10/24 - The Killers
Answer one of the following questions:
- Compare the style and use of dialogue in “The House on Turk Street” and “The Killers”. How are they similar/different? What is learned through dialogue in these stories?
- Consider the roles of the characters. Who is in charge or calling the shots?
- Much of the story is uncertain, including the reliability of the narrator. What evidence is present that shows whether or not the narrator is reliable? Is the narrator biased?
- How is this a coming of age story? What is the reality that the youth fails to realize?
Response by Rebecca Hollister
ResponderExcluir“The House on Turk Street” and “The Killers” are both stories about crime told in extremely different manners. Hemingway’s writing is much more simplistic and describes a lot less explicitly and in detail than Hammett’s. Through the dialogue in “The House on Turk Street,” we learn quite a bit about who the characters are. Additionally, “The House on Turk Street” has a clear, first person narrator who interjects multiple times throughout the story to connect dots that the reader may not have otherwise noticed. Hemingway’s writing is far more sparse, which I believe actually creates a complexity to the story that I didn’t quite get a sense of in “The House on Turk Street.” Because there is no first person narrator and because readers don’t get a sense of the thoughts of many of the characters despite the few they say aloud, readers are left with quite a lot to analyze. In “The House on Turk Street,” the dialogue always seems to have a purpose and is quite easy to understand and follow. In Hemingway’s “The Killers,” it is often unclear exactly what is meant by some of the things said, and repetition creates a much darker tone than in “The House on Turk Street.” There is no humor in the dialogue or in the narration at all, and the emphasis on the fact that there is no clear reason as to why these killers are after Ole Andreson, and that they don’t even seem to have a personal connection to the man, make the story much more serious and melancholy. Though both “The House on Turk Street” and “The Killers” are crime tales, they are vastly different in terms of their style and the effects that are achieved by the chosen manner of writing.
At first glance this story offers very little. It appears to be a plotless confusing set of narration. And the first time I read it this is all it was to me. However, there is a little bit going on here upon deeper digging. The plot becomes a bit more clear with a second read through. For example the story is not just a random string of narration. It is about two hitmen that have come to kill an old man in a quiet town. The old man got mixed up doing the wrong things but it is unclear what exactly. It could possibly be something to do with the Prohibition as this is constantly referenced in the story. As with the plot, the narrator does not seem like a very interesting subject at first glance. The narrator is third person so they do not have an active role in the story. They also seem to be limited in how much they know about what is going on in the story. The narrator tells us nothing in regards to the backstory of what the old man did, who sent the hitmen, and who the people working are and what their relationship to the old man is. The narrator however, becomes a more interesting subject with more read throughs. For example, I found the narrator to be at least a little biased. There is definitely more of a focus on the workers of the restaurant and how they are feeling about the entire situation than on the hitmen. The hitmen are portrayed as entirely emotionless. Their emotions are never even close to discussed and can not be inferred through their narration. They seem to be entirely driven by their job and have no regard for what they are doing. The two workers however can be seen as very frazzled and upset by the entire situation. The one that goes to warn the old man reacts with a lot of emotion when he talks about how awful the experience was. The worker even expresses an interest in fleeing town. On top of that, the hitmen are masked in mystery by their lack of character development. We have no idea what they look like, who they are, and we only gain their names because they are used in conversation. The narrator seems to know the name of George, for example, withought having to be told. Despite the bias, I feel the narrator is still a reliable one. From what the situation appears to be, it would be hard to side with the killers.
ResponderExcluirThis post was brought to you by Gavin Lafferty
ExcluirI believe that "The Killers" is a coming-of-age story because it features three untested, inexperienced youths who are confronted with a situation that pushes them into maturity. The boys react as well as could be expected, doing their best to follow orders while still maintaining their dignity and independence. They all resist to a certain degree, and they all don't wish to see Ole Andreson die. However, the crucial coming-of-age moment occurs after the killers depart the diner. As a young person, it is easy to believe that any problem can be solved through hard work, perseverance, and resourcefulness. It is this attitude that drives Nick to Ole Andreson's apartment to warn him about his impending death. Nick wants Ole Andreson to do something about it, to try in some way to avoid being murdered, but finds that Andreson has resigned himself to death. At this point, all of the youths realize that they are no longer dealing with problems of childhood. They are dealing with adults, and with the real world, and sometimes in the real world, problems can't be solved. -Nolan Peacock
ResponderExcluirKevin Hautigan's Response:
ResponderExcluir“The House on Turk Street” and “The Killers” has clear similarities in dialogue usage. Both use dialogue to characterize criminals. In “The House on Turk Street,” Hook screams at the detective, “You’re going to know me pretty well before you’re through with me” (6). This characterizes Hook early on in the story by showing he is the hot-headed muscle of the criminals. In “The Killers,” Al tells his partner “You talk too damn much” (57). This characterizes Al as the wiser and more careful criminal in the operation through a simple statement he continuously repeats.
