Richael Francis C. Mangibin
1 MA ELLT
EN 210
Dr. Margot Orendain
23 March 2013
“Time After Time:
A Stylistics Analysis of Ernest Hemingway’s A Clean Well-Lighted Place”
Change is the only thing that does not change in the world; these are the words of people
who are always experiencing change in their lives. With, change is apparent and it is everywhere;
change is also unpredictable and it goes out on its own way. What makes change such a wonder is
the fact that it happens to fast – one minute you see it, the next you do not. As a result of change,
people have no choice but to subject to it because it is change that makes people move forward;
because of this, the way that people live are also constantly changing at a rapid speed so every
generation that lives does so in different ways with different perspectives in life. In light of all these,
people from different generations share different perspectives and prospects in life that when such
are talked about, they are commonly at contrast with each other and it is in this contrast where
things are seen from very different vantage points. This is commonly known as a Generation Gap.
Generation gap is very common for people who are from different ages – like fathers to
their sons – or even just a senior and a junior colleague like in Ernest Hemingway’s “A Clean Well
Lighted Place.” The short story is a good example of a generation gap as it shows to tis readers
different ways on how people see their life as it is. The short story is about two waiters – one is older
than the other – who both work in a café up until the late hours of the night. The scene is a very
simple scene that mostly happens in the café they are working at and only tending to an old man,
looking at the scenery that happens around the place and just letting time pass by. However, the
1
most important thing to notice in the short story is the conversation between the two waiters.
Actually the entire short story revolves around their conversation – it is the main thing that happens
in it. The conversation itself is fairly simply: they initially talked about the old man who was still
staying at the café drowning in alcohol so late at night; then they talked about their work; and finally,
they talk about themselves as they close up shop and head their separate ways. In connection with
the generation gap, the way that they talk and even the content of their words holds true to their
distinction as individuals and as members of different generations. It is apparent in the way that
Hemingway have constructed this story that their differences are shown progressively throughout
the course of the narrative – like a flower slowly opening, with its petals separating, from a mere
bud. In connection to this, the simplistic style to which Hemingway has construct the shorts is a
paradox to its meaning hence referring to the way that Ronald Carter (1984) that Hemingway has
written this story with a “’simple’ style and ambiguity” (Carter, p.75). In Carter’s (1984) analysis of
“Cat in the Rain” also written by Ernest Hemingway, he says that the “most critical writing about
Hemingway’s ‘style’ tends to converge on [a] limited range of adjectives by which it is characterized.
‘Clipped’, ‘laconic’, ‘bare’, ‘colourless’, ‘simple’ appear to be among the most frequent” (Carter, p.
68) and this, too, applies with this particular story. However, simple as it may be, it is also very
ambiguous that it needs more than a simple reading for a reader to capture its deeper and purer
essence. It is that which this paper will be discussing: Ernest Hemingway’s “A Well Clean-Lighted
Place” is a narrative that presents a generation gap between the two protagonists resulting in a clash
of ideals, a rift of perspectives, and a move into “separate ways.”
As a guide to further provide basis to the interpretation aforementioned in this discussion,
the analysis of the language of the story is key. Referring back to Mick Short’s (1984) article, he says
that, “…concentrated attention to relevant linguistic evidence can help to decide critical
disagreements,” (Short, p. 182); this is true with almost every literary debate that occurs when it
2
comes to interpretation. The same applies to this discussion, which presents language as an essential
key into the gathering of concrete evidence of the interpretation of the story.
One very apparent linguistic feature of the story is its simplicity; it is very much a style of
Ernest Hemingway. As quoted from an article by Ronald Carter (1984), he states that, “most critical
writing about Hemingway’s ‘style’ tends to converge on a limited range of adjectives by which it is
characterized. ‘Clipped’, ‘laconic’, ‘bare’, ‘colorless’, ‘simple’ appear to be among the most frequent.
(Carter, p. 68). In A Clean Well-Lighted Place, the same characteristics are the same. All in all, the story
only focuses on the two protagonist waters and their conversation with one another on a typical
night at their work in the café; besides the conversation, another thing to notice about the story is
the description of the setting of the story. These two narratives are the only features of the story but
nonetheless, they are as what Ronald Carter (1984) considers as “very simple style yet produces
complex effects.” (p.67). For this particular situation, its best to go back to Mick Short’s (2007)
Mode of Speech Presentation and Narrative Report ways of presenting a story. Using this technique
on analyzing the story, let us first focus on the conversation of the two waiters:
[1]
“He’s drunk now,” he said
“He’s drunk every night.”
