Robertson Davies: Ghosts for a Party

A story required by an occasion

Davies says the new college needed Christmas entertainment, and he contributed a ghost story. His introduction explains that amusement, rather than terror, suited the large audience.

Massey’s institutional history places the founding in 1963 and identifies Ron Thom’s architecture.

The building is part of the occasion, not merely a backdrop. A performance can give a new community an imagined past by attaching incidents to rooms its listeners already know. That is an interpretation of the stated setting and aim, rather than a claim that the building was actually haunted.

Sources for this section: [1] · [2]

Separate a purpose from a universal rule

He connects terror with a smaller circle of listeners, while describing the college tales as cheerful entertainment.

The useful production distinction is between this performer’s chosen purpose and a law about all audiences. A large crowd can still be frightened; this record explains why he chose another effect. An inside joke may also become less legible when the story travels beyond the original community.

Sources for this section: [1] · [2]

Original task: one premise, two rooms

Invent a cloakroom in which an unclaimed coat acquires a new name tag every evening. Plan one opening for 120 people at a noisy celebratory dinner and another for 8 people gathered quietly after the building has closed. The premise, audience counts and room conditions are ours. Keep the supernatural event the same, but state a different aim and select two delivery choices for each room.

Reference dinner opening: “The coat has attended more annual dinners than the treasurer. It has also paid exactly the same subscription: nothing. Tonight its tag says Chair of Finance.” The fictional listeners need to recognise the office and hear the final phrase. A pause before that phrase gives the joke a clear arrival.

Reference small-room opening: “At closing time the coat had no tag. We locked the room. When we returned, a card hung from its collar. It carried the name of the person holding the only key.” Here a short sequence establishes access and a contradiction, with less dependence on shared institutional jokes.

Sources for this section: [1] · [2]

Test the delivery, then revise

The dinner version makes an imaginary office a comic target; the quiet version narrows attention to who could enter the room. Neither is guaranteed to work. Read each to another person without explaining the intended effect first, then ask which detail carried the ending and which required missing background.

If the dinner listener cannot identify the treasurer’s role, replace the reference with a visible action instead of adding a lecture. If the quiet version creates confusion about the key, clarify possession before adding further mystery. These are revisions of information and delivery, not imitations of a Davies story.

Sources for this section: [1] · [2]