Image from the poster of the 1946 film version of
Richard Dana's 1840 memoir,
Two Years Before the Mast
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
English 3318 students:
Sometime this week before midnight on Saturday, September 3, please submit a comment of approximately 250 words about the pragmatic moral decision making of the narrator (aka the Contributor) of William Dean Howells’s “A Romance of Real Life:” https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=chi.78035620&view=1up&seq=317
In your comment, please quote at least twice from the story, as you explain how the narrator implicitly critiques how the Contributor character in the story reacts with too much sentimentality to Jonathan Tinker and how the Contributor realizes his mistake when he finds Julia Tinker. (As you can see from the image above, the sailor ideal of American masculinity, showcased in the book by Richard Dana that the Contributor has in mind when he thinks about Tinker's identity, has continued to be a sentimental and melodramatic stock character in American popular culture.)
After you submit your comment, please reply in about fifty words to at least one of the other students' comments.
To submit a comment, just click on the comments link below this post, and to reply, click on the link for replying below the comment you would like to respond to.
You should compose your comment and reply in a separate document and then copy and paste them into the text boxes. Then, if you have any problem with your submissions, you can try again. And if you still have trouble after a few tries, you can send me your comment and reply by email (linda.kornasky@angelo.edu), and I will submit them for you.
Thank you,
Dr. K
The narrator heavily critiques the Contributor towards the end of the story; the Contributor is extremely emotional and immediately believes this stranger who happened to appear on his doorstep in the middle of the night. The narrator begins critiquing by saying, “But I should be afraid to say how much his pride in the character of the stranger’s sorrows, as proof of the correctness of his theory, prevailed with the contributor to ask him to come in and sit down…,” (Howells, 306). The Contributor is so encapsulated by Jonathon’s story that he even helps the man look for his daughter after a short time of meeting him. The Contributor relates the adventure he’s on to literature and feels compelled to help the poor man who just returned from a 2-year long voyage. When the Contributor eventually finds Jonathon’s daughter, Julia, the residents Julia lives with begin telling the Contributor that Jonathon was actually in prison for 2 years; upon realizing his mistake, the Contributor profusely apologizes and says that he will not tell Jonathon of the whereabouts of his daughter. The family is very understanding, but the Contributor pondered the situation for a time even after he left the family. “He must, it was felt, have believed to a certain point in his own inventions: nay, starting with that groundwork of truth,- the fact that the wife was really dead, and that he had not seen his family for two years…,” (Howells, 311). The Contributor had too much false hope.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great point of that realism factor, as well as the pragmatic moral decision making weaved throughout the entire story from the narrator. I do agree that the narrator critiques how the contributor was feeling and acting on those feeling. All the contributor was doing by acting on is emotions and inner turmoil, was being a completely normal human, which was exactly what Howell was trying to convey across the pages of his stories.
Delete
ReplyDeleteThe Contributor’s story begins and ends with naivety. Although Tinker’s story is hardly thought out and, in some aspects, perhaps derived from a perspective not of his own, it was sad enough in that “his case might have touched a harder heart” (Howells, 306). The narrator seems to find that the story was off from the start and details that “the man mentioned these things with the half-apologetic air observable in a certain kind of Americans when some accident obliges them to confess the infirmity of the natural feelings,” (Howells, 306). From this we can gather that, at the very least, Tinker’s remorse was real, albeit misunderstood in placement by the Contributor when listening to the story of how he lost his family. This drives the Contributor to lean fully into this new ‘adventure’ that he has been included in despite the signs that something is amiss. When the daughter is finally found by the Contributor, the true foundation of that remorse is uncovered by the telling of the true tale of the half-dead family. It is at this point that the Contributor begins to see the many flaws, one of which he attributes to himself when he realizes that “Two Years before the Mast,” a book he had read, “had possibly cast its glamour upon the adventure,” (Howells, 311). Although this ‘adventure’ was hardly as exciting as the Contributor might have dreamed for it to be, it is still a worthy tale that covers the innocence of human sympathy and the common deception of said trait.
