Why do you think Saki avoided giving Georg and Ulrich distinct personalities? ("The Interlopers")

The feud between Ulrich and Georg initially stemmed from a land dispute. But that feud became more of a personal conflict. Ulrich is the legal, wealthy landowner and Georg is the illegal poacher. However, the narrator does not suggest that Georg is more wrong in any sense. The narrator simply presents the feud as it is. Refusing to give particular personality traits to either man, the narrator/author puts the focus on the absurdity of the...

The feud between Ulrich and Georg initially stemmed from a land dispute. But that feud became more of a personal conflict. Ulrich is the legal, wealthy landowner and Georg is the illegal poacher. However, the narrator does not suggest that Georg is more wrong in any sense. The narrator simply presents the feud as it is. Refusing to give particular personality traits to either man, the narrator/author puts the focus on the absurdity of the ongoing feud. 

With no other characteristics, the reader is left with two bitter rivals. Ulrich is hunting Georg and Georg is hunting on his land. Both men are hunters. This sets up the ironic twist at the end when they both become hunted by the wolves. The narrator thus simply focuses on roles. These men are bitter rivals and hunters. These roles will switch in the end. This shows how the author focuses on roles as well as the conflict. The role one chooses to play determines the relationship and the outcome of the story. 

With no indications, there is nothing to suggest which man will make the first move to ending the feud. Even though Ulrich makes the first gesture, ending the feud can not be complete without Georg's agreement. So, the truce is only completed when both men put the rivalry to rest. Here, the focus shifts from the feud to the truce. The feud and the truce require the participation of both men. The point is that both men are to blame for perpetuating the conflict. It is not necessary to suggest that one man is more wrong than the other. 

Perhaps Saki did not want the reader to take a side. He therefore emphasizes that both men are to blame. Therefore, he did not position one man as protagonist and the other as antagonist. So, he left out details about personalities to underscore this idea. In this way, the story is about the futility of the feud: not about who is right, who is wrong, or who started it.