1945-1961 — Part I: Fourth marriage, more writing, public profiles and ever growing fame

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’s] pre-1946 depressions usually followed the completion of a book when he did not know what to write next. His post-1946 depressions were different. Because he was leaving work largely completed but not quite finished, one or more books for always begging for attention. As a result, he would move back and forth among them, even during his depressed periods, and unfinished work was always look at the back of his mind.
Michael Reynolds, Hemingway: The Final Years.

Despite his tough-guy image, Hemingway was a soft-hearted man. He was apparently persuaded to grant [Malcolm] Cowley’s interview in Cuba after the critic pleaded that his son’s education was at stake.
Jeffery Meyers, Hemingway: a biography.

Mary was Hemingway's wife during the years of his greatest fame and most radical deterioration, of the Nobel Prize as well as the Mayo Clinic. She felt she had been an entity, and feared she would become an appendage. At the age of 36, she gave up her independence and professional career, adopted his sporting passions, entertained his coarse cronies matched his numerous accidents with her own falls and fractures, and even tolerated his infatuation with two teenage girls the ‘vestal virgin’ Adriana Ivancich and the flirtatious Valerie Danby-Smith.
Jeffery Meyers, Hemingway: a biography.

THE nominally fourth and final stage of Hemingway’s life lasted for 16 years. It began when he arrived back at his home at the Finca Vigia near Havana from ‘the war in Europe’ in mid-March 1945 and ended at around 7am on Sunday, July 2, 1961, at his home in Ketchum, Idaho, when he was able to end his life at his third attempt. 
Those final 16 years were marked by ever-worsening health, both mental and physical, a stormy fourth marriage, and two middle-aged amour fou for women who, at just 19, were several decades years younger than him. 
Notably for a man regarded by many, not least by himself, as one of America’s greatest writers, those last years saw a scant published output. Yet, ironically, he actually wrote more fiction between 1945 and 1961 than he had in his first 16 years as a ‘celebrated author’; but he published just a fraction of it, just two works. 
These were a novel, Across The River And Into The Trees, and The Old Man And The Sea, that is sometimes called ‘a novel’ but at 27,000 can be regarded either as a novella or even a long short story. Across The River And Into The Trees appeared in 1950 and was almost universally derided. The Old Man And The Sea, though, was celebrated and praised to high heaven, although a dissenting few gave it only two cheers. 
The remainder of the welter of words he produced in those final 16 years — and welter seems to be the most appropriate word — was not published until several years after his death and then only after heavy and drastic editing. 
Those posthumous works consisted of a memoir, A Moveable Feast (first published in 1964) a novel, Islands In The Stream (1970), The Dangerous Summer, a second ‘bullfighting book’ which began life as a feature he was contracted to write by Life magazine (1985), a second novel, The Garden Of Eden (1986) and True At First Light (1999), a ‘fictional account’ — Hemingway’s own description — of his second African safari. 
Quite why Hemingway was reluctant to offer those works for publication is unclear. Some biographers suggest he suspected some of it was still not up to snuff and he intended to revise it until he thought it was. 
The Garden Of Eden dealt in part with sexual ambiguity and role reversal, and Hemingway is thought to have feared it could not be published in his lifetime. In the mid-1950s it would certainly have startled those middle-Americans — and frankly middle-brow — who now made up his core readership.

It would not be unkind to suggest that his publisher Scribner’s only released the posthumous work to squeeze the last remaining dollars out of their property, although they would doubtless deny such a charge and insist the world had a right to read all the work of an ‘important writer’. 
Some academics have loyally claimed that some of the writing does have merit, but it is difficult to rid oneself of the suspicion that the occasional attention it is given is overwhelmingly because it is ‘by Ernest Hemingway’. 
Substantiating the suggestion that Scribner’s had more than one eye on the bottom line were the publication in 1964 of By-Line: Ernest Hemingway, a compendium of his journalism from throughout his career, and, in 1985, Dateline: Toronto, a collection of the freelances pieces he filed from Paris for the Toronto Star. Finally, a Moveable Feast was re-edited by his grandson Sean Hemingway and re-published in 2009.

. . .

