The nature of human communication requires that only a certain number of details can be expressed. A photograph leaves out what lies beyond its frame, statistical data generalizes responses into categories to make sense of the results, and words distinguish specific concepts to present ideas. The author of a written work chooses the details to express not only what he wants, but also what he wants the audience to feel about it. I will analyze what the author chooses to include and ignore in The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky and “Hills Like White Elephants” by Ernest Hemmingway. The first, and most easily recognizable, choice that Chbosky makes in his writing style is to tell the story in letter form, including introductions and dates. He conveniently leaves out and changes his name, and refuses to give any real indication of who he's writing to or why he's writing, other than his "need to know that there's someone out there who will listen” (2). This is done to bring the fiction to life and make it seem probable even though it is fiction. By having Charlie write directly to the audience and presenting him as caring, "seeking strength and friendship" and generally kind, it gives the reader the role of sympathizing intimately with the character despite the fictional character and widely publicized. nature of the book (2). Charlie approaches his letters with a normal writing style by always referring to himself in the first person, writing erratic plot structures, and beginning his letters with questions such as "Did I never tell you that I was in workshop class, right? or with a development in something he described in an earlier letter(12). Without this opening section and the author's reinforcement of the reader's role...... in the middle of the article...... his environment and his past, while leaving aside any other perspective or any deep judgment of character, making Charlie seem alienated, surface observer and non-judgmental, as if he cannot act on the things he discovers. Charlie appears to the audience as thoughtful, troubled, and good-natured, albeit naive. Hemmingway, on the other hand, includes relatively insignificant details about his scene's environment while including truly metaphorical topics of conversation in much of his work. It excludes obvious representations of intentions or any far-reaching conclusions. This makes Hemmingway's story vague and difficult to follow, while seeming to say nothing really specific. Both stories show a unique way of handling what they want to express while maintaining separate and distinct choices about what kind of details are important and what aren't...