The writer, the journalist, the insider, the expert

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.


In 1923, under the energetic leadership of [Harry C] Hindmarsh’s father-in-law, the late Joseph E Atkinson, the Star was emerging as the colossus of Canadian journalism. Sensational headlines, red type, comic strips, eyewitness and flamboyant reportage, basic English and many photographs were the fundamental tools. In the bible-belt atmosphere of southern Ontario the Star’s management also uncovered in religion an appeal which Hearst, for example, although he frequently attempted it, was never able to exploit fully in the United States. Atkinson’s nickname in the trade an indication of the pious hypocrisy his contemporaries felt they detected in the contradictory components of his papers. They called him Holy Joe.’
Charles A Fenton, The Apprenticeship

Of Ernest Hemingway: The Early Years.

There wasn’t room in his head for cops and robbers, a six-day week, and serious writing. Even to his journalism he brought standards that were personally exacting. ‘Don’t talk about it before you write it,’ he warned Mary Lowry once, as they walked back to the Star after a provocative interview with the survivors of a Japanese earthquake. ‘You mustn’t talk about it,’ Hemingway insisted. ‘You’ll spoil it.’
Charles A Fenton, The Apprenticeship

Of Ernest Hemingway: The Early Years.
Prose is architecture, not interior decoration, and the Baroque is over.
Ernest Hemingway.

LIKE many writers, Hemingway began working with words as a journalist, and many young journalists shared and share his ambition to ‘become a writer’. Some make it, many do not. Although he later insisted that his journalism was ruining his writing and ended his first stint of working as a journalist when he returned to Paris in January 1924, he resumed journalism in the early 1930s when he was invited to contribute ‘Letters’ on any topic he chose for the then new magazine Esquire and carried on turning out pieces for magazines intermittently for the next 15 years.

Despite his advice to young writers to give up journalism because it would ruin their writing, a great many writers have pursued a career as both a writer and a journalist with neither ruining the other. It doesn’t help, of course, that the notions of ‘journalism’ and ‘journalist’ are hopelessly vague. A copy editor (‘sub-editor’ in Britain and some parts of the English-speaking world) trimming copy and writing headlines and captions for an angling magazine is as much ‘a journalist’ as the hard news man or woman reporting from a war zone or sniffing out skullduggery in high places,.

When Hemingway decided to ‘become a writer’ is not recorded, but by his late teenage years and especially after he returned from Italy in 1918, he was writing stories and submitting them to magazines. His biographers say the works were wholly conventional and imitative of his favourite authors, and none demonstrated any unusual gift. His literary ambitions were and are certainly not unusual among men and women in their late teens and early 20s, although most fall by the wayside. Cyril Connolly observed that
There is no more sombre enemy of good art than the pram in the hall
but he might well have said the same thing about early ambitions. That Hemingway was later able to ignore that pram in the hall and persevere with his writing after the birth of his first child, John, in October 1923, was down his then wife Hadley’s staunch support — and her trust fund income — as much as his ruthless single-mindedness and a marked self-centredness.

. . .

Hemingway’s progress as a writer, from turning out the juvenilia he submitted to the Saturday Evening Post and other magazines to the triumph of his first published works a few years later has been detailed by the former Duke University English professor, Charles A Fenton.

In his book The Apprenticeship Of Ernest Hemingway, Fenton outlines Hemingway’s development as a writer, from his first acquaintance with English literature at Oak Park High and the stories he wrote for class, to his, albeit short, training as a reporter on the Kansas City Star and his association with the Toronto Star Weekly and its sister morning paper, the Toronto Star.

In the course of his research, Fenton remained undeterred by Hemingway’s warnings, issued when ‘Papa’ got wind of the project in 1950, not to approach his family and those who had known him for information. Hemingway’s attitude was, though, like much in his personality, ambiguous. We are obliged to accept his continued insistence that he did not want his biography written and that the only important thing about a writer is the work he produced.

Yet his claim in several letters to Fenton demanding that he abandon his research because it was ‘an invasion of privacy’ is odd. James Mellow tellingly points out in his biography that even while Hemingway said he did not want any kind of biographical work written about him, he was already passing on ‘facts’ about his early life. Mellow comments
When Fenton also began querying his sister Marceline and his outlawed sister Carol (she had married he college boyfriend John Garner in 1933, against Hemingway’s wishes and he vowed never to see her again), Hemingway gave him a ‘cease and desist’ order . . . The correspondence developed into angry exchanges. Yet, with each angry response, Hemingway, by way of correcting errors, also began feeding out more tempting bait . . . it was to Fenton that he gratuitously offered the dubious information that he had had to get the hell out of Petoskey because of troubles with four or five girls.
Some of his later biographers list by name the three or four girls Hemingway dallied with in northern Michigan, but none reports what would have been the interesting ‘fact’ that, presumably as some kind of local Don Juan, Hemingway was forced to skip town.

It is more likely that despite ostensibly ‘correcting’ factual errors, Hemingway was again trying to contribute to the legend he had created for himself, this time stressing that he had been a womaniser even at an early age. Hemingway’s apparent reluctance to have his life examined is also somewhat contradicted by his continual self-promotion over the previous 20 years, described by John Raeburn in his book Fame Became Him, in his journalism for Esquire and other magazines.

. . .

In tracing Hemingway’s development as a writer, Fenton interviewed a great many from his early life. He spoke to Oak Park High friends, contemporaries and staff, fellow reporters and executives at the Kansas City Star who had worked there in 1917 and 1918, to executives and colleagues on the Toronto Star and Star Weekly and friends, and to acquaintances and fellow journalists in Paris.

Fenton tells us, unremarkably given the overall tone of his account, that many were even then sure the young man would go on to achieve great things, and certainly by the late 1940s and early 1950s it was natural for Fenton and others to treat Hemingway as ‘a great writer’.

Yet this almost universal intuition of 30 years earlier about the young man’s future — reported, notably, once he was famous — highlights a central criticism of Fenton’s book: it often reads rather too much like those ‘lives of the saints’ written for young children in which as a youngster the saint in question is preternaturally virtuous and an eventual canonisation is seen as inevitable.

Fenton is also sometimes at odds with later biographers on some of the facts of Hemingway’s life, although it is now almost impossible to discover whether he or the later biographers — whose accounts also often vary — were at fault.

As evidence of Hemingway’s literary gift, Fenton cites that the stories Hemingway produced for his Oak Park High English classes were read out as examples for his classmates to emulate, and that he was active on both The Tabula, the school’s literary magazine, and edited The Trapeze, its newspaper. It would be instructive to know who else was asked to read out their classwork and who else worked on The Tabula and at the time served as one of — the six — Trapeze editors.

Later, once Hemingway had arrived in Kansas City in October 1917 to train as a reporter on the Star, he was said to have been enthusiastic, eager to learn, volunteered for extra duties and to have talked incessantly about journalism and writing; but assuming working for a newspaper has been a long-held


ambition for a 17-year-old ‘breaking into journalism’ — it’s odd how no one seems to ‘break into banking’ or to ‘break into teaching’ — which of them isn’t eager and enthusiastic? And given that reputedly many journalists are said to harbour ambitions to ‘become a writer’ (and many succeed), Hemingway and his ambition were not unusual.

When he joined the Kansas City Star, Hemingway was, like all cub reporters, given a copy of the paper’s style sheet, which outlined all the rules the paper wanted its news staff to observe. It began
Use short sentences. Use short first paragraphs. Use vigorous English
and Hemingway later declared they were the
best rules I ever learned for the business of writing.
Certainly in his first two volumes of short stories and his first two novels (published between 1925 and 1929) Hemingway observed those rules strictly, and in one review of In Our Time, his first volume, they earned him the plaudits that his language is fibrous and athletic, colloquial and fresh, hard and clean
and that
his very prose seems to have an organic being of its own.
A year later the New York Times review of The Sun Also Rises proclaimed that the novel had been written in
lean, hard and athletic narrative prose that puts more literary English to shame
(though quite why ‘more literary’ English should feel shamed is not clear). The Kansas City Star was itself also impressed by his first novel and observed in its review that their former cub reporter wrote
with a swinging, effortless precision that puts him in the first flight of American stylists.
Oddly, though, Hemingway seems to have forgotten those Kansas City Star strictures entirely when just seven years after his first volume of short stories appeared and six years after his first novel was published he produced Death In The Afternoon, his guidebook to bullfighting and, ironically, writing. In a review in September 1932 of Death In The Afternoon the New York Times observed that
In this book Mr. Hemingway is guilty of the grievous sin of writing sentences which have to be read two or three times before the meaning is clear. He enters, indeed, into a stylistic phase which corresponds, for his method, to the later stages of Henry James.
It got no better when three years later he published Green Hills Of Africa, his account of his East Africa safari and, again ironically, his considered dicta on literature and writing. In 1939, the critic Edmund Wilson, who a decade earlier had been a staunch Hemingway champion but who had since revised his views with each new book the writer published, said
[Hemingway] has produced what must be one of the only books ever written which make Africa and it’s animals seem dull. Almost the only thing we learned about the animals is that Hemingway wants to kill them. And as for the natives . . . the principal impression we get of them is that they were simple and inferior people who enormously admired Hemingway.
As Hemingway would — or should — have known, ‘being dull’ is a cardinal sin in journalism. As for the prose in Green Hills Of Africa, Hemingway also comprehensively ignored those sacred Kansas City style sheet rules, and Edmund Wilson also records that in the book
He delivers a self-confident lecture on the high possibilities of prose writing, with the implication that he himself, Hemingway, has realized or hopes to realise these possibilities; and then writes what are certainly, from the point of view of prose, the very worst pages of his life. There is one passage which is hardly even intelligible — the most serious possible fault for a writer who is always insisting on the supreme importance of lucidity.
In a contemporary review of Green Hills Of Africa for the Saturday Review of Literature, Bernard de Voto also concerns himself with the lack of lucidity in Hemingway’s prose and writes
The prize sentence in the book runs [to] forty-six lines. The one I should like to quote as typical . . . though less than half that long, is still too long, and a comparatively straightforward one must serve. ‘Going downhill steeply made these Spanish shooting boots short in the toe and there was an old argument, about this length of boot and whether the boot-maker, whose part I had taken, unwittingly, first, only as interpreter, and finally embraced his theory patriotically as a whole and, I believed, by logic, had overcome it by adding onto the heel.’ This is simpler than most, but it shows the new phase . . . But, however earnest the intention, the result is a kind of etymological gas that is just bad writing.
One obvious question is: did Hemingway not re-read what he had written? If not, why not? In 1936 in one of his Esquire ‘Letters’ he advised would-be writers
The best way is to read [what you have previously written] all every day from the start, correcting as you go along, then go on from where you stopped the day before. When it gets so long that you can’t do this every day read back two or three chapters each day; then each week read it all from the start. That’s how you make it all of one piece.
Had he re-read the passage quoted by de Voto, he would certainly have realised it was in dire need of re-writing and re-phrasing. All-in-all Hemingway seems also to have forgotten his own dictum that
Prose is architecture, not interior decoration, and the Baroque is over.
. . .

