Friday, February 12, 2010
Literary Modernism: Form and Content in A Moveable Feast
In what ways do you see the conventions of literary Modernism employed in A Moveable Feast? Think about the prologue, about Hemingway's diction throughout the novel, and about his treatment of the "lost generation" of which he is considered a prominent member. In what ways are the themes commonly associated with Modernism suited to Modernist style? In what ways are they not? This question asks you to consider form and content individually with the objective of moving toward a discussion of the way the two work in tandem.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hemingway’s form in A Moveable Feast is very direct, yet sparse. He refrains from using excessive modifying adjectives and adverbs and structures his sentences so that they are straightforward and to-the-point. His diction is precise- every word counts, that way he can use the least amount as possible. I find it interesting that this Modernist type of writing is used between World War I and World War II, because of the societal surroundings. As mentioned, Hemingway, Fitzgerald and Stein were all part of the ‘lost generation’ of writers because they felt they could not identify with the styles and customs from the authors that wrote before the War. They are disillusioned from the previous trends in society and outwardly rebel against this disconnect by using such direct and precise form in their writing. These authors feel they have nothing to relate to from the society prior to the war- from the hypocrisy and inflated, flowery language, and the ‘useless’ content of their writing. The disputes from the society in the Gilded Age and Industrialization in American history were never completely resolved, and plunged into societal problems that brought about the Great War, which in turn, solved nothing.
ReplyDeleteHemingway’s form is consistent throughout his entire memoir, beginning with the first paragraph- “Then there was the bad weather. It would come in one day when the fall was over. We would have to shut the windows in the night against the rain and the cold wind would strip the leaves from the trees in the Place Contrescarpe…” In this passage, Hemingway seems very overt and does not ask his audience to dig for a deeper meaning or examine his prose, he just tries to make a point about the weather in Paris and move on to a different topic. I find this form and tone very intriguing, and I would like to see its effect on the rest of the novel.
I completely agree with Kara’s comment on Hemingway’s use of diction throughout the novel. Connecting it all back to our Modernist packet, I find that this “sparse” language reflected the mood of the period as soldiers returned home and found themselves “shocked and permanently changed…Americans returned to their homeland but could never regain their innocence”. The horrors witnessed as America experienced its first war were devastating on the minds of the young. Such overwhelming emotions such as guilt, anger, resentment, and so forth “implied a ‘godless’ world view and contributed to the breakdown of traditional values”. I found this reflected in the writing as Hemingway’s brief sentences. His writing is so completely different from any other writer we have read before that I feel confident stating that Hemingway, as an author, transformed the literary world. His writing illustrated a new time period—one where writing would significantly change into something far from what had been the standard. Such a drastic change, in my opinion, shows how Hemingway defies these “traditional values” because he has defied traditional writing. However, not only is this seen in his diction but also in his narrative style. The narration of his life is not completely linear and this interrupted progression of events (I believe) illustrates the change in literary style – further proving the point that all previous writing “laws” had been lost to Hemingway. Connecting to my next statement, Hemingway lives in an unstable time, which “without a stable, traditional structure of values, the individual lost a sense of identity”. Although it can be argued that Hemingway’s writing made him an individual, I found that his simple style only proved this point. Through his simplistic style, he becomes almost ambiguous. The structure is so simple which makes it in a sense universal, that all sense of identity is lost.
ReplyDeleteThe most important idea I found in the packet was when it states “Despite outward gaiety, modernity, and unparalleled material prosperity, young Americans of the 1920’s were ‘the lost generation’ –so named by literary portraitist Gertrude Stein. Without a stable, traditional structure of values, the individual lost a sense of identity. The secure, supportive family life; the familiar, settled community; the natural and eternal rhythms of nature that guide the planting and harvesting on a farm; the sustaining sense of patriotism; moral values inculcated by religious beliefs and observations – all seemed undermined by World War I and its aftermath.” Not only does this reference to Stein (which Hemingway mentions countless times) connect Hemingway’s A Moveable Feast to the Modernist Movement, but (I’m guessing here… feel free to disagree) I found several actions in the novel to be connected to all the things society had lost in the aftermath of the war. It mentions “the secure, supportive family life” and I find myself thinking of Hemingway and his wanderings, his lies to his wife, his gambling/betting, his drinking, and his brief mentions of his son. It seems that the “secure, supportive family life” that America was founded on was somewhat nonexistent – illustrated in Hemingway’s actions (as he is a part of this “lost generation”, he becomes the perfect subject for analyzing). The “familiar, settled community” is not there—proven in the fact that they are in Europe and are constantly travelling. The loss of patriotism is also evident because no true mentions of America are present. As to the farm, I was going to connect it somewhat to the avalanches as like nature was turning on them as they were prospering, sort of like how the farmers during this time were poor even though new machinery had allowed them to be more productive.
