I agree that some of it seems pretty pointless, but none of it could really be called drivel.

These two writers, for me, captured in print moments in time that will never be again.

In essence, what worked "then" in a novel would not, in my opinion, work today.

We're a society being fed instant gratification (and we've been targeted as consumers at a far earlier age than in Hemingway's time). We like things faster, harder, more "on" nowadays.

But think about Hemingway's life, and the times in which he lived. Think about the types of communications that reached people then, and *how* they reached the average person. Movies (Hollywood reaching new heights with film) and books becoming more and more available and more affordable for the "average Joe,"...and then add to that Hemingway's travels, and his penchant for "bumping into folks" during those travels...and you have a building of interest, a uniqueness...a star being born.

I also think of Jack Kerouac when I hear the name of Hemingway. Both names bring to my mind the image of a salty writer with ink-stained hands, and some old, clickety-clackety typewriter in front of them -- real writers living, pounding out words, upping the interest quotient maybe not so much by the words they wrote but perhaps more by the lives they lived and the folks they met and the time in which they existed.

So...having said all that, I guess I think your post should generate the question of..."What can a writer of today do to make him/herself stand out like a Hemingway, Tolstoy or Kerouac?"

How to take the happenings of today, the pulse point of today, and make it become some piece of writing that others, years from now, might not find thoroughly invigorating, but *will* find it to be a barometer of the world in which that person lived...or perhaps, a piece talked about and remembered long after that person died.

I'd much rather write stories that people find thoroughly invigorating.

That isn't to say that there isn't older writing that is entertaining. Anyone who has read a portion of Dumas's vast oevre of works will attest to that. The "Three Musketeers" line is tremendously exciting.

I don't enjoy reading Hemingway, but I most definately enjoy HAVING READ Hemingway.

I think what makes him hard to read -- at least his short stories (I've never read any of his novels) -- is that he comes from the James Joyce school that a short story must end in an epiphany. So sometimes you have to read his stories four or five times to really understand what the story's about -- before you grasp the epiphany. But the more you read him, the easier he is to read. Unfortunately, sometimes he's too obscure, like he is in "The Hills Like White Elephants." (The story's about abortion, by the way.)

Hemingway also comes for the school (which still exists in contemporary literary circles) where the writer must also be a stylist -- he must have a distinctive prose. Hemingway certainly does, and sometimes it gets the best of him.

Don't be so quick to dismiss him, though. But if you don't like him, you don't like him. There's nothing wrong with that . . . so long as you've given him a fair chance.

What have you read of him that has made you dislike him so much?

Interesting that you should quote that line from Shakespeare in reference to Hemingway, since part of it is the title of a novel by one of Hemingway's great contemporaries. Are you suggesting that William Faulkner is a far superior author than Hemingway?

quote:

---

I don't enjoy reading Hemingway, but I most definately enjoy HAVING READ Hemingway.

---

LOL, JB. Or should I say J”Churchill”B?

quote:

---

How to take the happenings of today, the pulse point of today, and make it become some piece of writing that others, years from now, might not find thoroughly invigorating, but *will* find it to be a barometer of the world in which that person lived...or perhaps, a piece talked about and remembered long after that person died.

---

This certainly has happened, and that’s very well put, but with Hemingway, as with Fitzgerald, my impression is that these are not the common men but the elite, the globetrotters. Kind of like looking in on Hollywood -- with celebrity adulation and all -- and acting as if any story about Hollywood or elite types gives valid insight into how normal society functions.

And yes, I know Hemingway was a rough-and-tumble sort of guy, unlike the Fitzgerald characters and Hollywood types, but Hemingway’s reporter travels and lifestyle still qualify him for membership in the elite, IMHO. And I don’t connect with it, rube that I am. In fact, they usually bore me. (No PC there. )

quote:

---

Hemingway also comes for the school (which still exists in contemporary literary circles) where the writer must also be a stylist -- he must have a distinctive prose. Hemingway certainly does, and sometimes it gets the best of him.

---

Oh, my. I firmly believe in writing style and distinctive prose. I think it’s wonderful when you’re able to look at a piece of writing and say, “So-and-so wrote that.” But, it doesn’t necessarily mean the writing is good; it can just as easily mark a bad stylistic writing – which is how I see Hemingway.

quote:

---

I think what makes him hard to read -- at least his short stories (I've never read any of his novels)

---

Ah…maybe that's part of the difference in our outlooks, Balthasar. I’ve read several of his books, but it’s entirely possible I never read any of his short stories, though I may be mistaken on that. In high school we read The Sun Also Rises and A Farewell to Arms, both of which I detested, then The Old Man and the Sea, which pleasantly surprised me. I’d find it hard to believe we didn’t do some of his shorts, since the teachers seemed obsessed with him. I mean, two full novels minimum, then our reading lists were peppered with other books by Hemingway -- and I don’t think other authors got as much promotion.