Interesting point. I do wonder however, if he fully gives up his romanticization at the end. He’s heavily analyzing Tinker, and almost still trying to romanticize or make him into this tragic figure- even after he learns the real truth behind the sailor’s story. He still feels like this man has to be redeemable someway.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs a reader, I saw that the pragmatic moral decision making throughout the story from the narrator in regards to both the contributor and Jonathan Tinker, was the most interesting, while my mind was also being completely twisted, that I have read in college up to this point. An example of a line from the end of the story, that I found, is a perfect example of the realism that Howell, as an author, prioritized in the new era of literature he was intending on creating. The line from the story stated,”starting with that groundwork of truth, the fact that his wife was really dead, and that he had not seen his family for two years,- why should he not place implicit faith in all the fictions reared upon it?” (311). In this particular line from the story, along with almost all of the narrator's commentary on both the contributor as well as Jonathan Tinker, it is evident that Howell prioritized characters, situations, behaviors, values, and even the speech patterns of the characters to be closely tied with real, genuine emotions and life. Another specific example of realism that is obviously stated in the story is when the narrator states, “I can certainly sympathize with his feeling that the mariner’s failure to reappear according to appointment added its final and most agreeable char, to the whole affair,” (312). With both of these quotes being used as an example of some of the most obvious points of realism used in the story, it is to say that while using this method of writing, Howell is attempting to shift readers mindsets away from the grand mythic tales, with unblemished heroes that, more times than not, took place in a morally unauthentic setting and plot development.
ReplyDeleteThat’s a nice expansion on appearance, and how Howell has the reader be grounded in the end- even makes fun of that romanticization of real life. Could the Contributor be a sort of stand-in parody of a typical middle-class reader of the time- the sort whose adventures and understanding of tragedy are only from books?
DeleteReply from Joe Chaney:
DeleteStarting off with the statement in the short story starting with that groundwork of truth, the fact that his wife was really dead, and that he had not seen his family for two years, - why should he not place implicit faith in all the fictions reared upon it?” is a great supporting piece of evidence for your claim to the pragmatic choices made throughout the story. Furthermore, Abbie articulates the values of each characters in an easy way for the reader to digest and understand. Overall great job!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn William Dean Howell’s “A Romance of Real Life”, a man known as the Contributor is enjoying a romanticized portrayal of sea life embarks on a short-lived quest of aide to a tragic sailor only to find there was more to the story. The narrator is critiquing the sentimentality of the Contributor not as misplaced sympathy, but a romanticization of a tragic figure and situation.
ReplyDeleteThis is first seen when the narrator hopes that “some... unselfish care for the man’s misfortunes as misfortunes, was not wholly wanting” when it came to his decision allow the sailor his time (Howells, 306). The implied reason should have been out of compassion. Instead, Tinker’s issues only interest the Contributor out of the “deepest interest of fiction"- the thrill of adventure Howells, 306).
This is seen as he is helping Tinker, and “stumbled over the accustomed walks”, not in a sympathetic recognition of a different viewpoint, but in the excited setting out of a novel scene (Howells, 307). Even the way he views Tinker is flawed; while he does pity the man’s misfortunes, he “rejoiced in ...literature made to his hand” (Howells, 309). He sees only the potential for his own thrill, not in the uncorrupted quest to help.
When he does find Juila and discovers the true story, he is saddened. It is not by her plight but rather the “wreck of his romance” (Howells, 310). He is not interested in the Tinker’s misfortunes out of compassion, the narrator tells us, but rather in the hope of a literary adventure.
This was a great take on the story; It’s very clear that the Contributor was wanting more out of the adventure he was being taken on. Upon his realization that Julia’s father was in fact in prison for two years, the way the Contributor acts is almost offensive to what’s actually happening. Julia is quite afraid of what would happen to her and her siblings if their father found them, and the Contributor is only saddened that his adventure has come to an end.
