Also referred to, is the ‘lamenting wail’ of the wind through the telegraph wires. The word ‘lament’ is one usually associated with death and it is another word for mourn.
I would say that the descriptions and personalities of the two main characters are what make the story so powerful and striking to the reader. They are described in such detail that we get to know them well, feel sorry for them and empathise greatly with them. First, I’ll discuss the story’s namesake; the signalman.
We immediately know there is something unusual about him, because when the visitor shouts ‘“Below!”’, instead of looking up as most people would upon hearing those words, he looks down the Line. There is blatantly more than meets the eye to this man, and we know that we’ll find out more about him as the story progresses. He is described by the visitor as having a ‘remarkable’ way of looking, although he ‘couldn’t have said what’. He does not appear human because of this – there is an enigmatic air about him. When he is spoken to by the visitor and asked questions, he does not reply, merely points to a path, as if he is worried about communicating or does not want to. He makes readers feel uncertain as to whom or what he is. The expectant manner in which he stands by the railway line waiting for the visitor suggests that he is sizing the visitor up, or possibly knows something about him already. It does not sound as if there is anything unusual about his appearance, just that he is a bit of a dark character; he is described as being a ‘dark, sallow man’ who has a ‘dark beard’ and ‘heavy eyebrows’. He also has ‘fixed eyes’ and a ‘saturnine face’ – quite a sunken appearance, as if he has had many sleepless nights in his time. The visitor points out that his position was in a ‘solitary and dismal’ place. This implies that he is a man of solitude, who rarely interacts with other humans and could explain the way he reacted when spoken to previously. The visitor says that there is something about the man that ‘daunted’ him – the way he ‘directed a most curious look’ at the ‘red light’ and the way he looks all around, especially at the tunnel as though ‘something were missing from it’. The colour of the light is red, generally associated with danger, or blood and I think he may have been afraid of it. The signalman is definitely no ordinary man. The first words he speaks are in a low voice, and what appears to be a defensive tone. When asked if the red light was part of his responsibility he says, ‘“Don’t you know it is?”’. Once again he is expectant of the visitor, as if he has met him before. He also looks scared of the man who is speaking to him, but his manner clears when he realises he has not met him before. When spoken to, he replies in monosyllabic tones, using words such as ‘yes’, ‘am’, ‘may’ and ‘think’. I imagine he speaks in quite a slow, monotonous voice, as though vulnerable or has a fear of being overheard. I think he finds it difficult to express himself at first and maybe he doesn’t easily trust people. Soon we find out all about his job and his background. This eliminates any thoughts of him being unbalanced – now we know his story he appears fairly normal. He comes across as good at his job – he needs to be ‘watchful’ and ‘exact’, but has no real manual labour. Although he spends many hours on his own, he seems fairly intelligent. He appears to be a level-headed man, who is in control and enjoys his solitude. However, he then goes on to say that although he sometimes ventures up into the sunlight, his anxiety is ‘redoubled’ when he is up there, because he listens extra carefully for the ‘little bell’. It sounds as though the bell is almost controlling the signalman and he cannot leave it without being concerned about what will happen on the railway line, which is ironic because of the littleness of the bell. This makes the reader doubt his sanity once again, and also pity him slightly for what it has done to him. We are told that he was a former student of natural philosophy and he had wasted his opportunities. Again, we feel close to this character and we have some compassion for him. When he refers to his youth, he calls the visitor ‘“Sir”’ as if he feels inferior to him or because those were times when he felt vulnerable. The reader now sees him as fragile and a humble man. Perhaps it is this delicate state that makes us empathise with him so much and allows us to get involved. He is described by the narrator as being ‘vigilant’ and meticulous at his duties. As a former philosophy student, he must have been reliable, logical and sensible. However he then rises twice when the bell does not ring and checks the Line. When questioned about whether he is contented he replies ‘“I used to be so”’, and then follows that with ‘“I am troubled, sir”’. Again, he uses the word ‘sir’ and our empathy increases. We wonder if his mind has somehow been affected by the events of which he explains to the visitor. He seems as if he believes in the supernatural world. When he is visited again, he explains the appearances of a third character – the spectre. When he talks of this spectre, he is deeply trouble, and speaks in a whisper as if he is scared of being overheard or is in some way threatened. When he explains that he ran into the dark tunnel by himself, we feel he must have some ounce of bravery in him and at this point may have thought it was a trick of some kind. He touches the visitor’s