Then in college I had to do a paper on Hemingway, in which I gave my true opinion, and got a “B” (it might even have been a “C”) -- the only “B” among my “A’s,” which fully incensed me against Hemingway. I suspected it was a content-based grade, not execution-based as it was supposed to have been. Up to that point, I had been giving Hemingway a fair chance and disliking him on his own demerits. After that, all bets were off.

Never read Faulkner. Strange, huh?

I think someone mentioned James Joyce. Strangely enough, I liked his Portrait of the Artist As a Young Man.

I don't connect Hemmingway and Tolstoy at all. They don't even come from the same moral universe. Tolstoy...well, he's a man of a utterly different kind from Hemmingway.

I have to agree with Kolona insofar as taking Hemmingway as "the pulse point" of his era...perhaps he was, in a sense, but I don't think that makes him worth reading. For me, there are only a few Hemmingway themes that are meaningful enough to rise above the depravity of man as he saw and portrayed it.

I share much of his core cynicism about man, but I find greater meanings in it.

Still, I like the man's style. And his epiphanies, while small (and hard to find for some), are meaningful. Hemmingway didn't take meaning for granted. When he found it in his writing, it isn't banal, even when it is nearly trivial.

To answer wetwilly's original point, I think the very moral emptiness of Hemmingways universe is part of what allows a certain kind of 'literati' to read and understand him. He shows them meanings in life that they are willing to believe.

I think his style is clean and straightforward, and probably qualifies as "invisible" as much as any style can.

I also think he's a much better short story writer than he is a novel writer, and I suspect that may be because his style is better suited to shorter works than it is to longer ones.

<-- Not a Hemingway fan, if that wasn't clear from above

In Shakespeare, all you get is guys saying stuff and doing stuff without the benefit of any third person explication whatsoever. Thus, every play is essentially a Rorschach test, and is open to endless interpretation even without employing Literary Theory.

Somehow, Hemingway has managed to perfect a narrative (I am almost tempted to call it non-narrative) style which achieves the same thing, with the result that Hemingway can mean anything one wants Hemingway to mean, effortlessly.

Hemingway is a wonderful writer. May not be to your tastes, but objectively he is a fine writer and deserves to be studied.

I realize that OSC laments the lack of SF studies in the university and that popular culture should be included in the cannon. I agree, but that does not mean that we should discard Shakespeare, and I'm sure OSC agrees.

Shakespeare is a wonderful storyteller too, although he borrowed his plots from other sources. Hemingway is not only a great sentence craftsman, but also knows how to tell a story. However, both writers have uneven works. But overall, they are great writers.

Anyways, it turns out I really like Shakespeare's plays, and, to a certain degree, Hemingway's short stories (although, really, you can see his suicide coming a mile away, can't you?). My slam - which I admit may be a tad misplaced in this thread - was directed at, oh, let's call it the authors' mutual openness to intellectual abuse by people not anywhere near as intelligent and brilliant and just altogether wise and mature and learned as myself.

Nyah.

Cheers,

Sarcasm Boy

I thought I'd used it here before, with the translation, and I didn't want to drive everyone crazy by including the translation every time I use it.

There are all kinds of (webforumese? virtual conversationese? computer talk glyphs?) abbreviations out there, and when I was an assistant sysop on GEnie, we used them a lot. I try not to use them here, because I don't know if everyone knows them, but sometimes I forget and slip up.

quote:

---

large sea-going bugs(lobster & crab)ocean roaches if you ask me.

---

My word. I wouldn't think to put Hemingway in the same class as Shakespeare. Personally, I think the elite like Papa H mainly because they're fascinated with his suicide. Kind of like an artist's work rising in value with his death.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with liking Hemingway. If you see something good in his work that I don't, then by all means, enjoy Hemingway. That doesn't mean that people who aren't touched by it in any way are unsophisticated.

Although, now that I think about it, I'm probably pretty lacking in the sophistication department, so I suppose I have no reason to take offense. I'd rather eat a quarter-pounder with cheese than caviar, and I'd rather listen to Dr. Dre than Brahms, so it shouldn't come as any surprise that my Mt. Dew and MTV soaked brain doesn't enjoy Hemingway. I guess I just like things that bring some sort of pleasure.

You slobbering monkey-whelp of the wretched proletariat! We truly sophisticated types drink refreshing Dr. Pepper.

...Woah! Sorry. It was the caffeine talking, not me.

By the way, asherahpole (and I do wonder what that means) did say "don't have a taste for them or are not sophisticated enough...."

I would be willing to bet that Hemingway did enjoy a Rum&Coke a time or two, while he was writing. (just to keep the Hemingway portion of the discussion going)

(2) Hemingway is a far, far better short-story writer than he is a novelist. The Old Man and the Sea may be the only good novel he wrote, though I'm told The Sun Also Rises is quite good (I've read the former, but not the latter). If you haven't read his short stories, that's where you need to begin. Especially his short stories about Nick Adams: "Indian Camp" and "The Killers" being two of the best.

(3) I'm not so sure that Hemingway belongs in the same camp as Shakespeare, but that's nothing against Hemingway. Whatever camp Shakespeare belongs to, there are only a handful of members. I'd only include Tolstoy and Dickens.