“What did he want to kill himself for?”
“How should I know?”
“He hung himself with a rope.”
“Who cut him down?”
“His niece” (20-27)
In Mick Short’s (2007) chapter on Speech Presentation, he uses this exact excerpt from the
Hemingway’s story and according to him, “Hemingway is fond of omitting the reporting clause…
he uses this choices to portray the quick to-and-fro of the conversation between the two waiters.
Without the introductory clauses specifying which waiter what, it becomes difficult to remember
which waiter is which, so that confusion is gradually produced in the reader’s mind.” (p. 258-259).
The given excerpt from Hemingway’s story is an example of Free Direct Speech or FDS. Free
3
Direct Speech, according to Short (2007) refers to a speech presentation “where the characters
apparently speak to us more immediately without the narrator as the intermediary.” (Short, p. 258).
Basing from the story, most, if not all, of the conversation between the two waiters have been
presented through FDS. This gives the notion the Hemingway wants the readers to feel that the
conversation if fluid and authentic without the interruption of any sort from the narrator; and also
going back to what Short (1984) has stated that it makes the readers confused as to which of the
waiters was speaking what. As Short, in the same book, quotes David Lodge, a critic, he states that,
“Hemingway deliberately encourages the reader to make in initially incorrect discrimination between
the two waiters,” (p. 259) which, however, would have been clarified as the reader finishes the entire
story. As the story is read repeatedly, it can be inferred that the conversation between the two waiter,
with the guidance of the accuracy of their words due to FDS, only brings out more the contrast
between the characterization of the two waiters. Actually, the excerpt, [1], is what we can consider as
cataphora, which according to Paul Simpson (1959), “points forward to a reference or references in a
subsequent portion of text.” (Simpson, p. 107). In light of this, [1] is something that would give us a
clue as to how we characterize the two waiters – and even, who is which. From [1], the conversation
goes on for “twenty-eight more lines in FDS between the initial direct speech [DS] and the next
narrative sentence.” (Short: 2007, p. 258). The conversation of the two waiters in [1] ought to end
when the old man, who is a customer of their café, leaves. After so, the conversation between the
two waiters continue:
[2]
“You have youth, confidence, and a job,” the old waiter said. “You have everything.”
“And what do you lack?”
“Everything but work”
“You have everything that I have.”
“No. I have never had confidence and I am not young.” (63-67)
This is an excerpt from the next conversation of the two waiters after the narrative report of the previous
conversation. This can be considered as anaphoric which “usually refers ‘backwards’… being the type of
4
cohesive relation which points to some earlier, fuller reference in the text,” (Simpson, p. 107), that gives the
answer to the characterization of the waiters even as seen from earlier in the story. The main point in the text
is that because the mode of presentation done by Hemingway is FDS, the narration of the conversation is
verbatim of the waiters’ words hence preventing the narrator to make interferences and inferences from the
conversation. Given so, by the way that one of the waiters has perceived himself and how the same waiter
perceives the other, one of them thinks too lowly while the other one thinks highly. Hence, one of the waiters
must have said the following:
[3]
“He hung himself with a rope.” (25)
“You have youth, confidence, and a job,” the older waiter said. You have everything.” (63)
While the other waiter had said the following:
[4]
“What did he want to kill himself for?” (22)
“Everything but work.” (65)
Solely basing it from [3] and [4], we can say that there lies a contrast between the thinking of the two
waiters: one being someone who’s confident and positive and another who is belittles himself while
feeling envious for the one he is. It is then identified later on in the story who is being confident and
who is being envious. Looking at [3], paragraph 63 describes one of the waiters as “older” and that
his dialog refers to his praising his colleague, whom leaves to say that between the two waiters, it is
the older one who is being envious of the younger one. However, it is quite ironic that their
perceptions of each other contrast to how we can see the two waiters in the conversation: one with
all the questions and one with all the answers; but it seems that the one with the questions is the one
who is more confident than the one with all the answers who is not.
Another good example for this would be to track back to the middle part of the story, the
second part of their conversation:
[5]
“I with I could go home. I never get to bed before three o’ clock. What king of hour is that
to go to bed?
“He stays up because he like it.”
“He’s lonely. I’m not lonely. I have a wife waiting in bed for me.”
“He had a wife once too.”
“A wife would be no good to him now.”
