THE STARTING POINT. Mr. Pentz states, regarding the story and its
inception, “Substantially true in fact, it was told and retold to
appreciative friends; then it was written at their suggestion. Probably
it gathered moss during its latent existence and probably something was
lost....”
Technically, the story is an Incident. It has, however, an underlying
significance elevating it above the Incident type. This significance
becomes manifest in the dénouement, which reveals the influence of
Lincoln.
PRESENTATION. The story is told by the omniscient author, who uses
Paul’s “slant.”
SETTING. South Boston, March, 1860. Point out details which keep the
locality before the reader from beginning to end. Why 1860, rather than
1861 or 1862?
PLOT. The plot being slight requires only a clear exposition of events
in natural order. The author has made use of his one chance to create
suspense and utilized it in holding up the name of the Big Stranger.
One suspects, but is not sure until the last words.
CHARACTER. The main value of the story lies in its description of
Lincoln, both in the words of the author--from Paul’s angle--and by
what the great man says and does. Which is more forceful?
* * * * *
Mr. Pentz’s prescription for a story is brief: “Having the material
write it out.” He believes, further, in the use of simple language.
“The average reader must not be sent to the dictionary; it divides
the interest and weakens the effect. A writer should eliminate his
personality altogether; what he may know of other languages, or of
intricate English, will not interest a reader who is busy with a
villain in pursuit of the heroine. ‘The play’s the thing.’”
“A CERTAIN RICH MAN--”
CLASSIFICATION. A perfect specimen of the short-story, even of the
extreme type-form since all the unities are beautifully maintained. The
setting is a dinner table in a home of wealth and refinement; the time
is the present; the length of the action is, perhaps, an hour.
STARTING POINT, AND FIRST STAGES OF CONSTRUCTION. The author was
present at a dinner where a young man of wealth, the host, remarked in
the course of a discussion of the war that he would willingly give his
life if through that sacrifice he could bring an end to the blood glut.
The remark impressed every one deeply and was discussed at length.
After due thought, Mr. Perry feeling the “story” in the situation,
decided that it lay in having the man make good. He mulled the matter
over for weeks before finding an answer to his next difficulty “In what
way could he make good?” Then there occurred to him the expedient of
having present an inventor who had invented an appliance which through
its complete death dealing qualities would end the war forthwith. Here,
then, was the complete thread of the story. Characters and descriptive
background followed in due course. The author has an objection to sad
endings and would like to have made it clear that the man came through
his test safely. But the whole spirit of the story militated against
this. So he left the outcome uncertain, but the inference is that
Colcord yielded his life.
CHARACTERIZATION. There are nine persons, each deftly made a living
part of the assembly. They are, in approximate order of importance:
Nicholas Colcord and his wife Evelyn. (They may be spoken of as untried
gold); Professor Simec (the assayer); Jeffery Latham and Sybil his
wife (tried gold); Arnold Bates (alloy); Jerry Dane and his wife Bessie
(baser metal); Dr. Allison and his wife(?).
In spite of the rather generous number of characters, the part each has
is so definite, serving by contrast and comparison to emphasize the
main character--Nicholas Colcord--as to seem well-nigh indispensable.
Moreover, apart from plot values and unity of effect, the number at the
table works for verisimilitude. It is just the right size for a party
in a conservative home, and it embraces the variety of types one finds
in any similar group.
The dramatic method of characterizing is used to greatest extent:
the men and women describe themselves in their remarks and in their
behavior, particularly in the matter of measuring up to the test
proposed. Go through the story with an eye to the speeches of each. Is
any one person given many remarks? Who is the prominent spokesman? Why?
ANALYSIS OF PLOT AS PRESENTED. The _first significant step_ in the
action lies in Nick’s remark (page 399) that he would give his life
if in so doing he could end the war. (The foil to this remark is in
Bates’s, “I’m with Nick.”)
The _dramatic climax_ is sounded on page 403: “Suppose ... that I could
make this absurd condition ... exist....” It is emphasized in the clear
call on page 404: “I am going to ask you to make your offer good.”
_The climax of action_ lies in Colcord’s words (page 408): “When do
you want me?” (This speech is emphasized by contrast in Bates’s, “I
withdraw right here.” It is strengthened by Evelyn’s acceptance of her
husband’s sacrifice.)
_The dénouement_ is left to the reader.
DETAILS. Carefully study the circumstances preceding the initial
impulse of the story action noting the details of preparation. For
example, the “national colors merged with those of the allied nations”
(page 391); “Rumor credited to him at least one of the deadliest
chemical combinations” (page 392); “There’s a sort of grace given, I
fancy” (page 396); “Sacrifice, Mrs. Colcord” (page 397) deepening the
note of patriotism.
Whose angle of narration is used? Does the author anywhere depart from
it, preferring his own angle? Does he anywhere seem to turn from the
angle of the chosen one, putting her under the spot-light, instead? If
you find these shifts, can you justify them by showing that the author
makes a gain greater than the loss he sustains? If he makes no shift,
how does he widen the narrow range afforded only one person?
By what preparation does Mr. Perry create the needed impression that
the Colcords were fully aware of the sacrifice involved? (Note,
especially, the preparation in Evelyn’s response to Latham’s comment,
page 393, ... “you make me shiver!”)
Page 405: “He raised a thin forefinger and levelled it along the
table.” What image is called up?
By what detailed description and exposition does Mr. Perry make you
“believe,” at least momentarily, that Simec had really invented the
appliance?
What locale is suggested, outside the immediate setting? Does it
matter, in a narrative of this kind?
GENERAL. Mr. Perry’s views should be spread abroad to all who would
master the art of story writing. “No art is rarer, or more difficult of
attainment.... First there is the plot. I think the good short story
demands a plot. Stylistic writing designed to atone for the lack of a
definite idea, or to stand in lieu of a definitely worked out plot is
not to my way of thinking a pure short story. There must be a plot, a
plot peculiar to itself and peculiar to the medium in which it is set
forth. Very rarely, I believe, may the perfect short story plot be
adapted to any other vehicle. Nine times out of ten it would not serve
as the motif of the play, the novel, the film or the sketch. The piece
of short fiction, thus, is _sui generis_. Again the scope is limited.
There may be no leisurely characterization, no extended dissertation;
descriptions are admissible only where they assist in carrying on the
action--or at least do not interfere with it--and in the telling of
the tale there is no place in the scheme for aught save the ultimate
objective.
“Thus carried out and presented in type we have something which we may
regard as the polished gem of literature, establishing a mood in the
reader out of all proportion to its size--and perhaps its importance.
For the short story very largely is designed for entertainment, and
rarely bears the moral purpose of the great novel or the didactic
intent of the essay.
“I say ‘very largely.’ There are, of course, short stories written with
a purpose--some great ones--but that purpose is best realized when
the essential characteristics of the story form are observed, when
the reader in other words feels whatever emotions, or grasps whatever
lesson the writer intended to convey, through the medium of a strong,
deeply marked plot carried with precision from situation to clash to
dénouement.”--_Lawrence Perry._