At the end of April 1918, Hemingway left the Star after just seven months for service in Italy as a Red Cross ambulance driver. He was almost killed the following July (after just four weeks in Italy) and spent the next five months in hospital, and his experiences produced much potential material for several short stories and notably his novel A Farewell To Arms.

He was back in the US by mid-January, and after spending the summer with his family at their holiday cottage on Lake Walloon in northern Michigan, he remained in the area when the cottage was shut for the season. It seems he then began writing in earnest. He rented a room in nearby Petoskey and spent his time on his typewriter producing more fiction to try to sell to magazines (and, according to his ‘revelation’ to Fenton, getting local girls into trouble).

By the beginning of 1920 (not, as Fenton reports, by the end of 1919) he was in Toronto to spend a month with the family of a wealthy businessman as the companion and mentor of a disabled son and was invited to extend his stay.

It was through the businessman that he made contact with the Toronto Star Weekly whose editor, Herbert Cranston, agreed to consider for publication any features he produced. Yet the Toronto Star and the Star Weekly, and the Kansas City Star were like chalk and cheese. Fenton writes:
In Kansas City Hemingway had worked under conscientious editors who took with the greatest seriousness their responsibilities to the profession in general and to young reporters in particular. . . Hemingway had been indoctrinated in the necessities of accuracy, in the obligations of vigorous prose, and the requirements of forceful narrative. It had been a school with high, harsh standards, rigidly enforced. Few such standards existed on either of the Toronto papers owned by the late Joseph E Atkinson . . . The Star Weekly was in particular dedicated largely to the indiscriminate entertainment of its subscribers.
The Star’s imperative of entertaining rather than informing its readers was reflected in the paper’s layout and visual impact. Fenton adds that
Sensational headlines, red type, comic strips, eyewitness and flamboyant reportage, basic English and many photographs were [its] fundamental tools.
The Star needed a lot of copy week-in, week-out and, says Fenton
More important, from Hemingway’s point of view, the Star Weekly emphasised feature material on a virtually limitless range of topics . . . and bought most of its material, in 1920, from freelance writers.
Any and all writing, irrespective of its purpose, which demands a certain discipline is good training for a would-be writer, whether he or she hopes eventually to produce high art, low art or even, as Hemingway boasted of The Sun Also Rises, something in between.

It increases a familiarity with words, their varied use, their sound, meanings and ‘import’. So whether Hemingway was writing short, accurate and succinct news reports for the Kansas City Star or fluffy and disposable colour copy for the Start was neither here nor there: he was writing.

None Hemingway’s Kansas City Star output seems to have survived — why would two-paragraph stories on local street accidents or such be preserved? But some of the short colour pieces Hemingway produced in Toronto (and later in Paris) for the Star Weekly have been and can be read on a Toronto Star website dedicated to the paper’s connection with the writer. Fenton’s analysis of this work is thorough and honest: he admits that although some of the pieces Hemingway produced were quite good, much else was workaday.

The last, though, should not necessarily be regarded as criticism: Hemingway was not paid by the Star to produce literature, but to help turn out the reams of copy it needed to fill the pages of the morning paper and its weekly stablemate.

Those short pieces demonstrate that Hemingway had a neat turn of phrase, a colourful style and an easy gift for producing such fluff, though such a facility is not unusual among working journalists. What also stands out is a certain sardonic take Hemingway had on most things, although that, too, is not unusual in a young man in his late teens.

. . .

By the summer Hemingway was back with his family at the Walloon Lake cottage, arguing with his parents a great deal and doing little except fishing with a friend from the Kansas City Star who had also served with the Red Cross and who was staying. They ignored his mother’s requests to do small chores around that house, and finally his mother kicked them out.

Hemingway moved into Chicago where he found more writing work, this time producing and editing copy for a monthly newspaper called the Cooperative Commonwealth (intended purely to drum up subscribers to a scam outfit called the Cooperative Society of America run by a crook called Harrison Parker). Hemingway, who later claimed he was the paper’s ‘managing editor’, was worked hard work, but yet again the discipline of churning out copy by the yard was good training.

He lodged with the brother of friends from northern Michigan, a man who worked in advertising and who introduced him to a former colleague, the writer Sherwood Anderson. Anderson, then riding high in literary circles, liked the fiction Hemingway showed him, and when Hemingway told him he and his soon-to-be wife Hadley Richardson were planning on moving to Naples where he would write, Anderson persuaded him instead to move to Paris and promised to supply him with letters of introduction to Gertrude Stein and Ezra Pound. It is not recorded whether or not at the time Hemingway knew who Stein and Pound were.

Hemingway and Hadley married in September 1921, and by late-December were in Paris, where within days Hemingway was filing copy to the Star: his first impressions of Europe (he and Hadley had travelled to Paris via Spain), the life of a freelance, his impressions of the ‘bohemian’ Montparnasse where he and Hadley settled (whose cafes, he told the Star Weekly’s Ontario readers, were filled with men and women posing as ‘artists’, whereas true artists like himself simply got on with it) and café life. It was the kind of timeless, inconsequential colour copy the Star Weekly wanted.

. . .

When Hemingway is spoken of, almost in awe and certainly with respect, as ‘the youngest foreign correspondent in Paris at the time’, it is useful to bear in mind that he was not working as a hard news reporter. His arrangement with the Star Weekly (and, in time, with the daily Star) was on the same freelance basis as it had been in Toronto.

In Paris he was ‘a stringer’, a journalist on call and only paid if what he supplied was published. Even when, come April 1922, the Star asked him to attend the Genoa economic conference (and much later in the year the Lausanne peace conference), they wanted their usual colour pieces not news reports. These they obtained from the wire services.

In fact, his trip to Constantinople, Smyrna and Thrace in the autumn of 1922 to provide more colour pieces had been at his own suggestion. It was the excitement of the war he craved (though working trips away from Paris also paid better freelance rates, as well as $75 in expenses).

Hemingway was a gregarious man and was soon socialising with other Paris-based journalists from whom he picked up a great deal, not least snippets of political analysis which he was able to use in the pieces he filed for the Star. One useful journalistic talent he mastered and employed in those pieces was to appear well-informed. The role of ‘the insider’, of the man ‘who knows’, the man who had (in his own phrase) ‘the gen’ was one he espoused with enthusiasm.

A few years later he developed this skill for the ‘Letters’ he wrote for Arnold Gingrich’s then new magazine Esquire, and very soon became ‘an expert’ — and was swiftly accepted as such by his readers — in all kinds of areas: fishing, hunting, wine, fine dining and where to eat, etiquette, travelling, art and, of course, writing — it was a persona that, as John Raeburn demonstrates in Fame Became Him, contributed greatly to the ‘public Ernest Hemingway’.

. . .

In parallel to his life as a freelance journalist in Paris, Hemingway had followed up two of the letters of introduction Sherwood Anderson had supplied and contacted Gertrude Stein and Ezra Pound. He showed them the fiction he had so far written, and both took it on themselves to help him develop a modernist style.

This, as far as Hemingway was concerned, was the kind of writing he wanted to produce. Unfortunately, almost all of that work and anything he had produced before and since arriving in Paris was lost when a small valise his wife has using was stolen from a train in the Gare de Lyon. Just two stories, which were not in the valise, survived.

In those 22 months in Paris, the Star asked Hemingway to go on several trips for them to produce copy, but his heart was not in journalism which he was convinced was ruining his writing, and he turned down some of them (which would have been impossible had he been on staff).

When Hadley discovered she was pregnant, however, and Hemingway faced the prospect of providing for a family, he finally took up the daily Star’s offer of a staff job in Toronto, and he and his wife sailed to Canada in September 1923.

Hemingway was worked hard in Toronto and got none of his own writing done. Harry C Hindmarsh, the deputy managing editor, who happened to be married to the daughter of the Star group’s owner, Joseph Atkinson, (both pictured left) thought him to be a cocky show-off.

Most recent biographers state that Hemingway did overdo the ‘veteran’ journalist who had ‘covered war’ and who was to boot ‘a published author’ — because of his two slim volumes of poetry and short stories that had been privately published earlier in the year — and Hindmarsh set about taking Hemingway down a peg or two.

It didn’t help that Hindmarsh was also at odds with his immediate boss, the managing editor John Bone who had taken Hemingway on full-time as a news reporter. Within weeks Hemingway had fallen out with Hindmarsh and was de facto demoted to working full-time on the weekly Star where he was back to turning out the fluffy inconsequential colour pieces it needed.

By Christmas he had had enough and handed in his resignation, and that was the end of his association with the Star papers and regular journalism. Before the end of January he, Hadley and their newborn son, John, were back in Paris where Hemingway intended to dedicate himself to writing full-time.

. . .

Now without an income of his own from Star freelance work, Hemingway, Hadley and their young son had to exist on the money Hadley’s trust fund paid out. Money was tighter than it was before the brief sojourn in Toronto, but Hemingway did not look for paid employment. He did work part-time on Ford Madox Ford’s short-lived literary magazine transatlantic review (the title was all in lower case) and Ernest Walsh’s This Quarter, but it was not paid work. But at least he could now dedicate himself to writing fiction with no distractions.

In Paris, Hemingway was continually assuring friends how hard he was engaged on ‘difficult’ work and was writing every day whenever possible, whether in cafes, at home or in a garret room he later claimed
he had rented nearby. But a frank assessment of how much he produced in 21 months — between the beginning of December 1922 when the valise was stolen until October 1924 when he dispatched the manuscript for his first commercially produced book, In Our Time, to his New York publisher, Boni & Liveright — indicates it was not a great deal.

The manuscript included the three stories and the 18 very brief vignettes (which he called chapters) from his first two privately published works and 13 new stories. Of these new stories, the two-part story Big Two-Hearted River, at just over 8,000 words, was by far the longest in the collection. The others, at between 500 and 2,500 words were shorter.

In Our Time attracted attention and impressed many in literary circles, not least because of its startlingly different subject matter and style, but it did not sell well. It had an initial print run of just 1,300 copies, and Hemingway (who thought he knew best about on most matters, in this case publishing) told Boni & Liveright they should have printed at least 20,000 copies and claimed that the poor sales were down to inadequate advertising by the publisher. But at least Hemingway could now claim to be a professional writer.

His life as working journalist was over and his life as ‘writer’ was now beginning. Although several years later he contributed his ‘Letters’ to Gingrich’s Esquire, he was by then not a hack hired to supply reams of inconsequential copy, but an established and increasingly famous author whose thoughts and opinions might interest readers. There was a world of difference.

Hemingway and ‘the truth’, a ‘truly’ odd relationship

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.




