Tuscaloosa Knights - not what I expected

Again, I am having mixed feelings as to whether or not I liked this particular story. Upon learning that this story was set in the Tuscaloosa area, I became excited because I was going to get to read a story with visual areas about a place that I knew. There were a few places in the story that I recognized, however, for the most part of the story, I didn’t quite find the familiarity that I had hoped for. I wish the story would have brought out more scenes from around the Tuscaloosa area – scenes that would have been more familiar to me. I found it funny that the author describes Tuscaloosa as a “dinky town with nothing to do.” Being in college and living in a very busy city, I find this hard to believe. There is always something too do. However, I have to remind myself of the time period in which this story was written. Back then there might not have been a lot to do in town. I think that small detail says a lot about the time period of the story. It’s a strong comparison to how those of us today view the city.

I liked the part about Coach Bryant not being able to play football because of a broken leg. However, because I’m from Tuscaloosa and remember hearing my mother and grandmother talk of “Bear,” I was upset that the story didn’t include true stories of Coach Bryant. In a way, I wanted it to be true he’d broken his leg. I think that having the preconception of thinking that everything in the story would be true to form for the Tuscaloosa area really hurt my ability to read this story and take it for face value. At times I wanted to create things that weren’t there and it hurt. Seriously.

The story brings out some interesting points regarding race and racial inequality. I think the plot of the story is very well written but the pinpoints about Tuscaloosa aren’t as accurate as they should be.

Tuscaloosa Knights

This story was a different one for me to read because I had never read a story that took place in a town that I live in. I liked it because I was able to picture the exact setting while I was reading the story. Like when certain streets, like Queen City Avenue and University Boulevard, were mentioned I was able to picture those streets in my mind. Also when certain places were mentioned, like Bryce hospital, I was able to picture that in my mind as well. A downfall to reading a story that takes place in a town that you live in is that you are more critical to details. For instance when Pinion and Marla are driving to the cross burning. In the story it says that they went down Queen City Avenue and then turned on to University Drive and then went through campus and then went past Bryce Hospital. I didn't really like that part because Bryce hospital is not on University Drive. It also said that they turned just past Bryce and went down to River Road, well you have to go a good distance away from Bryce before you can even turn to go to River Road.

The plot of the story was and interesting one to read. I like how the true story of Paul "Bear" Bryant playing with a broken leg was built into the story. I was happy when it wasn't Bryant that was the speaker at the KKK rally. If it would have been him I don't think I would have finished the story because that would have been so far from the truth that the story would not have been worth reading.

Another thing about the story that was good was how it took place in present tense. I like reading stories that put the reader into the action. I never knew exactly where this story was headed. Every time I thought I knew what was going it went in a different direction.

Hemingway "Kills"

I have read some of Hemingway's work in high school and must say that I'm not a fan. In this story, in particular, I did not believe the characters. Their actions and dialogue did not seem genuine to me. I could be completely wrong but that is the way I felt. I wanted to know more about why Anderson was not fighting back or fleeing. And I can only assume that the reason for his scheduled death was for something as cliche'd as a gambling debt. 

I have to say that he lost me in the beginning when I really couldn't keep track ast to who was saying what. I am a person who really likes to have everything clarified. If I feel confused or left out in the beginning I am pretty much done with the piece. I also had no idea why these two guys were ordering everyone around and everyone was obeying until near the end when Hemingway mentions that the guy that was in the kitchen was carrying a shot gun. I think that had he mentioned that early in the story then I would have not been so frustrated with the characters. 

I don't mean to be so negative but this piece was almost as bad as the "Old Man and the Sea". Where that story bored me this story did not connect the characters to me. Not my favorite story.

"The Killers" by Ernest Hemingway

I've read a few things by Hemingway before, so his style was nothing new to me. I'm a big fan of it, actually. The way he just cuts out anything extraneous and is still able to create fantastic prose is really astonishing. If I had to choose, I would probably have to say that this my preferred way of fiction writing. Along with Charles Bukowski, Hemingway's writing style is what I usually aspire to. I just like the quick, realistic dialogue and the straightforward, even barren, descriptions. It reminds me a lot of scriptwriting, with which I have a good deal of experience. The notion is to create a picture of the scene with as few words as possible, and let the characters speak for themselves.

