I was always fascinated about his life, but like you had trouble getting beyond the first two chapters. I did not like the brief sentences, lack of richness in his prose. When I hear people rave about his books,I keep wondering what exactly I have missed. Hope you are thriving Terry?
Terry, A fun debate with yourself! Here's another new book for your collection. "Hemingway's Widow: The Life and Legacy of Mary Welsh Hemingway," by Timothy Christian. After reading about his life with Hadley (wife #1), I'm looking forward to reading about Mary (#4). I'm troubled by the way he treated women. I've already told you about my book, "Through Her Opera Glasses," based on my mother's letters from Paris 1930-1931. As you adore Paris so, you might enjoy her adventures.
Not only have I had these same thoughts about Hemingway and his writing, I've also struggled to understand why I like reading about his life. I think for me, it comes down to this: that despite how deeply flawed he was, there was something admirable in the way he attacked writing -- and attacked life. He lived by his own dictums, discovering and sharing insights such as the "one true sentence" theory, and the first draft of anything is shit. Even though I don't like his style, he worked hard at it and created something completely new that others did love. I respect that.
Ultimately though, the attraction of Hemingway for me is the romance of the beginner writer. At one point in the early 90s I considered running away to Prague because I heard there was the same kind of writer/artist scene happening so soon after the fall of the Berlin Wall. I did visit -- beer was cheap and $4 per night would get you an apartment. (I imagine renting by the month would have been even cheaper.) Having all your needs taken care of relatively inexpensively so that you can focus on just writing sounds appealing to almost any writer, no? But I think you're right though -- for me, he wouldn't have had nearly the allure if he hadn't of written "A Moveable Feast" about his days in Paris. (And, not coincidentally, I wouldn't have had my same feelings about Paris in the 1920s.)
So for me, it's not the man or his writing, but what he represents: work hard on your writing, find your one true sentence, and when you're not writing, work hard to live.
Incidentally, I recently did get a better appreciation for Hemingway's writing style when George Saunders launched his Substack just over a year ago. After close-reading "Cat in the Rain", I suddenly understood what all the fuss was about. It showed that his sparse writing opened opportunities to play with the reader, lead them in new directions, and provide an experience he couldn't do otherwise. He'll never be my favourite writer, but those insights were inspiring nonetheless.
Hi Terry, I enjoyed your comments and observations about your discomfort in judging a literary icon like Earnest Hemmingway whom you simply see as a mere mortal. Could it be your icon envy or literary rivalry has spilled out of your dam of ambivalence? Just like Doug Jordan, I too had to read "An Old Man and the Sea" as required reading at school. At the time I was young and impressionable, and I felt sorry for the old man and the young boy. To attempt great things in your old age then to have nature itself mock you is a very cold hard slap in the face. Sometimes we seek redemption when maybe we really need to contend with mediocrity instead. Was Hemmingway being metaphorical in that story? I think it's very possible. He may have been looking to land a whooper of a story in order to embrace redemption. Hard to say what goes on in a person's head. I'm at that same stage of my life now and am attempting something that may be beyond my abilities as well, becoming a writer. Shame on me for such hubris, well maybe. If any of my work can contribute to the masses as entertainment, then great. If not, then nature herself may also slap me in the face. I will find out from the Leacock Associates this fall.
I agree with many of the elucid points made by Dr. Lorraine McFadden in her post. Number two was a stinger for me. "There was a recent study that looked at ways in which success as an artist can be predicted by the quality of the gallery that first exhibits their art. It can be argued that a really good gallery can discern talent more accurately that a lesser gallery. It can also be argued that success is in part manufactured by the early attention of influencers in the artistic community. Such was the conclusion of the authors of the study."