I definitely agree with what both Kara and Emma are saying. Hemingway's form is very straightforward and direct throughout the novel. Personally, I found this a little harder to read than other books that we've read this year, but it was also very interesting to see this different style demonstrated. Going off of what Emma mentioned, Hemingway certainly did transform the literary world with his writing. Emma mentioned that he was "rebelling" against the traditional values and rules, you could say, of traditional literature. I think that the fact that this new Modernist writing was most often used when writing about World War One is especially interesting when looking at this novel. As Kara and Emma have already mentioned, there are many instances that can demonstrate the post-WWI and gilded age characteristics of society. Because his form is so direct and sparse and "disillusioned", Hemingway is able to create a society in his novel that truly reflects what was occurring in the world around him. He writes about a tim during which he could get on with very little money, probably something like $5 or so per day, and he could still be happy as a new writer. He tells things rather matter-of-factly and this is what makes the writing so direct. you would think that this would make the text easier to understand; however, I thought it was rather difficult to get through this novel. I think it's because it's so different from what we have read so far this year. His words are all very precise-each one has a meaning and each word affects the entire text as a whole; it's almost as if the novel is like a puzzle and each word is a piece that creates a beautiful picture at the end.
ReplyDeleteEmma mentioned that wtier's of this time period were of a "lost generation"- this is definitely true, and we can see it in the way that Fitzgerald is described. He is portrayed as a drunkard, and a bit careless, which I thought was interesting because The Great Gatsby is such an excellent book. Fitzgerald seems to not have a care in the world, and writes in phases and blocks of time...although he is still quite successful. A quote I found really interesting from the prologue: "If the reader prefers, this book may be regarded as fiction. but there is always the chance that such a book of fiction may throw some light on what has been written as fact." I think that this quote definitely applies to the whole novel; how Hemingway lies to his wife and cheats on her, but later marries this other woman, perhaps some of his adventures in the novel never even occurred- how is one to know for sure? However, it definitely applies to the time period, and the ideas that are present in the novel-gilded age=mask to the outside world (lies).
also...this is random, but did anyone else think of Daisy from Gatsby whenever Hemingway's child was mentioned? I felt as though it was the same "oh yeah...I have a child. Oops!" idea going on...just curious
Larissa, you pointed out “‘If the reader prefers, this book may be regarded as fiction. but there is always the chance that such a book of fiction may throw some light on what has been written as fact’……I think that this quote definitely applies to the whole novel….perhaps some of his adventures in the novel never even occurred- how is one to know for sure?” I was looking on Wikipedia when I finished reading and ended up reading that (if you already know this I apologize) Hemingway’s style is actually named The Iceberg Theory: (a direct quote from him)
ReplyDelete"If a writer of a prose knows enough about what he is writing about he may omit things that he knows and the reader, if the writer is writing truly enough, will have a feeling of those things as strongly as though the writer had stated them. The dignity of movement of the iceberg is due to only one-eighth of it being above water. The writer who omits things because he does not know them only makes hollow places in his writing."
Stories can communicate by subtext, from different angles, in a way that isn't obvious and is below the surface. I was thinking about his way of writing and then thinking about how he is very abstract. Abstract Art parallels this way of writing- to " have a feeling of those things as strongly as though the writer had stated them"- I get that when I look at paintings all the time. So then of course, this leads me to Gertrude Stein, who had a huge influence on Hemingway, in a way that sort of melds the literary and the artistic world in modernism. Cezanne and Picasso, the whole cubist movement, were the most influential in her literary work- I love this in the packet:
"Stein once explained that she and Picasso were doing the same thing, he in art and she in writing"- writing experimental prose poetry in an abstract way to evoke primary colors, "while her repetitions echo the repeated shapes of abstract visual compositions. By dislocating grammar and punctuation, she achieved a new 'abstract' meanings...different angles in cubist paintings"
On Wikipedia they list some sample lines of the writing that Stein began in Paris beginning in 1903, all that I think are good examples of this abstract influence, and also the way that we can see her influence in Hemingway's work:
"Rose is a rose is a rose is a rose";
"Out of kindness comes redness and out of rudeness comes rapid same question, out of an eye comes research, out of selection comes painful cattle";
about Oakland, "There is no there there";
and "The change of color is likely and a difference a very little difference is prepared. Sugar is not a vegetable."
Her work is described here as “stream of consciousness experiments, rhythmical word-paintings and portraits designed to evoke the excitingness of pure being”. Not only does this mirror Abstract Expressionist and Cubism in so many ways, but it also emphasizes and proves the value of form versus content again- the word “designed”- if it’s how, and the way we say things, as opposed to what we are saying; what the packet says: “form as the equivalent to content”…the photography that William Carlos Williams produced as being based “not in ideas but in things”. Stein uses repetition to parallel abstract painting; abstract painting uses abstract image to emotionally provoke the viewer to react, to think of other things or have some sort of unique individual reaction to the work, just like Hemingway’s Iceberg Theory, (what you said Larissa) what we are thinking when we read his prose, even in the reaction to Hills like Elephants and what confuses us, what makes sense to us.
(I realize this relates to the other question now)....So if we think of abstract expressionism and Hemingway's iceberg theory and then cubism, Picasso, Cezanne, Braque, and the poetry of Gertrude Stein, the parallels between literary modernism and artistic modernism are endless....
And now I'm thinking of the scene in the chapter "Ms. Stein Instructs" when Stein tells Hemingway that his Michigan story is unpublishable, and therefore that there was no point in writing it, that work of the sort is useless. She actually compares it to painting, "That means it is like a picture that a painter paints and then he cannot hang it when he has a show and nobody will buy it because they cannot hang it either" (15)...to which Hemingway replies: "But what it if is not dirty but it is only that you are trying to use words that can make the story come true and that you must use them? You have to use them." I was a little confused by this scene, but now I'm thinking that to "make the story come true" would mean employing something realistic, that maybe he’s arguening or having trouble wondering if sometimes you have to use something realistic to convey a point? So realism, is unpublishable in this Michigan story? Help
ReplyDeleteI also think it’s interesting, I’m still thinking about it, how the page says that Stein employs the following principles in her work: 1) Commonality, 2) Essence, 3) Value, 4) Grounding the Continuous present, 5) Play, and 6) Transformation…I’m thinking about how this relates to Hemingway, and then to form and content?
