Skip to main content

How would Stockton's "The Lady, or the Tiger?" be different if readers learn what is behind the door indicated by the princess?

The whole magic behind Stockton's story "The Lady, or the Tiger?" is that the ending doesn't tell the reader which fate the princess's lover receives. The story thrives on the ambiguity left in the wake of a compelling tale. If readers discover if a lady or a tiger emerges from the door indicated by the princess, then nothing would be left for readers to decide after reading it. The narrator leaves readers with the following:



"The question of her decision is one not to be lightly considered, and it is not for me to presume to set myself up as the one person able to answer it. And so I leave it with all of you: Which came out of the opened door—the lady, or the tiger?" 



The narrator says in the above passage that since the lover's fate should not be taken lightly, the narrator shouldn't be the one to reveal the princess's decision. As a result, the author/ narrator hands over the decision to readers, which empowers them to decide the ending of the story.


On the other hand, if Stockton just allows the narrator to give up the ending, then readers would not enjoy the internal debate that can exist in their minds afterward. Furthermore, readers would know for sure if the princess would rather see her boyfriend married off to someone else or die a horrible death by a tiger. The character of the princess would be decided, and no other discussion about the story would take place. Either the princess would be crowned a selfish girl by allowing her boyfriend to be eaten by a tiger, or she would be considered a loyal lover who would rather see her beloved happy in another's arms than with her if it meant that he lives.


The story lingers in readers' minds long after reading it because of the ambiguous ending. This is the magic of the story. The fact that readers are empowered to decide the ending gives it an original quality rarely found in other stories.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more