Annie Hocker sent me this fascinating
piece of Hemingway criticism from the
New Yorker, in which he calls
The Sun Also Rises , at least the
new edition, a piece of proto- metafiction. I disagree on definition, but he makes a decent case; it is still a must-read piece for Hemingway fans and scholars, and far more right than wrong.
The author, Ian Crouch, says:
"...Hemingway was attempting to write a novel very different from what would
become “The Sun Also Rises,” which made his name as one of “those ones
with their clear restrained writing.” He imagined a book in which the
“whole business” of life gets expressed, in all of its messy detours and
associations... This minor manifesto, embedded in a draft of his first novel, conceives
of a book with greater intellectual and artistic ambitions than
Hemingway ever produced—one akin to the more abstract fictions of the
modernists... The Sun Also Rises” is far from being a lesser thing, for all of its
restrained clarity. It is partly a book of “literary signs,” perhaps
against Hemingway’s own intentions. But it is also a book—Gertrude Stein
be damned—of remarks, both in the elliptical declarations that the
characters make to one another, and in the weighted silences that linger
between them. “I mistrust all frank and simple people, especially when
their stories hold together.” That line, which belongs to the narrator,
and to the author, was there from the beginning. It is an echo of
Hemingway’s more eager and brash equivocations in the drafts, a
claim that there was an unseen depth to his plainspoken prose. It is an
author’s note, a statement of purpose—subtly and skillfully absorbed
into the art of storytelling."
I think this is entirely right, but I still think that he is wrong saying that
TSAR is an intentional piece of metafiction. By this standard,
any novel that has been self- edited and exists in drafts or a variorum form could be called a metafiction.
(Also, that it would have been "richer" is an odd judgement; Hemingway, with some advice and a lot of self- editing, pared it down to a piece of art. The "other" book might have been good, but it would not have been Hemingway's
Sun.)
A better candidate for metafiction would be
The Green Hills of Africa, usually considered a journalistic book. If so, it is journalism the way Norman Mailer's
The Armies of the Night is. In my essay in
Sportsman's Library, I leaned to the idea that it IS a self- conscious metafiction (I don't use the word), and is announced and intended to be: "...
Green Hills seems utterly modern, or even postmodern, but this is after the journalistic revolutions of the1960's and 70's that brought us the New Journalism and Truman Capote's "non- fiction novel"
In Cold Blood. By the standards of the 1930's, it is a damned strange book. Hemingway explicitly warns the reader in his three- sentence foreword: "The writer has attempted to write an absolutely true book to see whether the shape of a country and the patterns of a month's action can, if truly presented, compete with the work of an imagination."
If not so consciously claimed by the writer, that superficially odder (and undervalued) volume, his posthumously published
The Garden of Eden, has many strange and po- mo aspects too: its androgynous erotic scenes, where the woman cuts her and her lover's hair identically; the African hunting tale within the tale, itself a lyrical passage about a childhood hunt in an Eden akin to that in W H Hudson's
Far Away and Long Ago, (a book Hemingway had read and recommended), but presented in the novel as the writer- protagonist's childhood AND work. How many layers is that? Is it because urbanites and academics no longer hunt, and so cannot see hunting as an idyll, that they dismiss this long fragment as a "boy's" (as in "Boy's Own") book?
No particular conclusions here, but that Hemingway always intended; knew, and subtly suggested, that a lot was going on under his simple sentences, and that this critique is more right than wrong. As I said in the book of books: "Hemingway's ghost haunts us all".
UPDATE:
Matt Mulllenix writes:
"In the same way Lyle Lovett calls his ballad 'Nobody Knows Me...' a "cheatin' song about Mexican food," I've always thought of GHOA as a hunting book about the writers life.
"It's simultaneously one of the best books on hunting and one of the best about writing that I know, and like many readers here, I've read many of both.
"But I've never found much satisfaction puzzling Hemingway's motives. I've wanted to. I think in some ways HE wanted us to. But in the end, I think he was most easily understood as an intelligent, ambitious, sometimes insecure writer who was also a hunter. And in that frame, he was like many writing hunters I know: wanting first to get the words right because the pursuit (and the animals) deserved that.
"But also, as a writer and an explorer (as the best of them are), I see him as wanting to claim new ground wherever he went. So well read as he was, this must have been a constant challenge. I can see him, without much difficulty, "inventing" a postmodern perspective or at least anticipating it by trying to go where his heroes and contemporaries had yet to pass."
 |
Green Hills trophies |