Your rise to notoriety came as a result of winning a very prestigious Canadian award in your first attempt. Since that happened you have become a prolific writer. Fortunately, your works are embraced as laudable and worthy, and you sir, believe it or not, are somewhat of a literary icon for the rest of us budding humorists. Forgive me if the pedestal is an uncomfortable place for you to stand. Clearly you have been judged by your peers and adjudicators as a national icon too. Hard to balance oneself at such heights without experiencing a little vertigo. That might be all that you are taking away from assessing Mr. Hemmingway. Sharing a place as a public icon may be a reality that you are just beginning to get comfortable with or may be a little uncomfortable. Enjoy your reminiscing of Paris and the heady days they represented in the 1920's. From time to time one of us would be writers steps up and upsets the apple cart with our style or lack of it. Nonconformity is often times translated as nouveau when it may in fact just be a half effort when compared to the standards of the time. Critics hate to be wrong and hate to be mocked they have skin in the game too. They most certainly like to discover new and fresh voices and that's a good thing. In the end Earnest Hemmingway was a flawed human being who found a way to tell a story that kept the reader engaged. I think that's all any of us are aiming for in our equally flawed lives. My body of work will be minuscule in comparison. however, it will represent my voice for those who wish to hear it. Some of us may only write one or two books, I'm not sure yet how many might be in me. Great blog Terry, and you continue to inspire with such provocative questions. May you know continued success.
I'm reaching out to Beverley hoping she might take me on as a client author. Recently Frank Abagnale Jr. author of "Catch Me if You Can" fame; Steven Spielberg, Tom Hanks and Leonardo Di Caprio film; has discovered my book and is endorsing it with a blurb for the back cover. What an interesting fellow he is.
Terry, may I somewhat apologetically suggest that you aren't being honest with yourself? It's unfashionable these days to like Hemingway. You wouldn't want to be called out for not criticizing his philandering ways and macho persona. But we cannot judge a person from 100 years ago with the standards of today. It's not fair. As for his prose, you say you don't like it and yet it seems to haunt you (I'm not buying the Paris fixation). When you read a Moveable Feast or The Sun Also Rises or just about any of Hemingway's novels or short stories, it does what literature is supposed to: transports you to another place and time. I think it's okay to separate the art from the artist - in fact I think it's essential if you want to fall into the art. I love long and flowery prose too (think Claire Louise Bennet, for a contemporary example) but Hemingway is pretty fucking special. He's one of a kind. You can't imitate him. You can't help but wish, despite its troubles, you'd had a life like his. Whatever you decide, hey, that's fine, just don't forget the possibility that as long as you don't care what other people think, it's okay to admire him.
Thanks, Pamela. I understand what you mean about not judging someone from a century ago against today's societal standards. But even back then, his treatment of women in general, and his wives in particular fell well short, I think. I also agree that he really did create something new and revolutionary at the time. He wrote in a way that was new and exciting and muscular. It's just not the kind of writing I like. But what a life he led.
Terry, I noted your title and was compelled to read your post. It was as if you were in my own head when it comes to Hemingway. I have nothing like the collection of books as you of or about Hemingway but this fascination has also dogged me for years, even more so as I have refashioned my own identity as writer over management effectiveness consultant. First exposed to him in High School, likely Grade 10 (Ontario, early ‘60s) reading the ‘Old Man and the Sea’. The reading was fond. He was a literary icon – must have been, he was on the required curriculum. I had no clue. I bought the trifecta of his famous works in my 20s, for my library (great titles all: ‘For Whom the Bell Tolls’, ‘The Sun Also Rises’, ‘A Farewell to Arms’), even read them and seem to recall them satisfying. He became an icon in my mind – is this a cultural meme? I too became fascinated with Paris, and part of that was fascination for the Hemingway era. I even sat on the terrace of Les Deux Magots sucking on a beer with a friend, saluting, or reliving, his memory. I visited his house in Key West. I didn’t go to Cuba. Recently I reread ‘The Old Man and the Sea’. It left me cold. Hmmm. I read ‘The Moveable Feast’, for the first time. Well, that’s not true – I gave up about half way through: to me it was senseless incoherent emptiness. His style (short sentences comprised of one or two syllable words) feel totally wooden. So why does he, if he still does, capture our reverence? I think it is because he was a tragic figure, the twentieth century version of the trouble artist. We authors, eccentric?, even though introverted, seek some sort of recognition. We want Hemingway’s fame, with a little less suffering.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment, Doug. I also wonder, as superficial as it sounds, if his undeniably rugged good looks (in the early years at least) also helped with the myth-making. Whatever it was, there’s no doubt he is a literary icon (he has a Nobel Prize, after all).
