Roald Dahl’s “The Hitchhiker” and O. Henry’s “After 20 Years”
Roald Dahl has had a place on my bookshelf, and in my heart, since I was a little girl. Seeing his name again in this short story brought back memories of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Matilda. Before reading the story, I had high expectations for his storytelling, and, of course, he did not disappoint! “The Hitchhiker” starts off with the narrator taking his new BMW 3.3 Li for a ride up to London. When children get a new toy, they immediately want to open it and play with it, and in some way, the narrator expresses this course of action but, instead, his toy is a brand new car. Dahl sneaks some childlike wonder into this narrative – as he fully enjoys his new ride on a “lovely June day” he takes in the “haymaking in the fields and… buttercups along both sides of the road.”
While driving, he notices a person with a thumb raised in the air on the side of the road. He formerly being a hitchhiker gives the man a lift. “I knew just how it used to feel to be standing on the side of a country road watching the cars go by, and I hated the drivers for pretending they didn’t see me.” The narrator hasn’t let wealth disconnect him from the person he was before and is still compassionate to people who are in the situation he was in. After the man on the side of the road hops in, they make small talk and the conversation leaks into how fast the narrator’s car can go. He says, “‘One hundred and twenty-nine miles an hour’” and the hitchhiker doubts it. To prove him wrong, the narrator starts applying more pressure on the accelerator and just as they get to one hundred twenty miles per hour, a police motorcycle is on their case. They are stopped and as the policeman questions them he writes down their names in the “dreaded book of tickets.” The driver is given the fine and they are free to carry on with their lives.
After getting in trouble, the narrator is upset but asks the hitchhiker why he lied to the police about his job. The passenger teases him a little which increases the narrator’s, and the reader’s, curiosity. I can’t say I wasn’t shocked when the hitchhiker revealed that he took the narrator’s belt, shoelace, watch, driver’s license, his wife’s broken ring, etc. Since he takes something as insignificant as, for example, a shoelace, it stresses how good he is at the craft of stealing. It makes me wonder if there are people like this in real life. Can someone really tug the laces off my shoes without me noticing? Or could this potentially show how unaware the narrator is of his surroundings? The passenger finally says that he is a pickpocket, or as he calls it, a fingersmith. The name “fingersmith” is a clever way to twist something that is normally thought of as bad, in this case pickpocketing, into something that sounds like a real job. The fingersmith also believes that he is above normal pickpockets because he is very stealthy and never gets caught. Since this is the case, he might feel that he deserves a better title. I suppose everyone wants to feel proud of their talents, and the hitchhiker is no exception.
But then the narrator focuses back on his own life and recalls what the police said about going to jail for speeding and his dilemma makes him panic. The fingersmith senses his worry and pulls out the policeman’s ticket book! The narrator’s reaction is: “I nearly swerved the car into a milk truck, I was so excited.” The snatching of the ticket book provides the reader with a sense of relief for the characters because after getting to know them in the beginning, they start to form a bond with them. The fingersmith suggests that breaking the law is okay because he gradually gets the reader on his side as the story progresses and the reader feels bad when the narrator gets into trouble. This makes the reader think that they don’t deserve to get into trouble and presents the idea that there are no punishments for breaking the law if you manage to avoid getting caught.
I couldn’t be the only one making exceptions for their rule-breaking! At first, my views on pickpocketing were negative, but now it’s a curious topic that intrigues me, especially after reading that their skills could get them out of trouble. By getting this reaction out of the reader, it is clear Dahl wants the reader to think outside of their own lives and get into the minds of other people. Throughout the story, the reader’s perspective changes, which causes them to feel a sense of victory when the ticket book is stolen.
When it comes to stealing the ticket book from the policeman, I can’t decide whether it is a good thing or a bad thing. The policeman’s “dangerously soft and mocking” voice makes me think that he deserves it because he is so full of himself. Not only that but I also thought it was good because, in the end, the two characters didn’t really deserve to get into a lot of trouble. But they were breaking the law, so maybe they were deserving of some punishment. And maybe, stealing the book was bad because people that caused more harm might’ve been written down there, which puts others in danger and lets criminals escape. Aren’t they considered criminals since they broke the law? What is defined as bad law breaking? What is defined as reasonable lawbreaking? In my opinion, they didn’t hurt anyone, so they didn’t do anything wrong, which justifies stealing the ticket book. Then again, the question–what if their recklessness eventually caused an accident?–arises. It feels good that they get away with it, but this is because Dahl makes the reader support the bad guys and creates a bond of friendship that opposes the justice system, contrasting the message being sent in the next story, “After Twenty Years”.
Turning our attention to O. Henry’s “After 20 Years”, the way the author describes the setting makes the tone sound mysterious, but also calm. I can suddenly picture the shops lined up on both sides of the road, empty of life, when the story starts. “Now and then you might see the lights of a cigar store or of an all-night lunch counter”, which puts a picture in mind of dark windows, and the select few that have light, stand out. The attention turns to the character looming in the darkness. ‘Silky’ Bob is a fugitive, and the “little white scar near his right eyebrow” portrays him as such and adds a hint of edginess to his character. His “keen eyes” make it clear that he is waiting for something to happen, or that he just might be alert to his surroundings. In addition, his pale complexion can be linked with sickness which is could be a cause of not having enough earnings due to running away from the law.
So, Bob is waiting for someone. This someone is a friend, and 20 years ago (hence the title) they decided to meet at this appointed time. His friend, Jimmy, the beat cop who speaks with Bob without revealing his identity, keeps his promise too, but they never ended up having their reunion, because Jimmy realizes that his old buddy Bob is a wanted criminal. The fact that Officer Jimmy did show up at the “‘appointed place on time’” clearly makes him a reliable and trustworthy person because he kept his promise even after many years. I know if I were in his position, I wouldn’t have been able to even remember the person I was meeting with, let alone the time we were supposed to meet! “‘Somehow I couldn’t do it myself, so I went around and got a plain clothes man to do the job.’” The lack of confrontation indicates that he never wanted to harm Bob. Even though he felt this way, he couldn’t let Bob keep wreaking havoc, so he decided to do the right thing and turn him in. By doing this, he preserves their old perception of each other. In the end, when Bob thinks of who actually arrested him, the stranger that Jimmy sent will probably pop up in his mind because he was the one who acted. Therefore, Jimmy won’t always be the bad guy in Bob’s head.
If we compare the lessons the authors are trying to teach from “The Hitchhiker” and “After 20 Years” we notice that they’re complete opposites. In the former, Dahl gives the reader a story where they are happy that the bad guys win, but in the latter, the story ends up disappointing us when Jimmy turns Bob in. One suggests that being bad is good, and another suggests that being bad is, in fact, bad. Both stories show how society either “root[s] for the underdog or the lawbreaker” (quote from Mr. Watt’s question) and that people’s morality depends on which side is more appealing to them, considering that they receive the details on the side they support. And at times, they might just choose a side because their place in society already puts them on that side. What I’m trying to get across is that, if someone reading the story is a thief, they will justify the fact that it is okay to steal because they don’t want to identify as a bad person. Human nature does this naturally, as we don’t want to be in the wrong most of the time. Now I’m not saying that everyone who read the story and was happy that they got out of trouble is a thief, because then I’d have to admit to being this form of crummy lawbreaker! I’m just explaining why someone may be compelled to choose that side if they’re in a similar situation as the character. No matter what side you are on, and how you view society, both stories are entertaining. On the surface, they might just be another piece of writing, but after taking a deep dive, I realize how much a few pages can hold. I’m looking forward to reading more stories, but for now, I can officially say that I’ve completed my first quiz for Mr. Watt!