When Hemingway returned to the Finca Vigia, he set about preparing it for the arrival of Mary Welsh (left) whom he expected to join him and become his fourth wife. 
To make that possible, he had visited Martha Gellhorn in the Dorchester hotel (where she was laid up with influenza) while on his way home from Europe and finally agreed to the divorce she had long demanded. She was desperate to possess a passport which identified her under he maiden name. 
Unfortunately, Welsh was not quite as sold on the idea of marrying him as Hemingway believed. She had already been married twice, and when she informed her parents she was about to divorce her second husband, she notably did not tell them she would be marrying Hemingway, merely that she might be marrying him. 
Although Welsh had agreed to marry Hemingway in Paris in August 1944 — reportedly persuaded to do so by Marlene Dietrich who had first met Hemingway more then ten years earlier — she was certainly in two minds about the prospect. 
Between mid-May 1944 and the beginning of March 1945 when Hemingway had met and courting her, she had already seen and fallen foul of the ugly, often vicious, side of his personality. By turns Hemingway could be very sweet and loving (as several mawkish love poems he had written for her testified) and very, very nasty, especially when he was drunk, which he often was. In those nine months he had been rude to and insulted her in public on several occasions, and had already hit her. 
Once — apparently on Valentine’s Day 1945 — and again while steaming drunk, he had placed a framed photograph of Noel Monks, her second husband, in Ritz Hotel lavatory bowl and blasted it with a set of German machine pistols his US army friend Charles ‘Chuck’ Lanham had just given him. 
Furthermore, Welsh had never been short of admirers, which aroused Hemingway’s jealousy, and he even accused her of sleeping with senior army officers to gain information. Monks himself was also jealous of what his wife was getting up to while he was away covering the war. 
Monks and Welsh had married on New Year’s Day, 1939, in Chelsea, London, but when Welsh found out he was having an affair while reporting from Cairo, she, too, began to play the field. In a letter to Welsh in February 1945, Monks’ list of her lovers included ‘a pip-speak general’, ‘a film unit guy’ (which would have been Irwin Shaw), a ‘queer-looking guy’ and ‘pimply-faced [Michael] Foot’ (who later became an unsuccessful leader of Britain’s Labour Party). 
As for Hemingway, Monks declared she had thrown ‘a sprat into the sea and caught [herself] a whale’. He and Welsh were divorced in Chicago on August 31, 1945.

Despite whatever misgivings she had, Welsh joined Hemingway in Cuba in May 1945, and once his divorce from Gellhorn was finalised in December 1945, she and Hemingway were married the following March. 
Yet her doubts continued: after a somewhat fraught two-part civil ceremony at a lawyer’s office — it was all in Spanish and Welsh didn’t understand a word — and several off-colour quips Hemingway made that upset her, followed by a pleasant wedding reception in a friend’s apartment, he again turned nasty on the drive back to the Finca. 
That night (as we know from the diary she kept) she resolved to leave him. The following day she changed her mind. Those 24 hours were pretty much the template of their subsequent married life together. 
On many occasions Hemingway treated Welsh like dirt: once while entertaining friends to dinner, he threw a glass of wine in her face; on another occasion and again in company, he tipped the supper she had prepared onto the floor. Once when he was due home for lunch with friends, he turned up with a young Cuban prostitute in tow. 
Later he would always be sweetness and light, and attempt to soothe Welsh’s anger with an expensive gift. To the astonishment of their friends who witnessed how Hemingway treated her, Welsh rolled with the punches, and though she often confided in her diary that she wanted to leave Hemingway, she never did.

Part of the problem was that for many years she did not feel the Finca Vigia was her home: Martha Gellhorn had discovered it, had renovated and had furnished it, and pictures of Martha were still everywhere. 
Unlike Hemingway’s first three wives who had a well-off upbringing, Welsh came from a ‘humble’ background (although her father, a riverboat captain, was unusually enlightened, listened to classical music and insisted his daughter should always stand up for herself). 
She felt she could not compete with the smart, often very attractive wives of Hemingway’s friends (with whom he flirted openly in front of her and with whom he often believed himself to be in love). 
Two of the ridiculous infatuations Hemingway developed, one with a 19-year-old Venetian woman and ten years later with an Irish would-be journalist of the same age, humiliated her, but she clung on. 
Even after an an excruciating extended visit to Spain in 1959 when she finally made firm plans to leave Hemingway and bought an apartment in New York, she could not make the break and was at his side in the final 18 months of his life when his mental health finally gave way and blew his head off.¬

. . .

After the success of For Whom The Bell Tolls in 1940, Hemingway submitted no more work for publication for ten years. Under the circumstances, Scribner’s showed remarkable patience with the writer the house still regarded as one of its principal assets, although in 1947 Maxwell Perkins, who had guided Hemingway’s career for 20 years, had, according to biographer Kenneth Lynn, privately confided in his wife that ‘Hemingway is through’. 
Then in 1950 came Across The River And Into The Trees. As did three of the four novels Hemingway had so far published, it began life as a short story and was based on the first of his infatuations. 
Lynn suggests Perkins would have been aware of the novel’s many weaknesses and would strongly have advised Hemingway to publish it as a short story; but Perkins had died suddenly a few months after voicing his misgiving about the writer’s future and did not oversee the novel’s publication or witness he critical mauling it received. 
The critics, though, be damned: despite the awful reviews it was given, Scribner’s patience was rewarded: the novel sold very well, spent seven weeks in the bestselling lists and was serialised by — though decidedly middle-brow and mid-market — Cosmopolitan magazine. Even more gratifying were the sales of The Old Man And The Sea which appeared two years later.