DeleteThe poster for the 1946 film of Richard Dana’s memoir Two Years Before the Mast depicts a different image of the man who rings the Contributor’s doorbell. Jonathan Tinker shows himself as a bedraggled sailor to the Contributor, but the ladder seems charmed by his appearance. The Contributor knew that Mr. Tinker would bring some excitement to his world because he showed up late to his door, and the story that Tinker told was one of harshness. The story, of course, is why the Contributor invited Tinker into his home. The Contributor seemed to be waiting for an incident to (shall I say) knock on his door.
ReplyDeleteThe Contributor helps a man he hardly knows, and the narrator see this as a peculiar thing. The narrator does not fully understand the motives of the Contributor helping Tinker even though these reasons are revealed as the story goes on. A Romance of Real Life was written post-Civil War, and the country was trying to rebuild itself. It would make sense for things to still be tense and for people not to trust each other. The ladder being in the perspective of the Narrator because why help a man in the middle of the night? Like many people in the story, the Contributor and Tinker were turned away when they went knocking on other people’s door to find Julia Tinker and Mr. Hapford. No one was willing to help the two men, and the people they asked judged them for being out so late, “They do not ask for your sympathy, and you offer it quite at your own risk, with a chance of having it thrown back upon your hands.”
These may be reasons why the Contributor helped Tinker. He sympathized with Tinker and thought he could bring some light into his life if he found his only daughter. The rest of Tinker’s kids did not recognize him, and he lost his wife and baby. The Contributor listened to his heart, and he thought he could create a great fictional story with Tinker’s life as his muse. In result, the truth about Jonathan Tinker shocks the Contributor. He finds Julia Tinker, and she tails him that he was free from jail. Here the Contributor questions himself, “…secretly resolved never to do another good deed, no matter how temptingly the opportunity presented itself.” The narrator understands that the Contributor got carried away with Tinker’s story about his life and showed sympathy for him, but the narrator would have made a different decision with Tinker.
I love that you brought up the detail of, as Howells put it, "wreck of his romance." You used these quotes to perfectly express the true, faulty nature of the Contributor that the narrator voiced and how his sentimentality towards books/stories ran deeper than caring about the situation for morality's sake.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn the story, the narrator critiques how the contributor character in the story reacts with sensitivity to Jonathan Tinker, a man that showed up on the doorsteps of the contributor looking for his daughter. He told a story of being away for two years on a voyage, only to return and find that his wife and two of his children had died and the rest of his children had been sent to live with other families. After the arrival at the contributor’s home, the contributor speaks about the feeling he gets when he looks at the man, the contributor describes that Jonathan’s presence appeals to him but that “it was not the man’s clothes rather than his expression that softened him towards the rugged visage” (p.305, para. 1). After hearing the story, the contributor, Jonathan Tinker compliments the contributor for his kindness towards him. In addition, the contributor feels “more anxious to befriend the luck-less soul fortune had cast in his way” (p.307, para.3). However, as the story goes, the contributor discovers that Jonathan Tinker had been lying about his time away overseas, after finding his daughter. The daughter tells the contributor that he had not been away overseas all this time, that in all actuality he had been in “State prison”. After learning the truth, the contributor feels “secretly resolved never to do another good deed, no matter how temptingly the opportunity presented itself” (p.310, para.17). Not knowing that Jonathan Tinker had been lying to the contributor about the circumstances, the contributor assures that “he won’t find out from me where you are” (p.310, para.17). At the beginning of the story, the contributor feels compelled to help this man for whom he believes is heartfelt in his story of being away from his family on a voyage only to return home and find out that he no longer has a family. However, when the contributor finds out that the man was not truthful about his circumstance, he feels betrayed and ignorant for believing a stranger who showed up on his steps in the middle of the night.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great response- I love the quotes that you chose to use. I do agree that the contributor feels betrayed by Jonathan Tinker, but I wonder if he will make a similar mistake in the future or if he has learned his lesson to not be so naive.
