The Lady, or the Tiger?

Now considered a classic American short story, Frank R. Stockton’s “The Lady, or the Tiger?” exemplifies the effort of 19th-century authors to develop a distinctly American humor that, as Mark Twain explains, “depends for its effect upon the manner of the telling.” Although his contemporaries generally preferred to depict typical American life, Stockton instead attempted to subvert traditional fairy tales. By using a conventional narrative form, he turned readers’ expectations on their heads, thus creating surprise and entertainment that provokes critical reflection. Storytelling in Stockton’s writing is as much a performance as it is a literary endeavor: Through irony, exaggeration, and an emphatic narrator, the author offers a critique of systems of justice and power, themes that were particularly relevant to the cultural and political context of the United States in the late-19th century.

The story’s humorous tone is set by a dynamic, pompous narrating voice. The narrator uses exuberant language to praise the king, making him an evidently biased, and thus unreliable, narrator. Humor is created by the conflation of the narrator’s exaggerated claims and the horrific, nonsensical facts he relates. For instance, the tone and content of the narrative conflict when the narrator discusses the king’s arena:

Although its form and plan were borrowed from afar, its purpose emanated solely from the brain of this man, who, every barleycorn a king, knew no tradition to which he owed more allegiance than pleased his fancy, and who ingrafted on every adopted form of human thought and action the rich growth of his barbaric idealism (Paragraph 4).

On one hand, the narrator uses florid language to claim that the king’s ability to “borrow” successful ideas from others and to discard traditions that do not serve his purpose is admirable. On the other hand, the underlying fact is that the king steals ideas and “ingrafts” on them his own twisted logic.

This irony, which “The Lady, or the Tiger?” is built on, is the main device through which Stockton delivers his critique of justice and power. Indeed, in addition to a biased narrator, the story is built on a logical fallacy. The king’s justice system is described as “impartial,” “incorruptible,” and “positively determinate” (Paragraphs 3, 5, 7) because the accused can choose the door and stand an equal chance of being punished or rewarded. However, the arena is a game of chance rather than a means of rendering true justice, and it is treated as no more than a popular spectacle: “When the people gathered together on one of the great trial days, they never knew whether they were to witness a bloody slaughter or a hilarious wedding. [...] Thus, the masses were entertained and pleased” (Paragraph 8). By praising the king’s “great scheme of retribution and reward” (Paragraph 6) and the “perfect fairness” (Paragraph 7) of the trials, the narrator lends an appearance of credibility to this definition of justice that is belied by the workings of the trials. The contrast between the appearance of rationality and nonsensical actions creates humor and encourages readers to question the concepts of justice and authority.

Another ironic device, and perhaps the most notable characteristic of this story, is the open ending. The tale’s structure parallels its content: The narrator’s final question requires the reader to make a fair and impartial decision, echoing the accused criminal’s freedom to choose which door to open: “The question of [the princess’s] decision is one not to be lightly considered, [...] and so I leave it with all of you: Which came out of the opened door,—the lady, or the tiger?” (Paragraph 26). However, agency is an illusion in both cases, as the reader cannot answer a question about a fictional event any more than the accused criminal can choose his fate. Neither action is determined by reason or justice, despite the narrator’s claims. The open ending is another way for the narrator to lend credibility to the king’s justice by asking the reader to buy into the logic of that system and attempt to answer the question honestly. In the end, the problem remains impossible to solve, revealing the ironic meaning of the story and Stockton’s critique of unquestioned institutionalized justice.

In 1885, Stockton published a sequel titled “The Discourager to Hesitancy,” which serves as a commentary on the readers’ curiosity and critique of “The Lady, or the Tiger?” In this follow-up, newly introduced characters attempt to learn what happened at the end of the previous tale, but the story ends with another open, unresolved ending. “The Lady, or the Tiger?” exaggerates the conventional form of the fairy tale to better contrast it with unexpected literary elements like logical fallacies, irony, and an unresolved ending. Although he departs from the typical realism of other 19th-century humorists, Stockton’s dynamic storytelling and his focus on contemporary cultural discourse were particularly relevant to the emerging American literary identity of his time. The phrase “the lady, or the tiger?” has become part of the English lexicon, signifying an unsolvable problem.