Today is Hemingway’s 109th birthday, and I’m going to use it as an opportunity to bash not only his work, but the institution of Literary Canon for continually bestowing the honor upon him as one of the Greatest American Writers Ever. This discussion began with my AmLit professor in 2006 (hi, Bob!), and is still not concluded to my satisfaction mainly because EH still shows up on reading lists around the country. His works reek of sexism and misogyny, his stylistic journalism is weak and choppy, and his characters are stereotypical. All the men are strong, stubborn, and brave, while the women are vapid, weak, and useless.
Of course I’m generalizing. My point, however, is such: what do students gain by studying these works as though they should hold some link to modern application? As period references they illuminate the American male mentality (or at least Hemingway’s) in the early 20th century. As testaments to behavior patterns that should be emulated–implied because we think his stories are important enough to show our students as Great Stuff–is irresponsible. Why do we never look further for inspiration? His bio from the Nobel Prize institute’s website states, in part:
”Hemingway – himself a great sportsman – liked to portray soldiers, hunters, bullfighters – tough, at times primitive people whose courage and honesty are set against the brutal ways of modern society, and who in this confrontation lose hope and faith. His straightforward prose, his spare dialogue, and his predilection for understatement are particularly effective in his short stories”.
Spare and primitive I can agree with, though most likely without the sentimentality these esteemed scholars meant it. Maybe that’s my problem in failing to decode Hemingway directly; because I’m a progressive female, his stunning candor of the male psyche translates into dread and distatefulness that lodges somewhere between my id and my stomach. Here are some quotes from the author:
“Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter.” Ernest Hemingway, “On the Blue Water,” Esquire, April 1936
Can’t say this one really makes it into my sphere of relevance. How about:
“The world breaks everyone and afterward many are strong in the broken places. But those that will not break it kills. it kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially. If you are none of these you can be sure it will kill you too but there will be no special hurry.” Ernest Hemingway, A Farewell to Arms, 1929
GWB was probably dipped in this stuff from infancy. I’m not Dorothy looking for some Oz-matized treatment of the canon, but can’t we broaden our horizons?
I think that you may be positing a 21st century “theoretical” read on Hemmingway and that this is unjust and anachronistic. In fact, I would argue that the female protagonist in “The Sun Also Rises” is a strong female character free from men’s b.s. and a template for how modern writers represent women. I also believe that Hemmingway’s representation is stronger say than Virginia Woolf’s Mrs Dalloway, who is supposed to be a “strong” female. But I see her as a wreck, so concerned about the trappings of society, appearances, and beauty–the stereotypical triumvirate of what has been traditionally seen as “feminine” concerns. Hemmingway’s character just isn’t concerned. I’d even say she doesn’t give a shit about those things. That seems more modern to me.
I think you are stereotyping him, Hemmingway, following a whole herd of feminist texts that slam the man for his work and you are believing it. This is, in point of fact, the very thing that you are railing against in his characters, that they are stereotypical. So I see a hypocrisy in this line of reasoning.
As for the link to “modern application”…. Have you read much literature before him? It is convoluted and decorative; boring and lame. He made it direct and fast-pasted, plot driven and to the point. Would we have a Palahniuk, Auster, Bukowski, Carver, Mailer without him? Would we the modern reader be able to dig it?
From: onepennyprofiles.wordpress.com
I take no exception to being called a hypocrite; I’ll readily admit it, with literature and many other subjects. I will, however, disclaim your suggestion that I’ve swallowed up feminist views and are now spouting them as gospel. The opinions stated are strictly my own, as a lifelong reader, writer, and student of words. I am in the middle of master classes on educational diversity, while trying to independently study this cretin for some nugget of literary worth. As far as my “21st century theorism”, I am fully aware that any literature must–and should–be read within the context of its social history. My objection is and remains with the glorification of Hemingway as a writer worthy of canon status. His stories are glimpses into the past, but unless taught with the caution that his politics are outdated, his caricatures of gender outlandish, and his scenarios of relationships at best outmoded, we as educators run the risk of legitimizing these racist and sexist attitudes as the Way Things Should Be. And yeah, I’ve read plenty of literature that came before EH, all the way back to Caedmon. None seem to be cast in the light of “the voice of true America” the way EH is. Even “Babbitt”, right now on my son’s junior year reading list, will be dealt with in generational terms. Who, after all, would expect anyone today to take Georgie-boy seriously? Even though he echoes the materialistic culture we idolize and emulate with abandon.
But who, also, does NOT see a problem with the character of Robert Jordan? How about Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, just to name two students who may have come into contact with “For Whom the Bell Tolls”. [DISCLAIMER: I am not stating here that they adopted the mindset of Jordan to commit their murders; I have no information to that effect. This is an example of modern American youth who exhibited the mindset that EH used for characters in FWBT.]
And to paint Brett Ashley as an example of a modern, liberated female is questionable, unless we are all to be assumed as nymphomaniacs with passive/agressive disorder who like to take turns being objectified and ridiculed by clusters of lusting men; perhaps another hypocrisy?
I don’t pretend to know Hemingway well, nor was I ever a huge fan of his work, but I think the question goes more to why he is being studied, i.e., NOT for imagery.
He has indeed influenced a generation of writers and for that reason alone it may be well worthwhile to understand not only his style, but his perspective. Literature always offers some indication of the era. While I believe that more contemporary writers should be added to the canon, I would keep representations of the past as well. The works that become classics are usually more for the change they represent in writing than for content.
Faulkner–in my personal opinion–has it all over Hemingway in style. But I’d like to read them both to better understand what evolution society as well as literature have gone through
The best part of it all is that we have these canons as a guide and can decide for ourselves their value–or lack thereof!