Memento Mori

I thought this story was kind of depressing but I also liked that it kept my attention even though it was repetitive. After I read the first few paragraphs I was thoroughly confused with the mix of personal pronouns that didn't seem to add up. It took me until the second page to realize that the man with amnesia was talking to himself. It was bizarre that he would, after a moment of clarity or inspiration, write a note to the amnesia stricken version of himself. For me the most touching note was when he tells himself, "I just wanted you to know that I'm proud of you." This line made me think about how acceptance and recognition from others is a big part of life and when that's gone it has to be hard to find something to care about because no one else cares about you anymore. It's kind of funny how the man's double personality keeps him company and even plays mind games with him. This part of the story really reinforced the idea that when it comes down to it, you are the only person you can truly rely on in life. It's almost creepy that a disease could isolate you from the rest of the world, but at the same time provide you with a kind of split personality to keep you company. Kind of makes me wonder if it's almost a gift, to help the afflicted person from going completely insane with such a meaningless existence left ahead of them. Since I have a terrible memory myself, and everyone around me doesn't hesitate to tell me so, I really enjoyed this story because as pathetic as it sounds I could relate on some levels. I'm kind of confused about the whole watching the guy get hauled away on a stretcher and the minute man being taken away in a cop car. I'm wondering who he killed and if the "I raped and killed your wife" thing was a real memory or just part of his imagination. Other than some confusion, I liked this story.

"Heroic Fatalism" response

I remember learning about archetypes in a high school English class and this article defiantly jogged my memory. I think it's funny how quickly I forgot all about archetypes because it didn't even occur to me that Ole Anderson plays a hero in "The Killers." I didn't recognize Anderson as a hero because Anderson played an atypical hero which is obviously what sets Hemingway's story apart from the others. It was only after I read the first line of this article defining heroic fatalism that it became clear how it is heroic to accept one's death. I remember being so caught up in the confusion of why Anderson would be okay with dying that I came up with reasons like maybe he was sick of hiding or living with whatever he had done that he just decided to give up and accept his fate because death was better than living in fear or in regret. Then this article finally helped me think about this situation in a different light and consider how unnatural it is for a human to ignore the basic instinct of survival and willingly die. I also find it interesting that my first reaction to "The Killers" was a lack of fulfillment because Anderson didn't run after being tipped off. The article describes my lack of fulfillment as an understandable feeling because "many of Hemingway's short stories gains maximum dramatic impact from the minimum." This technique is exactly why I felt like the end was anticlimactic, and at the same time is exactly why this story gained such huge popularity. Going along with this idea of minimizing a large idea, I found it a creative parallel that other screenwriters incorporated a character that pitifully begs for life which is a stark contrast to a dignified acceptance of death in order to portray this mentality as even more heroic. While Hemingway did a good enough job of emphasizing heroic fatalism in such a simple, direct way, others decided to add to this idea which may have offered a little more fulfillment and made the big idea more clear for people like myself. I also found the mixed reviews to this idea of "fattening up Hemingway's lean storyline" to be interesting because many critics liked the original less is more concept. One thing I never knew about cinema is the level of respect screen writers have for adding an author's name to a movie. I feel like adding the author's name is going to attract readers who will be ultimately disappointed with a movie that only uses the author's theme instead of plot. This article opened my eyes to how thought provoking Hemingway's seemingly simple plot really is and made me appreciate the story much more than if I hadn't read this.

"The Killers" movies

I defiantly liked the 1946 version of "The Killers" way better than the 1964 version because the 40's version stayed more true to the plot. I think in general people always like it when movies closely follow the plot of the original literature instead of deviating from what is already familiar and enjoyable. I especially didn't enjoy the 60's movie as much as I enjoyed the short story because instead of just watching the movie and reacting to it, I sat there and wondered why the film writers would change all the things they did. The 60's movie had way too many major differences like the setting and attitude of the hit men that changed the meaning too much for me. I thought it was ridiculous that the movie took place in the school for the blind because I feel like murder in itself is already cruel, why make things even more cruel by adding defenseless blind people into the mix? I also thought beating up the woman at the front desk was harsh because Hemingway's hit men showed more compassion. Hemingway's hit men also took more time for dialogue to enhance the plot instead of using visual action, but I guess that's the whole major distinction between literature and movies anyway. Basically I found the 60's version crude. The 40's version, on the other hand, retained the dialogue exactly and the characters actually had character and brought the short story to life. There is one thing, however, that I liked about both movies and that would be the endings both showed the murder of the character accepting his death. I don't like stories that make the reader assume what happens, I always sit there and think I read this far, don't I at least get a satisfying conclusion? Both movies definatly give you a satisfying conclusion, but good ending or not, the 60's version still didn't sit well with me.

"The Killers" response

I thought Ernest Hemingway's "The Killers" was one of the most unique short stories I have read. The plot heavily relied on dialogue which seemed to be quite concise yet still got the point across. The dialogue of the hit men, for example, seemed to portray them as both intimidating and gracious. They were obviously instilling fear in the workers of the diner, but left them unharmed even though the cook, a bystander named Nick, and a worker named George all knew too much information. The dialogue between Nick and Ole Anderson was by far the best at emphasizing a major aspect of the plot; Ole Anderson seemed to be okay with the fact that hit men were coming after him. Anderson's reaction to Nick's attempt to save him was anticlimactic because the reader assumes Anderson would try to run instead of accepting his death. On the other hand, his reaction shaped the plot because the story changed gears from a man running from murder to a man knowingly waiting to be murdered.

As morbid as it sounds, I found the end of the story to be really disappointing because there was no death to satisfy the plot. The story builds anticipation about Ole Anderson's immenent murder and when the end leaves the reader to assume he is murdered, I felt unfilfilled. Then I read over Anderson's dialogue with Nick one more time and realized Anderson's decision not to run was Hemingway's whole purpose of the story. All in all, I enjoyed Hemingway's story because the oppostie of what you expect, or I guess in my case, want to happen doesn't happen in the end.