With the 1925 publication of "Haircut," author Ring Lardner introduces the audience to a small town that may seem so unique to its inhabitants. However, those same people and their settings are nothing short of typical during that time in the United States. During the Great Depression of the 1920s, Many Americans faced a drastic change in their comfort as banks and businesses were shuttered. People turned to dire situations to feed their families and were forced to find new ways to entertain themselves with little to no cost. Ring Lardner's barber serves as a narrator to that shift in entertainment–and mortality–with "Haircut," a story of a small town's shift in entertainment with the "accidental death" of its resident jokester! But it's the character revelation of this jokester that reveals much more about the townspeople than the barber's sweet synopsis, giving this story a distinction in literature. In reading "Haircut," author Ring Lardner uses intentional ignorance and acceptance of character Jim Kendall's flawed qualities and actions to implement and satirize the barber's humorous story telling. This is primarily seen in the overall character description of Jim Kendall; the barber's–and entire town's–perception that Jim Kendal's actions as funny or joking; and Kendall's self-imagined rivalry with new town doctor George Stair.
In analyzing the information that the barber provides about Jim Kendall, however, humor is seemingly mistaken with malice. The character development of Jim Kendall and the role he plays amongst his townspeople is the catalyst for the story “Haircut.” Described as “all right at heart but just bubbling over with mischief,” the audience gets the initial impression that Jim Kendall is a carefree young man with not much responsibility who may live—and drink—a little more vicariously than most. Even with the loss of his job selling canned goods and his honesty around the town about being fired partially endeared the audience towards Kendall, helping the audience to see why the townspeople look so favorably upon him. However, that is just the precursor t Kendall’s other “funny but honest” acts. The narrator later explains how Kendall had a wife and children and, while he took odd jobs around the town to get money, Kendall neglected to care for them financially. Kendall opted instead to spend his funds on liquor instead of household duties. When the wife tries to be proactive and collect Kendall’s paychecks, Kendall calls himself “outwitting the Missus” and getting advances on his check so he could continue to drink his check away. Then, as “payback” to his wife’s action, he tells her to bring their children to the circus and meet him there so they could have a family day together—his treat. However, Kendall never shows up but instead is at the local bar bragging about his “tricking” his wife, leaving her at the circus with no money and two devastated crying children. This is the first major example of two facets of Jim Kendall’s “humor”: He takes action against anyone who outwits him or rejects his implied hierarchy around town. His actions are based in the very brutal and public humiliation of his targets, as he is humiliated by the target’s actions. While the reader may see this as a shocking act, the barber just laughed in his tone telling his tale, describing Kendall as “a caution!” to anyone who crossed him. But Kendall’s malicious actions was always excused or seen as a funny for some unforeseen.
The barber constantly references the fact that Kendall’s wife could’ve technically divorced him due to his lackadaisical ways and straying eyes but that she wouldn’t due to her not being able to provide for her children on her own. In essence, Mrs. Kendall was stuck with the constant threat of her husband’s “jokes” so she chose to be compliant and quiet. She was not the only one to follow this formula to stay out of Jim Kendall’s crosshairs. The barber serves as a representative of the town’s moral absence in stopping Jim Kendall from committing mentally brutalizing acts, instead seeing him as a jokester. Anyone who Kendall perceived weaker or dumber than him was a target. Paul Dickson, a 10-year-old boy that suffered from mental disabilities due to being dropped as a baby, was constantly called “cuckoo” by Jim Kendall. Even though the audience knows this is a deplorable act to call a child derogatory names, no one ever stepped up to the young boy’s defense. With his acts, Jim Kendall revealed that the townsmen lacked just as much—if not more—morality than he did. Given that his shenanigans were always followed and constantly discussed, Jim Kendall became a cult figure around town. So much so that when he would make weekly visits to the barbershop, he would get the same seat to sit in—regardless of who was sitting there first—and all attention would be on him to hear his newest “joke.” In addition to the lack of decency they possessed, it can be interpreted that the townsmen may have been afraid of disagreeing with or dissenting to Kendall’s actions in fear of retaliation. They were fully aware of Jim Kendall’s dedication to his “jokes,” which just caused the towns to adapt a groupthink mentality to avoid targeting. The ability to use one character description to fully develop the supporting characters around him is a great feat; Jim Kendall is the mirror for a town’s worth of people and their mentalities. However, a recent transplant into town proves to be Jim Kendall’s biggest “competition”—and eventual demise.
The introduction of Dr. George Stair comes at a point where the barber displays Jim Kendall’s “getting even” with his wife in the aforementioned circus incident. Doc Stair, as affectionately called by the barber, saw the lady and children stranded with no tickets and pair their way into the fair. The small gesture of kindness begins Jim Kendall’s dislike of Doc Stair, as someone has thwarted one of his “jokes.” This begins Doc Stair’s formulation into the humble hero to contest Jim Kendall’s villain, once again displaying how the characterization of Kim Kendall created the life of another character in direct opposition to him and his way of life.
Another point of contention between the two men involves a woman—but not Mrs. Kendall. A notorious womanizer around time, Jim Kendall had his desires set on a smart young woman in town named Julie Gregg. However, Julie did not pay Kendall any mind as she felt his actions were immature and because he was a married man. Julie did have an attachment to Paul Dickson, who developed a crush on her, and was the only one in town to treat the young boy nicely. 9The barber described Julie’s kindness towards Paul as “pity.”) But Jim Kendall was persistent with his advances… until Julie meets and falls in love with Doc Stair. Kendall then adds another reason to dislike Doc Stair, as the girl he would never have wanted another man. In Kendall’s eyes, the doctor has outwitted him in two ways. But instead of contesting Doc Stair, he makes a mockery of Julie’s feelings and reputation: disguising his voice as Doc Stair’s, he urges Julie to come to the doctor’s office as he has “something important to tell her.” Believing that this will be Doc Stair’s profession of love to her, Julie runs to the doctor’s office after dark to be met by a vindictive Kendall and drunken townsmen antagonizing her calling for Doc Stair after several unanswered knocks. From there, the dislike Kendall carried for Doc Stair is reciprocated with Doc Stair verbalizing that a man who could humiliate a woman like that doesn’t necessarily deserve to live. While Kendall’s character gave Doc Stair and his morality life, Doc Stair and that same morality brought death upon Jim Kendall.
In reality-based writing, authors are limited to the facts present from actual events. However, in fiction, one element can help to spawn a whole world in which the story thrives around that element. In Ring Lardner’s “Haircut,” that element is the character Jim Kendall. With his deep character development, the views of humor versus humiliation, morality and groupthink take on a human form and call for the audience to view inaction as not a valid answer for certain action. Even though “Haircut” os over 90 years old, it is still applicable in today’s society in showing how insensitive acts are accepted out of fear or acceptance that the assailant is “just kidding” or “just being himself.” Just like the barber and the townspeople were accountable, we as citizens are responsible for how we treat one another—both directly and indirectly.