And Larissa, I laughed out loud at the description of F. Puss in the crib with Hemingway's son, using the cat as the kids babysitter....
ReplyDeleteI think you guys have made a lot of good points already. Larissa, I'm interested in what you thought made the text more difficult--I don't mean this as a challenge, just curious. I think style is, to a large extent, a matter of taste, and I wonder if what you're suggesting is that Hemingway's style in some way or for some reason does not speak to or engage you in a way that other texts we've read do. It would be interesting to think about the debate that rages ("rages" may be a bit strong of a word, continues, at least) about if Hemingway is a "masculine" writer, or taken a step further if he is misogynistic, not simply in his portrayal of women but in the very form he uses. Can language itself be gendered? Be violent? Be offensive? (aside from what it's saying?). Those questions are not limited to Larissa, though it was her comment that got me thinking.
ReplyDeleteMost of you have talked about how sparse and direct Hemingway is with his prose, and how, "if the reader prefers, this book may be regarded as fiction. But there is always the chance that such a book of fiction may throw some light on what has been written as fact." I too, shared this view, and found it interesting the interplay betweeen this style and the content of the book. Both the prose itself and Hemingway's life, I feel safe in saying, are well beyond the scope of what we are used to reading. On virtually every page of the book, one character or another is drinking or drunk, and Hemingway tells events from an impoverished perspective few, if any of us, can relate to. It is interesting how Hemingway, in his constant state of poverty, chooses to write with the bare and efficient style which he does, as has been commented on. He makes every word count just as he does not spend extravagently but makes every dollar count. The form of his writing is almost a mirror into Hemingway's life. Just as he scorns extraneous adjectives, he avoids unecessary spending.
ReplyDeleteAnother of Hemingway's ideals I found intriguing was how he said "All you have to do is write on true sentence. Write the truest sentence that you know...If I started to write elaborately...I found that I could cut that scrollwork or ornament out and throw it away and start with the first true simple declarative sentence I had written" (12). This once again goes back to whether or not this work is a piece of fiction or fact. While, to me at least, it seemed ambiguous - I wasn't sure whether to read it as fiction or as non-fiction, and had a difficult time as such - the kernels of pure truth are definite throughout the piece, made especially visible by Hemingway's bare bones style. This also leads into the prevalence of form over content, and how what is not said is frequently as, or more, important than what is, as we have discussed throughout the year.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing which just occurred to me - speaking of WWI and its aftermath, I remember Hemingway saying that no one trusted those people who did not serve during the war (can't find the quote right now), which is interesting when viewed in the light that Modernism and the "lost generation" were shaped by just that war, so anyone not involved in that war would become, in essence, a person lost in a lost generation, or simply left behind in pre-war culture.
ReplyDeleteTaylor, I hadn't thought about how much the line "write one true sentence" touches on the (perhaps meaningless) distinction between "truth" and "fiction" -- I hope I will remember to come back to this idea when we read Tim O'Brien's The Things They Carried. O'Brien, too, is very interested in the (blurring of) the distinction between what he calls "story truth" and "happening truth," and when Hemingway speaks of that "one true sentence," I think he, like O'Brien is suggesting that the "story truth" is often (if not always) "truer" than the "happening truth." I'm very glad you pointed out this line.
ReplyDeleteTaylor's post about the "one true sentence" and the following question of the distinction between truth and fiction reminded me of a certain passage from A Moveable Feast. Hemingway is recounting F. Scott Fitzgerald's telling of a sad story involving Zelda and a French naval aviator, and I think it makes an interesting point about Modernist style. "Later he told me other versions of it as though trying them for use in a novel, but none was as sad as this first one and I always believed the first one, although any of them might have been true. They were better told each time; but they never hurt you the same way the first one did" (172). First of all, I wonder if it matters whether or not Fitzgerald actually told Hemingway multiple versions of this sad love story. I think that the truth of the event is irrelevant to the truth of what Hemingway is writing. This would suggest that distinction between fiction and fact is unimportant, which in turn would suggest that the text is unaffected by the reader's perception of it as either fact or fiction, and that is what Hemingway meant by his line in the preface "But there is always the chance that such a book of fiction may throw some light on what has been written as fact". Also, it is interesting that Hemingway believed the saddest version of Fitzgerald's story, even though it was the least well-told. I may have interpreted this totally wrong, but Hemingway seems to be placing content over form. The version that left him feeling/thinking more than the rest sounded the most true, and the most true was told in the worst, or least artistic, form. What does this imply about Modernism and Modernist style? If content took prevalence, maybe the form was designed to communicate the content in the least flashy manner possible, and writers such as Hemingway, Fitzgerald, and Stein tried to make form invisible so as not to deter attention from the content. Then again, Fitzgerald was telling a story out loud, not writing. Did Hemingway's statement refer to both speech and writing, or was the form identical in all Modernist expressions?
