User:Pkolasa/sandbox/Hemingway's fiction

Hemingway's style
Hemingway started his career as a journalist and while living in Paris in the early 1920s worked for the Toronto Star. Since writing reports required simplicity and objectivity, he developed a minimalistic, paratactical style which was later applied in his fiction. Hemingway prefers to show rather than tell due to which in his works dialogues are easier to find than descriptions. In order to make the narrator invisible, he avoids commenting on the narrative and frequently expresses emotions by means of an objective correlative, describing a character’s emotional state through an object. As a result, his stories are implicit and their underlying significance must be inferred by the reader.

The choice to leave things unsaid is justified in “The Art of the Short Story” where Hemingway writes: “[i]f you leave out important things or events that you know about, the story is strengthened” (Hemingway 1959: 4). This belief serves as a basis for his Iceberg Theory, also called the theory of omission, which is further explained in Death in the Afternoon:

Hemingway believed that an author should not explicitly state the meaning of a story since if the story is well-written, the deeper meaning becomes evident to the reader. By applying the iceberg theory to his writing, he focused on the surface elements which means that reading his works requires a close examination. Otherwise, the narrative or the characters he portrays may be misinterpreted. It is usually from their dialogues and actions that a character’s personality must be deduced. What is more, he often leaves his stories open-ended which also constitutes a challenge for the reader. Finally, although Hemingway generally opts for objectivity, he also tends to use a first person narrator or provides the reader with insights into the characters’ minds which makes the narration biased and unreliable and, consequently, may contribute to a misanalysis of his fictional characters.

When it comes to the women portrayed by Hemingway, they may be easily labelled as one-dimensional if one looks only at the tip of the iceberg exposed by the author. If, however, what is beneath it is explored, the characters as well as the whole narrative may take on a new meaning. The woman’s side of the story is frequently concealed, but once it is detected, Hemingway emerges as a more feminist writer implicitly exploring the feminine psyche rather than a chauvinist who does not understand or care about women’s needs and feelings.

The influence of Hemingway's life on his portrayal of women


The person who presumably played the key role in shaping Hemingway’s view on women was the first and for a long time the most important female in his life, namely his mother, Grace Hemingway. Her influence is, however, negative. According to Major General Charles T. Lanham, Hemingway’s comrade-in-arms, “he always referred to his mother as ‘that bitch’” (Lanham, as cited in Lynn 1995: 27). As Kert (1983: 21) notes, Hemingway saw his mother as a “domineering shrew” who is to blame for her husband’s suicide. His personal experiences resulted in later difficulties with creating female characters and led him to focus on masculinity as he was determined never to be dominated by a woman, as his father was. The hatred for his mother is thus believed to be visible in his negative portrayal of strong female characters, often referred to by critics as Hemingway’s “bitches”, best exemplified by Margaret Macomber in “The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber”.

Margot, however, may not necessarily be the embodiment of Hemingway’s prejudice against strong women displaying masculine features, but a reflection of a real-life person, Jane Mason. Jane was a beautiful, twenty-two years old woman and Hemingway’s lover (Kert 1983: 235, 249). Their affair did not last long and although at first Hemingway was very attracted to Jane, he later called her “the worst bitch [he] knew” (Hemingway 1959: 6).

Lady Brett Ashley is another heroine inspired by one of Hemingway’s companions, Lady Duff Twysden whom he met in Paris. Lady Duff had all the characteristics of a New Woman. She was educated, accomplished and sexually liberated as she not only used to flirt with men who were infatuated with her, but was even divorced by her husband because of her adultery. Many men were drawn to Lady Duff, both due to her appearance and her personality, and Hemingway was one of them (Kert 1983: 156-158).

As strong and dominating women are usually seen as depicted in a negative way, it is assumed that the ones who were idealised by Hemingway must have been weak and submissive. These are the Hemingway’s “girls”. As it is commonly believed, not only were such perfect female characters willing to fulfil men’s wishes, but they also prioritised them over their own needs. Hence, men’s dominance and thus masculinity was not at stake. Such a portrayal of women was influenced by the author’s real-life companions as well.

Catherine Barkley from A Farewell to Arms, who is seen as an example of a perfect woman, was inspired by Agnes von Kurowsky, a Red Cross nurse who cared for Hemingway after he had been wounded during the First World War and who was his first love. Agnes was beautiful and talented, but also seven years older than Hemingway. (Kert 1983: 61-63, 66-68).