Despite publishing just those two works in the final quarter of his life, Hemingway had, in fact, been writing consistently for several months at time ever since he returned from Europe in 1945. 
Nominally he had attended World War II — an interlude he later promoted to ‘fighting in Europe’ — as a war correspondent; but he was quite candid that his purpose was essentially to collect material for his next novel. 
Within months of his return to Cuba, he set about writing what he declared would be his ‘big book’, a ‘war novel’ that would cover the conflict at sea, on land and in the air. The ‘sea’ war story was to be based on his ‘submarine hunting’ off the Cuban coast, the ‘land’ war on the weeks he had spent with Colonel Charles ‘Chuck’ Lanham’s 22nd infantry regiment in France, Belgium and Germany, and the ‘air’ war on his flights with the RAF. 
Following his usual disciplined routine of rising early and working until about noon, he set to work in earnest in October 1945, initially continuing to write the story based on Bimini he had begun before the war. In tandem he also began writing the novel that was eventually published — later drastically pruned it has to be said, with two central characters removed completely — as The Garden Of Eden. 
(There is disagreement among his biographers when Hemingway began writing the novel: Kenneth Lynn, James Mellow, Jeffery Meyers and, most recently, Mary Dearborn contend it was begun in the mid-1940s, but Michael Reynolds suggests the novel wasn’t started until the early 1950s.) 
This period of intensive writing carried on until 1948. By then he had abandoned his plan for an ‘air’ war novel, perhaps realising that his few flights with the RAF as an observer might not furnish him with enough material. 
Then work on his ‘big book’ stopped as his health increasingly deteriorated. Since returning to Cuba in 1945 he was drinking ever more heavily, had put on even more weight and his blood pressure was dangerously high. 
Some biographers suggest he was afraid he would die suddenly of an aneuryism, and following his doctor’s orders, he managed, briefly, to lose weight and bring down his blood pressure. But he could not regain the impetus to carry on with his writing.

. . .

It was around this time that he attracted the attention of three journalists and of several academics. In 1948, Aaron Edward (A.E.) Hotchner (right), who was then working for Cosmopolitan magazine, was asked to visit Hemingway in Cuba and sign him up to contribute to a series on ‘the future of literature’. 
Hemingway agreed, but as part of the contract he wanted Cosmopolitan to publish two of his short stories (which he had not yet written) and to serialise part of his ‘war novel’. He wanted $15,000 (just over $164,000 at today’s prices) for the overall deal. 
He explained that sum was less than he might usually demand, but as a writer resident outside the US the tax implications were favourable: he explained that tax-free those $15,000 were worth $75,000 before tax. 
The proposed series of articles was, in fact, abandoned after Cosmopolitan appointed a new editor and the two short stories were never written. But according to Michael Reynolds, Cosmopolitan still paid up and did serialise his next novel, though that was not the ‘war book’ both expected it to be at the time. 
These dealings saw the start of Hemingway’s relationship with Hotchner (who soon moved on from Cosmopolitan) and the two became friends and collaborators. Hotchner had studied law but was trying his hand at journalism. He became something of an acolyte and confidant who was often in attendance and always on call until Hemingway killed himself. 
Eventually he and Hemingway formed a small company, H&H Enterprises, which produced radio and, later, TV drama of some of Hemingway’s works. (The dramas were sponsored by Buick and featured in the Buick-Electra Playhouse. The initial four were so popular that Buick wanted to commission a second series, to include The Sun Also Rises and A Farewell To Arms, but stipulated that they should be adapted to have a ‘happy ending’. Unsurprisingly Hemingway passed.)

In that same year, Malcolm Cowley (left) was commissioned by Life magazine to write a long profile of Hemingway. 
Hemingway had been acquainted with Malcolm Cowley in Paris 25 years earlier when both were part of the Anglo/American expatriate community in Montparnasse (although Cowley and his new bride lived outside Paris). 
Although according to Denis Brian in The True Gen, his book of interviews with Hemingway friends, the two kept up an amiable correspondence over the years, Hemingway was rather rude about him in his short story The Snows Of Kilimanjaro. 
When the dying writer reminisces about his younger days in Paris — for which read Hemingway reminiscing about his younger days in Paris — Cowley appears briefly as an
American poet with a pile of saucers in front of him and a stupid look on his potato face talking about the Dada movement.
In the first versions of the story Cowley was referred to by name, but this was subsequently amended to ‘an American poet’. 
Cowley had also earned Hemingway’s distain because for several years in the 1930s he had worked for the left-wing publication, The New Republic. His standing with Hemingway rose, however, with the introduction Cowley wrote to The Viking Portable Library volume of Hemingway’s work that was published in 1944: in it he suggested Hemingway should be treated far more seriously as artist.