Hemingway always embroidered the events of his life. His exaggerations, lies and heroic image were related to the traditions and myths of frontier humor that had inspired his youthful works. But he not only helped to create myths about himself, he also seemed to believe them. . . Given his predisposition to mythomania, his reluctance to disappoint either his own expectations or those of his audience, and the difficulty of refuting and verifying certain facts of his life, he felt virtually forced to invent an imaginative alternative to commonplace reality.
Jeffery Meyers, Hemingway: A Biography, 1985.

. . . a writer should be of as great probity and honesty as a priest of God. He is either honest or not, as a woman is either chaste or not, and after one piece of dishonest writing he is never the same again.
Ernest Hemingway, introduction to Men At War. 

Good writing is true writing. If a man is making a story up it will be true in proportion to the amount of knowledge of life that he has and how conscientious he is; so that when he makes something up it is as it would truly be.
Ernest Hemingway, Monologue To
The Maestro, Esquire, October 1835.

The manner in which a man lies, and what he lies about — these things and the form of his lies — are the main things to investigate in a poet's life and work.
Poet, essayist and author James Dickey. 


ANYONE familiar with Hemingway will also be familiar with what seem to be his favourite words — ‘true’ and ‘truly’. Advising on writing, he insists that to get started on piece of fiction

all you have to do is write one true sentence. Write the truest sentence that you know.

But what at first blush seems to be a craftsman’s sage advice, becomes ever less clear and ever less useful when you drill down a little. What is ‘a true sentence’? And what might ‘the truest sentence you know’ be? You think you understand what is being said, but there again . . .

The words ‘true’ and ‘truly’ as well as ‘fine’ and ‘good’, crop up time and again in Hemingway’s writing and letters, and are intricate to the image of the honest craftsman, the no-nonsense and experienced man-of-the-world Hemingway wanted the world to see and as, no doubt, he saw himself. But anyone writing about him — quite apart from trying to evaluate his work — sooner or later faces the very real problem of just what to believe. Just how credible — just how ‘true’ — were many of the hitherto accepted ‘facts’ of his life for which he himself was often the sole source. And given that a great many were not and that most of the falsehoods were perpetuated by Hemingway himself, how did the man who insisted that
. . . a writer should be of as great probity and honesty as a priest of God. He is either honest or not, as a woman is either chaste or not, and after one piece of dishonest writing he is never the same again
reconcile his ostensible beliefs with his lifelong habit of telling extremely tall stories about himself Hemingway champions might, of course, argue that we are dealing with different kinds of ‘truths’, and that the ‘truth’ Hemingway is describing in his dicta on writing is ‘artistic truth’.

That, of course, does little but divert the matter onto a different path: what is ‘artistic truth’ and can we be sure that what I understand by ‘artistic truth’ is what you understand? And, I suggest, once we start dealing in such arcania, the danger of tripping and falling into talking nothing but hi-falutin’ nonsense grows ever greater.

. . .

The degree of veracity of the facts of his life that Hemingway passed on might be gauged by his claim that he and his first wife Hadley lived in poverty in Paris and that once he had given up his freelance work for the Toronto Star to write full-time, he was often reduced to catching pigeons in a nearby park for their

Harold Loeb


supper. This might just be true, of course, but it is far more likely to be just another piece of Hemingway myth-making, another pillar to support the Hemingway legend. As Harold Loeb — Robert Cohn of The Sun Also Rises — points out in his essay Hemingway’s Bitterness (Connecticut Review, 1967):
Actually, Hemingway was not as poor, in my opinion, as he makes himself out to be in A Moveable Feast. . . For Hem in those days did not stint himself except in the matter of clothes. On one occasion he bought and paid for a Miro, and on many others we drank Pouilly Fuisse and ate oysters, Portugaises when we felt poor, Marennes when we were flush. Hem always paid for his share or tried to. Pouilly Fuisse is a costly wine and French oysters even then were more expensive than their American counterparts.
In fairness it should be pointed out that Loeb, who was made to look very silly in The Sun Also Rises, was, 40 years on after the novel appeared, still bitter about its portrayal of him when he wrote his essay (which might well have been called Loeb’s Bitterness); and Hemingway paid for the Miro in instalments, though again the matter is not quite straightforward.

He ostensibly bought the painting, The Farm, as a birthday present for his wife Hadley, but when they split, he somehow managed to keep it in his possession. When many years later she eventually asked him to return it, he simply refused, and the painting remained prominently displayed at his Finca Vigia home on the outskirts of Havana in Cuba.

As for being Hemingway being reduced to catching pigeons for his and Hadley’s supper, Loeb observes
I do not know why Hemingway told [early biographer and friend A. E. Hotchner] he was so poor that he often fed the family on pigeons captured in the park. I don’t know why Hotchner relates the story as if it were true. With corn or bread for bait and tremendous patience, it might be possible now and again to grab and hold a city pigeon. But then to wring its neck and kill it in the Luxembourg Gardens with hundreds of people walking around, and to do this repeatedly without being noticed seems to me quite incredible.
In fact, during his first stint in Paris, from December 1921 until September 1923, when he was still selling stories to the Star and being paid quite well for the freelance pieces he submitted (contrary to the assumption of many, he was not on staff in Paris), the bulk of the household income came from a trust fund Hadley benefited from that was worth around $3,500 to $4,000 a year.

Taking inflation into account, that sum would (in 2020) be roughly the equivalent of between $54,000 and $62,000 (£41,500 and £47,000), more than enough for a newly-married, childless couple to live on very comfortably. In fact, it is by no means unlikely that when Ernest, an ambitious would-be writer in his early 20s, and Hadley, almost nine years older, decided to marry and move to Europe, it was the prospect of having a reliable and regular income from her trust fund which will have made their plans feasible.

The young couple had initially intended to move to Naples and only changed their minds when the novelist Sherwood Anderson persuaded them that Paris was where artistically it was all happening. A considerable bonus was that the post-World War I exchange rate made the franc very cheap indeed for those with dollars to buy them, further boosting the purchasing power of Hadley’s trust fund income substantially.

The dollar/franc exchange rate was so favourable for Americans (and British) that throughout the 1920s thousands increasingly went to live in Paris, their savings going a great deal further than they would back home. The richer expatriates lived in the more affluent Right Bank districts, but those with artistic pretensions opted for the ‘artistic’ Left Bank where they hung out in cafes and could pose as bohemians. So much for Hemingway ‘living in poverty’.

That the Hemingways — or rather Hemingway, as he called all the shots — chose to live in a rundown apartment with no indoor toilet when they first lived in Paris puzzled their friends, who knew they certainly had the resources to pay for better accommodation.

When they returned from Toronto in January 1924 for a second sojourn in Paris, they moved into a similarly down-at-heel apartment (above an active and noisy sawmill), and choosing to live in such near squalid conditions again was especially odd now that they had a three-month-old son, John (called Bumby). Yet money was tighter when they returned to Paris.

Hemingway had by then severed his ties with the Star, so their sole income was from Hadley’s trust fund, and money was occasionally short if her quarterly trust fund cheque was late; yet there was always someone from whom to cadge a few thousand francs.

Notably, even after they returned from Toronto the Hemingways always had enough money to eat out regularly and to pay for extended trips away from Paris to Italy and Austria, although these trips were partly subsidised by sub-letting their apartment and, again because of the exchange rate, living in a small hotel in Schruns when off skiing in Austria, was even cheaper than in France. They were also able to afford a nanny for John, a Breton woman who was also their cook and housekeeper, and took care of the boy when they went on vacation.

. . .

Hemingway’s practice of inventing facts about his past made the task facing his biographers more difficult. At first, Philip Young and particularly A. E. Hotchner, who came to fulfil the role of Hemingway’s amanuensis and general dogsbody, accepted at face value what the writer told them, questioned none of it and repeated it all as fact.

In his somewhat adoring book The Art Of Ernest Hemingway, the British writer John Atkins even repeats the ‘facts’ that while living in Oak Park Hemingway twice ran away from home and that in World War II Hemingway had performed valuable war work for the US navy off the coast of Cuba hunting down German submarines. In fact, he never ran away from home.

Although he did somehow persuade the US ambassador in Havana, Spruille Braden, of the viability of his ‘submarine hunting’ scheme — luring German U-boots to the surface, then disabling and destroying them by lobbing hand grenades downs their conning towers, it is now accepted that Hemingway’s ‘submarine-hunting’ was partly just a ruse to obtain rationed diesel so that he could carry on fishing in the Gulf. Before publishing his book in 1952, Atkins submitted the manuscript to Hemingway and, unsurprisingly, it gained his imprimatur.

When Carlos Baker was hired as Hemingway’s ‘official’ biographer in 1962 and began investigating the writer’s life, he found many inconsistencies in Hemingway’s accounts, and Baker was certainly not as uncritical as Young, Hotchner and Atkins.

Baker was, though, keen to keep Hemingway’s widow Mary Welsh Hemingway onside as he needed her cooperation, and so he was obliged to tread cautiously. Welsh regarded herself as the keeper of the flame, and in 1966 she had even taken Hotchner to court after he had revealed in his book Papa Hemingway: A Personal Memoir that the writer’s death had been suicide and not, as Welsh insisted, an accident which occurred while her husband was cleaning a gun. (Welsh lost her suit, the judgment went to appeal and she lost again.)

Baker spent seven years researching and writing his biography, and finally published it in 1969. More biographies began to appear in the mid-1980s — Mary Welsh died in 1986 at the age of 78 — and their authors were far more sceptical.

Hemingway’s work was by now undergoing re-assessment, and in tone the more recent biographies were more critical than Baker could afford to be, both of the man and his work. Jeffrey Meyers published in 1985, the first volume of Michael Reynolds eventual five-volume work and Kenneth S Lynn’s take on Hemingway appeared in 1987, and in 1992 James Mellow published his biography of Hemingway. None chose to take on trust Hemingway’s many claims.

Michael Reynolds, for example, made a point (he informs us in his introduction to his second volume, Hemingway: The Paris Years) of not including any of the accepted ‘facts’ about Hemingway that he could not himself verify.

One example he gives is Hemingway’s oft-repeated claim that he had rented a garret room in which to write in a hotel in the rue Descartes (in which, Hemingway claimed, the poet Verlaine had died). Hemingway might well have rented the room, says Reynolds, but he could find not a single piece of independent verification for the claim and concludes it was possibly just another piece of Hemingway’s perpetual legend-building.

If Hemingway did rent that room, it would have been during his first Paris sojourn, because that claim is hard to reconcile with his own account that he stayed in bed to write or that he composed his stories in cafes where he had to nurse one cup of coffee for hours (and where he resented the attention of friends and acquaintances who approached him — ‘bitched’ his writing — while he was working).

Whatever is true or not, all three accounts help burnish the image of Hemingway liked to promote of himself as the ‘dedicated young writer’ whose sole concern was the quality of his art and who ‘worked hard’ doing ‘difficult work’.

Another fact widely accepted about Hemingway’s life that is now also being questioned concerns two small trunks of his papers that were apparently discovered in the basement of the Ritz hotel in Paris in the mid-1950s and which, he says, provided him with material for his memoir A Moveable Feast. It seems Hemingway is the only source for that ‘fact’.