ReplyDeleteI like the whole discussion of the fact and fiction within Hemingway’s writing (it is intriguing), but personally I find it somewhat pointless. Is it really necessary to ask ourselves what happened or what didn’t happen? Everything Hemingway writes he believes as the truth—so if it is fiction or fact does it truly matter? Like Ms. Parrish says, the distinction between the two becomes blurred.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, in response to Larissa, I also found this novel to be a challenge (although I’m not exactly sure why). Perhaps because the novel seems so disconnected and distant (at least to me) that I found it almost hard to pay attention.
Although Libbey brings up a good point, I find myself disagreeing. I don’t believe that Hemingway is placing content over form. I believe that Hemingway picks how to express his idea very carefully—illustrating how Hemingway uses content and form in tandem. He uses his voice and structure precisely to convey the content. And it’s not like his simplistic style is the “worst” or “least artisitic” form. It is merely a different use of style. In some ways this makes him more artistic and his work better, more precise and unique. Maybe Hemingway is trying to communicate that we, humans, are simple, have simple thoughts, and consequently, truth is simple. Nor is form “invisible”. His different writing form is so contrasting that it seems almost more evident to a reader than when reading a “normal” piece of writing. I may be wrong, but I believe that Hemingway’s form reflects the content, or the content reflects the form. I believe each to be equally important.
When Hemingway talks of omitting the true ending to his story he states “this was omitted on my new theory that you could omit anything if you knew that you omitted and the omitted part would strengthen the story and make people feel something more than they understood” (75). I think this connects to Grace’s post really well and Hemingway’s Iceberg theory. I think this also further proves my point that Hemingway carefully chooses what to include and how he will include it. He considers both form and content and the way both work to leave an impact on the reader.
I like where this conversation is going here, it's really interesting. I'll start with Grace's posts. Grace, you mentioned the Iceberg Theory-I was trying to figure out how to incorporate that into my post somehow and I think you said it a lot better than how I was going to say it, so thanks for that!!! I think that this iceberg idea is really interesting.. "he may omit things that he knows and the reader, if the writer is writing truly enough, will have a feeling of those things as strongly as though the writer had stated them. The writer who omits things because he does not know them only makes hollow places in his writing." It's a little bit strange, but I really think that it fits this book. Hemingway suggests and directly tells us that things have been omitted from the text, but we (or at least I was) are still able to figure out what is occurring in the story. The way that Hemingway composes the novel is really scattered, and basically on every page, someone is drunk or planning on getting drunk and then he goes on to explain what happens after that. This is really straightforward, and I thought that it was sort of fascinating that Hemingway could trust his audience with the truth of his life-that he went out and got drunk all of the time with various writers and people but was still able to be a successful author. It seems a bit odd to me that he would write an entire book about this, but I think he is really trying to demonstrate his masculinity throughout the whole novel, and that is why he writes in this certain style.
ReplyDeleteThis goes back to what Ms. Parrish was saying after my previous post...is it possible for language to be gendered and is Hemingway misogynistic? I think it is possible for language to be gendered, and I feel like this is why some of us may not have liked the novel, because it's hard to understand why he does some of the things that he does- why does he go out and get drunk all of the time, what is the point of this, how could someone leave their cat in charge of their child...just to name a few questionable actions. As for the question of is he misogynistic...(for those that don't know what this means-hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women) I feel like he mistrusts them but does not hate or dislike them. He describes scenes with his wife with a sense of tenderness so I don't think that he hated women. However, I do think that he may mistrust them for whatever reason. There isn't really any concrete proof of this in the novel (if anyone can find some that would be awesome!!!) but that's just what I feel like after having finished the novel. Feel free to disagree with that..
I realized that I didn't really answer any of those questions really well at all....and also I want to comment on what Libbey and Emma said.
ReplyDeleteSo, to try again here, I feel like the language in the novel is more masculine, and this is why it was harder for me to read it. Along with what Emma said, I too found it hard to stay engaged and pay attention while was reading, it was kind of like "ok that's nice..but why are you telling us this?!" Why? I think this goes along with the "debate" about whether of not Hemingway is a gendered writer. I'm not trying to say that I dislike the novel, I thought it was really interesting in the different style that he used and his voice and structure are used very carefully which is what makes it so different than what we have read so far this year. I think he considers noth his form and content while writing, but he's also really thinking about his audience when he writes. I think he wants us to trust him, but by writing so that some people will not be as engaged as others will be, perhaps eliminates the amount of misunderstanding that could occur while reading....if parts of this are indeed fiction, why should we trust Hemingway? I think he wants to gain out trust, but because of the way he is writing, omitting certain ideas, this trust is not secure. This could have to do with the masculinity of the book, because I certainly think it's present. But that;s just my opinion, and I felt like he was directing the novel towards men perhaps. Then again, most of the writers that he goes to for are women. what does this say about Hemingway and his genderization (is that a word...) of the novel??
I actually don't think that Hemingway's simplistic style is the least artistic form- I was merely reiterating what he wrote about the last few versions of the story being "better told" than the first. I love the simplicity of Hemingway's form, mostly because it allows the content to shine. I hadn't thought about the form reflecting the content, but I do agree with Emma on that. Now I'm confused as to what Hemingway meant by writing that he believed the first story even though each of the following were better told. Does that idea not reflect his style?
ReplyDeleteSomething else I found interesting was how A Moveable Feast is American literature, yet centers around France and some of its surrounding countries. As Emma mentioned earlier, America does not really play a role. This might correspond with the changes in relations between America and Europe following the War, and especially America's increased involvement in global affairs. The "lost generation" as a whole is much more aware of the rest of the world than writers prior to WWI.
