In the story of the “Interlopers,” George Znaeym, seeks out his arch-enemy, Ulrich von Gradwitz, in the forest on a winter night. These two men, because of a family feud that has been passed down from generation
The “interlopers” is a brief story between two families, an argument between two males for three generations. A devastation between Ulrich and Georg, two strong enemies. This ponderous feud has been unpredictable and had brought aftermaths including punches and chaos. The other conflict is the nature of the story, severe raw weather. The realism is that both men, were the intruders of the forest in the story.
The author foreshadows Ulrich’s laugh, assuming the worst is yet to come, since he laughs with a hideous fear. In fact, after this quote the most unpleasant news was to come, Georg says “Who are they?”... straining his eyes to see what the other would gladly not have seen. “Wolves.” (37). Saki hinted to the reader that it couldn’t have possibly be any of their men and there is no doubt that the reader didn’t suspect the wolves, but since the author foreshadowed Ulrich’s laugh that something bad was to come, it forces the reader to unintentionally suspect. Saki, the author uses foreshadowing in a unique way, where he changes the reader’s mind into many different possibilities on how the
This short story was written in 1919 and is still popular today. This could be because it represents that you should never wait until the last minute. If Ulrich and Georg had solved their conflict sooner, instead of waiting, then they never would have gotten killed because they wouldn't have wandered off to find each other in the first place. This short story teaches a valuable life lesson in just 10-20 minutes. I would recommend the story, “The Interlopers” by Saki, to everyone who could benefit from learning how to work things out and forgive instead of holding a
In The Interlopers the theme is based on a feud between two families. The feud is based on an argument over a strip of forestland. The hatred that has developed because of this feud has become quite serious with both Ulrich von Gradwitz and Georg Znaeym having murderous thoughts
“They’re Soviet.” said Ulrich, Georg replys, “Out here in these lands?” Ulrich readies his rifle, expecting a fight. The russians then yell words that Ulrich and Georg couldn’t understand. “Are they going to free us?” Georg asked. “They seem to want to.” replied Ulrich. The russian men begin to push against the tree, rolling it off them and help them up. After they help the two, the russian men kick them back onto the ground, holding them at gunpoint. Finally, the two men’s soldiers appear from both ends of the forest and take aim at each side and the russians. The russians, surprised by the other’s approach, aim at both sides and position themselves behind one another. The two yell to their men not to shoot each other, but at the russian men. The russians take Ulrich and Georg and aim at the two, threatening to shoot them if they don’t drop their weapons. Ulrichs signs to his men to drop the weapons but Georg denies. The russian men then take aim at Georg’s men and fire at them, each of his soldiers dropping one by one. Georg then swings his fist at one of the russian men but is shot by another, Ulrich witnessing
For three generations, the Gradwitz and the Znaeym family have fought each other for land. The conflict was caused when Ulrich’s grandfather filed a lawsuit against Georg’s grandfather, who was accused of illegally claiming a certain patch of land as theirs. Currently, the land is owned by the Gradwitz family but members of the Znaeym family occasionally poach there to make a statement.
prejudice/stereotypes towards the other man. Therefore, they were each predisposed to hatred towards the other family. Although this is true, later in the story the two men end up as friends after Ulrich offers Georg his wine flask. Georg directly says, “...Ulrich von Gradwitz, I will be your friend.” This just goes to show how people tend to “march to the beat of their own drum,” so to speak, even when they are told to believe something else. This lesson is also evident in The Scarlet Ibis on multiple occasions. First, the narrator in The Scarlet Ibis believes that he will successfully educate Doodle on how to walk, and therefore he will have a normal brother. However, Doodle-along with the rest of his family- does not believe that he is capable of walking or doing any physical activity, due to his
“The two enemies stood glaring at one another for a long silent moment. Each had a rifle in his hand, each had hate in his heart and murder uppermost in his mind.” Being in the forest had caused Georg and Ulrich to meet face to face with murder on each others mind. “Who are they? asked Georg quickly. Straining his eyes to see what the other would gladly not have seen. Wolves.” Again because they were in the forest and were yelling for their men to hear them, wolves appear in front of them. Which was a huge danger between new friends, Ulrich and Georg. The forest setting caused huge pros and cons to Ulrich and Georg. They first had murder on their mind, then became friends. However, wolves had answered their calls instead of their men, after being trapped under a
“The Interlopers” and “Mending Wall” are very compatible pieces of writing. Both spotlight tradition, and how it can cloud one’s vision of something. Gradwitz and Znaeym’s hate towards each other stemmed from the traditional hate between their two families. The narrator’s neighbor in “Mending Wall” stuck behind his father’s tradition of living by the motto “good fences make good neighbors”. The conflicts that arose in both works, in part of tradition, were solved by situational irony.
In “The Interlopers” has an unexpected ending of death, comparable to “The Story of an Hour” where the end of Mrs. Mallard’s story ends unexpectedly with death as well. In “The Story of an Hour” we see some selfishness in the character of Mrs. Mallard when she is so sad about her loss of freedom that she forgets to rejoice that her husband is alive again. In the same manner, we see some selfishness on the part of the characters in “The Interlopers” when they believe that their lives will be better without the other person and how they each hope their men arrive first to free them and kill the other, before they make peace with one another. In “The Interlopers” we see peace found at last between two long standing
“Another reason, the simplest, the ugliest, was that this hitherto peaceful congregation of neighbors and old friends had suddenly to endure the unique experience of disturbing each other; understandably, they believed that the murderer was among themselves.” (88)
Irony also plays a big part in understanding the concept of the story. Without Saki’s ironic ways readers would not get a clear idea of what the moral is after reading the novella. As To begin, Georg and Ulrich are fighting over land, which in the outcome is the cause of their death. In the beginning they had the intentions of searching across the useless spurs in hopes of gunning down a human rival. All along the only foe that they truly had was within the nature that was surrounding them. Saki ended the story with one word; “wolves.” It is not directly stated if Georg and Ulrich were eaten by the beasts, but that one word creates a mysterious vibe that makes the reader wonder if either of their crew ever made it in time to help them in time to fight
Marlow’s attempt at recreating his subjective past is met with unease on the part of the narrator and like a litmus paper he brings out the intellectual and emotional effect the author is seeking. When the effect has been so affirmed, the author proceeds to manipulate it. When, for example, we see Marlow’s desperation for having missed the chance to speak to Kurtz as absurd, Conrad makes the listeners sigh with the same reaction. Marlow reacts heatedly- “Why do you react in this beastly way, somebody? Absurd? … This is the worst of trying to tell… Here you all are, each moored with two good addresses, like a hulk with two anchors, a butcher round one corner, a policeman round another.” Pp 53 This chastisement by Conrad gets displaced from Marlow’s companions to the reader. Marlow is trying to prevent us from judging Kurtz and by doing so highlights his importance in the tale’s critical discourse.