Despite that plaudit, Hemingway was not immediately keen on granting Cowley an interview and having a profile published. Throughout his life Hemingway had a decidedly ambivalent attitude to publicity: on the one hand he often shamelessly promoted himself (which was certainly a major factor in his initial rise to literary fame); on the other he pleaded that he, too, was entitled to a private life and believed it harmed a writer’s work if his readers knew too much about him. 
Hemingway was full of such contradictions. He had once loftily complained about writers who ‘never learned how to say no to a typewriter’; and in a letter to Maxwell Perkins several years earlier he had declared that
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.
Yet increasingly Hemingway himself found it difficult to say ‘not to a typewriter: after Life magazine had commissioned him in 1959 for a 10,000-word feature on a series of Spanish bullfights, it later agreed, at Hemingway’s request, to extend the length to 30,000 words. 
The piece eventually grew to 120,000 words. This was all a far cry from the often brutally concise style of his first four books which had so impressed the critics and helped to make his name. By 1932 with Death In The Afternoon he had certainly forgotten ‘how to say no to a typewriter’; and his verbosity was so out of control by 1935 with Green Hills Of Africa that reviewing the book in the New York Times Charles Poore observes
Some of his sentences . . . would make Henry James take a breath. There’s one that starts on page 148, swings the length of 149 and lands on 150, forty lines or so from tip to tip.
The manuscripts for his two posthumous novels, Islands In The Stream and The Garden Of Eden, were also exceptionally long — Eden even reached more than 200,000 words — and both had to be drastically cut before they were published. This from the writer whose ‘terse, precise and aggressively fresh prose’ in The Sun Also Rises was so admired. 
Yet arguably there is nothing hypocritical about Hemingway’s attitude to the publicity he sought and the privacy he persuaded himself he needed: as a man who sincerely believed he was right about everything, he was possibly simply unaware of the obvious ironies.

According to Hemingway, he agreed to the profile after Cowley pleaded that the money Life would pay him as it would allow him to send his son to the prestigious Phillips Exeter Academy in New Hampshire (and so much for Cowley’s left-wing principles). According to Cowley, quoted by Denis Brian in The True Gen, he wasn’t quite as desperate for the money as Hemingway implied. 
He, his wife Muriel and his son Robert spent ten days in March 1948 in Havana, staying at the Ambos Mundos and enjoying the Hemingways’ hospitality. Robert Cowley remembers that his mother was very impressed with Hemingway’s ‘extraordinarily good manners’. But he also recalls that
You could also tell [Hemingway] was an extraordinary hater, because once sitting in the living room he read aloud to everyone there a letter from someone he utterly despised. He’d read one sentence and comment, read another sentence and comment. I’d never heard anything funnier or more vicious. He was very funny . . . He looked very directly into your eyes when he spoke to you and held that look and spoke confidentially. He was an immense man, great broad shoulders, narrow his, but a hell of a big gut.
Cowley’s profile eventually appeared in the second week of January 1949 under the title A Portrait Of Mister Papa. It included much that Hemingway had asked Cowley to keep out —

 


his ‘counter-intelligence’ activities and ‘sub-hunting’ on the Pilar which he felt might upset the Cuban government and his ‘fighting’ in Europe. 
Cowley sent him a draft of the piece for his comments, yet with each letter to Cowley requesting this and that deletion, Hemingway added further details, many of which were complete nonsense: that there ‘was Indian blood in the family’, that one of his sisters ‘had been in love with him’ and he had been obliged to give up driving after five car crashes in which people had died or been badly injured. Michael Reynolds writes
Cowley must have been perplexed by Hemingway’s frequent and contradictory letters, taking away with the left hand what the right had give. But this behaviour also kept Cowley asking questions, for each of Hemingway’s responses would reveal some new piece of biography, some more fabulous than accurate, all provocative and sometimes paranoid.
In these letters to Cowley and others, Reynolds adds
Hemingway was rehearsing the biography, modifying here, exaggerating there, leaving a confusing trail of truths, half-truths and outright fantasies. At 48 he was saying outrageous things to complete strangers, things he would never have said earlier. What appears at times to be mania can also be read as his response to the canonization of his generation [of writers] already dead.
Both Hotchner and Cowley accepted Hemingway’s claims, even the more outlandish stories, without question. These included having an ‘aluminium kneecap’, ‘having fought as a professional boxer’, ‘running away from home to live the life of a hobo’, ‘being a star football player’ at school and carrying two canteens with him when ‘he went to war’, one filled with gin, the other with dry vermouth. 
Yet it would be unfair to take Hotchner and Cowley too strongly to task: both had been commissioned to enlist Hemingway because he was, in 1948, one of America’s best-known and most successful novelists (and this was before he wrote and published Across The River And Into The Trees). 
It would have been odd for them to have listened politely to what he had to say, then concluded he was simply — as we now know — telling a string of whoppers. Those of his friends in Cuba who drank with him and knew him well were increasingly inclined to take most of the claims and stories with a large pinch of salt, especially when each ‘achievement’ became more spectacular with the telling. 
Talking to Denis Brian, friends and acquaintances of Hemingway suggested he was often sending people up and would tell his tale tales for a joke; this is certainly possible, but one does wonder why he would do so with Cowley for what was to be a serious profile. 
Hotchner and Cowley had never met before Hemingway, though Kenneth Lynn points out that Cowley, in particular, was not as scrupulous as he might have been. In his introduction to The Viking Portable Hemingway in 1944, he had even got the year of Hemingway’s birth wrong. But, Lynn adds,
On boozy days and nights at the Finca, the lord of the manor had undoubtedly grown expansive, and Cowley never seems to have wondered whether his host’s fascinating yarns could be trusted. A Portrait Of Mr Papa not only took Hemingway’s sub-hunting activities far too seriously, but grossly exaggerated the significance of his war service in France.
Hemingway’s reaction to Cowley’s profile, says Lynn, was that is was ‘OK’ but ‘not awfully accurate. Lynn adds
Some years later, Cowley stoutly defended his reportorial reliability by pointing out that the only specific objection Hemingway had raised was about the anecdote of his carrying canteens of gin and vermouth at his belt during combat in World War II. In the first place, Hemingway had scoffed, good vermouth hadn’t been available, and in the second place he would never have wasted a whole canteen on the stuff, no matter what.
In view of Hemingway’s protest, Cowley’s canteen anecdote does begin to look more than questionable. In fact, the claim was made in an interview with the New York Times’ editor and writer C L Sulzberger by ‘Buck’ Lanham who was accompanied by Hemingway for several weeks at the front in the autumn of 1944. 
More seriously why did Hemingway want to play down the ‘canteens of gin and vermouth’ claim, but allowed other equally fatuous claims — for example, running away to live as a hobo — stand?