Ms. Parrish asked if language can be gendered, and I think that depends on whether or not we can define certain styles as masucline or feminine. Are you referring to the gender of the author or the characters? I think that the only way form can be gendered is with respect to the author, and, if this is possible, there would definitely be a large gray area. For example, compare Hemingway's straightforward, simple form to that of other great (male) American authors. Plenty of them write in a flowery, overly descriptive style that could be considered feminine (I'm thinking of Age of Innocence). From the books we've read this year, Nathaniel Hawthorne comes to mind as employing a flowery style, with detailed descriptions of nature, etc. Does Modernist writing have a gender? I feel like I misinterpreted the question...help?
Ok, I just read Larissa's post and I did misinterpret the question. But I understand now and I'll try to explore some of the other questions later...
ReplyDeleteJust one thing- I was under the impression that most of the writers Hemingway goes to are men, with the exception of Gertrude Stein?
Going off of Kara's comment, I would like to first state that I completely agree with all of the ideas that Kara mentioned in her post. I think Kara's point about World War 1 &2 is very important to the novel, especially since the setting was crucial in the novel. France was involved in World War 1, however, initially the French were not the main powers in the war. On the other hand, the French were part of the allies and played a major role in the war against Nazi Germany in World War 2. The French played very different roles in the two wars, and I it was this shift in power that lead Hemingway into discussing the 'lost generation.' Obviously, the war had a large effect on the French, because the war pulls the men from society to serve in the war. However, Hemingway is living in between the two wars, so he knows what life is like with war and life without war. I think that he was not old enough to serve in the war, which is why he considers himself apart of the lost generation. Because he is an 'inbetween-er' since he knows what life is like with war, but he doesn't have the experience of the war to help his maturity and his understanding of life in general. This lead me to believe that since he doesn't have the experience of war, he considers himself and the other writers of his time as a 'lost generation,' because they do not have the experience and stories to write about in their literature. Without these stories, it makes it difficult for the writers to keep up with the other writers of the earlier decades,because they didn't go through the same experiences. Hemingway feels different from the other writers, because the style of writing is different and the content is different due to the time period in between World War 1 and 2.
ReplyDeleteI’m not sure who’s post this relates to exactly, but following this conversation got me thinking about this…
ReplyDelete“ ‘We need more true mystery in our lives, Hem,’ he once said to me. ‘The completely unabitious writer and the really good unpublished poem are the things we lack most at this time. There is, of course, the problem of sustenance” (146). This brings to my mind how Hemingway mentioned a few times the feeling of hunger. He did speak of being physically hungry, as in needing food, but I think the point was to illuminate the lack of sustenance in the mental sense, as in a need for renewal in the literary and artistic realms-- “Later I thought Cezanne was probably hungry in a different way” (69)--or as the packet states, spiritual renewal. As I was just flipping through the book I had marked this passage: “This was the only truly sad time in Paris because it was unnatural. You expected to be sad in the fall. Part of you died each year when the leaves fell from the trees and their branches were bare against the wind and the cold, wintry light. But you knew there would always be the spring, as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days, though, the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed” (45). I feel those same worries of whether the seasons would finally turn apply to the hunger of artistic renewal and the looming tragedy should it fail to arrive. Although if Shipman called for creativity to become privatized, maybe he was aware of the creative success of the Modernists (literary and artistic) and instead hungered for the delicacy of art to flow into the craziness of the home/spiritual life
Hey Larissa, I am going to have to disagree with your last comment. I think that Hemingway's writing isn't masculine. If I had to chose between feminine and masculine language, I would agree with you, however I see Hemingway's language as neither. To me, his tone and diction were bland and so straight to the point that it was also difficult for me to read and stay engaged in the novel. I didn't see the masculinity in his writing. Hemingway seemed monotonous throughout the novel, which made me think of his lack of power and ability to write about other topics and describe things differently. I guess it is the lack of power that I noticed that lead me to think that Hemingway has a lack of masculinity in his writing.
ReplyDeleteAlso we’ve been touching upon the idea of the lost generation and how there was a change in the traditional home life, that could have been a motivating factor in pulling art and literature into a public forum, which I think is a perversion of the traditional sense of both art and literature (at least to me, for my writing and my creativity is extremely personal). Maybe that’s why Hemingway was slightly offended by being called a lost generation (“But the hell with her lost generation talk and all the dirty, easy labels.” (30), because he believed in the change of tradition—after all he chose to live as expatriate, chose Paris as a place that could foster creativity over the Untied States
ReplyDeleteTo answer Ms Parrish's questions on language, I think that it can definitely be violent and offensive, aside from the words being spoken. The form and way a novel or sentence is written and structured can easily impact the tone the reader feels. This can be said the same in conversation, when even if the tone or words being used aren't offensive and violent, the way in which it is spoken, such as shortness, can completely change the meaning in any point being made. Hemingway throughout the novel, and throughout his conversations with the other writers seemed to always be offensive or mean, but in an underlying way. He wasn't always straightforward with his snipes by using "mean" diction, but he twisted other’s words, asked questions with a jabbing intent but "innocent" tone, and answered with little detail and short sentences, such as simply saying “no” to another’s detailed inquiry. "We went to Greece...You say you used it or you went there?' 'Don't be vulgar..." (93). The diction is what most believe creates the offense in a sentence, yet this sentence in another context could hold a completely separate meaning. In another scenario this sentence could be an innocent question of misunderstanding, but in the context it is offensive, and an unnecessary comment made to only show disinterest to the story he is being told.
