THE CALLER IN THE NIGHT
The Starting Point. Mr. Kline is not sure of his beginnings; perhaps it came to him out of the ether “or whatever it is that niggardly generates ideas.” “If it had any starting point, perhaps it was in a talk I remember once having with Braithwaite. I kicked because the embattled farmers and others of New England never seemed to fire a shot but some ready recorder was instantly on hand to jot it down in a paean of praise; while Pennsylvania, with pretty good history of its own, too, and full of legend and lore, had gone totally unreported by comparison. Maybe I started out to hunt up its legends.”
After this pleasant admission, Mr. Kline confesses that “The Caller in the Night” is no rendering of an actual legend. “So far as I know there never was a Screamer Moll, and no skeletons. The thunderstorm probably happened. The rest is all made up.”
The statements are invaluable to one who sets out to judge a piece of work with due regard to the author’s purpose. His motive, in brief, is comparable to that of Washington Irving. Father Knickerbocker is the “created legendary” figure in which New York will take pride forever.
The Plot.
The Dominant Features: Fannie and George kill Ned. Fannie and Mollie escape to Pennsylvania. Later George joins them. He falls in love with the girl. The mother’s power returns. Occasion throws the girl with George. At his protests, Mollie understands he is trying to “make a fool of her,” as he has of her mother, Fannie. She runs from him. The incident of the storm. Mollie later finds Fannie and George. She (evidently) kills them. Long years after, she tells her story. She dies.
Presentation: The details as just suggested are woven in the lurid narrative Mollie tells Mrs. Pollard and Mrs. Reeves. Study the details—they are the essential “story”—and observe how skillfully the author has rearranged them. To illustrate, he necessarily begins with what formed the final step in the series above. What is the reason for the incoherent presentation of the story Moll tells? Mark out the steps in the plot, Initial Incident, and so on to the Dénouement, using the scheme found throughout this book.
Setting. What is the locale of Mrs. Pollard’s home? Is this setting in any way a part of the plot, or does it merely provide background for Moll’s story? Is it near the setting of the rehearsed narrative? Why does the thunderstorm form an essential part of the setting? How are the weather, the time of day, and the place harmonized in the atmosphere or mood of the entire narrative?
Characters. What characteristics of Mrs. Pollard and Mrs. Reeves make them especially desirable, for story purposes, as listeners?
In what ways is the portrait of Moll given? What is the significance of the fact that she is introduced by her “unearthly cry”? (Page 369.) The main image of her person is given (page 371) as “the tall and thin but heavily framed figure of an old woman.” Is this picture emphasized, for cumulative effect, or is it left to stand alone? Are Moll’s first words well calculated, as her initial speech? Why?
Through Screamer Moll’s story, the story of an insane woman, Fannie and George appear striking in certain details; dim in others. Is this both a necessary fact, under the circumstances, and also better for the author’s purpose? Describe Fannie.
Details. Mr. Kline used the rehearsed method of telling the main story as an unconscious effort, no doubt, to heighten the effect of legend, of “something by and gone, all shadowy as recalled.”
Where, in the finished story, does the author first sound his legend idea?
Why does he introduce the thunderstorm? Even if Moll had not died, would it have had logical place in the story? That is, would the repetition of the storm scene cause a reaction from her crazed brain which would impel her to speech? Does the duplication of the storm (the one of the inner story echoed by the one of the setting) increase the totality of effect?
Why is the place of emphasis (the end) given to the finding of the two skeletons?
What are the chief sound effects? Are they in harmony or contrast?
General Views of Mr. Kline. He thinks Mr. Braithwaite is right. “The only test of a short story is, ‘Has the writer something interesting to say, and does he say it in a manner to interest me?’” (See, by way of comparison, Mr. Donn Byrne’s statement.) Mr. Kline further believes that the great writers have never had to thrash the air with “plot”—“from Hawthorne and Poe and Bret Harte, from Balzac and Gautier and Maupassant, from Tolstoy and Turgenev and Dostoievsky, down to our own O. Henry.” According to his statement and illustrations, how is he probably considering the word plot? What difference is there between plot invention and plot presentation? Does De Maupassant show skill in arranging the plot order in “The Necklace”? What would have happened to the story had he not created the surprise? What would be the loss in these stories of O. Henry had he not carefully constructed his plot—“The Gift of the Magi,” “A Double-Dyed Deceiver,” “The Furnished Room”?
Mr. Kline thinks that the only way to learn to write is to write and keep writing, under wise and kindly criticism of course. And he adds that if one can be severe and honest enough one’s own criticism is best. “To be a real writer, one must master himself, master the world, and master his art.”