The French-Canadian scholar Jacqueline Tavernier-Courbin undertook research into the matter for her book The Mystery Of The Ritz-Hotel Papers and concludes that, on balance, the trunks never existed and that Hemingway invented the story as a kind of preamble to publishing A Moveable Feast.

As for that myth-making, there is probably, and ironically, truth in the suggestion that as a teenager known for his outgoing and gregarious nature Hemingway was something of a joker and made up stories simply to entertain his friends.

Yet from an early age he also seems to have fully intended his tales to be believed; and although the practice might be understandable in a young lad in his pre-pubescent and early teenage years, as he grew older Hemingway’s habit of making bizarre claims — that he had been part of a Loyalist murder squad which killed more than 100 Falangists in a mass execution and had flown a Hurricane fighter in missions for the British RAF — became ever more disconcerting for those who knew him and knew the stories to be wholly untrue.

Even as a very young man, he lied to Eric ‘Chink’ Dorman-Smith, who was to become a lifelong friend and had been wounded in World War I. They met in Milan while Hemingway was recovering from being blown up by a mortar just before his 19th birthday in July 1918, and when Dorman-Smith, who had been

Eric ‘Chink’ Dorman-Smith


‘mentioned in dispatches’ three time and was awarded the Military Cross and Bar for bravery under fire, asked the young American how he had been wounded, Hemingway told him he had been fighting with the Italian ‘Arditi’ troops and had been the youngest officer to lead one if the regiment’s battalions into battle.

The wonder is not that Hemingway would dare tell such a blatant lie, but that Dorman-Smith, who was no fool, believed him, never seems to have questioned such an unlikely story and apparently carried on believing it until Hemingway’s death. Perhaps he simply liked Hemingway and his company so much that he chose not to confront him about the untruth.

. . .

From the end of World War II until his suicide in July 1961 Hemingway never stopped telling outright and outrageous lies about himself, his life and his experiences. This tendency was probably exacerbated by his poor mental health which deteriorated badly in his last 15 years; and what we now know about his mental disintegration — which might well have been underway by the beginning of World War II and had several other possible causes quite apart from his alcoholism — caution is not just advisable but necessary when asked to accept at face value any claims he made towards the end of his life.

But the important question is: does any of this matter? Who cares whether a writer, still regarded by many as a writer of genius, told lie upon lie about himself and his experiences? Of course it doesn’t. It might have some bearing upon Hemingway the man, but had and can have no bearing upon Hemingway the artist and Hemingway the writer. A rapist could be a composer, but his talent neither excuses his crime and nor do his crimes diminish the quality of his music: the two are separate and distinct.

Yet there is something disconcerting that a man who time and again insisted on truth in fiction played fast and loose with truth in real life. In her book Tavernier-Courbin quotes Hemingway as claiming that
It’s not unnatural that the best writers are liars. A major part of the trade is to lie or invent and they will lie when they are drunk, or to themselves, or to strangers. They often lie unconsciously and then remember their lies with deep remorse. If they knew all other writers were liars too, it would cheer them up . . . A liar in full flower . . . is as beautiful as cherry trees, or apple trees, when they are in blossom. Who should ever discourage a liar?
In fact, her version might not be quite what Hemingway wrote; or perhaps he wrote two versions. Item 845 in the JFK Library Hemingway Collection in Boston is a scrap of paper in Hemingway’s writing (but which otherwise remains unidentified) in which the writer claims that
It’s not unnatural that the best writers are liars. A major part of the trade is to lie or invent and they will lie when they are drunk, or to themselves, or to strangers. They often lie unconsciously and then remember their lies with deep remorse. If they knew all other writers were liars too, it would cheer them up. . . Lying when drinking is a good exercise for their powers of invention and is very helpful in the making up of a story. It is no more wicked or reprehensible in a writer than it is to have strange and marvelous [sic] experiences in his dreams. Lying to themselves is harmful but this is cleansed away by the writing of a true book which in its invention is truer than any true thing that ever happened.
The addition of this, that
Lying when drinking is a good exercise for their powers of invention and is very helpful in the making up of a story. It is no more wicked or reprehensible in a writer than it is to have strange and marvelous [sic] experiences in his dreams. Lying to themselves is harmful but this is cleansed away by the writing of a true book which in its invention is truer than any true thing that ever happened
does cast the what precedes it in a different light, and Hemingway makes fair point that alcohol (and presumably other drugs) can and do spark a writer’s imagination. But he is being wholly disingenuous by equating ‘having a strange or marvellous experiences in his dreams’ with ‘lying’. 

Someone who lies does not just know she or he is telling an untruth, but fully intends it to be accepted as truth and fully intends to deceive. That is the essence of lying, and with the best will in the world Hemingway’s claim is not just distinctly tenuous but outright nonsense: although those telling lies are certainly ‘creating fiction’, ‘creating fiction’ is not the same as ‘lying’. ‘Creating fiction’ is something else entirely.

We don’t know the circumstances of when, where or why the excerpt above was written, but it does sound as though Hemingway, aware of his incessant fibbing and the danger that at any pointe each fib might be revealed for what it was, was attempting to get himself off the hook and trying to justify why he told such lies. But it will not wash: those telling lies are certainly creating fiction, but those creating fiction are not lying, and Hemingway was certainly bright enough to know the difference.

‘Rules on writing’ and Hemingway’s ‘Theory of Omission’

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.



The theory [of omission] may well have been new to Hemingway. But most of his literary friends in Paris in the 1920s, like Ezra Pound, would have seen it as a version of the commonplace that the structures of literature, like the sentences of the language, imply more than they state and make us feel more than we know.
Paul Smith, Trinity College, Hartford, Connecticut.
It wasn’t by accident that the Gettysburg address was so short. The laws of prose writing are as immutable as those of flight, of mathematics, of physics.
Ernest Hemingway in a letter to Max Perkins, 1945.
The prize sentence in the [Green Hills Of Africa] runs forty-six lines . . . This is simpler than most, but it shows the new phase. Usually the material is not so factual as this and we are supposed to get, besides the sense, some muscular effort or some effect of color or movement that is latent in pace and rhythm rather than in words. But, however earnest the intention, the result is a kind of etymological gas that is just bad writing.
Bernard de Voto, Green Hills Of Africa,
 Saturday
Review Of Literature, October 26, 1935.


QUITE soon in his career and after publishing just two volumes of short stories and two novels, Hemingway came to regard himself as an authority on writing. In Death In The Afternoon, his third substantial work (published in 1932) which was intended as a guide for English speakers to bullfighting, its history, practice and lore and matters Spanish, he also pontificated on writing and literature (and, to my mind rather tenuously, compared writers to matadors). Ironically, as far as the writing was concerned and given the earlier praise in a New York Times review in 1926 of The Sun Also Rises for his

lean, hard and athletic narrative prose that puts more literary English to shame,

six years on a contemporary review of Death In The Afternoon in the same paper noted that in his new book Hemingway was
guilty of the grievous sin of writing sentences which have to be read two or three times before the meaning is clear. He enters, indeed, into a stylistic phase which corresponds, for his method, to the later stages of Henry James.
That must have hurt.

Hemingway again laid down the law when F Scott Fitzgerald, nominally still a ‘close friend’, asked for his comments on Tender Is The Night, his fourth novel and one it had taken him eight years to write. Hemingway, by now the mentor where once he had taken Fitzgerald’s advice — notably ‘get rid of the of the opening two chapters of The Sun Also Rises’, or at least that’s how Hemingway took it — was brutal and unsparing in what he had to say about the new novel (although he did in later years, warm to it and admit it was better than he had at first thought).


. . .


Hemingway was by no means the first writer to hand out advice on how to ‘write’, and he will certainly not be the last. A brief internet search for ‘rules on writing’ will gather so much advice from so many authors that one gets the impression no self-respecting writer feels she or he dare not hand it out: Stephen King, Anne Enright, Neil Gaiman, A. L. Kennedy, V. J. Naipaul, Henry Miller, Jack Kerouac, Jonathan Franzen, Diane Athill, Roddy Doyle, Denis Lehane and Mark Twain are just a very few among a host of authors who have all added their two ha’porth worth.

The various ‘rules’ laid down range from the very practical and sensible to the arcane and precious. Stephen King, a successful writer by any standard (although the sniffier critics and academics might choose to argue his work ‘is not literature’) advises ‘to avoid distraction’, ‘write for yourself’, ‘write one word at a time’ and to ‘read, read, read’. On a technical note he advises to ‘avoid adverbs’.

Anne Enright is equally practical and encourages would-be authors simply to ‘have fun’. She also strikes a down-to-earth note when she insists (and notably splits an infinitive as she does so, although these days only bores and dullards are bothered by that kind of thing) that
the way to write a book is to actually write a book. A pen is useful, typing is also good. Keep putting words on paper.
Neil Gaiman and A.L. Kennedy similarly soberly advise would-be to writers simply to ‘write’, and Ms Kennedy adds with disarming (though for many hopeful writers possibly unwelcome) honesty
No amount of self-inflicted misery, altered states, black pullovers or being publicly obnoxious will ever add up to your being a writer. Writers write. On you go.
V. J. Naipaul’s ‘rules on writing’ are puzzling. Naipul, who like Hemingway reputedly had a high opinion of himself, informs would-be writers that they should ‘not write long sentences’. A sentence ‘should not have more than ten or 12 words’, and he adds that
each sentence should make a clear statement. It should add to the statement that went before. A good paragraph is a series of clear, linked statements.
What then, one wonders, did Naipaul make of, for example, Jane Austen, Anthony Trollope, George Eliot, George Gissing or Henry James, all of whom are acknowledged as fine writers, but none of whom was known for writing short sentences ‘of no more than ten or 12 words’?

As for Naipaul’s insistence that ‘each sentence should make a clear statement’, that would rule offside any writer who, for one reason or another, specifically does not want to make ‘a clear statement’,


someone who might be striving for a certain effect by not making a statement. So if a ‘clear statement’ is Naipaul’s ideal, I should imagine he must have been less than impressed by Jack Kerouac’s debut opus On The Road (waspishly described by Truman Capote — although several others are also said to have made the gibe — as ‘that’s not writing, it’s typing’).

Jack Kerouac, one of the Fifties’ Beat Generation’s darlings, made rather more opaque contributions with his rules on writing. He advised would-be writers to

be in love with your life

and

accept loss forever

and to

keep track of every day the date emblazoned in your morning.

That last rule would certainly not have satisfied Naipul’s dictum that writers should ‘make a clear statement’ rule: you think you understand what Kerouac is saying, but like staring into fog for several minutes, it’s a struggle to discern anything. And even if Kerouac’s rules sound suitably cool and hip to some, it is difficult to see how they actually relate to writing.

I’m even more baffled by Jonathan Franzen’s insistence that

You have to love before you can be relentless.