“You can’t tell. He might be better with a wife.”
5
“His niece looks after him. You said he cut him down.”
“I know.”
“I wouldn’t want to be that old. An old man is a nasty thing.”
“Now always. This old man is clean. He drinks without spilling. Even now, drink. Look at
him.”
“I don’t want to look at him. I wish he would go home. He has no regard for those who
must work.” (34-44)
In this part of the conversation, the two waiters argue as to why the old man still staying in the café
despite the late hours of that night. As compared to [1], and [2], [3] also presents the contrast
perspectives of the two waiters in their conversation – this time in relation to the old man. One of
the waiters think the old man is a waste of time as he is the reason why they still cannot close-up
shop; while the other waiter thinks that he is there because of just merely like it. The contrast in how
they view the situation can already be considered as a cataphoric in relation to what will have been said
by the two waiters in the following conversation:
[5]
“I want to go to bed.”
“What is an hour?”
“More to me than him.”
“An hour is the same.”
“You talk like an old man yourself. He can buy a bottle and drink at home.”
“It’s not the same.”
“No it’s not,” agreed the waiter with a wife. He did not wish to be unjust. He was only in a
hurry.
“And you? You have no fear of going home before you usual hour?”
“Are you trying to insult me?”
“No hombre, only to make a joke.”
“No,” the waiter who was in a hurry said, rising from pulling down the metal shutters, “I
have confidence. I am all confidence.” (52-62)
In [5], one of the waiters have the desire to come home while the other seems indifferent on the
prospect of the possibility going home late. In relation to [4], one of the waiters is very much eager
to come home because he has a wife waiting for him; in other words, he has a family to come home
to. The other waiter’s indifference can be rooted from the fact that he is alone and wants to stay in
the café due to the fact that, he will only come home to an empty house – where his solitude and
loneness would only be further amplified.
6
This can always lead to the fact that the two waiters are in contrast of their characterizations
– both in their situations in reality and in how their perspectives are. Through the analysis of their
conversation, there lies concrete evidence as to how Hemingway have presented to us who these
two waiters are and they relate to one another and with one another. There is a generation gap that
exists between the two and the analysis of their conversation proved it so – one is a young waiter,
another is a old wait and both of how they think do not mix, there is a contrast of who they are both
ideally and realistically.
Considering the most of the story is presented through FDS, it is also a good way to elicit
linguistic evidence through the use of turn taking techniques of conversational analysis – for this
part, the same excerpts from the story that were exemplified earlier will be used. Looking through
[1] and [2], you can see certain behavioral connotation that would prove [1] to be anaphoric in
relation to that of [2]. When present side by side and remarks be given to their behavior, a table can
best represent this as such:
PARAGRAPH
20-27
WAITER # 1 (W1)
WAITER # 2 (W2)
BEHAVIOR
"He's drunk now."
He's drunk every night"
W1 seems concerned;
W2 is indifferent
"What did he want to kill
kimself for?"
How should I know?
W1 is curious; #2 is still
indifferent
"He hung himself with a
rope"
"His niece"
"Who cut him down?"
W1 is interested; W2
began is intrigued
"And what do you lack?"
"You have youth,
confidence, and a job.
You have everything"
W1 emits confidence;
W2 lashes out
insecurities
63-67
"Everything but work"
"You have everything
that I have."
"No. I have never had
confidence and I am not
young."
W1 debunks W2's
insecurities; W2 insist his
insecurities
7
If we refer to the table above, in paragraphs 20-27, W1 seems to be more into the situation they are
faced with – the old man getting drunk in the café – while W2 seems indifferent. In this way, we can
see the W1 is the younger waiter while W2 is the older since there is the stereotypical notion that
younger people have the tendency to be more curious than older people as older people would
always give the notion of knowing a lot based on their experiences in life. In this way, we can say
that W1 is someone who is a curious young boy who knows not much while the W2 is a older, wise
man who is confident. However, jumping into paragraphs 63-67, we can see that there is the
breaking of this stereotypical notion as W1, the younger man who still is considered inexperienced,
is the one who has confidence while W2, the older wiser man who’s supposed to have confidence, is
insecure of W1’s standing in life.
WAITER # 1 (W1)
"I wish I could go home. I
never get to bed before three
o'clock. What kind of hour is
that to go to bed?