Interestingly, Maria, the heroine of For Whom the Bell Tolls, whose character resembles that of Catherine’s, was also inspired by a nurse, this time not an American, but a “lovely, dignified young Spanish nurse” whom Hemingway met in 1938 (Kert 1983: 334).

Hemingway’s peculiar representation of women and his biography led some critics to believe that he, in fact, was antagonistic towards women in his real life as well. One of Hemingway’s friends, Pete Lanham said that “Ernest hated all women except the one who was currently a good sex partner”; the truth, however, could be different. He liked many women, but was unable to make concessions essential for a relationship to be successful (Kert 1983: 425), which is proved by his divorces. His views on rela-tionships were, indeed, cynical. “The best approach to women was to compliment them, he wrote, make love to them and then keep them off-guard” (Kert 1983: 435). Consequently, his marriages, initially satisfying, were anything but solid. Hemingway strove to assert his masculine dominance since “[e]quality in a relationship had no appeal for him” (Kert 1983: 200). As, paradoxically, his wives were not acquiescent and always willing to submit, his marriages were doomed to failure. Furthermore, Hemingway was bound to become bored or even abusive of his partners relatively quickly and frequently searched for fulfilment in extramarital affairs which was the main cause of his first two divorces.



Furthermore, Hemingway is commonly known for his concern with masculinity not only in his fiction, but also in his personal life as he endeavoured to create a public image of himself as a powerful and masculine man. Such interests may have stemmed from his fascination with Spain known for its bull fights and macho culture and resulted in his preoccupation with the portrayal of “true men”. Hemingway’s hero, also known as the “code hero” was a strong, courageous and honourable man who lived in accordance with his own moral code. It is thus assumed that for a balance to be kept, women had to be depicted as weak and submissive. However, his public image, so scrupulously built, is often believed not to be true, but only to serve as a suppression of Hemingway’s real, sensitive nature. His preoccupation with masculinity in fiction may thus be seen as an attempt to compensate for what he himself lacked as a man (Strychacz 2003: 7). At the same time, being concerned about his own gender identity sparked his interest in androgyny and may have caused him to be more sympathetic to, rather than prejudiced against, women who combined both feminine and masculine features.

Masculinity is, undeniably, one of the main themes in Hemingway’s texts; emasculation and the shift in gender roles are, however, prevalent as well. What contributed to his concern with these themes are the historical and cultural changes of the twentieth century. The World Wars left many men crippled and thus unable to return to their pre-war way of life, more often than not they were left at the mercy of women who had to assume their responsibilities. This resulted in men’s being perceived as even more feminine. Jake Barnes from The Sun Also Rises is a perfect example of how war can literally emasculate men. Besides, the movement for emancipation and gender equality added to men’s insecurities. Hemingway’s alleged prejudice against dominant female characters may have stemmed from the fear of effeminacy, the same anxiety which led many male critics to disapprove of women’s suffrage as they believed it to be the reason why men are no longer as manly as they used to be. The tensions in American society are presented in his fiction by means of the combination of masculine and feminine features in his characters or the shift of gender roles. Interestingly enough, as Fiedler (2003: 319) argues, these portrayals are the most successful for once Hemingway transfers male features onto his female characters, they become much more reliable than the embodiments of either his fantasies or prejudices.

As it has been presented, the correspondence between Hemingway’s biography and his narratives is hard to deny. His personal life appears to be intertwined with his fiction and it certainly played a vital role in shaping his writing and his creation of fictional characters as well as provided him with inspiration. Nonetheless, relying too much on the author’s biography while analysing his works may be extremely misleading and prevent the reader from detecting their complexity. In the case of Hemingway and his presentation of women, it is particularly deceiving since the above mentioned parallels seem to justify analysing his fiction in relation to his personal experiences. Obviously, it may be assumed that his heroines are inspired by real-life women, but they are not necessarily their true reflections. Moreover, claiming that they are presented in a negative way only because Hemingway is believed to have had traditional, or even sexist, views on gender roles is equal to denying him imagination, creativity and the ability to separate his fiction from his private life.

Hemingway's critics


“There are, however, no women in his books!”, wrote Leslie Fiedler ([1960] 2003: 316), “for in no case, can he quite succeed in making his females human.” Although such a statement may seem unjust, many critics agree that Hemingway’s female characters are either unrealistic or presented in a stereotypical way and “seldom spring from the page as flesh-and-blood characters” (Kert 1983: 9). Other early critics of Hemingway share Fiedler’s view. Edmund Wilson divided Hemingway’s fictional women Leslie Fiedlertwo types as he believed they were “doomed to embody one of two extremes, either the deadly (…) or the saintly (…). The former were his fear-projections, the latter his wish-fulfilments” (Kert 1983: 347). As he usually portrays women as submissive and thus ideal or dominant and evil, Hemingway is often accused of being a chauvinist hostile to women despite the fact that in his private life he married four times and was never without a female partner.

