Comments on: Misinterpretations of Gender and Generation

By: susan

susan — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 18:45:25 +0000

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!

By: cymem

cymem — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:28:55 +0000

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 His stories are glimpses into the past, but unless taught with the caution that his politics are outdated, his caricatures of gender outlandish, and his scenarios of relationships at best outmoded, we as educators run the risk of legitimizing these racist and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?

By: One Penny Profiles

One Penny Profiles — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:47:30 +0000

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