PARAGRAPH 34-44
WAITER # 2 (W2)
BEHAVIOR
"He stays up because he likes it"
W1 seems upset at the old
man for making him go home
late; W2 seems okay with the
old man being late
"He's lonely. I'm not loney. I
have a wife waiting in bed for
me."
"He had a wife once too."
W1, out of spite, judges the
old man and lashes out at his
loneliness; W2 tries to make
W1 understand the old man's
situation
"A wife would be no good to
him now."
"You can't tell. He might be
better with a wife."
W1 is being judgement
towards the old man for being
late; W2 is being just about it
"I know."
W1 is being prejudice towards
the old man which is the
effect is his anger towards
him; W2 seems to still be
"His niece looks after him.
You said he cut him down."
8
okay with the old man being
late
"I wouldn't want to be that
old. An old man is a nasty
thing."
"I don't want to look at him. I
wish he would go home. He
has no regard for those who
must work."
"Not always. This old man is
clean. He drinks without
spilling. Even now, drunk. Look
at him"
W1 is mad at the old man and
makes a general hatred
towards all; W2 disagrees with
W1 about his notion on old
men, or the concept of being
old
The same contrast of perspectives can be seen within paragraphs 34-44. One of the waiters, W1
seems to have an upsetting attitude towards the old man for being; it gives the notion that,
considering he is affected by the old man’s stay in the café, he is in a hurry to leave the café and in
paragraph 34, he states of his desire to come home – the very reason he is upset in a first place. On
the other hand, the other waiter, W2, seems to have no problems with the old man being there. His
behavior towards the old man is quite sympathetic – as opposed to W1 who is apathetic. As an old
man himself, W2 can probably relate to him and probably even share the same situation that he is in.
Through the analysis of the conversation between the two waiters, the conflict between their
perspectives, behavior, and impressions are very much apparent. There lies a rift as to how they
think and act that seems to have a clash with one another and, though only inferred to, it is all
relative to their age – an important key to identifying each of their own standing in life.
Another way on dealing with the contrast between the two waiters is how Hemingway had
identified them in the course of the story. As it is seen throughout the story, Hemingway’s way of
referring to both the waiters is simply with the word “waiter”: they were not named, nor do we
know anything else about them expected for a fact that the two protagonists are waiters. However,
as the story progress, we see differences and contrasts in the two waiters; their modifiers are proof
of such changes. Hemingway, as simply as the story seems to be, presented the anonymity of the
9
waiters from the beginning but gradually introduces us to these two waiters – who they are, what
they are and why are they in the story. As it is in the interpretation mentioned earlier in this
discussion, the two waiters are in a contrasting relationship due to the contrasting ideas brought by
their age, hence a generation gap. It was proven true using modes of presentation in the previous
section of this discussion. In this section, however, the modifiers of the two protagonists will
focused as to how they contrast and the way that Hemingway gradually presents it so throughout the
course of the story.
After the tabulation of the modifiers Hemingway used to refer to the waiters there is a point
in the story where from being referred to merely as the two waiters who work in a café, they are two
individual people, who happen to work as waiters in the same place, that share different perspectives
and share different situations in life.
PARAGRAPH NO.
MODIFIER USED
EVENT IN THE STORY
1
"the two waiters"
2
"one waiter"
the introduction where two waiters work in a café
start of the conversation: "Last week he tried to commit
suicide'
9
"they"
looking at the old man and saw a girl and a soldier outside
10
13
"one waiter"
"the younger waiter"
16
"the waiter"
18
"the waiter"
19
"the waiter"
45
46
"the waiters"
"the waiter"
49
"the waiter"
51
"the unhurried waiter"
58
"the waiter with a wife"
conversation: "The guard will pick him up"
went over to the old man
against the old man from getting another brandy: "you'll
be drunk"
took the brandy bottle and poured the old man a glass
poured the old man another glass and walked over to talk
to his colleague
the old man looked at the waiters through a glass
the waiter was in a hurry
he told the old man, "No. Finished" and cleaned the
counter
asked, "why didn't you let him stay and drink?"
said, "no, it is not" being upset with the idea being late for
an hour later
10
62
"the waiter who was in a
hurry"
hurriedly pulled down the shutters and said, "I have
confidence. I am all confidence"
telling the other waiter, "you have youth, confidence, and a
job. You have everything"
63
"the older waiter"
69
"the older waiter"
71
"the younger waiter"
saying, "I am one of those who like to stay at the café.
With all those who do not want to go to bed. With all
those who need a light for the night"
saying, "we are of two different kinds..."