1945-1961 — Part II: Health declines, Hemingway falls in love and his new novel is mauled by the critics

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.




Yet, details, the perjuries of personal recollection, the innocent or dishonest lies of friends, may not really constitute the life. If one knew everything there was to know about a writer’s at some phase of his or her career (the moments say of Hemingway’s brooding observations on life and writing and the Gulf Stream), would one know everything that might be known about the writing, its banal origins, its hidden motivations? Or, as in a photograph, is the angle of the light, etched in certainty, simply a matter of the moment and misleading?
James R Mellow, Hemingway — A Life Without Consequences.

In spite of Ernest’s high hopes and preliminary vauntings Across The River was received that September with boredom and dismay. The American reviews bristled with such adjectives as disappointing, embarrassing, distressing, trivial, tawdry, garrulous and tired. Many said that the book read like a parody of his former style.
Carlos Baker, official biographer.
How can a man in his senses leave such bullshit on the page?
John Dos Passos in a letter to a friend.

IN THE years after returning home to Cuba, Hemingway’s health, which had increasingly taken a battering, went into a slow decline. He did have a strong constitution when he was younger, but the two concussions he suffered in Europe in 1944, both of which went untreated, and his steady excessive drinking were taking their toll. 
Now in middle age, his metabolism was less able to deal with the stresses to which he subjected it, and age was slowly making itself felt. (He was upset that the thick head of dark hair he once had was getting ever thinner and had long had to wear spectacles for his poor eyesight, although he rarely wore them in public.) 
His blood pressure was again dangerously high and he was again overweight. He was now taking a variety of medications to deal with his ailments, including his chronic insomnia, and he did make an effort to cut back in drinking and watch his weight; but by 1948 he decided an extended break in Italy might do him good. 
It would be a belated honeymoon for him and Mary and a trip down memory lane during which he could show his wife various places he had known as a younger man, including the spot on the Pave River where he had been blown up by an Austrian mortar 30 years earlier. 
One irony, as Michael Reynolds points out, was that thus he was ignoring his own advice. In 1921, after a trip with Hadley Richardson to find that same spot and failing because the landscape had already recovered from the devastation of war, he filed and sold to the Toronto Daily Star a short feature in which he advised readers
Don’t go back to visit the old front. If you have pictures in your head of something that happened in the night in Paschendale [sic] or in the first wave working up the slope in Vimy, do not go back to verify them. It is not good . . . it is like going into the empty gloom of a theater where the charwomen are scrubbing.
He and Welsh set off in September 1948 and docked at Genoa after a four-week voyage. They toured northern Italy, taking in Stresa, Bergamo and Cortina d’Ampezzo (which he had visited with Hadley and where he based his short story Out Of Season and where Welsh rented a villa for them for the following few months). 
Towards the end of October they reached Venice and settled in the very expensive Hotel Gritti Palace. It was on this trip that in mid-December at the home of new hunting friends Hemingway met Adriana Ivancich (left), the daughter of an impoverished family of Venetian nobility. 
At just a month short of her 19th birthday, she was 30 years younger, but he was smitten, and after spending Christmas at the rented Cortina villa, he returned to Venice for two weeks (without Welsh) to meet her again. 
A few weeks later, an eye infection developed into erysipelas and he was kept in hospital in Padua as a precaution (although his life was never in danger as was later claimed for publicity purposes), then he and Welsh returned to the Gritti Hotel in Venice. Before leaving Italy to return to Cuba, he saw Ivancich (and her chaperone) several times. 
By then he had started writing a short story which soon evolved into his fifth novel, Across The River And Into The Trees. Hemingway and Welsh set sail back to Cuba in April and were back at the Finca Vigia by the end of May 1949. 
On the voyage home, which also took almost a month, Hemingway spent every morning working on his new story and carried on writing it once back at the Finca. He also wrote Ivancich many letters declaring his love for her. He was infatuated. 
By September Hemingway said he had written 13,000 words of the story, now well on its way to becoming a novel, and with the assistance of Hotchner had contracted with Cosmopolitan to serialise the opening chapters. (The two stories he had agreed to write for Cosmopolitan nine months earlier were never written. 
He claimed one had been written, but that he had not submitted it because it was ‘too rough’.) By the end of October another 13,000 words of his novel had been written, and a second trip to France and Italy was planned.

