Previous
Situational Irony
Style
Explanation and Analysis:
Hawthorne's narrative style in this story emphasizes ambiguity over certainty. What seems at first like a simple morality tale unfolds into a much more enigmatic work, with multiple layers of ambiguity that make it difficult for the reader to trust any single version of events. First, Hawthorne repeatedly underscores the unreliability of his own narrator, who admits to “shame” at having spread “fantastic stories” about Dr. Heidegger in the past, and who acknowledges that “the stigma of a fiction monger” might be attached to the tale.
The reader, then, can hardly trust that this story will be much different than the other tall tales the narrator has apparently told. Similarly, Hawthorne characterizes Dr. Heidegger in an ambiguous fashion; though less overtly foolish than his companions, his experiment seems in many ways a cruel one, and the entire group, doctor included, is suspected of being “a little besides themselves” by others.
Further, Hawthorne deliberately withholds important information that might allow the reader to resolve the many questions raised by the tale. Hawthorne does not provide any information about either the nature of the illness suffered by Dr. Heidegger’s late fiancée, for example, nor the “prescription” that the doctor offers her. Similarly, the story never clarifies the precise nature of the various scandals and disgraces that the characters have experienced in the past. These ambiguities exacerbate each other, leaving the reader with little certain ground to stand on. The story could be the collective delusion of some elderly individuals untethered from reality, mere drunkenness, a trick by the doctor, an actual account of supernatural events, or even just a lie devised by the narrator. With so many important questions left unanswered, Hawthorne makes it difficult to draw any simple or certain meaning from his tale.
Related Themes:
