1921-1929 — Paris years, early success, first divorce and second marriage - Part V

EACH of these essays/entries is intended to stand alone, so there is a certain degree of duplication in them as it is unlikely they will be read in sequence or even that all will be read by a visitor to these pages. This is intentional: someone reading an essay/entry must not be puzzled by some allusion she or he might not understand because they have not read the other essays/entries.

 


‘All April [1927] he stayed away from Montparnasse where sidewalk cafes were crowded noon and midnight with American tourists, some looking for a glimpse of characters out of [The Sun Also Rises], others behaving as if they were auditioning for the parts.’
Michael Reynolds, Hemingway: The Homecoming

‘Now, in the warm streets of summer, Paris was less lovely for Ernest than she had ever been in winter rain. Five years earlier, he and Hadley, unknown and in love, delighted in discovering the city . . . When the franc was at twelve to the dollar, they were tourists; as it rose to eighteen, they became old hands in the neighbourhood, recognised at the Dôme by painters and writers. Now [in 1927] with the franc at twenty-five, Hadley was in California and he, having become legendary along Montparnasse, took no joy on the boulevard.
Michael Reynolds, Hemingway: The Homecoming.

‘That afternoon [June 7, 1927] he enclosed a check for 700 francs in his last letter to the landlord of 113 Notre Dames-des-Champs. “Because I am leaving Paris,” he said, “I shall not keep the apartment any longer. You may rent it immediately if you wish.” In part of his heart, he had already left Paris; his actual departure was only a matter of time.
Michael Reynolds, Hemingway: The Homecoming.

SINCE returning from Gastaad in March 1927, Pauline Pfeiffer, her sister, Jinny and Archie MacLeish’s wife, Ada, had between them found and started organising an apartment for Pauline and her husband-to-be. Although the new Paris apartment at 6 rue Ferou was bigger, smarter and quieter than the down-at-heel walk-up with a communal lavatory on the landing Hemingway and Hadley had lived in in rue Notre Dames des Champs, it was barely more expensive.

By now, of course, Hemingway’s life had moved on and he no longer saw himself as the dedicated writer prepared to starve for his art in a garret: now he was the established and published author, a serious man of letters. Yet although he was no longer ‘starving’ — and, in truth, he was never close to ‘starving’ despite his romantic claims later in life, notably in his memoirs A Moveable Feast — he still wasn’t earning his living from his writing as he had set out to do when, five years earlier, he arrived in Paris. More to the point, he was still obliged to live off a wife’s income, and that irked him.

Despite in many ways being different — for example, Hadley was tall and matronly whereas Pfeiffer was short and petite — they had much in common and both benefited from a generous trust fund income. Pfeiffer’s fund paid her $3,600 a year (about $53,779 in 2020), and given the still advantageous exchange rate — you got FF25 to the dollar in 1927 — Pfeiffer had an annual income of FF90,000. It was more than enough to sustain her and Hemingway — for example the annual rent on their new apartment was just FF9,000. Furthermore, when Pfeiffer and Hemingway married on May 10, her extended family showered the couple with gifts of cash — cheques for $1,000 ($15,000 in 2020) were not unusual — and according to biographer Michael Reynolds the couple would have been able to live off the money for a year. Then there was the largesse of Pfeiffer’s very wealthy uncle Gus Pfeiffer.

Uncle Gus had no children of his own and doted on his nieces Pauline and Jinny, and was extraordinarily generous to them. So when Hemingway and Pfeiffer took on the apartment in rue Froidevaux, Uncle Gus paid the many bills involved in sub-leasing it — three month’s rent in advance and the equivalent of a year’s

Ever-generous Uncle Gus

rent to the leaseholder, three month’s back taxes owed by the leaseholder and deposits for various utility services.

A year later Uncle Gus arranged for a new Ford A Coupe to be on the quayside to greet the couple when they arrived in Key West via Cuba on their way to Piggott, Arkansas, Pfeiffer’s home town (though in the event delivery of the automobile from the mainland was delayed). When Hemingway and Pfeiffer eventually decided to settle in Key West, Uncle Gus paid for the purchase, renovation and decoration of the splendid, but rundown, house they had eventually chosen as their new home; and when in the early 1930s Hemingway announced he wanted to go on safari to East Africa, ever-generous Uncle Gus gave Ernest and Pauline $25,000 ($501,000 in 2020) worth of stock to sell to pay for the two month-long trip.

As for Hemingway’s ambition to become a professional writer earning his living from his pen it would be quite a few years before he realised it. On the back of the success of The Sun Also Rises, Hemingway’s short stories were now being accepted by various magazine, but none was attracting anywhere near the fabulous sums his friend Scott Fitzgerald had been paid for his short fiction. Nor did Hemingway benefit from the success of his novel: in his zeal to rid himself of Hadley and marry Pauline Pfeiffer, he had impulsively signed over to her all royalties, current and future, from the sales of The Sun Also Rises (and it was a decision he later bitterly complained about).

Within two days of the divorce coming through in mid-April, Hadley and her young son had sailed for New York, and — she told Hemingway —$5,000 ($74,794 in 2020) in royalty payments were waiting in her bank account: so much for Hemingway earning his living from his writing. As one of his better short stories, The Snows Of Kilimanjaro, in which a dying writer reproaches himself for living off his wife’s income, made clear, it rankled a great deal.

. . .

With his second marriage, the Paris years, which saw Hemingway establish himself and, arguably, when he produced his better work, were drawing to a close. He was no longer enjoying and living in the city as once he had. When he and Hadley arrived in December 1921, the young couple had toured Paris looking at the sights, but since the publication and success of his novel The Sun Also Rises, Hemingway was now himself ‘one of the sights’. Americans flocked to Paris — the cheap franc made it very affordable for most — and haunted ‘the Latin Quarter’ bars and cafes hoping to catch a glimpse of the writer himself. In Hemingway: The Homecoming, biographer Michael Reynolds spells out that
Between those newly resident intellectuals and the burgeoning tourists, the Left Bank was losing its charm [for Hemingway]. Evenings in the cafe with the light beginning to fail and saucers piling up, those evenings were becoming impossible . . . Wherever he looked pretentiousness abounded. The latest guidebook to Paris ‘with the lid lifted’ assured its readers that at Deux Magots one could hear ‘more dirty stories and advice as to where to buy “adorable dresses” all in English than anywhere else in Paris’. The Select, one read, was filled with ‘gentlemen with long, wavy hair and long painted fingernails and other gentlemen who, when they walk, walk “Falsetto”, toss their hips and lift their brows”.
By 1927 ‘the city of light’ was for Hemingway just not what it had been, though ironically he and his successful novel were two of the causes. He was nominally a resident of Paris for another three and a half years, but between May 10, 1927, when he and Pauline Pfeiffer were married, first in a civil ceremony in the town hall of Montrouge, then in a Roman Catholic ceremony in St Honoré d’Eylau, until the couple and their young son, Patrick, finally settled in Key West, Florida in late December 1931 — he spent in all less than eight months in the city.

. . .

After an almost month-long on honeymoon in the South of France (where the perpetually accident-prone Hemingway cut his foot and was infected with anthrax and where he continued work on his second collection of short stories), he and Pfeiffer returned home to Paris; but just three weeks later, they were off again, this time to Pamplona for the annual trip to the San Fermin festival, followed by another leisurely trawl through Spain. They finally began married life at their new rue Ferou apartment at the beginning of September, and within days Hemingway (who now had his own room in which to work) began a new novel.

Hemingway knew that he needed to publish a new novel to consolidate his career and status as a coming writer lauded by all the critics and — in Malcolm Cowley’s later judgment — ‘a master at 26’. That second novel, which at first he called A New Slain Knight, was intended to chronicle life on the road for a ‘professional revolutionist’ and his 14-year old son, and the lad’s education by his father in the ways of the world. Work went very well to begin with, and a week after Hemingway’s new short story collection Men Without Women was published on October 14, he was telling friends that he had already written 30,000 words.

Hemingway’s preferred method of composition was to write without a plan, not knowing where his work would take him. Michael Reynolds suggests that Hemingway believed this would keep a story vibrant and fresh. It was how he had written The Sun Also Rises (which began life as a short story) and it had worked then; but this time his method did not pay off. Although he conscientiously carried on working on the novel every morning throughout the autumn of 1927, he slowly dried up. He tried to correct what might be wrong by switching from a first-person narrative to a third-person narrative. At one point he changed the name of the ‘professional revolutionist’, but nothing did the trick. In November he and Pfeiffer spent ten days in Berlin, and once back in Paris he re-read what he had so far written and — as he told one correspondent — the novel was ‘all right part of the time’ and that at other times it was ‘horse manure’.

In mid-December Hemingway, Pauline, Jinny and his son Bumby travelled to Gstaad for a two-month Christmas and New Year break, and work on the novel was interrupted when he developed ‘flu, piles and toothache. Then Bumby accidentally cut the pupil of Hemingway’s — good — right eye with his little finger, rendering him comparatively sightless for a few days. Back in Paris by mid-February, the writing was still no easier and Hemingway finally gave up on the novel in mid-March. (His manuscript is now in the Hemingway section of the JFK Library in Boston with his other ‘manuscripts, typescripts, drafts, notes, and galleys for Hemingway's published and unpublished writings’.)

Michael Reynolds suggests that it wasn’t just Hemingway’s aimless method of composition that was causing him problems: after the Men Without Women collection was published four months in October, his self-confidence was shaken by a few of the reviews it had received. Ironically, many had praised the work — The New Yorker recorded that the collection was
. . . a truly magnificent work . . . [the reviewer did] not know where a greater collection of stories can be found . . . Hemingway has an unerring sense of selection . . . His is, as any reader knows, a dangerous influence. The simple thing he does looks so easy to do. But look at the boys who try to do it.’
But Hemingway paid attention only to those reviewers who were less impressed with his collection: in a letter to Scott Fitzgerald he complained that
. . . these goddam reviews are sent to me by my ‘friends’, any review saying the stuff is a pile of shit I get at least 2,000 copies of.
He had previously been irritated by suggestions that The Sun Also Rises was — in the words of Douglas Ogden Stewart on whom the character of Bill Gorton was based — not a novel, but a ‘skilfully produced travelogue’, so Percy Hutchisson’s New York Times review of Men Without Women will have hurt, despite the praise. Hutchisson commented:
Hemingway’s is the art of the reporter carried to the highest degree . . . His facts may be from experience, and they may be compounded solely of imagination; but he so presents them that they stand out with all the clearness and sharpness (and also the coldness) of pinnacles of ice in clear, frosty air. To sum up in a figure, Hemingway’s is a stark naked style.
In The Saturday Review Lee Wilson Dodd handed out brickbats as well as bouquets. He admitted that
. . . the present critic . . . is amazed and genuinely admires the lean virtuosity of Mr Hemingway
but added
the second most astonishing thing about him is the narrowness of his selective range.
Dodd concluded that
In the callous little world of Mr Hemingway I feel cribbed, cabined, confined; I lack air — just as I do in the cruel world of Guy de Maupassant — just as I do, though not so desperately, so gaspingly, in the placid stuffy little world of Jane Austen. But there is room to breathe in Shakespeare, in Tolstoy. And — yes — it makes all the difference.
Virginia Woolf was also less than impressed. She conceded that
Mr Hemingway, then, is courageous; he is candid; he is highly skilled; he plants words precisely where he wishes
but she added that
he is modern in manner but not in vision; he is self-consciously virile; his talent has contracted rather than expanded; compared with his novel, his stories are a little dry and sterile.’
Wyndham Lewis was also ambivalent about Hemingway’s new collection. Although he described Hemingway in his review of Men Without Women (which he had himself forwarded to Hemingway in Gstaad) as
. . . easily the ablest of the wild band of Americans in Europe
he added, rather tactlessly given Hemingway’s growing rather high opinion of his talent, that he
 . . . is obviously capable of a great deal of development before his work reaches maturity.
Hemingway had a thin skin and it was not quite what he wanted: in essence Lewis was telling readers that ‘Hemingway could do better and has some way to go yet’. None of this was what Hemingway wanted to read. Reynolds records
Hemingway wrote Fitzgerald that he had seen the reviews of Burton Rascoe and [Virginia] Woolf and a couple of others . . . ‘Am thinking of quitting publishing any stuff for the next 10 to 15 years.’ The reviews, he said, were ruining his writing.
Quite apart from those less than enthusiastic reviews of his second collection of short stories and that his inspiration was declining as he wrote his new novel, Hemingway’s mood had surely not been improved when the week before he finally abandoned his novel in mid-March, he suffered another accident. At around 2am one morning — and, biographer Kenneth Lynn suggests, probably drunk (Pfeiffer was
already concerned about his level of drinking) — he mistook the skylight chain for the lavatory cistern chain, gave it one strong yank and brought it all down on his head.

It cut his forehead badly and the wound needed six stitches, and the accident left him with a prominent scar (left) on the left side of his forehead

By chance, Bill Horne, his old buddy from the Red Cross days in Italy, had written to Hemingway out of the blue the previous November, and Horne’s letter possibly revived memories of Italy. Hemingway might have known little about revolutions, but his, albeit rather short, time serving in the Red Cross in northern Italy meant he had seen war and knew a little about life on the front.

Reynolds suggests that being contacted by Horne as well as being ‘wounded’ by the falling skylight were catalysts that prompted Hemingway to abandon A New Slain Knight and instead start writing A Farewell To Arms to offer as his ‘second novel’, though it, too, began life as a short story and then evolved.

The novel’s protagonist, Frederic Henry, was — like Hemingway — an American serving as an ambulance driver with the Italian army, and Catherine Barkley, the novel’s rather two-dimensional second protagonist, was — like Agnes von Kurowsky, the woman who broke the young Hemingway’s heart — a Red Cross nurse. The other notable details of the novel, Italy’s ignominious retreat after the Battle of Caporetto, Hemingway had garnered from war histories and maps — the battle and retreat had taken place seven to eight months before Hemingway first set foot in Europe.

. . .

At some point during the family winter holiday in Gstaad, Pfeiffer realised she was expecting her first child, and preparations for giving birth, due at the end of June, governed all the Hemingways’ plans. Like Hadley, Pfeiffer wanted her baby to be born in America (although Hadley gave birth to their son in Canada because Hemingway had started a staff job on the Star in Toronto).

Accordingly, the Hemingways left France for the US via Havana in mid-March, a week after Hemingway had abandoned work on his novel. They decided to visit Key West on the recommendation of Hemingway’s friend, the novelist John Dos Passos (who had been much taken with the island) and then travel north to Pfeiffer’s family home in Piggott, Arkansas. They sailed from Le Havre for Havana and then caught a ferry to Key West, 90 miles north of Cuba.

For the public, the name ‘Hemingway’ is still inextricably linked with Key West (and later Cuba), but that he made the island his home for the next ten years was happenstance. When they arrived and discovered the Ford Uncle Gus had bought them had been delayed on the mainland, Hemingway and Pfeiffer were forced to wait in Key West and rented a small apartment while they waited. Over the following weeks they explored the small island and met and became friends with one of Key West’s wealthiest couples, Charles and Lorine Thompson.

Hemingway had already tried his hand at fishing from the quayside — he spent every morning writing what was to become A Farewell To Arms and every afternoon fishing — but Charles, whose family owned many of island’s businesses, introduced Hemingway to deep-sea fishing. The two couples go on well, and

Hemingway proudly shows off one
of the many marlin he killed

Pauline later admitted that she would not have agreed to settle in Key West as Hemingway was suggesting (because of his new enthusiasm for deep-sea fishing) had it not been for the prospect of Lorine’s company.

What with the writing going well and the deep-sea fishing, Hemingway was in no rush to leave Key West even though Pfeiffer was getting ever closer to term, and finally, her father, Paul Pfeiffer, arrived to speed up matters. Pfeiffer left Key West for Piggott by train and Hemingway drove there in the company of his father-in-law (in those days it was a three-day journey often travelling on dirt roads).

From Piggott Hemingway and Pfeiffer carried on to a hospital in Kanas City for the birth of their first child, Patrick, who was delivered by caesarean section at the end of June. Pfeiffer spent several weeks recuperating in Kansas City before Hemingway took her and the baby back to Piggott, then returned to Kansas City to meet up with Bill Horne to go hunting in to Wyoming. Within weeks, they were joined by Pfeiffer, who had left her two-month-old baby son in the care of her sister Jinny. She later confessed she ‘had never had a maternal instinct’ and was uninterested in children until they were at least six years old.

By the end of September, Hemingway and Pfeiffer were back in Piggott, but were soon on the road again. Hemingway first made a rare visit to see his family in Oak Park and before moving a few miles east to Chicago to drink and reminisce with friends. There he was joined by Pfeiffer, and they carried to Massachusetts and New York to see friends, a trip which included a memorable reunion with Scott Fitzgerald and his wife Zelda when Fitzgerald yet again got hopelessly drunk and yet again disgraced himself.

. . .

One of the most significant events of Hemingway’s life, perhaps as significant as his near-death experience in July 1918 at the front near the Piave river, was the suicide of his father Clarence Hemingway. As a boy Hemingway had enjoyed his father’s company and the times they spent together, hunting and fishing near the family summer cottage at Walloon Lake, Michigan, but when Hemingway was barely in his teens, Clarence, a family physician known as Ed, increasingly withdrew into himself and away from the family. He had long suffered from depression, but more recently he had also developed diabetes, suffered from angina attacks and was worried about some investments he had made in real estate in Florida. Just before lunch on December 6, 1928, he had returned home from the hospital where he had been working that morning, gone upstairs to his bedroom, put an antique pistol to his head just behind his right ear and ended his life.

Hemingway was told of the death — although not yet how his father had died — by telegram on a train back to Key West from New York where he had picked up his son Bumby. He put his son in the care of the train’s conductor and changed trains at Philadelphia for Chicago, and it was only when he was collected from Chicago Union Station that he was told that Ed had killed himself.

For the rest of his life Hemingway uncharitably regarded Ed’s suicide as an unforgivable weakness; but more than that believed his mother Grace had driven Ed to the act, and until he himself died he told everyone that he hated her. Yet one of the many oddities about Hemingway is that despite his antagonism to her, as he sorted out his father’s affairs in the months following Ed’s death, not only did he treat her generously but a year or two later he established a trust fund for his mother’s benefit that doubled her monthly income, and he supported her financially until she died just under 23 years later.

. . .

Hemingway and Pfeiffer had intended to return to Paris in November 1928, but at some point during their Wyoming fishing and hunting trip they decided instead to spend the winter months in Key West. Their new friend there, Lorine Thompson, found them a house to rent short-term — one big enough to accommodate not just Hemingway and Pfeiffer, but their new son, Patrick, Pfeiffer’s sister Jinny, who

Pauline Pfeiffers sister
Virginia, known as Jinny

would help look after the baby, and Hemingway’s sister Madelaine, known as Sunny, who had agreed to type up the manuscript for A Farewell To Arms that Hemingway had just finished. Then Hadley had got in touch to ask whether her and Hemingway’s son Bumby might also come to Key West — he had an incessant cough, she explained, and the Paris weather was doing him no good at all. It was while he was returning from New Y0rk collecting Bumby that Hemingway was told of his father’s death.

The household had settled in the weeks before Christmas, and Pfeiffer and Sunny typed up what was to become A Farewell To Arms, completing the task towards the end of January, 1929. With work on his second novel out of the way, Hemingway entertained friends in Key West for the next few months, including his editor at Scribner’s, Maxwell Perkins. Hemingway was keen to introduce everyone to his new enthusiasm for deep-sea fishing and even the otherwise rather staid Perkins was roped in, encouraged by Hemingway’s light-hearted threat that unless he collected the new manuscript in person, he wouldn’t get it.

Whether Perkins did collect it or whether Hemingway later delivered the manuscript to Scribner’s in New York in person is unclear: on this and several other points the various biographers’ accounts differ. For example, some tell us the Ford Model A Uncle Gus bought for Hemingway and Pfeiffer was delayed on Miami, others claim it was waiting for them on the quayside when they disembarked as promised. Ironically, the variance of their separate accounts is of a piece with contradictions in the stories Hemingway told about himself: in all seriousness he had claimed he had an affair with the Dutch spy Mata Hari. In fact Hari, or Margaretha Geertruida Zelle as she was christened, was executed for spying seven months before Hemingway set foot in Europe.

Hemingway’s new novel was due for September publication but he had also agreed for it to be serialised in Scribner’s Magazine, and the first instalment appeared in May (with, to Hemingway’s great annoyance, words and phrase deemed by the magazine to be offensive and unacceptable edited out). By then Hemingway, Pfeiffer and Patrick were back in Paris, although with a view to possibly returning they left some belongings in Key West. They had finally set sail for Europe from Cuba at the beginning of April (with a second new Ford given them by the ever-generous Uncle Gus stowed away in the ship’s hold, according to Michael Reynolds).

1921-1929 — Paris years, early success, first divorce and second marriage - Part IV

EACH of these essays/entries is intended to stand alone, so there is a certain degree of duplication in them as it is unlikely they will be read in sequence or even that all will be read by a visitor to these pages. This is intentional: someone reading an essay/entry must not be puzzled by some allusion she or he might not understand because they have not read the other essays/entries.

 


With no way to know it in advance, Ernest Hemingway had found among all the available women in Paris not the prettiest, not the richest, but the one best suited to his situation with his career about to burgeon. He no longer needed a devoted Hadley leaning heavily upon his lead. What he needed now was a wife to help manage his career, a woman who can make decisions and take care of yourself a woman like Pauline Pfeiffer.
Michael Reynolds, Hemingway: The Homecoming.

So long as he published with “little” or literary magazines like The Quarter or transatlantic review or with Left Bank publishers of limited editions like Robert McAlmon, Hemingway was one of a crowd, a piece of the Montparnasse firmament, fitting comfortably into his niche. . . Hemingway’s move to Boni & Liveright with In Our Time raised him only slightly among his peers. However, when he signed the Charles Scribner’s Sons contract, Hemingway moved into the major league. That the shift took place at the same time that he was ridding himself of Hadley and moving to a more sophisticated woman seems to have been coincidental, but it was all of a piece with his life.’
Michael Reynolds, Hemingway: The Homecoming

HEMINGWAY’S infatuation with Duff Twysden had faded once he and Hadley had left Pamplona and he began writing his novel. It was replaced by his growing friendship with Pauline Pfeiffer which within months developed into a full affair. Initially, Pfeiffer made the running, but by Christmas she and Hemingway were close enough for him to invite her to join him and his family on their annual holiday in Schruns, Austria. With Hadley in bed nursing a bad cold for part of the holiday, Pfeiffer and Hemingway spent a great deal of time together.

For a while Pfeiffer (right) and Hemingway — and even Hadley — maintained the fiction that all three were simply very good, close friends who were fond of each other, and biographers remark that Hadley’s apparent passivity might to Hemingway have seemed to be an unspoken acquiescence.

Many years later Hadley told Michael Reynolds that because her husband had been so good-looking, many women threw themselves at him and he often openly flirted with them, but she had persuaded herself almost to the last that his feelings for Pfeiffer would blow over like all his other infatuations. In the third volume of his biography, Hemingway: The Homecoming, Reynolds observes

In Schruns, when she first saw the pattern forming, she could have challenged her husband’s fascination with Pauline, but that was not her way . . . When he came in from moonlight walks with Pauline, she had made light of it.

Whether or not Hemingway and Pfeiffer first slept together in Schruns as has been suggested or it wasn’t until he stayed with her in Paris on his way to New York at the end of January is not known; but in the first version of his memoir A Moveable Feast, edited by his widow Mary from the various manuscripts he had worked and published in 1964, he chose to portray himself as having been led astray by predatory rich folk and the guile of a young woman.

In that version, Hemingway recalls he felt terrible that, once back in Europe from his New York trip in February 1925, he did not immediately return to his family in Schruns and had spent a few more days with Pfeiffer, and that his heart broke when he was met by Hadley and his young son at Schruns rail station. Forty-five years later, in 2009 in a new version of A Moveable Feast, re-edited from the same collection of manuscripts by his grandson, Sean, Hemingway acknowledges that because he had encouraged Pfeiffer in her pursuit, irrespective of the pain it was causing Hadley, he was equally to blame for the break-up of his marriage.

Once Pfeiffer had left Schruns to return to Paris in mid-January, Hemingway and Hadley were joined by John Dos Passos and Gerald and Sara Murphy, a very wealthy American couple who now lived in their Villa America (where a great many early well-known 20th century artists, writers and composers pitched up) in Juan Le Pins near Antibes in the South of France and were friends with both Dos Passos and Pfeiffer. They — Hemingway describes Dos Passos as the ‘pilot fish’ which led the ‘predatory rich folk’ (the Murphys) of his memoir — were an intricate part of the new and wealthier social world Hemingway 
was entering in which, it became ever clearer, Hadley had no part. The Murphys (left), especially Gerald, who, according to Michael Reynolds, almost hero-worshipped Hemingway, had joined the Hemingway fan club and were already persuaded that he had a great literary future; and they believed chic and sophisticated Pfeiffer would make a more suitable wife for a writer than down-to-earth but dowdy Hadley. Hadley’s days as the first Mrs Ernest Hemingway were numbered.

The crisis in her marriage to Hemingway’s came to a head after Hadley was invited by Pauline Pfeiffer to join her and her sister, Jinny, on a short break, a road trip through the Loire valley. It was an odd few days. During the trip, Pfeiffer was by turns friendly and snappy with Hadley, who finally asked Jinny whether she thought Pauline was in love with her husband. Jinny’s vague and unhelpful, though telling, response was to admit that Pauline and Hemingway were ‘rather fond’ of each other. Reynolds reports:

Back in Paris [Hadley] asked her husband straight out what it was between himself and Pauline . . . He could not help it, he claimed. It happened, it was happening, and there was nothing he could do about it. If Hadley had not brought it out in the open, it would not have become a problem. Somehow it was Hadley’s fault. The marriage was to last for only another few months.

. . . 

In April Hemingway finished revising and re-writing the manuscript for his novel, and towards the end of the month he finally sent it off to Max Perkins at Scribner’s. Another trip to the San Fermin festival in Pamplona was scheduled for July, but first Hemingway planned to go to Madrid for several weeks to attend the San Isodro festival, to write and to watch some bullfights.

Hadley and their young son John (but known as Bumby) travelled to the South of France to stay with the Murphys where Hemingway was to join them. The lad had a persistent cough, however, that was diagnosed by a local doctor as whooping cough; the Murphys became fearful for their own children’s health and thought it best that Bumby and Hadley should be quarantined. Scott Fitzgerald and Zelda then offered her the use of the villa they were renting nearby until the lease expired in the middle of June as they had decided to move to another larger villa.

While he was in Madrid, Hemingway sent Hadley a series of letters reproaching her for not joining him, and she became increasingly angry that he did not consider the strain she was under: she was taking care of their ill son she told him, and she was broke and was relying on the food the Murphys were supplying. Finally, at the end of May — on the day The Torrents Of Spring was published — Hemingway joined them all from Madrid.

Pfeiffer had already arrived from Paris and had gone to stay with Hadley (she explained that she’d had whooping cough as a child and was in no danger). When in mid-June the lease on the Fitzgerald villa ended, she, the Hemingways, their son and their Paris cook cum housekeeper Marie Rohrbach (who had arrived from Paris to nurse Bumby) all moved to a small hotel. And there the pretence that Hemingway, Pfeiffer and Hadley were just very good, very close friends who doted on each other was carried on, with Pfeiffer even joining Hemingway and Hadley for breakfast in bed.

At the beginning of July, Bumby was taken back to Paris by Rohrbach and Hemingway, Hadley, Pfeiffer and the Murphys travelled to Spain to spend two weeks in Pamplona and enjoy that year’s San Fermin festival in the second week. For the Murphys those two weeks were a new and extraordinary experience — the ‘most intense moments of their lives’ — and in a letter Gerald sent Hemingway and Hadley within days of it ending he described the bullfighters as living
‘. . . in a region all their own — and alone each, somewhere between art and life — and eclipsing at times each of them — make you feel that you are as you find other people — half-alive. They are a religion for which I could have been trained. This knocked at my heart all the time I was at Pamplona’.
One wonders how the younger Hemingway, the new arrival in Paris who purported to despise ‘the phoneys’ he encountered in Montparnasse, would have reacted to such vacuous gush. Perhaps the Hemingway who read that letter and who was in the process of re-inventing himself as a serious and successful writer and who rather liked being friends with the rich Murphy’s had become rather more tolerant.

When the festival ended, the party took off from Pamplona to San Sebastian on Spain’s northern coast, from where Hemingway and Hadley set off for a small tour of bullfights. The Murphys and Pfeiffer carried on to Bayonne, for a train to Cap d’Antibes and Paris respectively. Writing a postcard from Bayonne station buffet, Sara Murphy anticipated her husband’s flowery rhapsody with one of her own. She wrote
As for you two children: You grace the earth. You’re so right, because you’re so close to what’s elemental. Your values are hitched up to the universe. We’re proud to know you. Yours are the things that count. They’re a gift to those who see them too.

It was a distinctly different tone to the one she would adopt eight weeks later in a note to Hemingway once he and Hadley had separated.

It was in Spain, apparently in a number of heated arguments, one caused by a letter from Pfeiffer, now back in Paris, that stated — between the lines although quite unmistakeably — that she would ‘get’ Hemingway (she wrote ‘I get everything I want’) that he and Hadley decided to end their marriage. One their way back to Paris they called in at Juan-le-Pins, where Hemingway picked up the galley proofs for The Sun Also Rises which Perkins had sent him, and it was their train journey back to Paris which became the basis for the short story A Canary For One, written in the weeks after the break-up.

. . . 

Neither returned to their flat in rue Notre Dame des Champs: Hadley moved into a small hotel and Hemingway had been given the use of the studio Gerald Murphy had worked in when he was still painting in Paris a few years earlier. Hadley was still persuading herself that Hemingway’s affair with Pfeiffer was just another passing infatuation. She thought that if she gave Hemingway time and space, he would tire of Pfeiffer and their affair would blow over as had his infatuation with Duff Twsyden. Hemingway and Pfeiffer, though, had other ideas and planned to marry as soon as Hemingway was free of Hadley.

For the first few weeks after their separation Hadley and Hemingway continued to meet up, but all too often these occasions ended in acrimony and bitter rows. Reynolds says the rowing was usually about money: Hadley had it, although she was soon obliged to pay rent on both the new flat on the rue de Fleurus near Gertrude Stein’s apartment she moved into and the dingy one in the rue de Notre Dames des


The string of well-known friends who Gerald and Sara Murphy (far left and far right) had to stay at their Villa America in Juan-les-Pin on the French Riviera included Pablo Picasso, Jean Cocteau, Igor Stravinsky and Cole Porter (second right), pictured with the wealthy couple and a friend in Venice


Champs, and Hemingway had very little. The cost of their extended summer break in Antibes, Pamplona and Spain had eaten up most of the advance his publisher Scribner’s had given him for The Sun Also Rises, and realising his predicament, Gerald Murphy had, unbidden, deposited $400 (about 8,000FF to 1,000FF, in 2020 about $5,863) in his bank account to tide him over.

Gerald and Sara Murphy took Hemingway’s side in the split with Hadley, although 34 years later they, the predatory rich folk and his, by then former, friend John dos Passos as the ‘pilot fish’ of his memoir A Moveable Feast were blamed for causing the breakdown. Gerald had long convinced himself that Hemingway was a writer of genius to whom Hadley was unable to give the kind of support a genius would need.

When he and Sara heard of Hemingway’s and Hadley’s had separated, and concerned about how Hemingway might be coping, they travelled up to Paris from the South of France at the end of August and had supper with Hemingway and Hadley. Later Sara, in stark contrast to the sentimental and pretentious description of the couple in her postcard from Bayonne two months earlier, wrote to Hemingway about his desire to leave Hadley, and giving the separation her blessing she wrote:

In the end you will probably save us all by refusing (among other things) to accept second-rate things, places, ideas or human nature. Bless you & and don’t budge’.

To biographer Michael Reynolds it is clear that Sara now regarded Hadley as ‘second-rate’, and it is hard to disagree with Reynolds’ view. For his part Gerald was more concerned that Hemingway’s resolve to leave Hadley might slowly weaken, and he wrote to him about his fear, declaring that Hemingway might be deterred from ‘acting cleanly’. Reynolds suggests this was unambiguous advice to press ahead with his plans to divorce Hadley.

By mid-September Hadley, weary of the arguments which invariably reduced her to tears, decided it would be best for both her and Hemingway if they no longer met. She still hoped for an eventual reconciliation, but informed Hemingway at a dinner with their friends Paul and Winifred Mowrer that if he and Pfeiffer did not see each other for 100 days but they still wanted to be together once the time was up, he would get his divorce.

Hadley hoped that absence would not make the heart grow fonder and that Hemingway and Pfeiffer’s affair would peter out. They, however, accepted her terms as a means of getting Hemingway’s divorce from Hadley, though they feared they would be unable to stay apart for three months if both lived near each other in Paris and Pfeiffer, who had anyway been planning to return to her family home in Piggott, Arkansas, for Christmas, left France ten days later.

The following months were not pleasant for Hemingway, who now had neither Hadley nor Pfeiffer for company. He had already corrected the galley proofs for The Sun Also Rises and sent them back to Scribner’s at the end of August. Now he spent his time writing short stories for a second collection. Thought he dined out with a few friends, he was largely left to his own devices in Gerald Murphy’s large cold studio and he did not like it one bit.

In mid-October he and his friend Archibald MacLeish took off to Zaragoza for a few days to attend a festival, but once back in Paris he was again thrown back onto his own company and, his biographers stress, he hated being alone. He had avoided his old Montparnasse haunts and his cafe acquaintances since he and Hadley had separated because he did not want repeatedly to explain the circumstances of what had happened. And although he and Pfeiffer had promised to write to each other every day, her letters did not arrive regularly and Hemingway sank deeper and deeper into depression. At one point he became so low that he wrote to Pfeiffer histrionically that if the matter of a divorce from Hadley had not been settled by Christmas he would kill himself. Ironically, he had made the same threat in the weeks before his marriage to Hadley.

. . . 

While married to Hemingway, Hadley had consciously played ‘the dutiful, supporting wife’ despite Gerald Murphy’s belief that the Hemingway marriage had failed precisely because Hadley had not given, and could not give, him the support he needed as a writer. But over the years she had suffered under his emotional ups and downs. On the dynamic of Hemingway and Hadley’s relationship, Reynolds quotes Zelda Fitzgerald:
Frequently needling the Hemingways [Zelda] told Hadley one day, ‘I notice that in the Hemingway family you do what Ernest wants’. Hemingway did not much care for the remark, but, as Hadley said later, it was perceptive of Zelda about Ernest wanting everything his way.
Reynolds adds that after she had split from Hemingway Hadley seemed to blossom and come out of herself more and more, and observes
The five years of her marriage to Hemingway had toughened her up more than she had realised. Now, for the first time in her life, she was free to live as she pleased and how she pleased, answering to no one
. . . Despite the ache of loss, Hadley discovered a new wholeness to herself . . . no longer tied to Ernest’s emotional roller-coaster. Perhaps her highs would no longer reach the peaks they had with him, but then neither would she have to face his suicidal lows.
As Hadley’s new self-confidence grew she increasingly felt able to move on and finally decided that the separation she had imposed on Hemingway and Pfeiffer was not to last the full 100 days.

. . . 

Hadley’s friends Paul and Winfred Mowrer had grown apart and had amicably agreed to separate, and Winifred, who had noticed the increasing fondness of Hadley and her husband for each other encouraged them to get more involved. (Paul and Hadley eventually married). She and Hadley had decided to spend ten days in Chartres at the beginning of November to see the sights, and away from Paris and all its pressures and concerns, Hadley had her change of heart about the 100-day separation she had insisted on. The day before she returned to Paris from Chartres, she wrote to Hemingway informing him he could have his divorce, although he had to divorce her and foot all the legal bills incurred by the proceedings. Hemingway readily agreed.

Although Hemingway would not be free to marry Pfeiffer for another six months, until after the divorce was finalised, he perked up immediately. He wired Pfeiffer in Arkansas to return to Paris immediately. She wired back that she had just been offered a staff job with Vogue in New York, but in an echo of Zelda Fitzgerald’s gibe that the Hemingway family always did what Ernest wanted, Hemingway made it plain she should not accept the job but join him in Paris. She turned the job down. He found a lawyer to deal with his divorce and proceedings were initiated by the first week of December.

In the weeks before Christmas Hemingway was made aware that Sherwood Anderson was visiting Paris, but he did not make contact for ten days when, unable to avoid a meeting, he and Anderson met for a drink on Christmas Eve. It was the first time they had seen each other after Hemingway’s novella The Torrents Of Spring lampooning Anderson had been published. Hemingway claims the meeting was a pleasant and friendly and they had several drinks together before parting amicably. Anderson tells a different story. He says the occasion was stilted, that Hemingway was very uncomfortable and soon depart once they had once quick drink together.

The following day, December 25, Hemingway left for Gastaad where he spent Christmas with Pfeiffer’s sister Jinny and Archibald and Ada MacLeish. Hadley and the Mowrers had travelled to Schruns, the Hemingway’s old haunt in Austria, and according to Reynolds this was when the transformation Hemingway was undergoing became more apparent: when in Schruns, he and Hadley had led an easy-going life and in the two months that they usually stayed Hemingway let his hair grow unchecked and acquired a beard.

Now in the more genteel and upper-class Gastaad he habitually wore a tweed suit (which Pfeiffer had bought him) and his facial hair was restricted to a neatly clipped moustache. The metamorphosis of Hemingway from semi-bohemian iconoclast into the respected author of was well underway. Five days after Christmas, Pfeiffer sailed from New York for Europe, and nine days later Hemingway travelled to Cherbourg to bring her Gastaad.

Towards the end of January the proceedings divorcing Hemingway from Hadley passed their first stage and they would not be finalised for another three months. Yet even once the divorce was complete, he and Pfeiffer still had to wait a few weeks before they could marry. Halfway through March Hemingway took a last bachelor trip, joining his journalist friend Guy Hickok on ten-day jaunt to and around fascist northern Italy. He and Pfeiffer were finally married on May 10.

. . . 


Pauline Pfeiffer’s wealthy but childless Uncle

Gus, who doted on his niece and whose 

generosity benefited Hemingway greatly: he

paid the rent on the couple’s Paris flat, bought

them a new Ford Roadster, paid for their house

in Key West, Florida, and its renovation and

footed the bills for their East African safari

Since returning from Gastaad, Pfeiffer and her sister had found and organised a new apartment for the couple, with — it’s tempting to say as usual — Pfeiffer’s doting uncle Gus picking up the many bills involved in entering the lease. (Throughout his marriage to Pfeiffer, again and again Hemingway benefited considerably from Uncle Gus’s generosity — when they arrived in Key West via Cuba on their way home to America, he had bought them a new Ford Roadster; when they decided to settle in Key West, he bought them the house they had their eye on; when Hemingway announced he wanted to go on safari to East Africa, Uncle Gus gave Ernest and Pauline $25,000 ($501,000 in 2020) to pay for the trip.)

Although their apartment was far bigger and nicer than the down-at-heel walk-up Hemingway and Hadley had lived in in rue Notre Dames des Champs, it was barely more expensive. But now, of course, Hemingway’s life had moved on and he no longer saw himself as a dedicated writer starving for his art in a garret: now he was an established and published author, a serious man of letters.

Yet although he was no longer ‘starving’ — and, in truth, had never starved despite the claims he later increasingly made — he was still not able to live off the money his writing earned him. He had signed over all royalties, current and future, from The Sun Also Rises to Hadley (a decision he later bitterly complained about) and although on the back of his success his short stories were selling, none was attracting anywhere near the fabulous sums his friend Scott Fitzgerald had been paid for his short fiction.

This was at the root of another irony: despite in many ways being different — Hadley was tall and matronly whereas Pfeiffer was short and petite — both the wife Hemingway had just discarded and the one he had just acquired, were not just several years older than him but both were the major source of his income. Though the Hemingway persona had now evolved, he was still not the writer earning his living from his work he had set out to be when, seven years earlier, he had landed in Paris. And as one of his better short stories, The Snows Of Kilimanjaro, made clear, it rankled that he was still obliged to live of his wife’s wealth.

Preface


EACH of these essays/entries is intended to stand alone, so there is a certain degree of duplication in them as it is unlikely they will be read in sequence or even that all will be read by a visitor to these pages. This is intentional: someone reading an essay/entry must not be puzzled by some allusion she or he might not understand because they have not read the other essays/entries.

 

You can find more background reading — reviews of Hemingway’s works, commentaries, other papers to which I refer as well as a list of quotations about Hemingway the writer and man here.




This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.
Maxwell Scott, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
(ironically a fictional character).

Why the life of this rich libertine and destroyer of wildlife should be of such great and continuing public interest a decade following his suicide, we cannot and need not say.
Judge Charles L Brieant Jr, Aug 3, 1979 in his judgment
against an appeal by Doubleday over a libel
suit brought by A E Hotchner.


I DON’T doubt that many reading what follows will react with disbelief and scorn, and some diehard Hemingway champions possibly even with horror. More than 50 years after his death, the name Ernest Hemingway is perhaps not as popularly known as once it was, but I suspect that most who hear it will still pronounce him to have been ‘a great writer’ or even ‘one of the 20th century’s greatest writers’, mainly, perhaps, because that’s what they were taught at school.

One does come across readers who think he was little more a boorish braggart and who regard his style as dull, flat and often banal. That they have probably not read much of his work is because what they had read did not encourage them to read much more of it. The novelist Vladimir Nabokov wrote off Hemingway as ‘a writer for boys’ and added that
I read [Hemingway] for the first time in the early ’forties, something about bells, balls, and bulls, and loathed it.
He did though concede that
Later I read his admirable The Killers and the wonderful fish story.
At the extreme was a comment by the American novelist and wit Gore Vidal, a man who loved to shock and delighted in taking a contrarian view. Talking about his home nation he asked
What other culture could have produced someone like Hemingway and not seen the joke?
Yet these were, and perhaps still are, decidedly minority views. In 1941 the Pulitzer Prize jurors unanimously wanted to honour Hemingway for his novel For Whom The Bell Tolls, and that he didn’t get the award was down to the lobbying by a very influential pro-Franco and ring-wing Pulitzer board member.

The jurors responded and made their feelings known by not awarding the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction to anyone else.

Twelve years later they were able to honour Hemingway and awarded him the Fiction prize for The Old Man And The Sea. Then, in 1954, came an even greater distinction when Hemingway was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature.

So who is ‘right’: the champions or the sceptics? Frankly, no one is – the excellence or otherwise of Hemingway’s writing and the greatness or otherwise of his literary status is a matter of opinion not fact.

In fairness it should be pointed out that there was – at least at first – a little more to Hemingway’s fiction. Yet in hindsight there was also less to his writing, and in time a great deal less, than his champions – and Hemingway himself – insist.

It would be a sweeping generalisation, but not untrue, to suggest that he began at the top and worked his way down. The print, broadcast and online media are often accused of working on the principle (advice given to his young journalists by a long-standing editor of the Economist, Geoffrey Crowther) of
first simplify, then exaggerate
and adopting it one might even suggest – no doubt to the outrage of many – that Hemingway’s literary success was something of a fluke.

In response, the champions might choose to repeat their mantra that ‘but Ernest Hemingway was a leading modernist and one of our/America’s/the English-speaking world’s greatest writers!’ Unfortunately, continual repetition doesn’t necessarily make it true. Yet having established their devotion, the devotees are will never, but never, allow themselves to be gainsaid: those who disagree either don’t ‘get’ Hemingway and are obviously philistine or quite possibly just being malicious. If only.

The reason this collection of essays is subtitled ‘How did a middling writing achieve such global literary fame?’ is simple: that is the enigma which has interested me ever since I came back to reading Hemingway’s work. I had previously — many years ago — read the early novels, Death In The Afternoon and many short stories, but to be frank I was not intellectually equipped to deal with any of them.

. . . 

As a young man at college, I had accepted without question — as did and do many others at that age when they first encounter ‘Hemingway’ — that he was ‘one of our greatest writers’. Thus if I did not ‘get’ him or was not as engaged and impressed by the work as I believed I should have been, it was necessarily and certainly my fault. This, too, might be true of others of that younger age.

Hemingway did have a certain gift, but it is — ironically, as many commentators and reviewers have pointed out — for descriptive writing, especially about nature. Discussing Across The River And Into The Trees which Hemingway published in 1950, the New York Times’ columnist and former books reviews editor J. Donald Adams writes
My own feeling about him has always been that he is one of the best descriptive writers in English, surpassed only by Kipling and a very few others; a master in the evocation of mood — most perfectly displayed in some of the short stories, and in certain situations of the novels. He is not, and never has been, a creator of character in the sense that novelists like Balzac and Tolstoy were, and has never come remotely near the understanding of human life and the values of which it is composed that are essential to great fiction.
Other commentators and reviewers also pointed out that — fatally one might think for a writer of fiction — he was not at all good at characterisation.

It often seems that Hemingway’s main gift, one which drove his career far more than any putative excellence in writing, were his remorseless and competitive ambition fuelled by a bombastic talent for self-promotion. His one real and main achievement was, as pointed out by the scholar Matthew J Brucolli, that
More than any other writer Hemingway influenced what American writers were able to write about and the words they used.
Over the millennia that men and women have been writing, there have been many turning points in literature — though as with many such changes they came and come in fits and starts — and as a young man publishing his first volume of short stories, Hemingway was the catalyst for one such change. The irony was that other writers took his techniques, attitude and subject matter and turned out rather more interesting work than he did.

Dare I even claim ‘better’ work? No, I dare not, but that is not because I might be strung up from the nearest lamppost by Hemingway champions. It’s because in many discussions, the words ‘good’ and ‘bad’ — and thus ‘better’ and ‘worse’ — are not just inappropriate but pretty damn useless. They tell us nothing.

Over the intervening years, my confidence has become more robust, and I am less inclined to accept wholesale and without question. I have also read more widely and, crucially, developed more sceptical instincts, largely, I suspect, because I once worked as a newspaper reporter and sub-editor [copy editor].

I have also come to appreciate the virtues of an ‘open mind’, and it is a quasi-theistic devotion to Hemingway and his work which has increasingly come to worry me. All too often articles about the man and his work in specialist publications and discussions in webinars strike a curious note of adulation, as though one were at a Britney Spears convention. A curious campfire cosiness permeates Hemingway far too many of the studies I have read.

These essays or monographs — call them what you will — began life as an entry intended for a blog. Several years ago and on a whim — and I can’t remember why I even thought about doing so — I had re-read Ernest Hemingway’s novel The Sun Also Rises.

When I had finished it, I was baffled that the blurb on the back of my paperback edition described it as ‘a masterpiece’ and Hemingway as ‘a writer of genius’. The novel and he, I thought, seemed to be anything but.

Certainly the novel isn’t bad, and it is entertaining enough; and, certainly, the two claims owe a great deal to publishers’ hyperbole, puffing up a product to ensure greater sales. But The Sun Also Rises is certainly no ‘masterpiece’ and struggles to justify the claims made for it as being in any way ‘profound’. 

To regard Hemingway as ‘a writer of genius’ is frankly ridiculous. And when an academic — Philip Young in his 1952 book Ernest Hemingway — describes him as ‘very likely the finest writer of American prose to come along since [Henry] Thoreau himself’, you wonder what is going on.

I am, however, aware that my scepticism of Hemingway’s alleged ‘genius’ is definitely a minority view: despite a decline in his reputation and popularity since his suicide in 1961, Hemingway is still spoken of by many as ‘a leading modernist writer’, ‘a stylistic innovator’ and, most dangerously for an apostate such as me, ‘one of the greatest American writers’.

Is it really likely that most of the world — many biographers, academics in their hundreds and notably the Nobel Prize committee which had awarded Hemingway the prize of literature in 1954 — were wrong in their evaluation of the man and his work, and that I was right?

Intrigued and not a little concerned that I was risking making a fool of myself, I began by scouring the net for the views and opinions of those who might share my minority view. Almost immediately I came across reviews of a book published in 2016 by the New York writer and journalist Lesley M. M. Blume called Everybody Behaves Badly, subtitled The True Story Behind Hemingway’s Masterpiece The Sun Also Rises.

It was a serendipitous find: well-researched, extensively annotated, well-written and — not at all least — very entertaining, Ms Blume’s book gave a full account of Hemingway’s early years in Paris in the 1920s and of the week-long trip to the San Fermin fiesta in Pamplona in 1925 upon which he based his novel. Pertinently it provided many details and more for my intended blog entry about The Sun Also Rises.

I was incidentally amused — and rather pleased — to learn that the German translation of Ms Blume’s book is entitled Und Alle Benehmen Sich Daneben: Wie Hemingway Seine Legende Erschuf. The main title translates, as one might expect, as Everybody Behaves Badly; but tellingly the subtitle in English translates as How Hemingway Created His Legend, an insight by the German publisher which reflects one of the conclusions I have come to. In fact, this book is essentially about the Hemingway
legend and how he actively created it.

Although Ms Blume refers to The Sun Also Rises as ‘Hemingway’s masterpiece’, I suspect that was her publisher’s choice of words, given that Ms Blume’s account of Hemingway and the genesis of his novel is rather less adulatory.

As I read Ms Blume’s book, I realised I had a problem. She referenced the several biographies of Hemingway and other books about the man, and I increasingly felt that to do justice to both my project and the writer, I was obliged to undertake more background reading. It also became obvious to me that when dealing with the phenomenon of ‘Ernest Hemingway’ a writer deemed worthy of a Nobel Prize, I should tread carefully. So knowing far more about the man and his work — including reading more of it — seemed not just necessary but a wise course to take.

The first biography of Hemingway was published in 1967, six years after Hemingway’s death. It was by Carlos Baker who had been appointed by Hemingway himself as his ‘official biographer’. Baker thus had the cooperation of Mary Welsh, the writer’s widow, although having Welsh on his side was a double-edged sword.

As Baker discovered in his research, Hemingway could be decidedly brutal, vindictive, cruel and thoroughly dishonest, but he had to tread carefully in his descriptions of the writer. Welsh was litigious and had already taken one writer, A.E. Hotchner, to court over his planned memoir of her husband (a suit she eventually lost). To ensure her continued help, he did not want to alienate her.