Nevertheless, with the rise of feminist criticism, the focus has shifted from male to female characters and they not only started to be analysed from a female perspective, but also with greater accuracy. More and more often critics argued that Hemingway’s women cannot be so easily labelled and they proposed new approaches towards their analysis. Consequently, some critics ceased to view them as perpetuation of sexist stereotypes or Hemingway’s lack of competence when it comes to dealing with women in his fiction which resulted in his heroines being shown in a more favourable light.

Alan Holder was probably one of the first critics who suggested the need for a new treatment of Hemingway’s female characters and the need “to recognize and acknowledge the other Hemingway”. According to him, Hemingway’s focus is not exclusively on men, but at times he empathises with women by recognising their rights and demands which, nonetheless, are usually ignored or denied by men. In fact, in some of his stories it is apparent that he sympathises with females rather than indifferent, egocentric males who victimise them. Moreover, on the basis of Nick’s stories, Holder claims that “Hemingway has displayed what is not generally attributed to him, a capacity to question some of his own deepest responses towards women.” By citing “An Alpine Idyll”, Holder shows that its narrator’s “immersion in an exclusively male world has crippled his capacity for natural response” (Holder 1963: 153-157). Thus Hemingway, an admirer of masculinity, seems to challenge it which, in turn, benefits his heroines.

Carlos Baker, one of Hemingway’s most influential critics, was sceptical about Wilson’s division of Hemingway’s females into the “deadly” and the “saintly” ones as well. In Hemingway, the Writer as Artist, he observes that such a portrayal of women appears in both American and English literature and is not distinctive of Hemingway. Baker does not focus on denying such a division, but rather looks for its explanations. What he, however, strongly denies is the assumption that Hemingway’s depiction of females resulted from his incompetence and inability to create a fully dimensional woman for many a time he proved that he can “draw a character fully, roundedly, and quickly”. Such accusations made against a writer who “developed a memorably individualized style”, “showed an unerring ability to keep his narratives in motion” and “achieved mastery of that special combination of naturalistic and symbolic truth” seem largely misplaced. Baker proposes two explanations for Hemingway’s heroines: the “esthetic” and the “geographical”. He claims that Hemingway “establishes a moral norm of womanly behaviour” and then using it as a base and shaping it to a varying degree, achieves a contrast between his characters. What is more, according to Baker, these characters are “an aspect of the poetry of things”. Since Hemingway adopts a chivalric attitude, his heroines are always presented as beautiful, even if evil. As to the latter explanation, women in Hemingway’s fiction live in the times of wars or revolutions which have a damaging effect on their lives. They are displaced and yet “they contrive to embody the image of home, the idea if not the actuality of the married state, and where they are, whatever the outward threats, home is” (Baker 1956: 109-115).

Another critic who opted for a more positive reading of Hemingway’s women is Linda Patterson Miller. In her article (Miller 2002: 6-11), she argues that females portrayed by Hemingway are not unrealistic or one-dimensional. On the contrary, they dis-play emotional complexity which is, however, missed by “some readers [who] fail to recognize the truth of Hemingway’s characters, because they do not meet the demands of Hemingway’s art”. Reading his fiction requires reading between lines; otherwise, his heroines may mistakenly be seen as weak. What is more, Miller brings up Baker’s argument by claiming that Hemingway’s depiction of women is closely related to the set-ting or narrative form. As the action of many of his works is set in wartime, the characters’ behaviour is prone to be intensified and distorted. This leads to his women being misinterpreted as stereotypical hysterics. For Miller they are “both elusive and real [and] become powerful literary devices within the intricate weave of his narratives”. It is thus, paradoxically, the complexity of Hemingway’s fiction and characters which prevents readers from viewing the characters as complex.

It becomes evident that Hemingway’s critics, as well as readers, are generally divided into two camps. Either they see him as a misogynist who portrays women in a stereotypical and sexist way or they recognise his attempt to create complex female characters who are not mere embodiments of men’s fears or dreams. The initial focus on Hemingway’s masculinity and his male heroes may have contributed to such a division of opinions on his heroines since, as Miller (2002: 9) wrote, “a misreading of Hemingway’s women became almost inevitable when people failed to separate the man—or the idea of the man—from the work.”