DeleteThe narrator, also known as "the contributor" seems to have a big heart, but is also very naive. He receives a visitor at his door, Jonathon Tinker, and believes exactly what he begins to tell the contributor, despite not knowing him at all. "For I've a daughter living with him (Hapford) and I want to see her; I've just got home from a two years voyage..." (Howells 305). Jonathan Tinker is very convincing as he is trying to get the contributor to help him find his estranged daughter... and it works. The contributor believes Tinker's sad story and begins to search for his daughter, Julia Tinker. Eventually he finds her and explains that her father is looking for her. "Julia Tinker broke into a loud, hoarse laugh." (Howells 310). The contributor soon realizes that Jonathan Tinker has fooled him as he realizes that he was not on a two year long voyage, but instead was in prison for two years. The contributor promises Julia that her location is safe with him and he will not tell Jonathon Tinker. The contributor toils with realization he had in that he may be too trusting as he almost helped a strange man find his daughter who has actually been hiding from him.
ReplyDeleteThis is an amazing explanation of the scenario. The contributor truly was just trying to reunite a sailor with his daughter. The contributor clearly has a big heart and his intentions did not have malice towards Julia which makes the situation seem awful for the contributor. Jonathan gained the contributors trust so quickly it's concerning to think that there are people in society than can easily take advantage of good hearted people. The contributor was clearly easy to influence and was at times gullible.
DeleteThe contributor is a pragmatic man who has decided that all stories have been told and retold to the point of being boring. He points out and says,"… all sensation was long exhausted, and the oxygen has perished from every sentiment, so has it been breathed and breathed again, - that nowadays the wise adventurer sat down beside his register and waited for incidents to seek him out" (p 305-306). Thus, when Mr. Tinker appears at his door with a sad tale, the contributor decides to follow the romantic story of a sailor's search for his beloved daughter (Sally) because he believes the 'incident has sought him out.' The contributor is also practical about his intent when he finds Sally and says, ". But he's too good a character to lose sight of. He's got to come back here and tell us what he intends to do" (p 310). He wants to ensure he has some control over their reunion to find the ending to his romantic story.
ReplyDeleteThe contributor regrets helping Mr. Tinker when he finds out from Sally and Mrs. Hapford that Mr. Tinker's story is far from the truth; thus, he decides he will no longer be of help to anyone, as the narrator says, "… secretly resolved never to do another good deed, no matter how temptingly the opportunity presented itself" (p 310). Although the contributor is a pragmatic man, he says, "…Jonathan Tinker had fallen in his esteem as a man, he had even risen as literature" (p 311) since his new knowledge makes a more complex and interesting mariner character for his story.
The narrator implicitly critiques how the contributor reacts with too much sentimentality to Mr. Tinker throughout the story. For example, on page 306, the narrator states that Mr. Tinker's 'unaffected air 'of character had made an impression on the contributor. Moreover, on page 307, the contributor feels so badly about Mr. Tinker's situation that he wants to help and befriend the unfortunate Mr. Tinker. Thus, he accompanies Tinker and enquires on his behalf, as the narrator says, "He entered so intimately into the cares and anxieties of his protégé, that at times he felt himself in some inexplicable sort of a shipmate of Jonathan Tinker and almost personally a partner of his calamities" (307). Furthermore, toward the end of the story, on pages 311 and 312, the contributor sympathizes with Mr. Tinker. The contributor makes concessions and believes that Mr. Tinker must have repented while in jail for his failings as a husband and father. Moreover, the contributor concedes that Mr. Tinker had not lied but used his life experiences to portray himself as an unfortunate soul. Thus, the narrator says, "The contributor had either fallen in love with the literary advantages of his forlorn deceiver that he would see no moral obliquity in him, or he had touched a subtler verity at last in pondering the affair" (p 312).