Then there’s Franzen’s rule — and I have just broken his rule that only ‘lazy and tone-deaf writers use “then” when they should use “and” — that
Fiction that isn’t an author’s personal adventure into the frightening or the unknown isn’t worth writing for anything but money.
It is strictly without the scope of this project to mention it, but I do take exception to the implication that ‘literature’ which isn’t composed from the purest of motives — to create ‘art’, say or, apparently a staple of late 20th and early 21st century British literary creation, to ‘investigate the human condition’ — is somehow ‘second-rate’. And daring to write with an eye on possibly making a living from your work— good Lord, the cheek of it! That bloody Charles Dickens certainly had something to answer for!

Hemingway, at least in his first rule, also opts for something rather more quasi-metaphysical than practical. To get started, he advises

all you need to do is write one true sentence. Write the truest sentence that you know.

Such woolly advice might be taken to heart by a romantic teen on her or his way to conquer the world of literature — but what exactly is a ‘true sentence’? As with Kerouac and Franzen’s advice, that moment when you think to yourself ‘of course — and he’s so right!’ is invariably followed by growing confusion: the more you think about it, the less there is to it.

Equally unhelpful is Hemingway’s admonition to writers

Dont describe an emotion — make it.

To be fair this is just a variation on the perpetual advice to writers to ‘show, don’t tell’; but what seems at first straightforward becomes less so: how do you ‘make [create] emotion’ on the page? For one thing, appreciation of a piece of prose or poetry is wholly subjective; for another how can the writer ever be sure that the emotion he is creating in the reader is the one he hopes to create. One is reminded of Oscar Wilde’s observation on Dickens’s The Old Curiosity Shop that

One must have a heart of stone to read the death of little Nell without laughing.

Wilde’s observation highlights that what for many in Victorian Britain was ‘emotion’ was, for others, false and appalling sentiment.

Some writers certainly manage to create emotion, though for me Hemingway — whose prose is often as flat as a pancake — doesn’t, and his advice would be more helpful if he suggested how a writer might attempt to ‘make emotion’.

. . .


At the end of the day, I suggest, ‘rules on writing’ are neither here nor there, especially as a style fashionable today, this week, this year will most certainly be old hat at some point in the future. Hemingway’s publisher Scribner’s championed the young writer’s ‘lean, hard and athletic’ prose and hoped the reading public would lose its taste for the formal styles of James and Wharton; but it’s possible that kind of formal prose might make a comeback, although as these days of ubiquitous social media when even talking about the ‘MTV generation’ is apt to date you inexcusably, it is very unlikely.

Certainly advice and guidance handed out by published, experienced and successful authors – that is women and men who might be thought to know what they are talking about – is worth attending to; but it does beg the question as to what kind of work a would-be writer wants to produce and, depending upon that, whether some of the advice one adopts is appropriate or even useful.

If you intend to write, say, thrillers or romantic or science fiction — and hope to sell your work — does Hemingway’s advice to ‘write the truest sentence that you know’ make much sense? Elmore Leonard advises ‘don’t go into great detail describing places and things’ — but readers of thrillers and romantic and science fiction might well want such great detail and, furthermore, a lot of it — Hemingway certainly does, especially in For Whom The Bell Tolls.

‘Oh,’ I hear you say, ‘but we’re talking about serious literature here, not thrillers or romantic and science fiction and that kind of thing’. If that is your point, it begs the question as to what ‘serious literature’ is.

If you insist that there is some kind a literary hierarchy, with ‘serious literature’ at its apex and lesser forms of writing — those, for example, produced ‘for money’ — at descending tiers depending upon their assigned literary worth, I suggest Hemingway’s ‘masterpiece’ The Sun Also Rises comes nowhere near the top. Try that on for size.

Then there is For Whom The Bell tolls, many passages of which would not be out of place in modern chick-lit. ‘Serious literature’? If so, then we are stretching the definition to breaking point. It is pretty much just a Boy’s Own adventure tale with a very unconvincing ‘love story’ tacked it.

. . .


Rather more perplexing than Hemingway’s take on ‘rules on writing’ is his ‘theory of omission’, also known as his ‘iceberg theory’. This is how he sums up its essence in his 1932 book Death In The Afternoon:
If a writer of 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 an iceberg is due to only one-eighth of it being above water. A good writer does not need to reveal every detail of a character or action.
At first blush one wonders whether Hemingway really is saying what he seems to be saying. Certainly a good writer does not necessarily need to reveal every detail of a character or action: if a character is skilfully drawn and brought to life, the reader might well add his or her own details to flesh out what the writer has provided, although such details would surely be individual to each reader.

But Hemingway seems to be going further: he seems to be claiming — in a process it would not be facetious to describe as mystical — not just that ‘truths’ the writer ‘knows’ can be conveyed, but that ‘facts’ can similarly be conveyed.

In fact, although in a slightly opaque manner, Hemingway is simply describing what has been accepted for many years: that a skilful writer — a ‘good’ writer — can convey over and above what is apparently there ‘in the words on paper’. Why then did he persuade himself he had discovered a ‘new way of writing’; and what, one wonders, did Hemingway think other writers had been doing?

In a monograph examining Hemingway’s ‘theory of omission’, the Hemingway scholar Paul Smith, of Trinity College, Hartford, Connecticut, summed up the dilemma of establishing what it was Hemingway was trying to say:
The theory [of omission] may well have been new to Hemingway. But most of his literary friends in Paris in the 1920s, like Ezra Pound, would have seen it as a version of the commonplace that the structures of literature, like the sentences of the language, imply more than they state and make us feel more than we know.
In the first half of his monograph, Smith traces the evolution of Hemingway’s theory and establishes that Hemingway was, in fact, convinced he was coming up with something new and wasn’t simply redefining a traditional writing practice.

According to Hemingway’s friend the poet Archibald MacLeish, he actively avoided taking part in any kind of literary discussion (as, surprisingly, did James Joyce, according to George Plimpton, who co-founded and edited the Paris Review, quoting Hemingway himself); so developing a literary theory of his own, his ‘theory of omission’, was unusual.

That notwithstanding, over the years Hemingway seems to have taken ‘his theory’ increasingly seriously. He first alludes to it, almost in passing, in a letter to F Scott Fitzgerald in late 1925. From that letter it is clear that in the atmosphere of the self-conscious modernism of his peers in Paris and ensconced as he was in his self-image as a serious young writer, Hemingway did think his theory had substance. Furthermore, from his letter to Fitzgerald he appears to believe his theory is an original one.

The theory makes its second, more definite, appearance seven years later in his paean to bullfighting Death In The Afternoon in which he observes that
Anything you can omit that you know you still have in the writing and its quality will show. When a writer omits things he does not know, they show like holes in his writing.
The possibility notwithstanding that I am a little dense, the first part of the above is unclear and decidedly badly written. And what does Hemingway mean when he goes on to write

When a writer omits things he does not know, they show like holes in his writing?

I can’t even begin to imagine what he is trying to say. Would it be overly pedantic to point out that if a writer ‘doesn’t know’ something, she or he is in no position to omit it, because ‘omitting’ presupposes you are consciously leaving something out? Similarly if a reader were to detect ‘holes’ in a piece of writing, she or he is conscious of an absence.

As with some of Hemingway’s ‘rules on writing’, you think you know what he’s getting at, but then you realise you don’t. The most likely explanation is that Hemingway simply did not think through what he was trying to say. You understand the complaint by the anonymous New York Times reviewer of Death In The Afternoon that in the book Hemingway was
guilty of the grievous sin of writing sentences which have to be read two or three times before the meaning is clear.
. . .


Hemingway’s ‘theory of omission’ had to wait for more than 20 years before it had its next airing. This was in an ‘interview’ with George Plimpton, a founder and editor-in-chief of the Paris Review in which it appeared. In his monograph Paul Smith suggests that Paris interview was not, as one might assume, a face-to-face affair, but was largely written up and published — in 1958, several years after an initial meeting in Spain — from a series of questions submitted by Plimpton to which Hemingway provided written answers.

The interview does read very much as though it had taken place face-to-face, but curiously when Hemingway briefly refers to his ‘theory of omission’ and his ‘iceberg theory’, what he says in the printed version of Plimpton’s interview is word for word what he had written in Death In The Afternoon 26 years earlier.

Hemingway’s final and third set of comments on his ‘theory of omission’ were in his posthumously published memoir of his early Paris years A Moveable Feast and in an essay he wrote on The Art Of The Short Story. The essay was to have been the preface to a new collection of some of his short stories that’s was initially intended for school students.

Later it was decided the collection should be for adult readers. Unfortunately, although the suggestion for a new collection of stories with a preface by Hemingway had come from Scribner’s, the house later indicated it was not keen on the preface had written and eventually changed its mind about publishing it and the collection never appeared. The preface — Hemingway’s essay on the art of writing short stories — was also never made public.

Hemingway’s essay The Art Of The Short Story makes very odd reading indeed. He informs us that he wrote it as though he were giving a lecture to students and speaking off the cuff. That might explain why it seems either to have been dashed off in a hurry or Hemingway was drunk when he wrote it; it certainly gives the impression that it was never revised — or even re-read — by Hemingway.

However unlikely that might be, of course — he lambasted his one-time mentor Gertrude Stein for never revising her work — but judge for yourselves. I have made a copy of it available and there is a link to it (as to many other reviews, essays and commentaries referred to on these pages) elsewhere on this website.

Dealing with Hemingway’s The Art Of The Short Story, Smith is kinder: he writes of the essay that

The diction is colloquial, the syntax casual, and the attitude at times defensive, at times belligerent . . .

Whichever is closer to the truth, it does beg the question why a published and well-known author with, by then, more than 30 years experience, a Noble Laureate and a man described as ‘a writer of genius’ should be content to release for publication an ‘essay’ which in part reads as though it had been written by a fifth-form or tenth-grade student. It’s not surprising Scribner’s rejected it.


. . .


In his essay, Hemingway makes a number of unusual claims which echo what he had to say about his ‘theory of omission’. For example, he writes
If you leave out important things or events that you know about, the story is strengthened. If you leave or skip something because you do not know it, the story will be worthless.
This is essentially just a re-wording of his pronouncement in Death In The Afternoon and is equally as unclear. Presumably the ‘important things or events that you know about’ that you leave out of a story are simply not relevant. But just how does leaving them out ‘strengthen the story’? Hemingway (or, now that he is dead, his champions) are obliged to make that clearer if he and they want us to take his ‘theory of omission’ seriously.

Hemingway also claims

The test of any story is how very good the stuff is that you, not your editors, omit.

Is it facetious again to ask just how a reader could even know what has been left out? Does the reader slowly aggregate, by some kind of mysterious osmosis, ‘knowledge’ of what has been left out because the writer has been ‘writing truly’ and is thus able to judge that a story is better than it might otherwise have been? That seems to be what Hemingway is suggesting.