1. There was a theory floating around for a while that great artists are, or go, mad. Someone did a study on it and debunked the myth. Such ideas will persist, possibly amongst artists. Rest assured, going mad is not because one has a talent for writing.
2. There was a recent study that looked at ways in which success as an artist can be predicted by the quality of the gallery that first exhibits their art. It can be argued that a really good gallery can discern talent more accurately that a lesser gallery. It can also be argued that success is in part manufactured by the early attention of influencers in the artistic community. Such was the conclusion of the authors of the study.
3. Hemingway just might have been an innovative but overrated writer whose presence in Paris in the 1920's was larger than life, leading to the kind of attention and manufactured success discussed above. He did some new things and got a lot of attention but he was also labouring under some big personal challenges.
4. Perhaps the central mystery here is why a writer whose work you so dislike could be so lauded. You say you do not like his work, but is that not also saying in your opinion, Hemingway was not that great a writer. How to square the circle? How is this guy so famous?
5. I have read all your books, and laughed a bunch. Thank you! Not only do you love the work, you are good at it. Good Canadian that you are, you do seem nonplussed by your success.
6. If I could only find or remember citations for the studies I mentioned above, I would, but I am retired and these things come more slowly now. Perhaps there will be another post at 3:00 am .
Thanks for this great contribution to the debate. I do think there’s room to dislike another writer’s style while still accepting that they may well be a good or even great writer. There are so many different writing styles. I just prefer more elaborate sentences in my storytelling. The studies you mention sound interesting. Thanks again for joining in.
I agree with your points, and strongly support more elaborate sentences. The English language is supple and lovely; I think it a shame to avoid complexity in a search for beauty. Baby, bathwater sort of thing.
I was always fascinated about his life, but like you had trouble getting beyond the first two chapters. I did not like the brief sentences, lack of richness in his prose. When I hear people rave about his books,I keep wondering what exactly I have missed. Hope you are thriving Terry?
Thanks, Norma. I'm with you on this. I certainly feel as if I'm thriving. Hope you are, too.
Terry, A fun debate with yourself! Here's another new book for your collection. "Hemingway's Widow: The Life and Legacy of Mary Welsh Hemingway," by Timothy Christian. After reading about his life with Hadley (wife #1), I'm looking forward to reading about Mary (#4). I'm troubled by the way he treated women. I've already told you about my book, "Through Her Opera Glasses," based on my mother's letters from Paris 1930-1931. As you adore Paris so, you might enjoy her adventures.
Yes, I've seen and read about this book but I don't have it yet. Soon!
I literally lol'd through large sections of this!
Not only have I had these same thoughts about Hemingway and his writing, I've also struggled to understand why I like reading about his life. I think for me, it comes down to this: that despite how deeply flawed he was, there was something admirable in the way he attacked writing -- and attacked life. He lived by his own dictums, discovering and sharing insights such as the "one true sentence" theory, and the first draft of anything is shit. Even though I don't like his style, he worked hard at it and created something completely new that others did love. I respect that.
Ultimately though, the attraction of Hemingway for me is the romance of the beginner writer. At one point in the early 90s I considered running away to Prague because I heard there was the same kind of writer/artist scene happening so soon after the fall of the Berlin Wall. I did visit -- beer was cheap and $4 per night would get you an apartment. (I imagine renting by the month would have been even cheaper.) Having all your needs taken care of relatively inexpensively so that you can focus on just writing sounds appealing to almost any writer, no? But I think you're right though -- for me, he wouldn't have had nearly the allure if he hadn't of written "A Moveable Feast" about his days in Paris. (And, not coincidentally, I wouldn't have had my same feelings about Paris in the 1920s.)
So for me, it's not the man or his writing, but what he represents: work hard on your writing, find your one true sentence, and when you're not writing, work hard to live.
Incidentally, I recently did get a better appreciation for Hemingway's writing style when George Saunders launched his Substack just over a year ago. After close-reading "Cat in the Rain", I suddenly understood what all the fuss was about. It showed that his sparse writing opened opportunities to play with the reader, lead them in new directions, and provide an experience he couldn't do otherwise. He'll never be my favourite writer, but those insights were inspiring nonetheless.
If you're interested, here are all the posts: https://georgesaunders.substack.com/s/cat-in-the-rain/archive (you have to scroll to the bottom to start at the beginning...)