I think you perfectly described the contributors’ thoughts and reactions to the situations he was in. I really liked your ending and how you picked out what the Contributor thought about Tinker and how he in a way he made up a sob story which reflected onto the person he eventually seemed to be. I think including why the Contributor became so involved really supported your answer to the question about sentimentality.
DeleteI enjoyed reading your response. I agree with the examples you chose to portray the contributor as a pragmatic man. Since, right from the beginning he bases his impression of the stranger from his clothing and demeanor. He is also easily swayed to help due to his romantic sentimentalities on sailors.
ReplyDeleteIn Willian Dean Howells's, "A Romance of Real Life", it is very apparent that the narrator aka the contributor is a naive, but good hearted person. The story begins by mentioning that the stranger came, "long past the twilight hour", and goes on to describe a harsh looking man at the footsteps of the contributors door (Howells 305). The contributor isn't hesitant to let a strange man into his home late in the evening, which implies he is a good man, but at the same time, from a readers perspective makes him appear to be naive. The contributor aids the stranger, also known as Jonathan Tinker in the search of his daughter Julia who is assumed to be estranged. The contributor goes around looking for Julia only to find out that Jonathan is not welcome in her life. Julia unveils Jonathan's lie regarding his voyage to sea saying, "my father hasn't been to sea for a good many years" (Howells 310). The contributor was shocked to discover that Jonathan actually had just left prison. This realization makes the contributor question all of his actions previously. He was hesitant to help Jonathan in the first place however, he fell for the sob story regarding his daughter and his feats at sea and helped a potentially dangerous man find his daughter. The contributor assured Julia that he would not reveal to Jonathan where she is, but the thought of what Jonathan could do upsets everyone. The contributor understandably was trying to be a good man, but the moral of the story is not everyone is truthful about their lives nor their intentions.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you when you mention that the contributor letting a strange man into his house without hesitation does make him seem very naive, almost as if he truly does not see the bad within other people. I think you mentioning how the contributor was truly acting with good intentions trying to be a good man and unite a man with his lost daughter, but in return was betrayed and lied to was a great point because we truly don't know what other peoples true intentions are.
DeleteHi Emma! I agree that the Contributor was pretty gullible. I believe you are right in saying that trusting easily can come back quickly to bite, which is sad, but so many people are so self absorbed with little care of others, so we have to have discernment and be careful. And I am also glad the Contributor went by himself to find the daughter, it would have been a lot more embarrassing for him if Jonathan Tinker went too. Thanks for your input, I enjoyed reading it!
ReplyDeleteWhile reading, “A Romance of Real Life” we understand that the narrator known as the “contributor” is deceived by a stranger who shows up at his doorstep. The pragmatic decision making of the narrator was easily influenced first by the stranger’s appearance as well as his expression. The stranger known as Jonathan Tinker then tells the narrator his unfortunate and sad story and his reason for looking for someone by the name Mr. Hapford which is what causes the Contributor to be intrigued and gain a sense of helping the man.
ReplyDeleteThe contributor feels that with the man in his home telling his story, it is a new story for him to dive into and he in a way finds it fascinating, like, “with the unaffected air which had already impressed the contributor, and as if some of the introduction was necessary”. In the story, the narrator critiques how the Contributor reacts with too much sentimentality by his responses because he states, “they do not ask your sympathy, and you offer it quite at your own risk, with a chance of having it thrown back upon your hands”, which after he uses a short response to show less emotion for the man.
After a long night of helping Jonathan trying to find his daughter he had desperately wanted to find, the Contributor took it into his own hands to find her as a surprise for Tinker, but he then comes to find out his story was not all that he had told him. As finding Julia and telling her that her father had been looking for her, he finds out Tinker was in prison and his intentions were not good, caused the Contributor to feel he could never do a good deed for anyone again, and also causing him to be very apologetic.