It is all unconvincing, though at one with Hemingway’s self-image as an ‘important writer’; and this is from a man who not only regarded himself as an authority on writing but had trained as a journalist and who should have been aware of the imperative of clarity in communication.

I suspect Hemingway is unclear simply because he hasn’t thought through what he wants to say and, crucially, doesn’t even understand it himself.

But let me play Devil’s advocate and present a possible case for the validity of his ‘theory of omission’ by quoting a Chip Scanlan who attempts to do exactly that.

After two decades working as a journalist, in 1994 Scanlan joined the staff of the Poynter Institute for Media Studies in Florida where he taught reporting and writing. In a piece for the website Poynter.org in 2005, he tried to elucidate Hemingway’s ‘theory of omission’ — which he admits puzzled him when he first read it — by referring to the novelist’s training as reporter and his short journalistic career.

Scanlan explains that when a reporter or writer ‘investigates’ or ‘researches’ a feature, she or he ends up with mass of material, not all of which — in fact, most of which — can be used. If, he says, ‘the desk’ wants a 500 word new story, a journalist can’t insist on supplying far more because the information gathered is ‘good’.

If 2,000 words have been written, they must be trimmed to 500 (admittedly a job often better undertaken by a good copy/sub editor or commissioning editor than by the reporter or writer, but Scanlan makes no mention of that.) The unused information — facts and quotes — however, is not discarded Scanlan says: while writing the story or feature, the reporter or writer will still have all that background information in mind when the piece is composed and this will inform what he writes.

Scanlan admits that when he first came across Hemingway’s dictum — that if
a writer of prose knows enough about what he is writing about, he may omit things that he knows, [my commas for the sake of clarity] 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
he did not understand what Hemingway was getting at until he realised the quotation was incomplete: the following had been left out:

The dignity of movement of an iceberg is due to only one-eighth of it being above water.

Scanlan comments
The same principle holds in writing. What makes a story powerful is all the work — the process of reporting and writing — that lies beneath. It isn’t wasted effort, as many of us fear, but instead constitutes the essential ingredient that give writing its greatest strengths.
I can see what Scanlan is getting out, and I agree that a journalist can perhaps compose a far stronger piece, whether a news story or a feature, given her or his background knowledge and familiarity with facts and quotes that could not be included because of a tight brief. Furthermore, a well-written news story or feature might arguably — by choice of word and turn of phrase — even be able to convey some of that background. But of his attempt to bolster and validate Hemingway’s ‘theory of omission’ I have to tell Scanlan: nice try, but no cigar.

Whether reading a news story or a piece of fiction written by someone who had additional ‘knowledge’ that was not included in the piece, the reader is simply in no position to judge whether that piece is ‘better’ or ‘stronger’ than it might otherwise have been.

So much for Hemingway’s ‘theory of omission’. And it is notable that although in the course of his life he returns to it three times, he doesn’t feel oblige to develop it or expand on it. It is also notable that like what else he has to say about ‘writing’, it is all rather too foggy to be of much use to a student hoping to learn ‘to write’. Again, nice try but no cigar.

. . . 

In his monograph and investigating Hemingway’s ‘theory of omission’, Smith goes on to consider the deletions and additions in revision (from still extant manuscripts) in Hemingway’s long story Big Two-Hearted River which concludes his first collection of short stories, In Our Time. For the technically minded, Smith analysis of the story’s ‘structure’ and his comparison of what was deleted and what was added will make interesting reading.

Yet Smith’s detailed treatment of the story has nothing at all to say on what Hemingway later declared was the story’s ‘meaning’, broadly the spiritual recuperation of a young man returned from war. For those who like this kind of prose, Big Two-Hearted River is an engaging and very detailed account of a fishing and camping trip.

Malcolm Cowley, who had been acquainted with Hemingway and came to champion his (and demanded in his introduction to 1944’s The Portable Hemingway that the writer should be taken far more seriously as an artist) believed there was a link with Hemingway’s later declared ‘meaning’ in various ‘rituals’ undertaken by the story’s protagonist.

He lists the ritual of hiking to the spot were he will camp, the ritual of setting up his camp, the ritual of cooking his supper, the following days ritual of preparing for and then engaging in fishing for trout, and so on.

It’s all very plausible, but that his analysis is plausible is neither here nor there. When one considers ‘plausibility’ and the evolution of Hemingway’s ‘theory of omission’, one suggestion might be that when writing to Fitzgerald the young, keen would-be writer (who had eagerly discussed ‘literature’ in Kansas and Chicago with colleagues and friends, though he later ostentatiously shunned such debate) rather fancied himself ‘having a literary theory’.

This was then — slightly — expanded when the by then established author pontificated on writing in Death In The Afternoon; then it was resurrected and treated with what was thought to be the reverence due the globally famous Hemingway a year or two before his death.

It might, though, be best to remind ourselves of that Smith believes it was essentially a rather commonplace idea was used on various occasions to serve various ends. Smith believes
The theory may well have been new to Hemingway. But most of his literary friends in Paris in the 1920s, like Ezra Pound, would have seen it for the commonplace that the structures of literature, like the sentences of the language, imply more than they state and make us feel more than we know.
Quite.

Personality, mental and physical health

Ninety-five per cent of The Sun Also [Rises] was pure imagination. I took real people in that one and I controlled what they did. I made it all up.
Ernest Hemingway, letter
to Maxwell Perkins, Nov 1933.
Don Stewart was mildly amused at [sic] the caricature of himself in the figure of Bill Gorton [in The Sun Also Rises]. He recognised a few of his own quips in the talk between Bill and Jake, but the whole book struck him as a little more than a very clever reportorial tour de force.
Carlos Baker, Ernest Hemingway, A Life Story.
Whether he is describing a bullfight, discussing literature, or analysing a political event, Hemingway is always center stage, overpowering the nominal subject of these works with sketches towards an autobiography.’
John Raeburn, Fame Became Him.
Few men can stand the strain of relaxing with him over an extended period.
Damon Runyon on Hemingway.


DESPITE Hemingway’s strong and persistent denials, a great deal of his fiction is quasi-autobiographical and his denials are curious. Furthermore, as John Raeburn points out in his book Fame Became Him, in his non-fiction and journalism Hemingway is also always centre stage.

In his fiction, Hemingway’s central characters — notably Nick Adams in his short stories, but also Jake Barnes, Frederic Henry, Francis Macomber, Harry Walden, Harry Morgan, Robert Jordan, Richard Cantwell, Thomas Hudson, David Bourne and even the old Cuban fisherman Santiago — are arguably all, often idealised, versions of himself.

In their own way they all behave heroically, stoically battling, although not necessarily overcoming, overwhelming difficulties. Pertinently Hemingway even lends one protagonist, the dying writer Harry Walden in the short story The Snows Of Kilimanjaro, his own memories of his life in Paris a decade earlier; and Harry’s self-recrimination that he had allowed his wife’s wealth and the good life it provided to corrupt his writing talent is exactly what Hemingway admitted he felt in 1930s.

Mining one’s self and one’s life for material or inventing the kind of characters one would like to be is certainly not unusual among writers; and there is no suggestion that the details of his life were not often reshaped by Hemingway and that there was no artistry at work in his writing. But his insistent, and often angry, denials that his work was in any way autobiographical are thus significant.

Friends and others who met Hemingway all attest that he was a dominant personality and loved being the centre of attention. As psychiatrist Dr Christopher Martin and Swiss psychologist Sebastian Dieguez, who have both considered Hemingway’s personality and mental make-up point out, there was a distinctly narcissistic aspect to his character and that the central focus of Hemingway’s life was certainly always Ernest Hemingway.

One even suggest that for Hemingway writing fiction was some kind of therapy. Biographer Jeffrey Meyers agrees. When Hemingway was asked to name his analyst, according to Meyers he replied: ‘Portable Corona No 3’; and in a letter to the New Yorker writer Lillian Ross with whom Hemingway had struck up a friendship, he said his
analyst’s name is Royal Portable (noiseless) the 3rd.
Both remarks might well have been intended as flip jokes, but from what we know of Hemingway’s life those two comments might well have gone a little deeper. Philip Young, one of Hemingway’s earliest biographers, cites Nick Adams explaining in the short story Fathers And Sons (in Winner Take Nothing, Hemingway’s third collection)
If he wrote it he could get rid of it. He had gotten rid of many things by writing them.
The American academics William Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley and the French philosopher Roland Barthes might advise us against resorting to ‘Hemingway, the man’ and all aspects of his life when interpreting and evaluating his fiction, but no such stricture is in place when considering his overweening ambition and bulldozing personality, both of which played such a significant role in his rise to literary prominence and eventual celebrity status.

Hemingway’s life has been exhaustively examined by biographers, yet it is still oddly difficult to establish the essence of his personality. Hemingway, the hard-drinking, pugilistic braggart is well-known, but how do we square that man with the Hemingway some friends insist was essentially shy, sensitive and quite gentle, and who could be spontaneously generous? As Dr Martin notes
[Biographer Carlos] Baker pointed out that Hemingway was a man of many contradictions who was capable of alternately appearing shy or conceited, sensitive or aggressive, warm and generous, or ruthless and overbearing. It may have been that certain borderline personality traits caused him to appear erratic and dramatic.
Perhaps to get a better comprehension of that personality, we might emulate how the Tao suggests a hole might be described: it is essentially nothing but empty space defined by what delimits it. And two aspects of Hemingway’s life which most certainly came to define him were his physical and mental health. We should, though, tread carefully.

. . .

Physicians sometimes joke that ‘there’s no such thing as a healthy person: there are only those who have been insufficiently investigated’. That observation might also be made of our mental health. How would any of us fare if we were subjected to in-depth psychiatric examination? What is ‘normal’? To behave ‘normally’ merely indicates that our behaviour is close to ‘a norm’ and adheres to an average standard of behaviour accepted, prescribed and tolerated in any given society.

Even if behaviour veers too far from ‘the norm’, it is often still tolerated, as eccentricity perhaps, although when such ‘abnormal’ behaviour begins to affect and impact on the lives of others in society, it is increasingly frowned upon. Furthermore, it would be misleading to try to set up some kind of equivalence between an individual’s mental health and their personality. We don’t even know how ‘mental health’ and ‘personality’ correlate, or whether they even do so to any significant degree.

Mental health can vary over a lifetime and, as with Hemingway, worsen (or, indeed, improve); and although different aspects of an individual’s personality might be exhibited at different times, in different circumstances and in different company, the essence of that individual’s personality might remain constant, though it might also over time evolve.

Hemingway’s mental health had a definite impact on him — he suffered from regular, often severe, bouts of depression all his life and went through a particularly deep depression in the mid-1930s – and it began to deteriorate earlier in his life than is hitherto accepted. But the various instances of his odd behaviour will have more to do with his distinct personality.