arm to reassure him that what he is saying is true. When he tells the tale of the ‘beautiful young lady’ who had died, he gives a ‘ghastly nod’ as though telling the visitor to wait for him to finish his story. He knows what he is saying seems unbelievable, but he needs someone to understand. Also, when he tells the visitor of the frequent appearances that week of the spectre, the reader hopes that nothing bad will happen to him. He says that he has ‘“no peace or rest for it”’ and we begin to wish it was happening to someone less defenceless than the signalman. Dickens has succeeded in making us empathise with him, so much so that we hope that the visitor won’t leave the signalman on his own, just in case something happens to him. We realise now that he is not crazy, and that the spectre spoke the very same words as the visitor when they first met, and that is why the signalman looked down the Line, expecting to see the spectre once again. Readers then wonder if the spectre is there at that moment and are kept in suspense until the signalman assures the visitor it is not. He wonders what it is warning him against and tells the visitor that if he telegraphed danger for no reason they would probably displace him,
‘“they would think I was mad”’
The visitor says, in powerful words, that it is the ‘mental torture’ of a hard-working man who has been ‘oppressed beyond endurance’. The signalman begins to get panicky now and continually asks questions,
‘“Why not tell me…”’, ‘“Why not go to somebody with credit…”’
We can see that he is at wit’s end and realise the full extent of his torture. When the visitor decides to leave, the reader really does not want harm to come to the signalman. Sadly, that is the last time we see the signalman alive. He was hit by a train and most readers wish that the visitor had stayed with him. Even as he died we can see that the spectre is the reason he became like this and that it is possibly its fault he was killed.
The second main character is the visitor, or the narrator. The story is written in first person, from his point of view, so we generally know more about his thoughts. This is effective because it as if he is speaking directly to us, making the story more believable. He comes across as a level-headed, sensible man, possibly what the signalman would be like had he not seen the spectre. He seems like a pleasant man to speak with and genuinely interested in the Line and the signalman. At one point he seems slightly concerned about whether the signalman is real, he even says he is ‘near enough to have touched him’, as if looking for reassurance, but he soon sees sense and realises he is in fact real. During the signalman’s story he listens carefully and appears to be polite, cordial and quite inquisitive. He comes across as someone who is caring; because of the way he shows concern in the way the signalman is almost controlled by the bell. He explains that he should have thought this man ‘one of the safest…to be employed’, had it not been for the strangeness of him rising when the bell didn’t ring. He is curious as to why the words he shouted were of any importance and why he shouldn’t call out the next time he visits the signalman, but he does not question it. He also says he has an unusual ‘sensation of a train coming behind’ him when he walks back to the path. It may be the work of the supernatural. The next night, even though the signalman is sure of the appearances of the spectre, the visitor seems wary and rather cynical, always trying to find excuses. Despite this scepticism, he is still described as,
‘resisting the slow touch of a finger tracing out my spine’
This shows that he may not believe the reasonable answers he is giving, but he is merely trying to put the troubled signalman’s mind at ease. He continually finds more logical reasons for the ‘unnatural cry’ – the wind in the wires or the ‘memorable accident’ – a coincidence, but he sees that the signalman seems to have thought all these through and keeps building the story up piece by piece, adding a great sense of expectation. When he is told about the young woman died, he ‘involuntary’ pushed his chair away from the spot at which he is told she was laid. Now, we think that he is finally starting to believe what he has tried so hard not to for a long time. He is then told about the reappearance of the spectre all week, and how it rings the signalman’s bell. He still tries to suggest the signalman is deluded, and that he did not hear the bell ring twice. Every rational explanation is rejected by the signalman and we are led to believe that his story is the truth. After he leaves the signalman for the final time, all the way back to his inn, he is troubled. He has told the signalman that he must try to forget it and get on with his duty. The next time he returns, the signalman had been killed and even though the visitor has not discovered that yet, he still suspects something. He ‘mechanically’ looks down into the cutting, as he was in the beginning; as if some unnatural force has made him do this. When he realises what has happened he is evidently distraught. I believe he empathised greatly with the signalman and felt much pity for him. Upon hearing the news of the action the train driver did as the signalman was knocked down, he merely describes it as a coincidence. Even now he finds something difficult to believe about it, which suggests he is still not easily persuaded.