Yes, I remember the Contributor seeing appeal to the “curious smartness”, whatever that may be, of Mr. Tinker. I like how you mentioned the “unaffected air” of Johnathan Tinker because I think it’s an important part of his character. After learning of his history and cross examining it with what he has told the Contributor, it makes it seem as though Mr. Tinker hasn’t significantly changed in moral.
Delete
ReplyDeleteThe Contributor meets this sailor who has arrived at his place when it is unknown to the sailor that his family is no longer there. The Contributor feels compelled to help the lost sailor by helping him look for his daughter that is the last of his family left. The narrator shows how the emotions are present during the conversation that the Contributor and the sailor have. This is first seen when the narrator hopes that some “some... unselfish care for the man’s misfortunes as misfortunes, was not wholly wanting” when it came to his decision allow the sailor his time (Howells 306) You can tell that the emotions of the sailor were good enough to fool for someone like the Contributor to be fooled by and used to find the family that the sailor is not allowed to see. This quote tells you how much the Contributor realizes he messed up as he says, “I’m very, very sorry,” said the contributor, secretly resolved never to do another good deed. No matter how temptingly the opportunity presented itself. (Howells 310). The plan this whole time the sailor was trying to do was just find his daughter and hope he could use her to rebuild their family when he told the contributor that he was at sea for two years. Using sympathy for personal gain in order to find his family was something the sailor did and the contributor did not realize it until he made a bad mistake as he thought he was doing something good by trying to reunite a family together.
Very good points. I agree with the fact that Mr. Tinker took advantage of a kind gesture from The Contributor, after being invited into his home. Mr. Tinker gained sympathy from The Contributor, causing him to want to help. After, finding Mr. Tinker's daughter and finding out the truth, you can tell that The Contributor was very much sympathetic to the daughter and circumstances and even doubts his own himself, in deciding that he may never help anyone ever again after being betrayed and taken advantage of.
DeleteI agree with you that the Contributor was gullible enough to believe the sailor and help him find his daughter. The contributor did trust him too quickly and made a mistake and found out that his story wasn't true. You do have to be careful on who you trust as that trust can break down and take a turn for the worse. And I did enjoy reading your post and you giving your insight on why the trusting someone can be bad not just good.
ReplyDeleteAt the beginning of the story, the narrator introduces the Contributor, a character who is very “thoughtful” throughout the plot. The Contributor faces his first pragmatic moral decision when he decides to help Mr. Tinker in searching for Julia and choosing to walk with him through the neighborhood asking if anyone knows of Mr. Hapford. As the search goes on, the narrator speaks on how “the search for [the] gentleman proved vain” but the “contributor could not feel that an expedition which set familiar objects in novel lights was altogether a failure” (pg. 307, Howell). There is this sense of nostalgia because the Contributor is seeing the same neighborhood, but also seeing in a new view, creating this feeling of sentimentality. And this feeling of sentimentality in the Contributor is displayed even further when it’s revealed that he has “entered so intimately into the cares and anxieties of his protégé” (pg. 307, Howell), an individual he has barely met yet feels excessively sympathetic for. Eventually, they part ways, and the Contributor finds out where a Mr. Hapford might be. He doesn’t specifically find Mr. Hapford, but Julia Tinker, the person who Mr. Tinker is truly looking for. Julia reveals that Mr. Tinker lied about his time in prison and that she does not want her location known to him. Following, the author says that the Contributor is a “person whom all things of every-day life presented themselves in periods more or less rounded, and capable of facts or illustrations, could not but rejoice in these new incidents, as dramatically fashioned as the rest” (pg. 311, Howell). This tells the audience that the Contributor is a seemingly rational person that is capable of seeing things for what they truly are but favors the exaggerated explanations. In this case, the Contributor is idealizing Mr. Tinker by giving him the “[perfect] characteristic air of grief” (pg. 311), instead of the persona of a man arrested for bigamy.