ReplyDeleteThe way in which a sentence is structured is the best way to show violence or offense without using diction which is violent. Hemingway uses shortness like quick answers “no” and “yes” to show disinterest, which ultimately let’s the reader know the disinterest of the character and how the other character feels great offense. The casual tone and structure of Hemingway’s novel makes the violent interactions more apparent, without using an abundance of detail. There is going around a question being asked, but as well he doesn’t always use hurtful words to express the same amount of hurt. “Are you a gentleman?’ ‘Naturally…’… ‘Am I a gentleman?’ ‘Absolutely not” (87).
My only question is this considered a part of the diction? A simple question such as Hemingway’s has no offense to it, but because it is made to be insulting and disrespectful do the words chosen now become offensive, and it is the diction not the language?
Libbey, to quickly answer your question, yes he does go to mostly male artists an writers, and I think this quote explains why, "There is not much future in men being friends with great women although it can be pleasant enough before it gets better or worse, and there is usually even less future with truly ambitious women writers" (117). I think that he respects women writers, but because of general opinion and/or sexism of the time, he feels it is most effective for him to meet with great male writers of the time.
ReplyDeleteyeah sorry I meant to write that they were mostly male...libbey you're right on that one, my bad!
ReplyDeleteAlrighty so Molly I really wanted to respond to your comment because I actually thought that passage on 87 was fascinating. I found that Hemingway does a similar thing in the following chapter on page 94. When I read it, I knew it stuck out to me, but to be honest I wasn't sure why. I think after reading your comment however, I'm able to form a better of idea of what Hemingway was doing diction-wise there. Molly, you mentioned that Hemingway uses these phrases that are short and you posed the quesiton: Is this diction?
ReplyDeleteI would have to say absolutely in its own sort of way. I believe what Hemingway does here is perhaps not something constant throughout the whole novel but rather something that contributed to these scenes especially.
Typically authors will use certain words or phrases - such as vulgar and degrading words to create a tone that reflects the condescending mood of the characters/events themsleves. However, what I see Hemingway do here is something quite different. It's almost as if Hemingway uses 'inverse diction' (for lack of a better word/phrase). Rather than including words to create meaning, he omits words to create a 'annoyed'/'lack of interest' tone.
Honestly, I don't think as an author you're necessarily going to use this in all situations because it simply doesn't fit all events. However, here it fits perfectly. Hemingway takes this frustration and anger within the character (himself) and is able to show this to the reader. When one is frustrated or annoyed it is typical to be at a loss for words...to struggle to find a plausable way to express oneself. Hemingway does this within the conversation allowing himself to respond with one word sentences or meaningless phrases such as "Would you?" or words to constrew disinterest as Molly said simply saying "No"
But to take this one step further...I find it absolutely fascinating that not only does this occur within the conversation, but in the narration that precedes the scene. As the two characters enter into a conversation on 93, Hemingway narrates "I went on writing and I was beginning to have luck now as well as the other thing" (93). While it mentions little of his anger itself it is obvious that it is present. He uses straightforward language omitting anything 'fluffy' if you will which gives it a hrasher tone. Other phrases such as "Better the mute and noisy, I thought, and went on writing" (93), gives us a better idea of what he feels, yet still maitains a simplicity which in turn seems to create a disinterest which is a perfect reflection of the event.
In this way Hemingway uses a lack of words as a means of 'diction'.
I agree with Molly and Beth entirely in that often times the tone of a sentence plays a more important role then the actual diction. The tone can be judged by the readers standpoint using punctuation, for example; “Hello!” means something entirely different then “Hello?”. We see Hemmingway use this rhetoric throughout the story, both in the passages that Molly and Beth pinpointed, and in others. “…I finally convinced Ezra that few people ever died while speaking in well rounded phrases and that I had never known any man to die while speaking in terza riruce and that I doubted even if Dante could do it” (Hemmingway, 144). Even with the lack of punctuation in this sentence, it is evident that Hemmingway aims to employ a more sarcastic tone. By joking about death by combining death with language (an impossible blend), Hemmingway forces a humor on the reader using only rhetoric.
ReplyDeleteI also think Beth’s point about omitting words to infer meaning is a very interesting one. Weirdly, when I flipped open the book to begin my hunt for a quote, I landed on a gold mine; Hemmingway’s very definition of omitting substance for understanding. “…and I had omitted the real end of it which was that the old man hanged himself. This was omitted on my new theory that you could omit anything if you knew that you omitted and the omitted part would strengthen the story and make people feel something more then they understood” (Hemmingway, 75). To Beth’s point, Hemmingway admits that he omits entire endings for the sole purpose of incorporating the readers’ own imaginative understanding into the story. He almost infers that it is “boring” to have a concrete ending when one can be reached using the readers’ own creativity.
Thanks Luke! And I agree with your explanation.
ReplyDeleteTo address Molly's question, I think the diction and the structure work together to make Hemingway's questions and statements offensive. The words he chooses can have a variety of meanings depending on the context as well as the form, however his sentence structure is what makes his language terse, and therefore offensive.