That November Hemingway and Welsh flew to New York to set off for a second trip to Europe. He had also agreed to spend the best part of three days while in New York with the journalist Lillian Ross who wanted to profile him in the New Yorker. 
Ross had first met Hemingway on Christmas Eve, 1947, in Ketchum when she was writing a profile of Sidney Franklin (right), the Jewish matador from Brooklyn, New York. Franklin, originally Frumkin and reputedly known as El Torero de la Torah [the Bullfighter of the Torah], had been with Hemingway in Spain in 1937 and 1938 and Hemingway had given her background of his time and friendship with Franklin.

After their New York meeting in November, Ross’s long, not to say dull and longwinded — the Americans seem to love longwinded — profile, entitled How Do You Like It Now, Gentlemen? appeared on May 6, 1950, and caused a minor controversy. 
The title was taken from a nonsensical phrase Hemingway had for no apparent reason taken to repeating (and is said to have done so for the rest of his life, to Welsh’s increasing irritation). 
Ross was accused of trying to make Hemingway look like a fool, and indeed in some ways he does, but it is odd to blame Ross. She simply reproduced what he had said and the jokey way he had adopted of speaking in a kind of pidgin ‘injun’ fashion. 
Many also felt Hemingway’s continual use of sports analogies and comparing himself to taking on past literary figures in the boxing ring was also silly. Hemingway had told her
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.
Although Hemingway adopted a nonchalant air about Ross’s feature and reactions to it, it did upset him and he was, according to Meyers, ‘shocked and felt awful’. 
In a piece she published in the New Yorker almost 50 years later, Ross denied that the profile showed Hemingway in a bad light. She also insists that before publication the magazine had sent Hemingway proofs and because he had raised no objections she had assumed he was happy with the profile. 
To that claim A. E. Hotchner countered that the proofs had not arrived until the Monday of the week of publication — which was on the following Saturday — so there had been no time to make changes. 
This is disingenuous: if Hemingway had been upset and had wanted the profile to be amended, a quick phone call to the magazine in New York would surely have been sufficient to delay publication: whatever difficulties that might bring would not be his but the magazine’s concern. At the heart of it all was, as Meyers writes, that
Hemingway put on a performance for Ross, expected her to see through his act and show the highbrow readers of her magazine the man behind the rather transparent mask. Instead, she accepted the façade, repaid his generosity with meanness and established her reputation at his expense . . . Though [Hemingway] assumed the role of a dumb ox, constantly spoke with wisecracks and sporting metaphors, he was not as stupid or boorish as Ross’s account suggested. She never recorded or revealed the serious and sensitive side of his character, and chose to portray him as a boring braggart who keeps punching himself in the stomach.
In her 1999 New Yorker response, entitled Hemingway Told Me Things: Notes On A Decade’s Correspondence, Ross (left) reports that she and Hemingway had, in fact, kept up an ‘unshakeable’ friendship until his death and had written to each other regularly. Referring to the ‘controversy’ in one letter he urged her to ignore it, she wrote. In another letter he told her
All are very astonished because I don’t hold anything against you who made an effort to destroy me and nearly did, they say. I always tell them how can I be destroyed by a woman when she is a friend of mine and we have never even been to bed and no money has changed hands?
Admittedly, Hemingway’s forgiveness seems a little left-handed in that he does claim Ross ‘made an effort’ to destroy him, but he also lets her off the hook. 
To others, though, Hemingway did indicate that he wasn’t overly pleased with how Ross had portrayed him, though characteristically he held different positions on the issue depending upon to whom he was talking or writing. In her 1999 response Ross insisted that she
wanted to give a picture of this special man as he was, how he looked and sounded, with his vitality, his unique and fun-loaded conversation, and his enormous spirit of truthfulness intact. He had the nerve to be like nobody else on earth, stripping himself — like his writing — of all camouflage and ornament.
In retrospect, her claim that Hemingway ‘had the nerve’ to ‘strip himself’ bare is ironic —by 1999 Ross must have been familiar with the rather less adulatory biographies that had appeared in the 1980s and 1990s which did a great deal of the stripping for him. 
Arguably Hemingway’s lifelong efforts to present himself the world as hard, stoic, tough, fearless and above all a ‘real man’ suggest on the contrary a fair degree of camouflage and ornament. For example, he decided his novel The Garden Of Eden, which would certainly have stripped him of any camouflage, was ‘too sexually adventurous to be published during his lifetime’. 
In the novel David Bourne, the main male protagonist in the heavily cut and edited published version and his alter ego (as, arguably, were all of Hemingway’s ‘leading men’), indulges in sexual games and gender reversal with his bisexual wife. We know — from Hemingway — that he and Welsh did the same: in bed, he sometimes became ‘Catherine’ and she was ‘Pete’. 
Ross’s ‘controversial’ 1950 profile is a case in point of the confusing complexity that in Hemingway masqueraded as simplicity. Hemingway champions might jump in and claim that ‘complexity’ was and is the essence of his work; others, though, might counter that the ‘complexity’ detected by academics is invariably speculative and the kind of ‘knowledge’ that can never be proved. 
Hemingway was certainly not ‘stripping himself of all camouflage and ornament’ when he chose to he play the dumb ox in his encounter with Ross and expected her to see right through the mask and describe to her readers the fine, sensitive artist beneath the surface. 
The obvious question is: why didn’t he just play it straight? Why did he put on a performance for Ross? 
One answer to that is unexpectedly simple: as the friends Denis Brian interviewed for his book The True Gen continually point out, Hemingway was a great joker: he was always up for a laugh. He did put on a performance for Ross, but the po-faced New Yorker writer took it all at face value. In that light it is no surprise Hemingway felt rather stupid.