The third character that is to be considered is that of the spectre. Although we don’t meet it, it is described by the signalman a few times. It shouts the words,
‘“Halloa! Below there! Look out!”’ over and over again as if they are the only ones it knows. It always makes an action as if it is saying ‘“For God’s sake clear the way!”’
Possibly the most horrific thing about it, is the fact that it never shows its face. The arm is always up, covering its face entirely. This is more ghastly and terrifying than if its face was shown, I feel. This is again to do with the fact that everybody fears the unknown. If the face was illustrated then some people may feel that it is not done justice – this way there could be anything underneath the spectre’s arm – it is much more dramatic and keeps you wondering what it looks like. The main question in the story is what is the purpose of this spectre – to warn of death or bring death?
The main events in the story are occurrences like the two mysterious rings of the bell, the incidents involving the spectre, the deaths of the crash victims and the death of the signalman. Also important is the timing of when these proceedings happen – if they happen to soon then readers won’t be kept in suspense and the story will become boring.
When we first find out about the two rings of the bell we are under the impression that the signalman has possibly become unbalanced by spending so much time on this own. However, when the bells are later mentioned, it is explained that this is through the fault of the spectre. We have been kept wondering why the signalman checked the bell when it appeared to make no sound, through half of the story and the mystery is finally revealed. Another mystery revealed is why, when the visitor quite clearly shouts ‘“Below!”’, the signalman looks down the Line. During the second visit, he explains to the visitor that he thought him to be ‘someone else’ and was troubled by this. When the signalman tells the story of the spectre and the words that it spoke to him, we discover that he assumed that because somebody shouted ‘“Below!”’ it was the spectre appearing once again, by the red danger-light. This proves that we were mistaken in thinking him insane. Dickens’ actually changed our opinion on the signalman by waiting to reveal his reason for doing something.
Throughout the stories of the train crashes and the mysterious ‘coincidences’, the reader is kept wondering why and how. For example, the visitor continually interrupts the signalman with logical reasons for these strange incidents, but each time the signalman goes to speak and is described by the visitor as, ‘touching my arm’, ‘giving a ghastly nod’ and telling the man that ‘he had not finished’ his tale. Because of this, the reader is kept on tenterhooks as to how this alternative reason could be wrong and what happened next. The way he touches him on the arm ‘twice or thrice’ indicates that he is almost telling the visitor to be patient and wait to be told the rest of the story. The atmosphere throughout these stories is one of great dread and apprehension, almost threatening. The final event of the signalman’s death is the climax of the story, and I particularly liked the way in which the visitor felt he was being drawn down, and that he had a sixth sense about what had happened. He says that he had an ‘irresistible sense’ that ‘something was wrong’. There is a definite feeling of sorrow but also fear and even confusion, due to the circumstances surrounding the signalman’s death.
Time plays a very important part in the story I think, especially night time. The few encounters of the two men always seem to take place after sunset, and sometimes go well into the night. Night time, mainly because of the darkness, is feared more than daylight. I think using the night as one the themes of the story works more effectively than if daytime was used.
The techniques that Charles Dickens uses are significant and the quality of writing is consistent. He masterfully builds up suspense through a number of devices.
The first thing I noticed was the way it is written – in first person. When a story is written from somebody’s point of view (in this case the visitor) you feel as if the story is a lot more believable and easier to understand. You empathise with characters more and feel that the story becomes more interesting. Another technique that struck me when reading this story was the powerfulness of the emotive language used. Words such as ‘angry’ to describe the sunset, ‘barbarous’, ‘depressing’ and ‘forbidding’ to describe the tunnel, ‘sallow’ to describe the signalman and ‘oozier’ to describe the cutting invoke strong images in the reader’s minds. It amplifies the shocking and mysterious images going through readers’ minds.
