The Killers

“‘Got anything to drink?’ Al asked.

‘Silver beer, bevo, ginger-ale,’ George said.

‘I mean you got anything to drink?’

‘Just those I said.’”

This exchange between Al and George offers historical context. Al indirectly requests alcohol, while George has only non-alcoholic drinks to offer, revealing that the story is set during the Prohibition era when alcoholic beverages were illegal. This interaction also characterizes the two hitmen as criminals who disregard the restrictions of the era.

“‘What do you do here at nights?’

‘They eat the big dinner,’ his friend said. ‘They all come here and eat the big dinner.’”

The two hitmen cynically suggest that the town of Summit’s only activity of note is dining at Henry’s lunchroom, portraying it as a tranquil place. However, this sense of safety and tranquility is abruptly disrupted by the ominous presence of the killers.

“‘He’s dumb,’ said Al. He turned to Nick. ‘What’s your name?’

‘Adams.’

‘Another bright boy,’ Al said. ‘Ain’t he a bright boy, Max?’

‘The town’s full of bright boys,’ Max said.”

The two killers taunt George and Nick, referring to them as “dumb” and ironically “bright.” This taunting solidifies their characterization as arrogant and malevolent individuals. Their actions and words reveal their sinister nature, heightening the tension and unease within the narrative.

“‘What are you going to kill Ole Andreson for? What did he ever do to you?’

‘He never had a chance to do anything to us. He never even seen us.’

‘And he’s only going to see us once,’ Al said from the kitchen.”

This exchange between George and Max characterizes the two killers as operatives of a criminal organization. Their actions are not driven by personal motives: They are carrying out orders on behalf of someone else. Their mission to kill Ole Andreson is part of a larger, impersonal agenda, emphasizing their role as professional hitmen.

“Henry’s had been made over from a saloon into a lunch-counter.”

The mention of Henry’s transformation from a saloon to a lunch counter alludes to the Prohibition era, offering historical context. Hemingway’s characteristic style of gradually revealing information as the narrative unfolds is at play here.

“‘I got them tied up like a couple of girl friends in the convent.’

‘I suppose you were in a convent.’

‘You never know.’

‘You were in a kosher convent. That’s where you were.’”

The ongoing banter between Max and Al adds a comical element to their characterization. The two come across as caricatures of gangster figures—simultaneously dangerous and absurd. This duality in their portrayal adds a layer of complexity to their characters.

“Nick stood up. He had never had a towel in his mouth before.”

Through this sentence, Hemingway subtly conveys Nick’s inexperience. It becomes evident that this is his first confrontation with the malevolent forces of the world, a pivotal moment in his life that will lead to his coming of age, conveying the theme of Loss of Innocence.

“‘You better not have anything to do with it all,’ Sam, the cook, said. ‘You better stay out of it.’

‘Don’t go if you don’t want to,’ George said.

‘Mixing up in this ain’t going to get you anywhere,’ the cook said. ‘You stay out of it.’ ‘I’ll go see him,’ Nick said to George. ‘Where does he live?’

The cook turned away. ‘Little boys always know what they want to do,’ he said.”

Sam interprets Nick’s decision to warn Ole as a sign of youthful stubbornness rather than courage. In contrast to Nick, Sam, who is older and more experienced, adopts a passive stance, and avoids involvement. In Sam’s eyes, Nick is still an immature young man who dismisses the advice of those trying to protect him.

“Ole Andreson looked at the wall and did not say anything.

‘George thought I better come and tell you about it.’

‘There isn’t anything I can do about it,’ Ole Andreson said.”

As Nick recounts the chilling encounter with the two killers at Henry’s lunchroom, Ole doesn’t respond and keeps looking at the wall. This imagery symbolizes his passive attitude toward the situation, reflecting his resigned acceptance of his impending fate.

“‘Couldn’t you get out of town?’

‘No,’ Ole Andreson said. ‘I’m through with all that running around.’”

Through this exchange, a striking contrast emerges between Nick and Ole’s attitudes conveying the theme of Passivity Versus Activity. While Nick displays a combination of bravery and naivety, urging Ole to take action and escape the imminent danger, Ole, who is more experienced, appears weary of running. He instead passively accepts his fate, a perspective that Nick struggles to comprehend.

“‘He doesn’t want to go out.’

‘I’m sorry he don’t feel well,’ the woman said. ‘He’s an awfully nice man. He was in the ring, you know.’

‘I know it.’

‘You’d never know it except from the way his face is,’ the woman said. They stood talking just inside the street door. ‘He’s just as gentle.’”

In this passage, Ole is characterized as a gentle figure, which is quite uncommon for a former prizefighter. Like other elements in the story, this portrayal subverts readers’ expectations, highlighting the theme of disillusionment and the idea that appearances can be deceiving.

“‘He must have got mixed up in something in Chicago.’

‘I guess so,’ Nick said.

‘It’s a hell of a thing.’”

Here, George speculates about Ole’s situation, referencing the historical context of the Chicago mob during the 1920s: During the Prohibition era, Chicago became a focal point of criminal activity. While Hemingway doesn’t explicitly address this context in the story, he subtly incorporates it through conversations like this.

“‘I’m going to get out of this town,’ Nick said.”

Nick is profoundly shaken by his experience to the point that he decides to leave Summit. This act symbolizes his coming of age: Nick leaves his former self behind, along with a world where passivity prevails, and embraces a new chapter in his life.