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

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 ...

A man has a garden measuring 84 meters by 56 meters. He divides it into the minimum number of square plots. What is the length of the square plots?

We wish to divide this man's garden into the minimum number of square plots possible. A square has all four sides with the same length.Our garden is a rectangle, so the answer is clearly not 1 square plot. If we choose the wrong length for our squares, we may end up with missing holes or we may not be able to fit our squares inside the garden. So we have 84 meters in one direction and 56 meters in the other direction. When we start dividing the garden in square plots, we are "filling" those lengths in their respective directions. At each direction, there must be an integer number of squares (otherwise, we get holes or we leave the garden), so that all the square plots fill up the garden nicely. Thus, our job here is to find the greatest common divisor of 84 and 56. For this, we prime factor both of them: `56 = 2*2*2*7` `84 = 2*2*3*7` We can see that the prime factors and multiplicities in common are `2*2*7 = 28` . This is the desired length of the square plots. If you wi...

What warning does Chuchundra issue to Rikki?

Chuchundra, the sniveling, fearful muskrat who creeps around walls because he is too terrified to go into the center of a room, meets Rikki in the middle of the night. He insults Rikki by begging him not to kill him. He then insults him by suggesting that Nag might mistake Chuchundra for Rikki. He says, "Those who kill snakes get killed by snakes."  He issues this warning to Rikki not to help keep Rikki safe but as a way of explaining why Rikki's presence gives him, Chuchundra, more reason to fear.  Chuchundra starts to tell Rikki what Chua the rat told him--but breaks it off when he realizes he might be overheard by Nag. He says, "Nag is everywhere, Rikki-Tikki." Rikki threatens to bite Chuchundra to get him to talk. Even then, Chuchundra won't overtly reveal any information. But he does say, "Can't you hear, Rikki-Tikki?" This is enough of a clue for the clever mongoose. He listens carefully and can just make out the "faintest scratch-s...