O henry biography gift magi theme

See also [ edit ]. References [ edit ]. Retrieved November 16, Archived from the original on Retrieved Retrieved 14 December Stripper's Guide. Germain, Mark; Courts, Randy The Gifts of the Magi. External links [ edit ]. Wikisource has original text related to this article: The Gift of the Magi. Along with her extended savings effort, she sacrifices her most beloved possession—her hair—to purchase a gift that tangibly expresses her unassailable love for Jim.

Similarly, Jim sells his treasured watch to procure a set of adorned, tortoise-shell hair combs for Della. However, while the story shows love triumphant over tangible possessions, the narrator acknowledges that adversity can still suffuse and complicate relationships. Della explicitly displays her value system—which prioritizes simplicity rather than opulence—when she purchases the chain for Jim.

In other words, the story suggests that the "value" of objects is a personal, innately subjective question. Here, the narrator asserts that value is not inextricably tied to money, and that there is not a meaningful difference between a rich man and a poor man. Instead, value is rooted in generosity, thoughtfulness, and sacrifice. And sixty cents of it was in pennies.

This captures the misery but also the shame people who are living in poverty often feel. This highlights how much Della loves Jim, that she is willing to go to almost any lengths to secure the money for his present. Later, we learn that Jim needs a new overcoat and a pair of gloves, having gone out into the cold without any, and this further demonstrates how poor the Youngs are.

Perhaps more than anything, O. And sure enough, it is by buying the thoughtful gifts which they know the other one most desires that they are able to prove their love. In other words, the fact that the material objects turn out to be useless does not matter, for they were merely a means to an end, the end being to show how much the happiness of their spouse means to them.

Love, we might say, is more important than possessions. Henry does not invite us to laugh at the folly of Jim and Della, but to celebrate their mutual sacrifice. Henry among important American writers. Though his work is constantly being reassessed, it is now generally agreed that O. His place as a major player in the development of a truly American literature is perhaps finally assured.

But the question remains, however, of why readers throughout the twentieth century, in comparison to critics, have little quarrel with the stories of O. There are many possibilities. The zany plots of Saki H. Henry made himself famous and secured for himself a large body of readers. There are, of course, a variety of other reasons that readers like O.

Perhaps one of the most important is that not all art is meant to appeal primarily to the intellect or the intellectuals. This story of a poor married couple who give up their most prized possessions—his watch and her hair—to buy each other Christmas gifts—a watch fob for him and decorative combs for her—has been widely anthologized. It is often taught in high-school English classes because of its accessibility and its usefulness as a tool for discussing the elements of a short story.

One critic, N. Bryllion Fagin, who finds O. Much better stories of poverty have been written, much more faithful and poignant, and the great appreciative public does not even remember them. The story opens with another of O. That was all. And sixty cents of it was in pennies. Also foreshadowed in this opening are the sacrifices Delia and Jim will make for each other.

Delia shows herself already acquainted with saving and scrimping, elements of sacrifice; her ability to withstand the reproach of the vendors highlights her ultimate willingness to give up something she values highly—her hair—for that which she values more—her love for her husband. It is important that readers become involved with the story in the first few lines, for the success of the story, through the surprise ending, truly hinges on its brevity.

The message itself is so strong that to focus intently on the messengers—the Youngs—would only serve as a deflection. The message thus can only be effectively delivered in an understated fashion. Henry understands this and downplays the theme in his treatment of the Youngs. Despite the rather dour circumstances of their poverty and despite their having fallen from better times, they maintain an air of joy.

Delia is akin to a saintlike figure in her capacity for acceptance. She does not regret her lifestyle. Henry clearly approves of her in everything she does. Henry expresses his approval of his characters as well as their growth throughout the few short hours in which the story plays itself out. Such a narrow reading also ignores the overarching message O.

Henry wishes to convey: that it is the unselfish sacrifices we make for those we love that are most crucial to the emotional health of the family. This message itself is not sentimental but rather a universal truth, and as such, almost a moral. In presenting this message in the chosen manner, O. Henry avoids preaching, however—certainly one of the most effective ways to distance an audience.

Henry gives to readers a heroine and hero they can understand and thus learn from. At the same time that the reader is learning about the power of selflessness, so too are Jim and Delia learning: that their most precious possessions are not something they will ever own, but each other. In the following excerpt, Blansfield explores O. Like them, he stirred the mass imagination, drawing for material from the world about him, probing the foibles, dilemmas, comedies, and tragedies of human existence, speaking in a voice that could be understood by the multitudes.

