Published in: 1955
Pages: 6
Edition: E-Book

Yes, you have read that right, it’s a whopping 6 pages. This is a short story, something I only really read because I was browsing through my E-reader while back on holidays, saw the minute amount of pages, and had to see if it had misloaded or something. Nope, it hadn’t. It was a short story. I read the whole thing in mere minutes, and went “meh”.

It’s been a while since I read it, so while writing this review, I read the entire thing again. All six pages of it.

So, this story is about Dick (no last name given) and his friend Larry. Larry and Dick were friends through school, parted ways during the war (This was written in 1955, so I’ll assume they mean WWII) and then, through a chance meeting on the street, reacquainted themselves once more. An act of violence has the men acting in order to siderail tragedy, leading Larry to perform a feat that is not ordinary; and Dick to witness said feat. A secret is revealed, an act is performed, the reader is left with a few questions and half-answers.

It’s basically a 6-page long riddle. You understand the reasons behind the actions, yet you also don’t. Like, why the hell does Dick call the police? Honestly? He could have gotten away with it.

Final review:
Pythias rating:
 4/10. I get it, but I don’t. It’s a short story, it’s straight forward, but my year 12 english teacher is hammering in my subconscious about symbolism and hidden meanings and whatever the hell else they come up with to ruin perfectly good books and movies.
Would I re-read it? Well, I have re-read it. It took me a grand 3 minutes. It still is as frustrating as the first read through. I can’t really answer this question as I normally would, because I don’t intend on re-reading it, yet I have..
Who would I recommend it to: Erm… people who like short stories? People who like philosophical ideas- because this is a doozy. I mean, they are friends, but the idea is a dangerous one, so it is understandable why Dick acts the way he does. Yet it isn’t understandable, as there were far easier methods for him to obtain the information without resorting to what he did. It’s a good point for a discussion on whether the ends justify the means.