
trait in Reynolds’ character is announced in these first reported
words? Follow the trait throughout the story as it is expressed in his
speeches or acts; as it is suggested by the narrator, and by Orrington.
“In motion he resembles a hippopotamus” ... “his rather dull eyes” ...
“his fat hand” ... “shrugged his heavy shoulders” ... “as if he had
been some fat god of the Orient” ... “Orrington goggled”.... Study the
portrait of Orrington pictured in these and similar strokes by the
narrator, and notice the evidences of “contrast between his Falstaffian
body and his nicely discriminating mind.” What first ingratiates him
with the reader?
Why is the first person the best one from whose angle to present the
story? What is his function in the dramatic situation?