Anyone familiar with the details of Hemingway’s life will know of the many instances of that behaviour. One might shy away from describing him as ever behaving ‘abnormally’, at least not until he showed clinical symptoms of psychosis and paranoia, and in 1961, a few months short of his eventual suicide, he was twice admitted to the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota; yet throughout his life and as he got older in his dealings with others, he increasingly behaved in what might charitably he described as a ‘singular’ manner.

His admissions to the Mayo Clinic were ostensibly to be treated for high blood pressure and a lingering case of hepatitis. In fact, he was admitted to the clinic’s psychiatric ward, and in retrospect it seems likely he had been suffering from poor mental health ever since he survived two plane crashes in as many days seven years earlier in January 1954 while on his second African safari. He was certainly in poor physical shape in his last decade.

Those crashes, although the most serious, were only two in a number of major and minor accidents he suffered throughout his life, many of which caused injuries to his head. His first severe injuries came in the last year of World War I when he was 19 and was blown up by a mortar shell and machine-gunned on the frontline in Italy. He received another, though far less serious, head injury in 1928 in Paris when he went to the bathroom during the night, mistook the skylight chain for the lavatory cistern chain and brought the defective skylight crashing down. In a car crash near Billings, Montana, in October 1930, he almost lost his right arm and spent two months in hospital. Five years later in accidentally, while out fishing, Hemingway shot himself in the leg — he was trying to shoot a shark and was probably drunk.

More serious was the concussion he suffered nine year later, in May 1944, in London. Returning to his hotel in the wartime blackout after yet another late-night party, the car in which he was travelling crashed headlong into a parked water tanker, and Hemingway was thrown through the windscreen. His head wound needed almost 60 stitches, but despite doctors insisting he should spend several months recuperating, he discharged himself from hospital after just three days (and had spent those three days knocking back bottles of champagne and spirits with all the well-wishers who dropped in).

He was again concussed three months later in Normandy when he leapt from the pillion of a motorcycle into a ditch to avoid enemy gunfire. A year later, there was another car crash in Cuba in 1945, in which Mary Welsh, his fourth wife was thrown through the windscreen. In 1950 he injured his head when, again while drunk, he slipped on his boat. Then, in January 1954, were the two plane crashes East Africa.

Hemingway’s poor health was not, though, entirely the result of these accidents. At different times in his life he suffered from jaundice, malaria, kidney and liver problems, pneumonia, amoebic dysentery, an intestinal prolapse, hypertension, erysipelas, nephritis, hepatitis, diabetes and arteriosclerosis. His taste for drinking developed when he left teetotal Oak Park in Chicago and was sent to Italy by the Red Cross, but from his mid-twenties on he was drinking a great deal and around the time his marriage to Hadley was disintegrating, he began drink even more. By his mid-thirties he was an alcoholic who, his third son Gregory claimed, would drink a quart of whisky (almost a litre and more than a UK pint and a half) a day.

. . .

On the matter of Hemingway’s mental health, Dr Martin and Dieguez have both compiled profiles which make interesting reading. The Mayo clinic in Minnesota observed its undertaking never to release Hemingway’s medical notes, but both Martin and Dieguez say they worked only from information they found in biographies, memoirs and letters, and, of course, what they thought they might deduce from his published work.

Both cover much the same ground, although Martin focuses on Hemingway’s suicide, while Dieguez considers how the course of Hemingway’s life was affected by being blown up on the Italian front in July 1918, just 13 days short of his 19th birthday.

In the Winter, 2006, issue of Psychiatry, Martin writes (in part)
Significant evidence exists to support the diagnoses of bipolar disorder, alcohol dependence, traumatic brain injury, and probable borderline and narcissistic personality traits. Late in life, Hemingway also developed symptoms of psychosis likely related to his underlying affective illness and superimposed alcoholism and traumatic brain injury. Hemingway utilized a variety of defense mechanisms, including self-medication with alcohol, a lifestyle of aggressive, risk-taking sportsmanship, and writing, in order to cope with the suffering caused by the complex co-morbidity of his interrelated psychiatric disorders. Ultimately, Hemingway’s defense mechanisms failed, overwhelmed by the burden of his complex co-morbid illness, resulting in his suicide.
In Frontiers Of Neurology And Neuroscience in April, 2010, Dieguez discusses the trauma Hemingway suffered when he was blown up in Italy just before his 19th birthday and the possibility that he might have undergone a possible ‘near-death experience’ (NDE). He cautions on the difficulty of analysing NDEs because accounts are always subjective, and it is impossible, not least ethically, to construct controlled experiments to investigate them. But he suggests that
It is incontrovertible that Hemingway’s war wound, if not his ‘NDE’, occupied a central part of his work and his outlook on life. In this respect, Hemingway seems comparable to other subjects who survived a life-threatening event and who sometimes report a new outlook on life, feelings of immortality and invincibility, a sense of personal importance and a loss of the fear of death.
He then adds the pertinent warning that
Nevertheless, both the ‘NDE’ and the [post-traumatic stress disorder] approach, though probably correctly underlying major themes of Hemingway’s works (including some explicit references to war and wounds), should be more accurately perceived as additional factors to a pre-existing personality pattern. Such a pre-existing temperament might underlie both the selected literary topics and the very near-death experience.
Dieguez pointedly suggests that whatever effect being blown-up had on Hemingway’s personality (and thus his behaviour in later years)
. . .  it was certainly no happenstance that Hemingway would find himself on a battlefield in the first place.
In one sense Hemingway had only himself to blame for almost being killed in Italy: he had most certainly put himself in harm’s way. When the US joined the war, he volunteered, in turn, to serve in the US army, the marines and the navy but was turned down by all three because of his defective left eye. Hearing that the Red Cross was recruiting ambulance drivers and it’s physical requirements were lower, he applied and was accepted. How, though, did he progress from being employed to drive an ambulance several miles behind the front to being blown up on the Italian front line?

Once in Italy, the Red Cross volunteers were sent to different stations behind the front line, but Hemingway found driving too mundane and volunteered to run one of the rest stations located some distance behind the front where cigarettes, coffee and chocolate were dispensed. Yet even that wasn’t exciting enough, so he began — unofficially — delivering the cigarettes and chocolates to the men in the trenches.

Shortly before midnight on July 8 he was blown up when an Austrian mortar shell landed nearby. The episode demonstrates, perhaps, that he was responsible for the accident: it occurred as a result of a young man’s unthinking craving for excitement. Yet whatever incidents and influences had shaped his character and personality, both had been defined long before he was blown up.

. . .

Both Martin and Dieguez subscribe to the notion that Hemingway was bipolar. In on account of a manic episode quoted by Martin
Hemingway’s first wife, Hadley, found her husband ‘sky-high, emotionally intense, and ready to explode’. His company was so difficult to tolerate that she sent him off on a trip alone. The episodic irritability that drove his father away from his own family was also manifested in the son.
The mammoth writing sessions Hemingway boasted of are seen as instances of his manic phases.

Dieguez also writes of Hemingway’s haemochromatosis, a genetic condition which prevents the body from ridding itself of the iron it accumulates from food and drink. In time that accumulation can lead to kidney and liver damage, diabetes, joint pain, depression and high blood pressure, and Hemingway suffered from all these conditions. Haemochromatosis is treatable, but unfortunately the conditions it causes are usually treated first, masking the fact that haemochromatosis is the root cause so it can go unnoticed until it is too late.

A different account of Hemingway’s health problems is given by psychiatrist Dr Andrew Farah in his book Hemingway’s Brain, and he disputes that Hemingway was bipolar. According to Dr Farah, of the University of North Carolina, Hemingway’s mental problems stemmed from the repeated instances of the concussion he suffered in the nine head injuries during his life all going untreated.

Dr Farah also suggests that although the electro-convulsive therapy (ECT) given to Hemingway in the Mayo Clinic benefits nine out of ten patients, in his case it did not. In fact, he says, as a result of the untreated concussion over the years Hemingway suffered from undiagnosed chronic traumatic encephalopathy (brain damage) and the ECT sessions simply extended the damage.

. . .

Hemingway was renown throughout his life for his ostentatious demonstrations of hyper-masculinity and machismo. His macho posturing, it is suggested, betrayed self-doubt about his sexual identity, and much is made of his mother, Grace, dressing him in girls’ clothes when he was very young. In fact, we are assured, it was not an unusual in the late 19th century for very young boys to be dressed in more feminine clothes.

Furthermore, depending on what he and his sister were up to, both Ernest and Marcelline were also dressed in boys clothes. Yet it might not be too much of a stretch to suggest the bravado, the showing off and the desire to be best at everything betray something of an inferiority complex, though what might have led to it is impossible to know. In her book The Hemingway Women, author Bernice Kert writes
James Joyce once remarked that the two men [Ernest Hemingway and Robert McAlmon, an acquaintance in the Paris years who published Hemingway’s first book, in our time] were confused about each other. “Hemingway posing as tough and McAlmon as sensitive should swap poses and be true to life.” Joyce was noticing what Hadley and others had observed — that much of Ernest’s swagger was a protective cover for a deeply anxious nature.
The suggestion might be that Hemingway was somehow ashamed of his sensitivity and tried to hide it. But however interesting and possibly informative speculation about Hemingway’s psychological state might be (and Martin and Dieguez are, perhaps, better qualified to speculate than others), one should be wary of treading the path of what has become known as ‘psycho-biography’.

To the oft-made suggestion that Hemingway was a closet homosexual one can only retort that despite such claims from Scott Fitzgerald’s wife Zelda — she and Hemingway disliked each other intensely — and the bisexual Robert McAlmon — nothing has ever come to light which might substantiate the claim.

Those who engage in ‘psycho-biography’ usually resort to digging up this or that ‘fact’ about their subject and making large assumptions based on the kind of bargain-basement psychology found in Sunday newspaper supplements. But such ‘psycho-biographies’ have a lot less to say — simply because they cannot know — what character and personality traits the subject might have inherited. In fact, the whole area of ‘character’ and ‘personality’ is so woolly that reducing it more or less to a series of psychological traits is itself questionable.

So when one considers Hemingway’s character and personality, it might be best — or, at least, safest — to restrict oneself to reports from family, schoolmates, friends, colleagues and acquaintances of his habitual behaviour in their interactions with him.

. . .

Psychiatrist Irvin D. Yalom and his wife Marilyn, who worked as a literature professor, also analysed Hemingway’s personality, and in June 1971 published a paper outlining their conclusions in the Archives of General Psychiatry.