As far as the story goes, it's nothing more than a little bit of pulp. A couple of ordinary guys get a taste of the city's underbelly and come to the conclusion that it's just part of it all, and that there's nothing one can do about it other than get out of town before it catches up with you.

I don't see a lot of problems with the story. It's short, it's simple, and deliberately so, so how could I fault it for that? Yes, I have to admit that when I wasn't paying the closest attention, it could get a bit confusing as to who's talking, but I always smile when that happens, because after all, it's Hemingway, and it's just a joy to read.

The Killers Review

The Killers did not necessarily entice me, as a reader. It was an easy read, but, at the same time, it seemed somewhat tedious. I really kept wondering where the story was going, and often found myself saying out loud, “get to the point.” The repetition of some of the lines between the characters was really annoying.

The lack of control of the voice bothered me, too. I understand that Hemingway probably did this on purpose, but without describing accents and how certain lines were said, I just found myself stereotyping accents into the whole Brooklyn mob accent. Actually, I thought a lot about that Hardees commercial from a few months back – the Philly Cheese Steak Burger one.

I guess it also goes back to personal tastes. I like to read and write stories that provoke thought. That’s mostly what I care about when it comes to all art, with few exceptions. I didn’t feel this particular story challenged me into any thought other than imagining the scenario for myself. Granted, the story was fun enough, and, as I said before, an easy read, but I felt there were things left desired.

On a positive note, though, I did think that the dialogue kept a good pace to the story, especially when I read the story allowed (no, I did not use the accents allowed, although I should have). In a way, too, it’s sometimes good to leave things open-ended for the reader. I could have made the mobster’s voices anything I wanted because it was left open.

In the end, I really was looking for something more thought provoking, and that doesn’t mean that I needed “descriptive paragraphs” or specific details. The dialogue used could have been put to better use - at least give more details about what’s going on through the dialogue.

Hemingway's Killers

Hemingway writes phenomenal dialogue.

I've read his work, I've always known that, but every time I read something by him it still blows me away. It's simple, realistic without being "too real" (nothing feels like fluff, and there's none of the dullness that occurs in spoken conversation, no "ums" or "ehs" or stutters or accents), and reads very quickly.

I like the tone Hemingway establishes. This read like a scene out of Pulp Fiction, with us readers being thrust into the middle of a scene with no exposition whatsoever. We get an idea of what is going on while it's "safe"--something feels off, but at the same time, though something feels ominous, the shit has yet to hit the fan. We aren't surprised when we learn that Al and Max are hitmen--it was given to us in the title, and something about the respective subtleties of their dress, mannerisms, and speech tells us that we are in the midst of a steadily-rising action that is ready to peak at any moment. At the same time, we have three other named male characters who also seem to feel that something is, at least to some degree, off. The use of five male characters served, to me, as a clash with the smooth dialogue. The characters names are given to us at a deliberate pace and Hemingway has them speak in a deliberate order with intentional dialogue tags that make us read and reread the dialogue to figure out who is saying what to whom. I would not be strictly for this method of confusion in all works, but for the tone I felt like it worked, deliberately confusing us enough to amp up the impending sense of foreboding but not fully distracting us from what's going on.

Finally, I enjoyed the pacing of the piece. Again, this is a very Hemingway story. The sentences are short and read quickly, and the dialogue tags rarely, if ever, stray from a simple "he said" or "Max asked." Everything written is in some way compelling, but not in an over the top, information dump kind of way. Most bits of dialogue are no more than a line long; the longest individual "speech" of the entire story is four lines long, when the landlady describes Andreson's lack of movement all day. Everything else is two lines or less. I feel like we can learn a lot from this. I know, personally, that I can agonize over such things as word choice and order for hours on end, trying to "pretty up" a work and give it some type of "literary merit." And while I'm sure Hemingway agonized over his simple words and order, the piece reads as though he were simply a fly on the wall documenting everything in real time. It's something I would like to start emulating more in my own writing.

