He briefly outlines the argument: at one point in the story, the older waiter says "She cut him down," referring to the old man's (a customer) niece. The disputed but of dialogue is a later line that according to convention would be attributed to the older waiter: "I know. You said she cut him down." In the one existing copy of the manuscript, this line appears to be a late addition, and some scholars believe that the publishers made an error in attribution. Smith counters this by claiming that "Hemingway read carefully whatever proofs he received of the publications in 1933" (Smith, 36). Smith then reveals that a typescript had recently surfaced which bridged the gap between penciled manuscript and published page, and that this typescript also attributes the line to the older waiter, exonerating the publishers (Smith, 38). He becomes embroiled in a reflection on who could possibly have typed the typescript, as evidence indicates it was not Hemingway, but he ultimately concludes that it was Hemingway who attributed the dialogue either by design or accident, and that no error was committed by anyone else (Smith, 38). Of course, this still leaves the question of the intended attribution wide open.
C. Harold Hurley and David Kerner each attempt to resolve this issue, both largely by responding to the work of critic Warren Bennett. Hurley makes this response almost an attack starting with his title, "The Manuscript and the Dialogue of 'A Clean, Well-Lighted Place': A Response to Warren Bennett." He starts out, however, by agreeing with some of Bennett's attributions based on the manuscript. He takes issue with Bennett's interpretation of the dialogue and its attribution at another point in the story, though, where the two waiters are discussing a soldier with a prostitute (Hurley, 17). The lines at issue involve a warning that the soldier will get picked up -- that is, arrested -- and the other waiter--presumably -- saying it wouldn't matter if he (the soldier) gets what he's after. The most common interpretation, and the one of which Hurley is in favor, attaches the cautionary lines to the older waiter, and the lusty justification to the younger. Hurley notes, however,...
Bennett, Hurley notes, agrees with Hagopian's attribution scheme, ignoring earlier work Hurley has published that Hurley believes conclusively proves that the standard interpretation is the correct one (Hurley, 19). His evidence is the differentiation between Hemingway's use of "the one waiter" versus "the waiter." Which he claims can readily identify older and younger based on their usage in other passages where attribution is not questioned.
Kerner takes the opposite approach t the same end, attempting to disprove Bennett from evidence outside the text rather than inside as Hurley did. He discusses several other known instances of errors in Hemingway's works; errors Hemingway often caught himself even when publishers were blind to them. He uses such evidence to argue that Bennett's claim that Hemingway made a mistake and simply missed it in copy after copy of his work is simply unfounded (Kerner, 53). He also mentions the possibility, first raised by others, that consecutive lines of dialogue might actually emanate from the same speaker, and that the break merely indicates a dramatic pause or "pause for reflection" rather than a shift in speaker. His most damning argument against Bennett, however, is his refutation of Bennett's insistence on Hemingway's eye problems by showing that there are other instances in Hemingway's later works where the dialogue is similarly confused, demonstrating that it was an unconventional choice rather than an inconsistent medical problem (Kerner, 56).
The controversy surrounding the dialogue in "A Clean, Well-Lighted Place" will never be fully cleared up; the one man who could have given a definitive answer dies without feeling the need. It is unlikely he would clear up the issue now if alive, however; beyond simply being against his character, it is this type of debate that keeps literature alive…
Both men's appearance are said to repel the young, yet they attempt to safeguard their 'just' reputations -- Blindy even says directly that he earned his nickname in his infamous fight: "you seen me earn it" (495). Blindy says that Willie Sawyer's castrating him, although not blinding him was 'too much' during his final fight, as if bargaining with fate. Eventually, some compassionate individual steps in to defend the reputation
Blindy is more obviously worried about money; because he has so little of it and earns what he does basically by begging, is he holds on to each quarter he "earns" very carefully (65). Both men also have to deal with a diminished or even disappeared sex drive (65). This is brought up explicitly in "Clean," when the young waiter brags about a wife in bed, and derisively states
Yellow Wallpaper The year is 1888, the place is America, the scenes include a country home in rural Massachusetts (where the woman of the house is Dorothy Pilman), a newsroom with typewriters clicking and clacking constantly, and a doctor's office in New York. The reporter is given access to the Pilman family and is invited to conduct interviews. A Reporter's Narrative Today, a typical day in the 19th century, American women are looked
inventory valuation? Measuring inventory effectively is paramount in keeping financial statements of a company up-to-date. Inventories represent a large proportion -in most companies- of short-term assets on the balance sheet. If valuation method is not prudent the assets and shareholder's equity will be over or underrepresented on the balance sheet. This will give an inaccurate picture of financial statements on which an investor based his financial decisions on. Why does the
He treated the other residents with dignity as he was working. He said that while there were many residents in the shelter, none of them was alike but people insisted on treating them the same way. Often, residents will find reasons to fight and argue with one another but he wanted to be above that kind of behavior. He was sensitive to the fact that all of them had
Banning Smoking in Public Places In the present age of information explosion, almost everyone is aware of the harmful effects of smoking although the leading tobacco manufacturers have managed to confuse the issue through lobbying cleverly conducted media campaigns. That a large number of people still choose to smoke and inflict harm on their own bodies is partially attributable to the power of business corporations and the effectiveness of advertisement but