IMAGINATION
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?