"Hemingway's art," said Alan Pryce-Jones, "especially his innovative dialogue, may prove to be his lasting memory as a writer" (Pryce- Jones 21). Although there has been much criticism of the biographical content of Hemingway's work, Pryce-Jones was one to notice Hemingway's art of dialogue. However, there is no in-depth analysis of this element. This article explores Hemingway's dialogue and in doing so an interesting detail was found. Hemingway uses the device of compression in writing his dialogue, constructing minimal language, yet somehow generating powerful meaning. This is clearly evident in Hemingway's “Indian Camp” in which he “first employed the characteristic devices which distinguish his dialogue” (Pryce-Jones 21). Through a careful examination of the passages in “Indian Camp,” Hemingway's narrative technique will be revealed to show that his dialogues are simple and laconic, yet powerfully meaningful and artistic. However, the entire thesis of this article is not simply to highlight Hemingway's simplistic dialogue in these works, but to state how Hemingway uses it to achieve maximum meaning. This is done through Hemingway's use of omission, indirection, and irony. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayBefore delving into the analysis, it is necessary to explain the literary device of compression in the dialogue. In “Notes on Writing a Novel,” Elizabeth Bowen gets to the crux of exactly why modern dialogue is so difficult to write. He said it must be “targeted, intentional, relevant. He must crystallize the situation. It must express character. It has to advance the plot” (Bowen 255). So, each piece of dialogue has an exactly calculated purpose. However, such things should be implied subtly, suggestively, and never through direct statement (Bowen 256). When this is the case, what they intend to say, rather than what they are actually saying, is more surprising due to its greater internal importance to the plot (Bowen 256). For example, a character might say, "Sally isn't that pretty, but she's not ugly either," or she might say, "She's fine." While the first quote has a simple meaning, the second one could suggest many things. You might ask; what exactly does the character mean by “ok” and so on. Here, with the use of suggestive and precise language, there is much more room for analysis and connotations. Therefore, characters should be under-articulated, rather than over-articulated, with simple, calculated language filled with deep meaning. Now that an understanding has been provided as to why Hemingway wrote such basic passages, an analysis can be provided as to how Hemingway was able to compress his dialogue, yet create maximum meaning. For many authors this is a difficult task, but Hemingway was able to use a number of literary devices that allowed for simple yet meaningful language. First of all, the literary device of omission will be taken into consideration. In many cases, a narrator is used in a work to convey necessary information. However, to expound the details of the story, Hemingway often moves away from narrative commentary and instead makes use of compressed dialogue (Lamb 456). This form of omission is evident in Hemingway's short story, “Indian Camp.” Young Nick Adams has a vague fear of death. One night, left alone in the woods, he hears a noise and calls his father and his uncle George. When Uncle George expresses his contempt,Nick gets embarrassed. The next day, a conversation takes place between Nick and his father. His father tries to find something that could create the same noise Nick heard. He asks, "Do you think that's what it was, Nick?" and Nick replies, “Maybe” (15). In two brief quotes, readers may realize that the indicated “it” suggests the noise Nick heard the night before. Thus, the events of the previous night are referenced, but are never explicitly mentioned (Lamb 456). This is a clear example of how Hemingway crystallizes a situation by using omission in compressed dialogue. Hemingway also creates deep meaning in his deceptively simplistic dialogue through another literary device which is addressability. In "Indian Camp", Nick's father attempts to find a calming solution to what might have caused the noise that scared his son. Hemingway claims that to divert the conversation from his son's embarrassment, his father "found" two trees rubbing together made a noise similar to the one Nick heard. Then, he tells his son, “There is nothing that can hurt you” (15). For starters, the use of the word found (instead of saw) suggests that his father deliberately sought out the forest noise to comfort his son and to indirectly demonstrate that he believes his son was telling the truth about the noise, despite what they think. others. Furthermore, when the father states that “nothing can hurt you,” the “you” refers to Nick, but implies the more general sense of “one.” The father went from the embarrassing incident to the general theme that nothing in the woods can hurt anyone. So, because the father broaches the topic indirectly, the boy no longer feels embarrassed. Author HK Justice states, “In dialogue, Hemingway shows calculation and both characters experience an involuntary self-disclosure” (Ciardi 32). Clearly, Hemingway's use of indirection in compressed dialogue helped express character beautifully. Furthermore, Hemingway uses the literary tool of irony in “Indian Camp” to create maximum meaning in his compressed dialogue. In the story, characters often experience miscommunication in their laconic dialogues, but the inability to communicate has an ironically positive outcome. When Nick asks his father a series of questions about the suicide of an Indian boy's father, only through the use of irony in simple dialogue is it possible to understand the deeper message. The conversation goes like this:(1) “Why did he kill himself, dad?”(2) “I don't know…”(3) “Many men kill themselves, dad?”(4) “Not many. "(5) "Are there many women?"(6) "Hardly ever."(7) "Dad?"(8) "Yes(9) "Is it difficult to die, dad?"(10) "No, it's enough easy. It all depends” (18-19). Since Nick's first look at death concerns that of a father, he expresses anxieties about absent fathers. His father can draw on his medical knowledge to answer the questions, but his father does not see Nick's intentions and gives answers to the questions on the surface, perhaps what Nick subconsciously wants to know is whether he will suffer the same fate of the boy who lost his father. Paradoxically, however, Dr. Adams considers the question only of a psychological nature, which he is unable to answer, unless it is a medical question. So, when Nick asks for information on the frequency of male and female suicides, it may be that he wants to know about his father and mother. His answers are comforting in their conciseness: "hardly ever" and "not many." This finally leads to his final question which serves to question the likelihood of his father's death (Ciardi 33). 255).