74
"the younger waiter"
saying, "Good night." to the other waiter and went home
75
"the other"
responded with a "good night" and ended up in a bar
before heading home
Referring to the table above, at the beginning of the story, the two waiters were just waiter who are
serving an old man who is apparently in the café too late for one of the waiters. In paragraph 45-46,
the attitude of the waiters seems to be in a hurry as compared to the other; however, as the modifier
used is concerned, it has not been specified which among the two waiters it was referring to. Moving
on to paragraph 58 up until the end of the story, everything is different; the modifiers are more
specific and it is in relation to their attitudes or actions in the story. The contrasts between the two
waiters can already be seen in the modifiers that were used in the latter part of the story: one with
“the younger waiter” as opposed to “the older waiter”, or “the unhurried waiter” as opposed to “the
waiter who was in a hurry.”
The main point of this is to present the fact that the slow introduction of the two
protagonists are in relation to its modifiers; and in this slow-paced introduction of the characters,
the more the readers get to know them, the more their characterizations drift apart; the more the
pictures is seen, the more that the distance between the two waiters are apparent. In this way, the
modifiers are no more than symbols used by Hemingway for the readers to know both waiters even
if their identity is kept anonymous.
11
Most of the modifiers are seen only in the non-conversation part of the story. As was said in
the previous sections of this discussion, the structure of the story is that of the conversation
between the two waiters and the narration of setting. This part will focus on that narration. Taking
out the dialogue between the two waiters, only seven paragraphs will be left that focuses on
narrations of what is going on in between the conversation or during the conversation. These
paragraphs are in the Narrative Report of action mode of presentation or NRA. According to Mick
Short (2007), NRA is at the end of the cline of her mode of speech presentation where the “narrator
apparently [is] in total control of [the] report” (Short, p. 260); in short words, other than the
conversation, there is nothing much going on but a report of what is going on in the café, within
and out of the conversation. However, in the narration of setting and the events surrounding the
waiters, there are binary opposite symbols that also would relate to the contrast in the characters
between the two waiters. If we refer back to the waiters, the older one prefer a “clean well-lighted
place” but lives in the dark while the younger one likes to go to “bodegas” but lives in a life filled
with ‘light.’ In the descriptions of the setting of the story, there seems to be a play with light and
dark – a literary device called Chiaroscuro. Here is where the binary opposite can first be observed;
it seems that in the story, anything relating to the word “old” is associated with the darkness while
anything related to the word “young” is associated with the light.
[6]
“…an old man who sat in the shadow at the leaves of the tree made…” (1)
“A girl and a soldier went by in the street. The street light shone on the brass on his collar.”
(9).
As exemplified by [6], the old man under the shadows is an allegory of old men losing their direction in life
due to their old age – the feeling of helplessness and hopelessness of old men as they grow old and weak –
hence they are associated with the darkness. On the other hand, the ‘girl’ who was underneath the streetlight
is another allegory for young people still youthful and still hopeful of what their life will be. The contrast
between the darkness and the light as associated with the old and the young respectively is all connected to
the characters of the two waiter – who are also in contrast with another.
12
All in all, the only thing that can be said here is that there lies a contrast on perspectives,
thoughts, and even the real-life situations of the two waiters are in contrast with one another. The
younger waiter is someone whose life is just beginning while the older waiter is in a place in his life
where he sees his life is about to come to an end. In the long run, the use of various linguistic
features of a story can truly lead to a concrete proof for the interpretation of a text because after all,
“concentrated attention to relevant linguistic evidence can help to decide critical disagreements.”
(Short: 1984, p. 182).
Reference:
Carter, Ronald. “Style and Interpretation in Hemingway’s ‘Cat in the Rain’” Language and Literature:
An Introductory Reader in Stylistics, Ed. Ronald Carter. London: George Allen & Unwin
(Publishers) Ltd., 1984. Print.
Leech, Geoffrey and Short, Mick. Style in Fiction: A Linguistic Introduction to English Fictional Prose.
Edinburgh Gate, Harlow, United Kingdom: Pearson Limited. 2007. Print.
Short, M. H. “Stylistics and the Teaching of Literature: with an Example from James Joyce’s A
Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man” Language and Literature: An Introductory Reader in
Stylistics, Ed. Ronald Carter. London: George Allen & Unwin (Publishers) Ltd., 1984.
Print.
Simpson, Paul. Language Through Literature: An Introduction. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.
1997. Print.
13