Baker’s volume was the definitive work for 18 years until Jeffrey Meyers published his biography in 1985. Two years later, in 1987, came the first volume of Michael Reynolds eventual five-volume work and Kenneth Lynn’s take on Hemingway, and in 1992 James Mellow published his biography.

By 1985 and later, 24 years after Hemingway’s suicide, his work was undergoing re-assessment, and in tone the more recent biographies were more critical of Hemingway, both of the man and his work, than Baker could afford to be. (Mary Welsh died in 1986 at the age of 78.) Most recently, in 2016, James Hutchisson has published what he calls ‘A New Life’, but in truth it is simply, like Anthony Burgess’s biography, a precis of, and a general romp through, what previous biographers had written.

Despite claims made in some reviews, Hutchisson does not seem to have undertaken any new or original research. Furthermore, though nicely produced, it contains, inexplicably, several outright howlers.

Two years later, Mary Dearborn published her biography, and although she might well have undertaken additional research, it does add much to what previous biographers had written (and on one or two matters contradicts them, though who is ‘right’ and who is ‘wrong’ is impossible to establish).

I did not bother reading A. E. Hotchner’s memoir which, I gather, was distinctly hagiographic and took as copper-bottomed ‘fact’ all the tall, often outrageous, stories Hemingway told about his life and experiences. Anthony Burgess’s take on Hemingway makes some interesting points, but in form, style and content it is more of a coffee-table book for which he also did no original research.

Then there’s a very curious volume by Richard Bradford, The Man Who Wasn’t There, published in 2019, which is notable for its outright hostility to Hemingway and, which might warn us, was extremely badly edited.

Bernice Kert’s The Hemingway Women was especially interesting, highlighting how much macho ol’ Ernie relied heavily on his wives, not just for emotional support, but in two cases also their money. Gioia Diliberto’s more recent work, Paris Without End, The True Story of Hemingway’s First Wife, provides an interesting picture of Hadley Richardson and corrects the often accepted view that she was essentially some kind of doormat who gave into her egocentric and domineering husband at every turn. Although Hadley is the main focus of her book, Diliberto also illuminates Hemingway’s character very well.

Very useful were Scott Donaldson’s The Paris Husband which covers much the same ground, as well as his book on the friendship between Hemingway and F. Scott Fitzgerald, Hemingway Vs Fitzgerald: The Rise And Fall Of A Literary Friendship. Then there are the comparatively short volumes on the writer and the man by Verna Kale, Linda Wagner-Martin, Peter Griffin and Charles A Fenton. The Second Flowering, Malcolm Cowley’s volume of essays, two of which are about Hemingway, provides useful considerations on what is referred to as ‘the lost generation’.

The more I read, I also realised that given the standing Hemingway had and for many still has in modern literature, I would have to do more than simply examine The Sun Also Rises and question why it was and still is hailed as ‘a masterpiece’. It seemed to me that the central conundrum was: just how and why did Hemingway, essentially a middling writer of some talent but no more than others, reach such extraordinary worldwide prominence?

On that question Leonard J. Leff’s — rather luridly titled — Hemingway And His Conspirators: Hollywood, Scribner’s and The Making Of American Celebrity Culture was especially interesting. It examines the growth of celebrity and pop culture in 1920s ‘jazz age’ America as well as developments in advertising and marketing, and how Ernest Hemingway and his literary career benefited. Also helpful in examining his rise to prominense was Fame Became Him by John Raeburn.

In the course of his career of roughly just under 40 years, Hemingway did not write a great deal — in fact, compared with his contemporary writers, surprisingly little. Despite the acclamation his early work met, by the mid-1930s, first with the publication of Death In The Afternoon (1932), The Green Hills Of Africa (1935) and then To Have And Have Not (1937) his reputation was beginning to tail off, and some critics were beginning to have their doubts about the Wunderkind of ten years earlier.

With the exception of For Whom The Bell Tolls (1940), which became a bestseller, not least because in the US it was chosen as a Book Of The Month, and 12 years later The Old Man And The Sea, another commercial success and was published in its entirety by Life magazine, Hemingway’s scant work from the 1930 on was regarded as not very good at all.

As my project took shape it’s focus changed: it was no longer to examine why The Sun Also Rises was and still is spoken of as ‘a masterpiece’ and, on the strength of it, Hemingway was and is hailed as ‘a genius’.

One essay considers, on the back of Virginia Woolf’s pithy remarks about critics (as part of her review of Men Without Women, Hemingway’s second volume of short stories), whether objective judgment of a piece of writing is even possible. Another looks at Hemingway’s writing ‘style’, his ‘iceberg theory’ of writing and why, exactly, it is celebrated and regarded — not least by Hemingway — as an
‘innovation’. A third considers the commercial background and imperatives which helped to ensure Hemingway’s ‘first’ novel became success.

I also wonder why Hemingway is still touted as ‘a modernist’ writer Then there is why and how the myth took hold that The Sun Also Rises portrayed the despair of a ‘lost generation’. Central to it all was I considering the force of Hemingway’s personality on his rise to fame.

My project concludes with short accounts of Hemingway’s life, culled from the various biographies of the man. They mainly recount his early years in Paris and in the 1930s when his he began to play the part of the celebrated ‘Papa’ Hemingway, the hard-drinking, hard-living, action man writer.

Incidentally, Hemingway awarded himself the sobriquet ‘Papa’ and by the mid-1920s he encouraged everyone to address him with the name. No one knows quite where it came from and why he chose it.

When considering Hemingway the ‘literary genius’ and his worldwide fame, it might be worth noting the following observations. Both are pertinent to how he achieved the status of ‘one of America’s greatest writers.

The first is by Mario Menocal Jr, the son of one of Hemingway’s Cuban friends, writing in a letter to biographer Jeffrey Meyers. In view of what he says, it is worth noting that he and Hemingway did not fall out as Hemingway did with many of his friends, and his comment is not intended to be hostile:
No one was more conscious than Ernest of the figure and image he possessed in the minds of the American press and reading public. He felt (I am sure) that this was an important matter to him in terms of dollars and cents in book sales or fees for articles. He deliberately set out to keep the legend and image alive in the form he wanted it.’
Then there is the comment by Michael Reynolds made in Hemingway: The Paris Years, the second volume of his five-volume biography:
Early in his career, Hemingway began revising and editing what would become his longest and most well-known work: the legend of his own life, where there was never a clear line between fiction and reality.
I have not undertaken any original research, and the nature of these essays that would seem to make it superfluous. In fact, I suspect that apart from the major biographers, neither have any of the academics and critics who have added their two ha’porth worth. In fact, it is astonishing how much they all echo each other and accept as established fact much about Hemingway and his writing which is certainly contentious. All the views expressed here are my own.

Post settings Labels ernest hemingway modernist famous greatest writer for whom the bell tolls a farewell to arms sun also rises novelist nobel prize old man sea book of the month self-promotion, No matching suggestions Published on 22/11/2020 13:57 Permalink Location Search description Options Custom robot tags Post: EditChanges saved

Various commentaries, papers, interviews, dissertations and reviews on Hemingway and his work alluded to in these pages



I have quoted from and alluded to several commentaries, profiles, features, book reviews, dissertations, interviews and other papers in these pages. If any reader wants to find out more, they can follow these links:


W. J. Stuckey on The Sun Also Rises refuting Philip Young’s




Italy, 1927, New Republic account of March 1927 trip with Guy Hickock