Seventy years on, it is almost impossible to sort out what was what, and, frankly, it can now be seen as the trivial episode of little consequence it was. The ‘controversy’ it caused at the time among the chattering classes does, though, underline the extraordinary public status and fame Hemingway had — and which he enjoyed — at the time. 
It also highlights the rather silly, not to say dangerous, game Hemingway was playing with the public and the critics of how he was perceived. On the one hand he wanted to be seen as a ‘bad guy’ — not many years later he often used the phrase ‘we bad boys’ — the no-nonsense kind who knew all about life and the knocks it dealt. At no point in his life did he want to be seen as an arty intellectual. 
Yet when, as in the Ross profile, he was taken by his word and portrayed as a simple, down-to-earth, rough and tough man, he didn’t like it one bit, despite his disclaimer to Ross. That same ambivalence about who he was and, particularly, how he wanted to be seen, permeated his dealings with a number of academics who contacted him and asked for his cooperation with various studies of his work they planned to complete.

. . .

After his meeting with Ross, Hemingway and Welsh, with two friends and Hotchner in tow, set sail for Europe. Six weeks in Paris were followed two more months in Venice where the the ageing, lovelorn, paunchy and balding Hemingway spent more time — again always chaperoned — with Adriana Ivancich. 
Finally, after inviting her and her mother Dora to stay with them at the Finca Vigia later that year, he and Welsh sailed back to the US and travelled home. There, Hemingway revised the manuscript for Across The River And Into The Trees, and it was published by Scribner’s at the beginning of September. 
He then turned back to continuing his work on his ‘Bimini novel’, part of the ‘sea war’ war element of his ‘big war book’. Nothing more was to become of the putative ‘land war’ volume as he had used all his experience and the material intended for it in Across The River. 
Another complication was that after Hemingway had first announced to Scribner’s that he was writing a new novel but gave no more details, the house had assumed this would be the ‘big book’ he kept talking about. They were disappointed when it was not. 
Fearing that the public, which had also been guyed up to expect a grand big ‘war novel’ from the famous Ernest Hemingway, might feel a little cheated, Scribner’s cooked up an explanation. 
It hi-jacked the few weeks Hemingway had spent in hospital in Padua while his erysipelas was treated and turned it on the fiction that he had been very ill. Thus, ‘almost at death’s door’, Hemingway — so the story went — had temporarily abandoned writing the ‘big book’ and written a shorter novel he felt confident he would have the time to complete.

. . .