Unlike Martin, who takes a narrow clinical approach, and Dieguez whose investigation is even narrower, concentrating on ‘Hemingway’s near-death experience’ when he was blown up, the Yaloms conclusions seem rounder. They say they were attempting
to illuminate the underlying forces which shaped the content and structure of his work
and want to consider
the major psycho-dynamic conflicts, apparent in his lifestyle and fiction, which led to that event.
The balance between Irvin Yalom’s work in psychiatry and his wife’s in literature gells well, and their conclusions might well elucidate some of the startling contradictions in Hemingway’s personality. Adopting some of the ideas of the German-American psychoanalyst Karen Horney, especially those in her book Neurosis And Human Growth, the Yaloms postulate that the central conflict in Hemingway was between his ‘idealised self’ and his ‘real self’, and that the conflict was never resolved. They write that according to Horney a
child suffers from basic anxiety, an extremely dysphoric state of being, if he has parents whose own neurotic conflicts prevent them from providing the basic acceptance necessary for the development of the child’s autonomous being. During early life when the child regards the parents as omniscient and omnipotent, he can only conclude, in the face of parental disapproval and rejection, that there is something dreadfully wrong with him. To dispel basic anxiety, to obtain the acceptance, approval and love he requires for survival, the child perceives he must become something else; he channels his energies away from the realization of his real self, from his own personal potential, and develops a construct of an idealized image – a way he must become in order to survive and to avoid basic anxiety. The idealized image may take many forms, all of which are designed to cope with a primitive sense of badness, inadequacy or unlovability.
They add that
Hemingway’s idealized image crystallized around a search for mastery, for a vindictive triumph which would lift him above others.
As I point out elsewhere, none of this can be accepted as copper-bottomed fact, merely as informed speculation. But what the Yaloms suggest would account for Hemingway’s almost neurotic competitiveness to be the best at everything – not least that he was America’s best writer – and the inferiority complex from which his wife Hadley Richardson and his schoolboy crush Frances Coates believe he suffered. The Yaloms add
Both publicly and privately Hemingway invested inordinate psychic energy into fulfilling his idealized image. The investment was not primarily a conscious, deliberate one, for many of Hemingway’s life activities were overdetermined; he acted often not through free choice but because he was driven by some dimly understood internal pressure whose murky persuasiveness only shammed choice.
They suggest that
Hemingway’s anxiety and depression stemmed in large part from his failure to actualize his idealized self. Two factors were important in this failure: the image was so extreme that superhuman forces would have been required to satisfy it; secondly, a number of counterforces limited his available degree of adaptability. These secondary counterforces, e.g. dependency cravings and oedipal conflicts, were sources of anxiety in their own right and hampered the actualization of the idealized self.
Interpreting his lifelong courtship of danger they write that
Throughout his life Hemingway attempted to abolish the discrepancy between his real and idealized selves. No alterations could be made upon the idealized self; there is no evidence that Hemingway ever compromised or attenuated his self-demands. All the work had to be done upon his real self; he pushed himself to face more intense danger, to attempt physical feats which exceed his capabilities, while at the same time he pruned and streamlined himself. All traces of traits not fitting his idealized image had to be eliminated or squelched. The softer feminine side, the fearful parts, the dependent cravings – all had to go.
. . . 

Hemingway grew up the son of a strict father who often punished him physically in a god-fearing household, and notably he did not show any outright rebellious behaviour until he had returned from Italy.

There is, though, the curious story of how as a teenager when staying at the family summer cottage

Hemingway at the age when he would
have been roaming the woods near
the family cottage at Walloon Lake

at Walloon Lake, Michigan, he deliberately shot and killed a blue heron, a bird he knew to be a protected species; and did so — it is claimed — precisely because it was a protected species. He then, briefly, went on the run (apparently on his mother’s advice) when the local game wardens called at the cottage to investigate.

In later years and true to form Hemingway exaggerated the incident and claimed he had been lying low for a while. Yet he was only 16 at the time and the incident cannot really be spun into anything more significant than an extreme form of teenage devilment.

Hemingway was variously said by those who knew him at school and later when he was in his early twenties to be friendly and funny, and shy and sensitive; but he was also called a vindictive bully; he was known for his charm and his wit, and was regarded by many as very good company; yet he also had a sharp and hurtful tongue, and could turn on someone in an instant if he felt slighted, bested or somehow put out, an aspect of his personality which governed his behaviour ever more as he grew older (and drank more).

From an early age he was known as a braggart who told tall stories. When he was five, he insisted to his grandfather that singlehanded he had stopped a runaway horse. Such hyperbole is quite common among very young and imaginative children, and is not unusual among teenage boys, but Hemingway’s proclivity for telling such stories did not diminish as he became older. Instead it grew steadily. By the time he was in his 40s he was telling outright lies about himself, his life and his achievements, to the consternation of those friends who knew the truth.

Others, though, were so bowled over by the force of his personality and the conviction with which he made his claims that they accepted everything he said. It is quite possible that many of the tall stories he told when he was younger were just expressions of a quirky sense of humour; but it would be far more difficult to explain away the outrageous claims he made 20 and 30 years later.

Hemingway could be irascible and had a ferocious temper, traits which also became far more pronounced as he got older and as he drank more; he was regarded by some as a generous and loyal friend, yet by the time he died he had long fallen out with all the friends from his Paris years, except James Joyce and Ezra Pound. He could be generous, but oddly, according to one biographer, his generosity was usually extended solely to his friends — he is said once to have sold stock so he could give John Dos Passos, who had been admitted to hospital with rheumatic fever, $1,000 (the equivalent of about $20,000 in 2020). And he made it clear to Dos Passos, that he did not expect to be repaid.

On the other hand he rarely gave any presents to his wives and immediate family. Martha Gelhorn reports that in all the time they were together, Hemingway gave her only two gifts: he handed her a pair of long johns and a shotgun just as they were about to embark on a hunting trip to the West — because he knew she would need them.

Hemingway never enjoyed being alone, and he thrived on having an audience. Some friends and acquaintances claimed he always had to be the centre of attention, while others testified that wasn’t necessarily true and that he could be a good and attentive listener. Some described Hemingway as ‘an intellectual’, although he did not like being thought one, and with increasingly boorish behaviour, to those friends’ consternation, he liked to prove them wrong.

. . .

Once central aspect of his personality which certainly helps to explain his quite sudden rise to fame as a writer was his extraordinary competitiveness. In the foreword to his biography of Hemingway, Carlos Baker describes
. . . the immensely ambitious young man, unfailingly competitive, driven by an urge to excel in whatever he undertook, to be admired and looked up to, to assert his superiority by repeated example, to display for the benefit of others his strength and his endurance.’
Being ‘driven by an urge to excel’ is one thing, but also being driven by an urge ‘to be admired’ adds a curious dimension. Baker’s take on the conflicting aspects of Hemingway’s character is also succinct. He speaks of
. . . the man of many contradictions: the shy diffident and the incredible braggart; the sentimentalist quick to tears and the bully who used his anger like a club; the warm and generous friend and the ruthless and overbearing enemy; the man who stayed loyal to some of his oldest friends while picking quarrels with others because he feared that they were beginning to assume a proprietary interest over him.
Although one should be alert to the danger of conflating ‘mental health’ and ‘personality’, given the marked discrepancies in behaviour and attitudes Baker describes, we might still wonder just how much the bipolar condition from which Martin and Dieguez believe Hemingway suffered did influence the demonstration of the different aspects of his personality.

Hemingway was extremely, almost neurotically, competitive even as a child: he had to be the best at everything, whether fishing, hunting, boxing, playing tennis and, later in life, at being able to drink vast quantities of alcohol. In his memoir, Hemingway’s Bitterness, his Paris friend Harold Loeb, who became the lovelorn Robert Cohn in The Sun Also Rises, recalls Hemingway on the tennis court:

He was no tennis player; a bad eye, damaged in a street brawl, and a weak leg injured by shrapnel, hampered his control. His back-court drives were erratic and his net game non-existent. Nevertheless, he put so much gusto into the play and got so much pleasure out of his good shots and such misery from his misses, that the games in which he participated were never lackadaisical. Also, we usually played doubles, and by assigning the best player to Hem, a close match could sometimes be achieved.

Notable is that even though the memoir was written over 30 years after Loeb had been ridiculed by Hemingway in The Sun Also Rises and he should have known better, he still innocently repeats his former friend’s explanation for the bad left eye: that it had been ‘damaged in street brawl’. It had not: his eye had been defective since he was very young (a condition probably inherited from his mother), but having people believe it had been ‘damaged in a street brawl’ was sexier, more macho and more in keeping with how Hemingway liked the world to see him, the hard and no-nonsense man.

Biographers report that if Hemingway met someone who knew about a subject of which he knew little, he quizzed them incessantly until he had extracted from them everything there was to know about the topic until he, too, was ‘an expert’. He liked to portray himself as very knowledgeable on most topics — another aspect of his competitiveness — and once he believed himself to be an authority on a subject, whether fishing, hunting, writing, food, wine and the ‘good life’ and travelling, he was likely to lecture those around him.

He prided himself as always having the ‘inside gen’ and being in the loop and liked to be seen as ‘insider’. If he developed a frenetic enthusiasm for an activity — and he often did — he cajoled everyone to join in the activity and took a dim view of anyone who tried to resist. It comes as no surprise to hear that the journalist and writer Damon Runyon quipped that

Few men can stand the strain of relaxing with [Hemingway] over an extended period.

Such enthusiasms and the occasions when he had, as he described it, the ‘juice’ might well have been a manifestation of the manic phase of the bipolar condition some believed he suffered. The Torrents Of Spring (though it was only 30,000 words long) was written in just ten days, and he later told the journalist Lillian Ross in her celebrated 1950 New Yorker profile of Hemingway that he
. . . wrote The Sun’ when I was twenty-seven, and I wrote it in six weeks, starting on my birthday, July 21, in Valencia, and finishing it September 6, in Paris. But it was really lousy and the rewriting took nearly five months.
His competitiveness extended to likening writing to a contest, and he even regarded dead writers as rivals. Talking about his writing career in the same profile — and adopting the metaphor of boxing — he tells Ross
I started out very quiet and I beat Mr Turgenev. Then I trained hard and I beat Mr de Maupassant. I’ve fought two draws with Mr Stendhal, and I think I had an edge in the last one. But nobody’s going to get me in any ring with Mr Tolstoy unless I’m crazy or I keep getting better.
After the profile was published and many commented that it made Hemingway (who had inexplicably adopted a faux native-American way of speaking in all his conversations with Ross) look silly, he remarked that he had often been joking and had assumed Ross would have realised. But whether or not that and other comments Ross quoted were intended as light-hearted, it was not the only time when he described writers as being in competition with each other. Two of his contemporaries he treated as rivals whose achievements were always to be topped were Scott Fitzgerald and William Faulkner (who was equally as prickly and competitive. Faulkner said of Hemingway
He has never been known to use a word that might send a reader to the dictionary
to which Hemingway responded
Poor Faulkner. Does he really think big emotions come from big words?
Hemingway’s innate, one might same extreme, competitiveness might help to explain why he was not just content with making a name for himself among literary folk and ruthless in his ambition to reach, but was almost desperate to become famous. He did achieve fame, although as John Raeburn establishes, by the end of Hemingway’s life his status as ‘a celebrity’ bore scant relation to his standing as a writer; and as others have pointed out, in literary circles his standing as a writer declined, almost in proportion to how his public fame increased.