Another great read, Terry! Thanks!
~Graham
I agree whole-heartedly. Great insights in your comment. I'll definitely check our George Saunders' pieces. He's wonderful. Thanks, Graham.
Hi Terry, I enjoyed your comments and observations about your discomfort in judging a literary icon like Earnest Hemmingway whom you simply see as a mere mortal. Could it be your icon envy or literary rivalry has spilled out of your dam of ambivalence? Just like Doug Jordan, I too had to read "An Old Man and the Sea" as required reading at school. At the time I was young and impressionable, and I felt sorry for the old man and the young boy. To attempt great things in your old age then to have nature itself mock you is a very cold hard slap in the face. Sometimes we seek redemption when maybe we really need to contend with mediocrity instead. Was Hemmingway being metaphorical in that story? I think it's very possible. He may have been looking to land a whooper of a story in order to embrace redemption. Hard to say what goes on in a person's head. I'm at that same stage of my life now and am attempting something that may be beyond my abilities as well, becoming a writer. Shame on me for such hubris, well maybe. If any of my work can contribute to the masses as entertainment, then great. If not, then nature herself may also slap me in the face. I will find out from the Leacock Associates this fall.
I agree with many of the elucid points made by Dr. Lorraine McFadden in her post. Number two was a stinger for me. "There was a recent study that looked at ways in which success as an artist can be predicted by the quality of the gallery that first exhibits their art. It can be argued that a really good gallery can discern talent more accurately that a lesser gallery. It can also be argued that success is in part manufactured by the early attention of influencers in the artistic community. Such was the conclusion of the authors of the study."
Your rise to notoriety came as a result of winning a very prestigious Canadian award in your first attempt. Since that happened you have become a prolific writer. Fortunately, your works are embraced as laudable and worthy, and you sir, believe it or not, are somewhat of a literary icon for the rest of us budding humorists. Forgive me if the pedestal is an uncomfortable place for you to stand. Clearly you have been judged by your peers and adjudicators as a national icon too. Hard to balance oneself at such heights without experiencing a little vertigo. That might be all that you are taking away from assessing Mr. Hemmingway. Sharing a place as a public icon may be a reality that you are just beginning to get comfortable with or may be a little uncomfortable. Enjoy your reminiscing of Paris and the heady days they represented in the 1920's. From time to time one of us would be writers steps up and upsets the apple cart with our style or lack of it. Nonconformity is often times translated as nouveau when it may in fact just be a half effort when compared to the standards of the time. Critics hate to be wrong and hate to be mocked they have skin in the game too. They most certainly like to discover new and fresh voices and that's a good thing. In the end Earnest Hemmingway was a flawed human being who found a way to tell a story that kept the reader engaged. I think that's all any of us are aiming for in our equally flawed lives. My body of work will be minuscule in comparison. however, it will represent my voice for those who wish to hear it. Some of us may only write one or two books, I'm not sure yet how many might be in me. Great blog Terry, and you continue to inspire with such provocative questions. May you know continued success.
Thanks for the kind words and your thoughtful comment. Hope your book is doing well.
I'm reaching out to Beverley hoping she might take me on as a client author. Recently Frank Abagnale Jr. author of "Catch Me if You Can" fame; Steven Spielberg, Tom Hanks and Leonardo Di Caprio film; has discovered my book and is endorsing it with a blurb for the back cover. What an interesting fellow he is.
Wow, Mark, that’s great. Congrats.what a coup!
Terry, may I somewhat apologetically suggest that you aren't being honest with yourself? It's unfashionable these days to like Hemingway. You wouldn't want to be called out for not criticizing his philandering ways and macho persona. But we cannot judge a person from 100 years ago with the standards of today. It's not fair. As for his prose, you say you don't like it and yet it seems to haunt you (I'm not buying the Paris fixation). When you read a Moveable Feast or The Sun Also Rises or just about any of Hemingway's novels or short stories, it does what literature is supposed to: transports you to another place and time. I think it's okay to separate the art from the artist - in fact I think it's essential if you want to fall into the art. I love long and flowery prose too (think Claire Louise Bennet, for a contemporary example) but Hemingway is pretty fucking special. He's one of a kind. You can't imitate him. You can't help but wish, despite its troubles, you'd had a life like his. Whatever you decide, hey, that's fine, just don't forget the possibility that as long as you don't care what other people think, it's okay to admire him.