There is also evidence of alliteration, for example, the phrase ‘Long, lamenting’. Alliteration is used for variety and to emphasise the words.
Other techniques, such as metaphors and personification also add variety and interest. They help produce powerful images in the readers’ minds. Examples from the text are ‘angry sun’, ‘frozen finger tracing out my spine’ and ‘great dungeon’. An ‘angry sun’ is one that is blood red, and possibly reflects the atmosphere of the story and events that follow. It is ironic that although the visitor tries to find explanations of the strange happenings he still feels the ‘frozen finger’. I particularly liked this metaphor because it was rather unusual and makes the reader feel quite nervous.
Repetition plays quite a large part in the story. The words ‘“Halloa! Below there!”’ are the main lines spoken in the piece and the reappearances of the spectre repeating the same action the hand across the face are also repeatedly mentioned. The bell, although described as ‘little’, is referred to quite often as is the ‘red danger light’, especially towards the end. Also, during the conversations between the men, the signalman repeatedly taps the visitor on the arm to assure him he is speaking the truth ‘touched me on the arm’, ‘twice or thrice’. Again, repetition of events and words highlight a point and makes the reader realise how important that point is to the story.
On the whole, the technique I found most effective and interesting was contrast. After the signalman is assured he has not met the visitor before, Dickens starts a new paragraph, when the signalman’s ‘manner cleared’. This shows a clear difference in the way the signalman acts, by splitting it up into paragraphs.
The most intriguing part of the story is the ending. This is due to the fact that it can be interpreted in many different ways. The events leading up to the signalman’s death are highly unusual, for instance the way that the visitor feels as he passes the cutting and the atmosphere he senses in the air.
The first line of one of the last paragraphs is it ‘was a lovely evening’. This can almost be described as the calm before the storm or tempting fate. You just know that nothing good could follow this ironic line as we soon find out. The visitor wasn’t actually planning to visit the Line for another hour but he says he ‘stepped to the brink’ of the cutting and ‘mechanically’ looked down into it. Again, there is an air of the supernatural forcing him to look and notice something bad has happened. When he sees what he thinks of as the spectre at first, he is excited but quite scared, saying he
‘cannot describe the thrill that seized upon me’ but also describes it as a ‘nameless horror’. He soon realises that something awful has happened and also notices the strangeness of the red Danger-light being ‘not yet lighted’. I think readers may start to guess what had happened when a temporary hut that has been made is described as being ‘no bigger than a bed’. Straight away, the visitor says he has an ‘irresistible sense’ of there being something the matter. Now the reader is left wondering if something has happened to the signalman. When the visitor begins to blame himself for something being wrong, I wondered why he was so sure that the signalman had been killed. I think maybe he knew that eventually this would be the only outcome. When the train driver tells of the action he did and the words he spoke before crashing into the signalman, there is a sudden flash of understanding of what happened, but also confusion. The story succeeds in keeping you in suspense right up until the last minute, when we finally discover the truth about the prominent line ‘“Halloa! Below there!”’
Was it just an unfortunate coincidence that the visitor spoke these words? I feel that the words are in the same context as the punch line of a joke is – they have ambiguous meanings that can be interpreted in different ways. I think that the spectre could have in some supernatural way (as the signalman says) conveyed these words to the visitor and he suddenly blurted them out without really realising.
Who was the spectre? He could have been death, the warning of death coming or just something placed there to drive the signalman insane. I personally think it was meant to represent death not actually warn, but there was no way the signalman could escape his fate, so the spectre was there to torment him and show him there was nothing he could do to prevent it coming.
After carefully examining the text, I must say I was very impressed at how well written the story was and how suspense is built up perfectly, surprising the reader even in the last line. I felt the most intriguing part of the story was how the ending could have been interpreted in many different ways and how Charles Dickens leaves it up to us to decide on our views.