The public could identify with and respond to the people, places, and situations Porter wrote about. Porter, of course, calculated this success to some degree; he knew his audience and gave them what they wanted. He specialized in humanity but did not exploit it.

O henry biography gift magi theme

He accepted,. He writes of him without patronizing him. He realizes the essential and stupendous truth that to himself the clerk is not pitiable. Besides, Porter spins a good yarn, and he can turn a phrase as few authors ever have, rambling on in an easy, neighborly manner that slaps the reader on the shoulder, bandying an insouciant humor, and displaying a verbal range and precision that is astounding.

He is a born raconteur; to listen to him is irresistible. Above all, he is a master of technique. In the decades since, his stories have been anthologized, collected, and reprinted; they have been translated into numerous foreign languages; they have been performed as radio, stage, and television drama, with some also made into films. Such broad appeal is the domain of the popular artist, be he author, musician, performer, painter, or other creative type.

Although he manifests a style distinctly his own and is recognizable by his particular manner, the popular artist conforms to certain expectations, presenting his material in forms familiar to his audiences and mirroring the joys and frustrations, the excitement and ennui of their everyday lives. This direct, personal relationship is one which the popular artist strives for, aiming deliberately to reach and to please his readers or listeners.

Two of the most predominant components of this style The most famous and easily recognized plot characteristic is, of course, the surprise ending, a trick which results forn clever, careful strategy. Porter embroiders all these elements together to form a personal style that distinguishes his work from that of other popular writers, even though such writers may employ similar or identical devices.

But a popular artist like Porter is an essential creative force behind his products; his shaping hand is always apparent, and his presence within his work helps to establish the rapport so important to the popular artist. In a sense, because of the personal style that emerges through his recurrent use of specific literary elements, Porter can be considered an auteur, and the proposal to examine his body of work in terms of these elements is essentially the approach of auteur criticism.

Originating in the s as a mode of film criticism, the auteur theory offers a worthwhile model for analyzing and interpreting popular culture in general, as John Cawelti suggests in his seminal essay on the subject:. The art of the auteur is that of turning a conventional and generally known and appreciated artistic formula into a medium of personal expression while at the same time giving us a version of the formula which is satisfying because it fulfills our basic expectations.

For a popular artist like Porter, the auteur approach, with its emphasis on surveying an entire body of material to discover and analyze structural characteristics and stylistic motifs, seems particularly appropriate and useful. As a popular artist, Porter is similar to the type of filmmaker who emerges in auteur criticism, since the latter is essentially a cinematic popular artist.

Both the auteur and the popular artist utilize formulaic elements of plot and character to create a personal, recognizable style, weaving new variations on old familiar themes. Both, in turn, develop this individual style into a kind of personal formula running through their work. Both are also confronted by similar restrictions—mainly, conventional limitations on characters, setting, and plots, and commercial demands in their given mediums.

So the identities of these two creative types are similar: like the popular artist, the auteur is neither. Cawelti claims in Popular Culture and the Expanding Consciousness ],. For Porter, as for any popular artist, formula provides the fundamental structure for his art, and not surprisingly, it also contributes to his popular appeal.

For as a constant and predictable pattern, formula is inherent to the cycle of human existence, and it also characterizes the earliest forms of literature most people learn—myths, fairy tales, songs, etc. Because it is so elemental, formula is familiar and comforting; it is an artistic expression of the subliminal human need for security and certainty in a life that promises just the opposite, and to some extent at least, the presence of formula in popular literature satisfies that need.

It is through such repetition that the works assume a formulaic nature. This is the universal aspect of repetition and the means by which plot patterns and specific elements become archetypal and serve as models of comparison for specific works. Variations occur, of course, and not every single story can be neatly categorized according to plot and character; such extremism threatens to squeeze the life out of the literature.

Still, in the nearly one hundred stories that deal with the city, recurrent plot patterns and characters do emerge which can be identified and used as a means of classification. The plots of these stories can be divided into four basic patterns, overlapping to some extent but nevertheless bearing distinguishing characteristics: they are the cross pattern, the habit pattern, the triangular pattern, and the quest pattern.

Porter repeatedly uses these patterns, or some variation of them, in his stories.