Thanks, Pamela. I understand what you mean about not judging someone from a century ago against today's societal standards. But even back then, his treatment of women in general, and his wives in particular fell well short, I think. I also agree that he really did create something new and revolutionary at the time. He wrote in a way that was new and exciting and muscular. It's just not the kind of writing I like. But what a life he led.
Terry, I noted your title and was compelled to read your post. It was as if you were in my own head when it comes to Hemingway. I have nothing like the collection of books as you of or about Hemingway but this fascination has also dogged me for years, even more so as I have refashioned my own identity as writer over management effectiveness consultant. First exposed to him in High School, likely Grade 10 (Ontario, early ‘60s) reading the ‘Old Man and the Sea’. The reading was fond. He was a literary icon – must have been, he was on the required curriculum. I had no clue. I bought the trifecta of his famous works in my 20s, for my library (great titles all: ‘For Whom the Bell Tolls’, ‘The Sun Also Rises’, ‘A Farewell to Arms’), even read them and seem to recall them satisfying. He became an icon in my mind – is this a cultural meme? I too became fascinated with Paris, and part of that was fascination for the Hemingway era. I even sat on the terrace of Les Deux Magots sucking on a beer with a friend, saluting, or reliving, his memory. I visited his house in Key West. I didn’t go to Cuba. Recently I reread ‘The Old Man and the Sea’. It left me cold. Hmmm. I read ‘The Moveable Feast’, for the first time. Well, that’s not true – I gave up about half way through: to me it was senseless incoherent emptiness. His style (short sentences comprised of one or two syllable words) feel totally wooden. So why does he, if he still does, capture our reverence? I think it is because he was a tragic figure, the twentieth century version of the trouble artist. We authors, eccentric?, even though introverted, seek some sort of recognition. We want Hemingway’s fame, with a little less suffering.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment, Doug. I also wonder, as superficial as it sounds, if his undeniably rugged good looks (in the early years at least) also helped with the myth-making. Whatever it was, there’s no doubt he is a literary icon (he has a Nobel Prize, after all).
Hadn’t thought of that – the rugged good looks I mean. Probably contributed to his having his way with so many women. Another good reason to hate him.
I gotta say, Terry, that I am a Martha Gellhorn fan...I enjoyed the Hemingway musings...
I think Martha Gellhorn is amazing, too.
1. There was a theory floating around for a while that great artists are, or go, mad. Someone did a study on it and debunked the myth. Such ideas will persist, possibly amongst artists. Rest assured, going mad is not because one has a talent for writing.
2. There was a recent study that looked at ways in which success as an artist can be predicted by the quality of the gallery that first exhibits their art. It can be argued that a really good gallery can discern talent more accurately that a lesser gallery. It can also be argued that success is in part manufactured by the early attention of influencers in the artistic community. Such was the conclusion of the authors of the study.
3. Hemingway just might have been an innovative but overrated writer whose presence in Paris in the 1920's was larger than life, leading to the kind of attention and manufactured success discussed above. He did some new things and got a lot of attention but he was also labouring under some big personal challenges.
4. Perhaps the central mystery here is why a writer whose work you so dislike could be so lauded. You say you do not like his work, but is that not also saying in your opinion, Hemingway was not that great a writer. How to square the circle? How is this guy so famous?
5. I have read all your books, and laughed a bunch. Thank you! Not only do you love the work, you are good at it. Good Canadian that you are, you do seem nonplussed by your success.
6. If I could only find or remember citations for the studies I mentioned above, I would, but I am retired and these things come more slowly now. Perhaps there will be another post at 3:00 am .
Thanks for this great contribution to the debate. I do think there’s room to dislike another writer’s style while still accepting that they may well be a good or even great writer. There are so many different writing styles. I just prefer more elaborate sentences in my storytelling. The studies you mention sound interesting. Thanks again for joining in.
I agree with your points, and strongly support more elaborate sentences. The English language is supple and lovely; I think it a shame to avoid complexity in a search for beauty. Baby, bathwater sort of thing.