The Killers

In Earnest Hemingway's The Killers, the reader is thrown into a terrible situation controlled by two men. These characters, Max and Al, remind me of the kind of jerks you run into standing in line at a concert or a movie. They begin conversing with you, then insulting you to one another.

The dialogue between the characters consumes most of this piece, allowing them to set the scene and provide background information versus the narrator. This is an interesting device, however, at times I had to reread passages in order to keep up with who is saying what.

What stuck out to me most was that the dialogue contributed from Max and Al (to each other and to the other characters) seemed so nonchalant considering they have come to the diner in order to kill a man. Going back and forth with likes like

"So, he thinks it's all right." Max turned to Al. "He thinks it's all right. That's a good one."
"Oh, he's a thinker," Al said.

I felt that this story could go a bit further, meaning I would like to see what came of the characters put in this situation. We don't know what comes of Ole Anderson or why he was put into this situation. However, the last line "you better not think about it,"fit perfectly with the tone of the rest of the piece.

Is it moral ambiguity or helplessness?

Hemingway takes a strictly fly-on-the-wall approach to telling this story, and I don't think this is for the sake of the narrative. One could easily imagine an exposition of this story with more engaging detail, character-developing inner monologue, and more active language to create dynamics. But Hemingway tells his story as blandly and as minimally as possible, and leaves us with not a world and group of characters to be engaged with, but a simple test-tube to be observed.

This nonchalantly told story about actionless characters acting nonchalantly to a horrible occurrence has, in my opinion, two possible underlying themes. The first is moral ambiguity. Not only does Hemingway promote this through his storytelling - handling all the characters exactly the same, whether good or bad, and giving us no moment of justice for the perpetrators of the story - but his characters seem to take no moral initiative at all. Surely someone could have easily and safely alerted the police; a more proactive character could have helped Ole escape. Most importantly, three men had a reasonable chance throughout the bulk of the story to overtake these two unremarkable hitmen. Perhaps most revealing is the defeatist language near the end: "I guess they will," "Well, you better not think about it." Passive language helps to facilitate this ambiguity, in much the way a callous filmmaker might pan over an injured, screaming women unsympathetically.

The other possibility is determinism. The story flows quickly without any accentuations or dramatic elaborations or pauses. It gives you exactly what you think will happen, as if it were happening in our nonfictional universe. There is also a sense of inevitability in their discussing Ole's fate. The story leaves you with every indication that he will be killed.

Either or both of these themes could be commentary on Hemingway's time and place, or America in general. Hemingway often described his generation as victims of post-war disillusionment, having a lack of direction and purpose, and borderline nihilistic. As Hemingway mechanically reels us through the story objectively, with indifference to every character, one senses his belief in a fatalism and purpose-robbing void every bit as ubiquitous as a booky you can't run away from.

Hemingway, Hits, and Misses

To start this review off, I must admit that I am an avid Hemingway fan and almost everything he’s done, I feel, is pure gold. Also, while I am familiar with several of his other shorts, this was the first time I read “The Killers,” and I was ready for a literature feast.

It’s more than commendable that this story was written in bed, in a day, and like all Hemingway’s stories, it’s intriguing and has dialogue that flows so effortlessly you could float a boat down it, but I have to say, as a whole, I was kind of let down. It seemed like the piece existed on two planes that could not quite come together: description and dialogue.

I enjoyed the ambiguity of Ole Anderson’s plight, and I liked the low-key, bland way George and Nick handle the ending (“They’ll kill him”/ “I guess they will,”) but I didn’t really feel connected to this story. The descriptions, when present, are glorious and spotless and true-to-form Hemingway, and I love them dearly, but as a whole, I kept finding myself wanting more. Any kind of reaction, any kind of small bone—especially when Max and Al are heckling the other men in the bar—would have not only helped me visualize the characters of Nick and George better, but it would’ve help me blend the dialogue and the imagery into a more accessible soufflé of literary genius, but I just couldn’t get there.

