Literary Criticism of Ernest Hemingway’s, A Clean, Well-Lighted Place (Essay Sample)

Student’s Name Professor’s Name Course Date Literary Criticism Ernest Hemingway’s, A Clean, Well-Lighted Place (1933) has received widespread attention among literary scholars for its writing style. The story is set in a café where two waiters discuss the only subject in the vicinity, an old man having a drink. The two workers, a youth and a middle-aged one, discuss the man’s life and his recent developments. From their engagement, the reader can tell that the man is wealthy but lonely, only living with his niece, who saved him when he tried to commit suicide. While the story seems to stress the meaninglessness of life as seen in the old man's life, it is the confusing nature of the text that has captured the attention of literary scholars. Specifically, Hemingway does not identify the two waiters based on what they said. Instead, he uses indented quotes to depict speech but leaves the reader to form the identity of each speaker. This style resulted in perceived inconsistencies, with some re-writing the story and correcting the issues noted, while others argued that no change was needed. In his critique, which is informed by analyzing a wide body of literature, Ryan notes that there is no concrete justification for changing the text and that Hemingway gives the reader the power to decide which words were spoken by each waiter. Summary of the Critic Ryan starts by acknowledging that for more than forty years, literary scholars have been engaged in a war of words regarding Hemingway’s short story. The writer notes that an inconsistency in the dialogue between the two waiters has resulted in such a prolonged argument that literary experts no longer have anything to say regarding the issue. While these conversations were rife a few years after the release of the story, Charles Scribner Jr.’s decision to emend the original text in 1965 seems to have heightened the dialogue. Scribner Jr.’s move to change a few lines of the story in his quest to erase any ambiguity resulted in two versions of the story (Ryan 78). Ryan notes that while some confusion exists in the original text, there was no justification for emendation. The writer notes that for such a change to take place, there should be sufficient evidence that an error was made. Additionally, it should be proven that even if there is a mistake, the author did not intend to make it. In the last paragraph, Ryan posits that changing the text denies the reader the opportunity to decide for themselves which speaker uttered certain words, something Hemingway would have wanted as he saw the story as perfect even after he was notified of the inconsistencies. I believe that the author makes a credible case because Hemingway would have corrected the errors if he wanted to. Since he did not, it is safe to assume that he wanted the story to remain as it was produced. Critic Approach The author uses a historical approach to the literary critic. Specifically, he pinpoints the genesis of the problem and how different individuals have tried to resolve it over the course of history. Ryan notes that people noticed the issue in 1959, almost twenty-six years after the story was published, with articles by F.P. Kroeger and William Colburn sparking the conflict. This situation was magnified when Charles Scribner Jr. made emendation on the original text in his quest to correct the inconsistency. Ryan analyzes the arguments made by the supporters and critics of changing the text, appreciating their strengths, and pinpointing their weaknesses. This historical approach helps readers understand the genesis of the challenge of the positions various scholars have taken. My Initial Impression of the Reading This article has challenged how I initially understood various parts of the story. I have now seen various perspectives that can be used to analyze different sections of the text. For instance, I thought that the words “He’s drunk now,” in the third part of the waiters’ conversation were ...