Stylistic differences exist in the text as well. “The House on Turk Street” is told in first-person and its plot is very clear because it is told in real time by someone that is in the thick of the action. “The Killers,” being told mostly through dialogue and third-person limited narration leaves more open to interpretation. This is exemplified as the reader of “The Killers” reads the dialogue of Nick at the end of the story where he claims “I’m going to get out of this town” (64). There is no narrator that clarifies why Nick specifically takes issue with this town. Instead, the reader must use the context in the story to determine that Nick wants an escape because the town is full of sad stories like that of Ole Anderson. Also, stylistically speaking, “The House on Turk Street” is full of constant action as the detective continues to unravel criminal plots. Hemingway writes “The Killers” in a way that has small amounts of action unfold throughout the entire story. The real action in Hemingway’s story comes from trying to figure out the motivations of the criminals and of the characters who fell victim to their strange, and not clearly explained, attempted murder.
In the short story “The Killers,” by Ernest Hemingway, Hemingway plays with unexpected outcomes, unexpected stereotypes, and unexpected characters. There are seven characters in the story: Al, Nick, Sam, Max, George, Ole, and Miss Bell. Throughout “The Killers,” the power of the characters changes. For example, in the beginning, the person in charge is George because he is the only man with a notable position of power: owner of the restaurant. This quickly changes, however, as Hemingway continues to write about the complexities of the characters and shines light on the inner workings of each character’s mind. Nick then becomes the person with the most power, as he knows the restaurant better than both Al and Max and had been sitting there for awhile before them. As the story progresses, however, Al becomes the character in charge. And, in terms of “calling the shots,” Al plays this role as well. In stories with two characters who work together (in this case, Al and Max), there is always a power dynamic. This power dynamic is easy to recognize in the relationship between Al and Max. Al orders the others around, ties up Nick and Sam in the kitchen, and refers to George, sarcastically, as “bright boy.” Al also tells Max to “shut up,” on page 57 and makes multiple threats to everyone in the lunch bar. On page 58, however, the power dynamic between Al and Max switches. Max asserts his opinion of liking George, despite Al’s differing opinion, and on page 59, Max orders Al to come out of the kitchen. To this, Al asks Max whether or not he should leave behind both Sam and Nick, and Max makes the decision to leave them behind. Clearly, power dynamics have changed. Ultimately, though, it is neither George nor Nick, nor Al, nor Max who has the power, but rather Ole Andreson. Although Hemingway depicts Ole Andreson as a man with a lazy and indifferent attitude (qualities of a man most would view as powerless), Ole becomes the man with the most power because he, without doing anything, causes confusion amongst Max and Al, and causes George and Nick to change their lives. Hemingway concludes “The Killers” with a shocking ending; the least present character becomes the most powerful character.
ResponderExcluirHuneeya Siddiqui:
ResponderExcluirWhile "The Killers" and "The House on Turk Street" are both crime stories, centered around a killing and including similar plot points and motifs, such as people tied up and mysterious killers, the differing styles of narration distinguish the two stories as unique. "The House on Turk Street" follows a clear plot, where each detail of the mystery is carefully and clearly unraveled, providing us with a shining answer by the end of the story; a victorious resolution. "The Killers," on the other hand, both begins and ends with a tone of uncertainty. The story opens with an uncertainty about the time of day, with characters arguing about whether or not the clock is correct and then abandoning the argument, without reaching a conclusion. This ambiguity is continued throughout the story, in the details of the menu, the killers, the reason for the killing. In fact, the story ends with Nick and George guessing at the reason why people are trying to kill Ole Anderson, and again, not reaching a conclusion. The fact that there is truly no resolution in the story reveals that, unlike "The House on Turk Street," the aim of "The Killers" is not to unravel a mystery or solve a crime, but rather about a human interaction with evil. The fact that the reason for the crime is never revealed makes it darker; instead of motivated or arguably justifiable crime, these killers are instead engaging in crime for the sake of crime. Thus, the story is about societal reaction to this crime, exploring the theme of morality. We see this in the way that the different characters react; the cook is scared into silence, wanting nothing to do with the crime, Nick is driven by a sense of moral responsibility but is ultimately unable to make any difference, and Ole Anderson, the very target of the crime, exhibits a sense of hopeless retirement to his face. While all these characters react differently, they all fail to do anything to curb the crime, demonstrating the various ways in which society was failing.