Maggie, I thought the whole idea of hunger was really interesting, but I don't think that the physical hunger was meant to illuminate his lack of sustenance, but rather to illuminate how "full" he was spiritually. It was as if his senses were heightened whenever Hemingway was so busy writing that he forgot to eat. As long as he was spiritually satisfied, it did not matter that he was physically hungry. In fact, Hemingway uses physical hunger to his advantage "...all the paintings were sharpened and clearer and more beautiful if you were belly-empty, hollow-hungry. I learned to understand Cezanne much better and to see truly how he made landscapes when I was hungry" "It was one of those unsound but illuminating thoughts you have when you have been sleepless or hungry" (69). During and after his time in Paris, whether he is physically hungry or not, Hemingway will never be hungry in the way he says Cezanne was. And judging by the quote and the title of the novel, it seems as though Hemingway is okay with physical hunger. "If you are lucky enough to have lived in Paris as a young man, then wherever you go for the rest of your life, it stays with you, for Paris is a moveable feast." The life and stimulation that was so abundant in Paris is enough to keep him from being truly hungry ever again. I wonder though, if this metaphor is out of place within the style the book is written in. Is the word "hunger" really interchangeable within a single paragraph? I didn't notice any other places where Hemingway was unclear about the way he was using a word, as he was usually very direct and simple.
I think you have a really good point there Beth. As I was reading I too noticed somewhat of a "lack" in the diction but I could not put my finger on it. It was especially confusing because still felt as if the entire book was incredibly provocative and descriptive, even though there was really not too much in the way of descriptive words. Essentially, I felt as if the book was somewhat "bare", or stripped of the "padding" that is provided by an abundance of adjectives and employment of repetition to some degree. However, as you pointed out, it is because of this lack of words that Hemmingway is able to evoke feelings. I feel that a bog part of this is in the heaviness of the dialogue in certain scenes. For example, on pages 86-88, his conversation with Ford Madox Ford, the text is almost completely dialogue, save a few physical actions by the characters. I feel that not only does this type of writing somewhat give the reader a spot as just another observer of the event, but also allows each person to make their own opinion of the characters. The reader sees each character not through the eyes of a biased first person, but as they really are, and left to their own decision. (Greg, I just read your post, and that quote does in fact explain this perfectly).
ReplyDeleteBeth, you also touched upon the scene where Hemmingway was angry at the other man in the diner and he wrote better as a result, and I think that here we see an example of how a simple sentence can show the reader exactly how a person is feeling. There is no need for a deep description or excessive detail when a person's words can speak for the emotions themselves. Hemmingway understands this, and thus the sentences he uses and the words he say throughout the story are relevant always to how he is feeling or thinking. It seems to me that Hemmingway is always absorbed in such things as scenery or food or beverages, and thus his relations with others are more straightforward as a result of less description used in them.
Something that i wanted to discuss bridges between the ideas of fact versus fiction and modernism. Many people have mentioned this quote already, but my take on it was somewhat different "If the reader prefers, this book may be regarded as fiction. but there is always the chance that such a book of fiction may throw some light on what has been written as fact." I feel that this quote nearly suggests that it does not matter so much whether or not the story itself is true as long as the meaning of the story is true. I'm not positive who said that already, but i completely agree with it...i feel that Hemingway is partially suggesting that form is not equal to content as far as significance in writing...as someone already quoted..."Later he told me other versions of it as though trying them for use in a novel, but none was as sad as this first one and I always believed the first one, although any of them might have been true. They were better told each time; but they never hurt you the same way the first one did" (Hemingway 172) I feel that Hemingway believes form is significant, as his novel was written in a distinct way, however i do believe that he stresses content over form...as well as content over validity. Does it really matter what is being said as far as plot if the message is the same? Plainly, is Heming way suggesting that the "moral of the story" be the most important thing despite the way it is written or if it is written honestly...To tie this into modernism..one part of the book that really caught my attention was the discussion of the purpose of writing between Fitzgerald and Hemingway, "he (fitzgerald) had told me...how he wrote wht he thought were good stories for the post, and then changed them for submission, knowing exactly how he must make the twists that made them into salable magazine stories"(hemingway 155). i found this extremely interesting. Fitzgerald adjusted his writing to appeal to his audience for the benefit of money and making a profit off of his work even if it was different from the way he imagined his own writing or even wanted his own writing to be.Hemingway continues to state, "I had been shocked at this and said i thoought it was whoring. he said it was whoring but that he had to do it as he made his money from the magazines to have the money ahead to write decent books."(Hemingway 155). It is a more modern idea i suppose to stress wealth (not that it hasn't always been important) but i feel that writing for an audience rather than for ones self is a more modern idea...This also distorts the importance of fact vs. fiction if not eliminates it...if all that truly matters for an author is that he can make money off of his work, why write for himself? (not that i agree with this)...but this idea was really fascinating to me! So, does truth in writing ever really matter? as long as there is a moral or lesson or meaning? or as long as there is a profit for the author?
ReplyDelete(Also, just a side note, i think this idea of a profit for the author relates to Hemingway's discussion of painters and artists within the novel as well as they too create theyre artwork to sell and ultimately profit from)
I agree with Libbey that Hemingway generally portrays hunger directly and straightforward, which is why it strange that the word could be considered interchangeable. I also agree that when Hemingway is “full” with satisfaction from his writing and experiences in Paris, it is enough to never be physically hungry again. I thought it was interesting how Hemingway would correspond his emotions and different types of hunger with the weather. “I was always hungry with the walking and the cold and the working”. Hemingway was often eating in the winter to fulfill his physical hunger. “As I ate the oysters with their strong taste of the sea and their faint metallic taste that the cold white wine washed away, leaving only the sea taste…I lost the empty feeling and began to make happy and make plans” (6). What effect does the weather and Hemingway’s surroundings have on his hunger, and when is he most fulfilled?