ReplyDeleteThe narrator, also known as "the Contributor," seems to almost immediately feel for and believe the man that comes knocking on his door despite his first view of him. "The face which the lamplight revealed was remarkable for a harsh two days' growth of beard, and s single bloodshot eye; yet it was not otherwise a sinister countenance, and there was something in the strange presence that appealed and touched," (Howells, 305). Upon hearing Jonathon's story about his 2 year long voyage, and how he lost his wife and his kids were split apart and sent to different families, the Contributor tells Jonathon that the person he searches for does not live in that home so instead he offers his assistance is helping the man look for his daughter Julia. During their search the Contributor seems to come to terms with the fact that he felt no sort of danger being around Jonathon. "But the faith of the gaunt giant upon which he reposed was good, and the contributor continued to wander about with him in perfect safety," (Howells, 307)
ReplyDeleteWhen the Contributor finally gets a lead on where Julia might be he takes off on his own to be certain it is her, before telling Jonathon and giving him a sort of false hope. As Julia tells the Contributor the real story of her father Jonathon, he seems to realize that he had made a big mistake in helping the man look for his daughter and begins to apologize for his actions. "I'm very, very sorry...but you may depend he won't find out from me where you are. Of course I had no earthly reason for supposing his story was not true," (Howells, 310). While reading the ending of the story it also seems as though even knowing the 'true' story of Jonathon the Contributor still in a way was trying to convince himself that Jonathon might not have been acting with malicious intents and was truly trying to find his daughter, but ended up betraying the Contributor by not being truthful from the beginning.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFrom Joe Chaney:
ReplyDelete“A Romance of Real Life” depicts the Author Known as the Contributor to be a pragmatic thinker relying on is ability to solve problems in a practical and logical way, rather having a fixed idea. One can conclude this through the pragmatic moral decision the contributor must make regarding Jonathan Tinker who inevitable shows up on the contributor doorstep late at night asking for help in finding his lost children. After arriving from his journey from Hong Kong, Jonathan sets out in hopes to find a man who his daughter might be staying with. After hearing his story, the contributor finds empathy, and sets out on an adventure in good nature to help Mrs. Tinker! As the story states “It seems rather odd the neighbor let them break up and scatter as they did” (pg.306/307), the contributor chose the moral decision to help this random man disregarding how he truly felt due to the inspiring story Jonathan articulated. One can conclude later that the contributor’s sensitivity towards the man’s story is misguided and unchecked due to his romances of books and story’ that cause him to look at reality through a different perspective. As the reader can later conclude the man Jonathan has lied about his story in hopes to gain the guidance and help of the contributor, showing the faulty nature of the contributor and why he truly feels a desire to help this poor man. Finally, we can see how the truly feeling of the contributor emerges in the last pages of the short story, “the contributor had either so fallen in love with the literary advantages of his forlone deceiver that he would see no moral obliquity” (Pg. 312), simply ignoring the reality of his natural instincts.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe narrator introduces the Contributor in “A Romance of Real Life.” A stranger shows up at his door looking for a Mr. Hapford. He explains to him that there is no one here by that name. The stranger introduces himself as Johnathan Tinker. Mr. Tinker explains how he has been on a voyage for 2 years. He lost his wife, and his family was then split a part. He is searching for his daughter Julia now. The contributor felt for this man and decided he would help him. So, the contributor walks through the neighborhood with Mr. Tinker in search of a Mr. Hapford. The contributor seemed to feel comfortable with Mr. Tinker- "But the faith of the gaunt giant upon which he reposed was good, and the contributor continued to wander about with him in perfect safety," (Howells, 307) Their search ended up going nowhere and they parted ways. Eventually Julia is found by the contributor. Julia explains that Mr. tinker has lied, and she does not want him to know where she is at. The contributor has a good heart though and wants to think that Mr. Tinker didn’t have any ill intent, that he truly just wanted to find his daughter.
ReplyDelete