By Sarah Kurzweil
ResponderExcluirThis story explores the growth of “bright boy” Nick Adams as he comes to realize that evil exists in the world (55). After learning that Max and Al intend to kill Ole Anderson, the young and naive Nick visits Ole to warn him and tells Ole that “they said they were going to kill you” (62). Ole, however, is not surprised to hear this, and his reaction deeply confuses Nick. Ole says, “There ain’t anything to do,” and as Nick leaves, he sees “Ole Anderson with all his clothes on, lying on the bed looking at the wall” (63). Ole— a strong, more mature, older man— recognizes that he cannot escape death and evil, so he chooses to accept his fate and risk death. Seeing Ole lying on the bed troubles Nick. Nick viewed his decision to visit Ole as an extremely courageous one—one that George and the cook were unwilling to do— and the coming-of-age moment occurs when Nick realizes that his bravery was useless because the world is filled with evil and uncertainty, and one person— even a strong one— cannot fully control his future. At the end of the story, Nick says he’s “going to get out of this town,” demonstrating the degree to which the sight of Ole lying on the bed has upset him: he cannot stop the evil from occurring, so he wants to run away (64). Nick “can’t stand to think about him waiting in the room and knowing he’s going to get it,” but George believes that Nick just “better not think about it” (64). Although Nick has started to grow and lose some of his naivety, he still is not as mature as George, who is more indifferent to the thought of death and had previously recognized the existence of evil.
Among the limited cast of characters in “The Killers,” the character in charge appears to shift throughout the story depending on the setting. The first words spoken by the mysterious men entering Henry’s lunchroom are from a character that the reader later learns is named Max but for almost three pages is referred to as “the first man” or in some reference to Al. One might assume that because Max spoke first that he would be the one in charge, but for a significant portion of the story that does not seem to be so. It almost appears as if Hemingway left him unnamed despite speaking first in order to establish the dominance of the other man named Al. Al fits the role of the one in charge through his speech pattern. He communicates to the boys, Sam and even Max in imperative statements and even openly criticizes Max displaying his superiority such as telling Max that he “talks silly” and that he talks “too goddam much.” Also,Al cuts off George reexplaining the dinner options in order to assert his command cutting through the confusion set by Max who couldn’t get George to give him what he wanted. In a way, Al starts to take the reigns of the holdup through something as simple as a dinner order. Moreover, Al leads the conversation with the boys setting up how the holdup will take place while they wait for Anderson. Furthermore, Hemingway describes Al as a “photographer arranging for a group picture.” He directs the actions of the group further cementing him as the leader. However, as Al waits in the back with Adams and Sam, Max starts to take over the scenes. He starts giving Max advice on his brightness and he even tells Al when it is time to go. Finally, after the men leave, George becomes the one in charge as if Max passed the role onto him except he speaks in less command like Al and more firm suggestions such as “should.” He tells Adams to see Anderson and the story closes on his suggestions that Nick “better not think about it” crystallizing his control as the last words.
ResponderExcluirResponse to question 2.
ExcluirBryan Schaffer
ResponderExcluirQuestion 3
In typical Hemmingway fashion, the narrator of The Killers is simply an observer, with the same prior knowledge of characters and events as the reader. He knows neither the names of the characters nor their intentions until they are mentioned in dialogue. This shows that the narrator is unbiased and reliable. He simply details the information that he observes, without offering an opinion. This is different that many of the narrators that we have seen so far. For example, in Slavery’s Pleasant Homes, the narrator is a strong judge of the characters, praising George for his nobility and condemning Frederic Dalcho for his “evil soul.” Meanwhile, in The Killers, when a racial slur is used in dialogue to address Sam, the cook, the narrator repeats the slur. This is not out of spite for Sam, as the narrator holds no apparent ill will towards any of the characters. Instead, it is simply a thoughtless repetition of what was heard. Thus, the narrator is a mere observer, picking up bits of information through dialogue without generating an opinion of his own.