Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Thu TH y - CT45C - Essay Draft 2
Thu TH y - CT45C - Essay Draft 2
Hanoi, 2021
Gift giving is an act dating back to pre-civilisation days, where people express
their affection, desires to bond with others through material means (Curious
history, 2019). However, the psychology of gift-exchange is much more
complicated than just simply to please the recipient (Sherry, 1983) but also to
create a connection between the two people, as it is made abundantly clear in
O. Henry’s work The Gift of the Magi, retold by Ann Dandron - Duke. In this
essay, I would like to provide an in-depth analysis on the similarities and
differences of the two versions of the aforementioned story, along with a
personal commentary on the moral lessons concluded.
To begin with, The Gift of the Magi features a plotline surrounding a tricky
situation of a destitute couple, evidenced by their meager savings and
desperate attempts to buy a present. As Christmas was approaching, both
parties decided to part with their most valuable possessions in exchange for
their spouse’s happiness, only to realize eventually that it was the love they
shared the most treasured of all. This theme runs parallel in both versions of
the story, and arguably, it is the most striking similarity.
Moreover, when the stories unravel their endings, there is another that catches
the eyes of the readers – the coda. Ann Dandron – Duke, while wording
slightly differently, kept almost all of the original afterword of O. Henry.
They both drew an analogy between the Biblical Magi who gave baby Jesus
the most wonderful gifts (Britannica, 2020), and how the married couple,
despite the twisted and ironic circumstances they found themselves in, were
still the wisest.
Apart from these similarities, the two versions of The Gift of the Magi differ
in certain aspects. First of all, it is the names of the main characters. Della and
Jim (short for James) were converted to Kimberly and Charles respectively,
an indication of how society perceived different names to be popular in
different eras (Nameberry, 2021). The objects undergoing the gift-exchange
were also shifted from hair, a gold watch, a fob chain and combs to Barbie
fashions, a record player, a Vogue collection and a doll. Assuming that the
retold story took place roughly around the 1980s, as the Barbie belonged to
Kimberly was not introduced to the market until the 1960s (Holland, 2019), I
argue that such adjustments were made to make the story fit better within the
social context, thus becoming more relatable to its target audience (Fuhren,
2021)
Another variation is the stages of emotions the two female protagonists had to
go through. In the original story, much was devoted to describe the internal
conflicts of Della, before and after she cut her hair. When having to choose
between her biggest pride – hair (noted that Della’s hair represents her beauty
inside and out) and a chance to buy her husband a worthy present – Della did
hesitate. She stared at the windows wistfully, pulled down her hair and lifted
it up several times, and cried. It contrasts significantly with how Kimberly
“quickly picked herself up” and went to sell her Barbie fashions without
second thoughts. Furthermore, once the decision was made, Della again found
herself pondering over whether Jim would love her any less now that her hair
was gone. Her reprint counterpart Kimberly did not experience such worries.
The third difference of the two versions is how the main characters managed
to get the gifts their spouses desired. O. Henry penned it to be quite
straightforward, as Della and Jim only need to sell their hair and watch to get
the expenses needed for the gifts. Nonetheless, Kimberly and Charles had to
make deals with certain people they necessarily did not respect or care about
(miserable Old Tom, a disliked Duchess, and a heartless Deco Bob). The
presence of these supporting characters can be regarded as obstacles standing
in the way, making the gift-pursuit more challenging for Kimberly and
Charles.
And it is not only the plotlines that vary from the original to the retold
version, but also the narrative style. O. Henry made use primarily of formal
English (Nordquist, 2019), with detailed description of everything brought to
readers’ attention and an emphasis on rather advanced thesaurus (parsimony,
mendicancy, longitudinal, meretricious,…) In the modern adaptation, the
majority of sentences and vocabulary were more casual, making the story
shorter and more accessible.
Still, these differences do not undermine how I feel towards the story. While
the protagonists were referred to as “foolish children” concerning their
seemingly futile adventures, I believe what they did was indeed “the wisest”.
How could they be if they give up what is held dear to them for the sake of
the other person, and their efforts turned out to be useless, one may ponder.
From my perspective, it is because sometimes the journey, not the destination
that matters. Through the excruciating process of finding a worthy Christmas
present, both couples realized how much their spouses meant to them, and
how their sentiments were reciprocated in the end. The story, therefore, is
enjoyable to me because it reaffirms my belief, that only in dire situations do
we have a chance to see how true love really holds through.
REFERENCES
Fuhren, F. (2021). Make your protagonist more relatable by picking the right
name. https://florianfuehren.com/