The dialogue is something I could only ever hope to write, but unfortunately, it’s what solely drives the story. By page three, the quotations marks began to feel cumbersome, like I was trudging through a field of mud, and each time it was harder and harder to pull my feet up. When I came across a rare sentence or two that was a description, it was like I’d reached solid land, only to be dragged back down again. Even screenplay and scripts have basic descriptions of action, and while I’m suggesting the piece be inundated with “Nick stood up. George eyed him. Sam ran off,” I would have liked something to help me complete the picture, especially since I am rather far removed from the scene and experience itself.

Hemingway is never bad; let me stress that. This story just seemed to fall on the lower end of his works—something that still has worth and value, but has trouble standing up to his other tales. It was a good experience, and I’m glad I read it, but I am now going to pull out “The Snows of Kilimanjaro” and drown myself in the tragedy of Henry and Helen.

The Killers Review

I equally enjoyed and disliked this story. One of the best aspects of the writing style is the intricate use of dialogue. Sometimes stories with a lot of dialogue can lose the ‘flavor’ or overall ‘attitude’ of the story. Also authors run the risk of becoming so caught up in the dialogue that bits and pieces of the original story can become lost. Hemmingway’s story does not lose any attitude or the original aspects of the characters. For this story, the characters are developed through the dialogue. In fact, characters should be developed through dialogue and I think we can all learn from this particular story just how to do that. However, on the flipside of the dialogue, at times it took such a precedent in the story that I forgot some of the basic descriptions I was told at the beginning of the story. I found myself returning to differnet parts of the story as I read. So, alas, the question I take from reading this story is how much of both dialogue and description does it take to create a poignant story without overwhelming the reader?

The story is definitely a great example of building tension. The entire time you read, you are wondering when and if the owner is going to come through the door and get shot. The ending lets you know that eventually the guy is going to get shot. After I put the story down, I was disturbed because though I knew what was going to happen, I still wanted to read about it for closure. Why closure, I’m not sure. I guess because I’m just use to stories giving me an ending of some kind and not leaving me hanging. I liked how this story takes place on two sets, mainly one, that being the diner. By having the story stay in one place for a good portion of the story, you are able to create a specific scene and feel to the overall plot and characters. I think it would be a good challenge to write a short story that happens in one place for the entire story. It would be interesting to see what plot and characters I could develop.

After reading other people's responses, I feel a little better about Borges' "Tlon, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius"--not because I understand it any better, but because I'm kind of relieved I'm not the only one who doesn't really feel like I get it. I enjoyed the story well enough on a superficial level; the premise interested me, and I thought the writing was very good. It throws out a lot of information in a short space, but to me it felt manageable, and I think I enjoyed the early stages of the story better than the later ones, in fact, because they felt more story-like than the simple descriptions of the way of life in Tlon. The philosophical discussions that got brought in with the recitation of what was in the encyclopedia entry were mind-twisting, and I don't think I really understood them yet--the explanations they come up with for the nine coins, their ideas about language, etc.

Even that, though, didn't make me feel completely overwhelmed by the story until I finished it. It feels... Big, like it's supposed to be a story with Meaning. And I feel like whatever greater Meaning it has, I have completely missed it. I got so convoluted somewhere over what was real and what wasn't, and what might it mean that this part is true and this part is completely false, that it became hard to come up with any greater significance to it than showing the reality and fiction are closer than we think, or that one creates the other perhaps. It left me enjoying the story while I read it--and not liking it very much at all once I actually finished and had to sit down and think about what I read. I didn't connect with it, in the end, because it largely lacked characters, and the plot was minimal--the main body of the story was establishing the fictional planet, with just the bare bones to make a story around that. I think that fact was what made it feel very heavy and Meaningful--like there was some huge philosophical significance, simply because there wasn't much there that wasn't heavy and philosophical.