Essay - Synthesis of Scholarly Work Re: ' a Clean, Well-lighted Place'...

Synthesis of Scholarly Work Re: " A Clean, Well-Lighted Place"

Due to his famous--or infamous--reticence and the sparse detail ***** his s*****ries, few American authors have inspired as much academic controversy ***** debate ***** Ernest Hemingway. One especially aggravating--or ingratiating--aspect of his short stories is a consistent omission of standard dialogue markers, which can often create confusion for the reader. T***** confusion ***** be worsened by *****'s use of anti-metronomic dialogue; that is, dialogue which does not always switch back and *****th *****tween speakers when a new line and a new set of quot*****tions begins, as is standard. Volumes worth of scholarship have been devoted to one of Hemingway's short ***** in particular. "A *****, Well-Lighted *****" has ***** a subject ***** debate nearly s*****ce its publication in Scribner's Monthly ***** 1933, and the battle ***** been given renewed vigor several times ***** ***** emergence of drafts, typescripts, and notes which have been *****d by scholars both to argue for the emendation of what they see to be Hemingway's mistakes, and by others to demonstrate ***** Hemingway's irregularities were intentional stylistic choices.

The controversy in this s*****ry centers on several patches of ***** between an old and young waiter. As published, it appears that at least one of the ***** becomes confused, or that Hemingway is showing a m*****jor break with convention by having the same speaker speak two consecutive lines of dialogue marked *****f by separate quotation marks, the normal way of denoting a new speaker. Due to a letter written to Hemingw*****y by a curious professor, some believe ***** Hemingway did this on purpose (his response to ***** *****'s claim that the dialogue as published did not make sense earned a reply of, It *****s sense to me. Sorry.") Many others ***** that the confusion in the dialogue is an error, either on the part of the printer, publisher, or Hemingway himself, and that his response to the letter--written just a few years be*****e ***** author's suicide--is not to be trusted. The question for ***** ***** believe ***** becomes who made the error, and why it was allowed to persist, and of course how ***** dialogue was meant to appear. Those who believe that the ***** appears correctly avoid this problem, but ***** to decide exactly ***** ***** confusion and/or ***** w*****h tradition is supposed to signify. Some critics, such as John Leonard, avoid the problem altogether.

In h***** article comparing "A Clean, Well-Lighted Place" to "A Man of the World," he reflects on t***** characters of the waiters in question, and ***** ***** waiter particularly. These are the two speakers ***** *****m the various lines of dialogue might be attri*****ed, ***** *****ir reflection on the speaker changes drastically depending on who said them. This does ***** matter for Leonard, however, for *****m the stories illustrate the ***** principles regardless of the attribution of the dialogue. He recognizes ***** the difference ***** the ***** ***** is paramount to the s*****ry, and that the main d*****cernible difference *****tween the