ReplyDeleteIf the "hunger" that Hemingway feels, or does not feel, is determined by how full he is spiritually, how happy or aware he is to observe things, then maybe his physical hunger could be likened to the desire (Stein and Fitzgerald specifically), or an author caring about being published and recognized in the public realm. Likewise being content to starve because Hemingway is "spiritually full", or being content with writing the truth for the hi own sake only, observing things and using his "hunger" to his advantage when he is looking at and learning from art- maybe that's like the attitude of writing for the writer's sake, if only to keep it to oneself and away from the public- "inachrochable", as Stein said.
ReplyDeleteSomeone sited the quote when Hemingway thinks that Cezanne must have been hungry in a different way, and there is also the point when Hemingway is baffled by Fitzgerald when he says that sometimes he changes his endings for the public's sake.
I think Hemingway is able to enforce modernism in A Moveable Feast by his choice to almost fictionalize his true accounts of Paris, wherein this could seem like a fictional story if the reader had no idea that this was really a memoir. If Hemingway had written this literally like someone telling the previous night's ordeals to his friends in a bar, it would have come out as just another boring, dry non-fiction work. Hemingway does indeed make A Moveable Feast the opposite through his dialogue and diction. It plays out like a normal work of fiction would, but it retains that element of realism to it. When people speak, Hemingway doesn't try to clean up their speech and make it fancy; he writes it as he best remembers it, because no one in the real world talks so beautifully and scriptedly (Google chrome doesn't think that's a word but I'm using it anyway) like they do in novels. Gertrude Stein is one such example. When using one certain expert, "They do nothing that they are disgusted by and nothing that is repulsive and afterwards they are happy and they can lead happy lives together," we get the feel that she's a fast talker, like tons of people (Hemingway 20). No commas are used, she misuses "and" by saying it more than she needs to, and she also repeats "happy" a lot. Then again, this is all Hemingway's choice, for it's impossible to remember the exact speech of someone, word for word, after they's spoken it. He writes his encounters with these different people in Paris specifically to demonstrate how they actually appeared to him. We're actually seeing through his eyes, which is something that friends in a bar would never be able to experience.
ReplyDeleteAnna I disagree with you when you say that the content of Hemingway's work overpowers the form. I think they are both equally important, because Hemingway's style would not be complete if you had one and not the other. It is important to Hemingway to use this kind of form so that he can differentiate himself from past authors and eras with whom he does not want to be associated. His deliberate effort to change his writing style and create a unique form is something that defines his writing, and I dont feel that the actual content of his memoir is more crucial to his overall work than its structure.
ReplyDeleteAnother unique method Hemingway employs to establish this realistic feel to the memoir is his rather jumpy narration. It feels less like he's talking to us and more like we can hear his thoughts out loud; again, it ruins the friends-at-a-bar effect that most memoirs have and makes us feel like we're actually there. One example, "I looked at her and she disturbed me and made me very excited. I wished I could put her in the story, or anywhere, but she had placed herself so she could watch the street ,and the entry and I knew she was waiting for someone. So I went on writing," shows the rapid thought process of Hemingway (5). Again, we see almost no commas, except for the "or anywhere," but that seems to have just been an afterthought of his. There's also a wide variety of sentence length, the passage starting with a normal length sentence, followed by a long sentence, then finished with a short sentence that doesn't even need to be there. Since Hemingway makes no attempt to dress up his thoughts into exclamations, he keeps A Moveable Feast from sounding fictional. The reason why he wants to do this is simple. Since writers are always writing fiction, they're often characterized as story-tellers, no matter how hard one may try to incorporate history into his work or other real elements. It's no surprise then that Hemingway would want to do his best to make sure a memoir about himself and other writers seemed real and not scripted.
ReplyDeleteI totally see your point Kara but i'm sticking with what i said...As i mentioned before, i do think that Hemingway's form is significant, don't get me wrong, however i think that his main point is that the content is what truly matters to him no matter the way in which the meaning of the art takes form...
ReplyDeleteIn the instance of this book, i feel that the simplicity and sparseness of even events within the form spoke to this idea of the form being less important than the content. The way in which that the story had holes in it and "mystery", i felt, enhanced my interpretation that hemingway's idea is that form is not as significant as content.
"There was so many things to understand in those days and I was glad when we talked about something else...It was sad when the park was closed and locked and I was sad walking around it instead of through it and in a hurry to get home,"(21)
ReplyDeleteThis sentence is a great example of Hemingway's simplistic writing style, as dictated by the Modernist style. The way it is written implies a very childish, yet understanding tone. Hemingway uses "I was glad" and "It was sad" as simply as any 5-year-old might. Besides this, the very fact that he is aching to get home implies a certain young, immaturity in him that always drives him to return back home. But, even still, a deep understanding is conveyed in the way that the sentence puts emphasis on "so many things to understand" and not as much on "talked about something else" by putting the first up front.
Note: I was going to post this on the 18th, but my home computer spontaneously broke down and I am now forced to use the school computers.