The rumpus with Ross’s profile might have underlined Hemingway’s status as ‘one of America’s greatest contemporary writers’, but his latest novel damaged it badly. The critics — who Hemingway had long convinced himself hated him — were not impressed. 
Some were simply baffled that Across The River And Into The Trees was being presented as a serious work; others were prepared to write off Hemingway as a literary force, a man of the past. Hemingway’s first biographer Carlos Baker, who two years later published the admiring Hemingway: The Writer As Artist, observed that
In spite of Ernest’s high hopes and preliminary vauntings Across The River was received that September with boredom and dismay. The American reviews bristled with such adjectives as disappointing, embarrassing, distressing, trivial, tawdry, garrulous and tired. Many said that the book read like a parody of his former style.
A lone — and quite odd — voice of praise came from fellow writer John O’Hara in the
New York Times who claimed that
The most important author living today, the outstanding author since the death of Shakespeare, has brought out a new novel. The title of the novel is Across The River And Into the Trees. The author, of course, is Ernest Hemingway, the most important, the outstanding author out of the millions of writers who have lived since 1616.
Like Hemingway, O’Hara (right) was also an alcoholic and might well have been drunk when he that extraordinary claim. 
Far more typical of what the critics thought of Hemingway’s novel — which he was convinced was the best thing he had ever written — was, also in the New York Times, from J Donald Adams. He wrote
To me, Across the River and Into the Trees is one of the saddest books I have ever read; not because I am moved to compassion by the conjunction of love and death in the Colonel’s life, but because a great talent has come, whether for now or forever, to such a dead end.
In the New Yorker, Alfred Kazin recorded that
It is hard to say what one feels most in reading this book — pity, embarrassment that so fine and honest a writer can make such a travesty of himself, or amazement that a man can render so marvellously the beauty of the natural world and yet be so vulgar.
Equally baffled by the novel was Maxwell Geismar in the Saturday Review of Literature:
This is an unfortunate novel and unpleasant to review for anyone who respects Hemingway’s talent and achievement. It is not only Hemingway’s worst novel; it is a synthesis of everything that is bad in his previous work and throws a doubtful light on the future. It is so dreadful, in fact, that it begins to have its own morbid fascination…. The ideological background of the novel is a mixture of True Romances, Superman, and The Last Frontier.
In a letter to a friend John Dos Passos was even more direct:
How can a man in his senses leave such bullshit on the page?
A year later in the Kenyon Review, Isaac Rosenfield began
It is not enough to say that ‘Across the River and into the Trees’ is a bad novel, which nearly everyone has said (the fact is, a good deal of it is trash) or to ascribe its failure to Hemingway’s playing Hemingway. Such judgments fail to go deep; they make an artificial separation between the man and the artist, and attribute to the former, as though these were superficial mistakes, shortcomings which are the very essence of Hemingway’s art. It seems to me that no writer of comparable stature has ever expressed in his work so false an attitude toward life.
Rosenfield adds, though notably before Hemingway had written and published The Old Man And The Sea,
For all these reasons, it seems to me that his reputation must soon decline, and while the excellent aspects of his style, at least in the earlier novels and some of the stories, the clear, clean writing that he does at his best, will retain their value, the deep moral significance that some critics (e.g. Cowley) have found or pretended to find in his attitude toward life has already begun to look like a hoax.
At a very narrow pinch, Hemingway might have been able to persuade himself that this was all just more of the same from those damned, nasty critics who were simply out to get him. But the standing of his novel did not improve with age. 
Writing 40 years later in Ernest Hemingway, his short review of all of Hemingway’s work published before 1990, Peter L Hays — an academic, not a critic — noted that
to disastrous reviews that criticised the slackness and self-indulgence on the prose that seemed a bad parody of the early, taut Hemingway style
and adds
Critics have tried to redeem it from its own failings, praising the denseness of allusions to such writers as Dante, Thomas Mann (Death In Venice), and Gabriele D’Annunzio, the symbolic resonance of nearly every scene, every word, but none of these make the novel work.
A slightly kinder, more sympathetic note of consolation was struck by Britain’s Cyril Connelly (quoted by Jeffery Meyers in The Critical Heritage) that
It is not uncommon for a famous writer to produce one thoroughly bad book.
We don’t know whether Hemingway ever came across Connelly’s rather left-handed claim but it is unlikely much to have cheered him.



1945-1961 — Part III: Fighting off the academics and redeeming his reputation a little

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.


When Fenton also began querying his sister Marceline and his outlawed sister Carol . . . 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.
James Mellow, Hemingway —
 A Life Without Consequences

[Quintana] said they were ‘big drunks’ who misbehaved and were so disrespectful that he once had an employee serve some of the Hemingway crew lobster water as if it were consommé. When asked if Ernest’s behavior made him angry, the ever-polite Quintana replied ‘close to it’ and went on, ‘when he was too drunk he would disturb the other guests and I couldn’t put up with that’. Perhaps the most compelling of Quintana’s memories concerns Hemingway as a person: ‘Hemingway was strange, very strange. He was a strange man’.
Jeffrey Herlihy-Mera, of the University of
Puerto Rico, the Hemingway Review

APART from the critical mauling Hemingway’s new novel received, there were other reasons that made this a miserable time in his life. He had a ferocious long-distance argument on the telephone with Pauline about their son Gregory (after which she died suddenly the following day and his youngest son Gregory blamed him for her death).

His mother also died (though he had not seen her for 21 years), a grandson died and Charles Scribner (the II) head of his publishers Scribner’s also died. His blood pressure and weight were still very high and as usual he slept badly, if at all.

Adriana Ivancich and her mother Dora had arrived two months after the novel was published and were staying in the Finca’s guest quarters. Adriana’s brother Gianfranco was also holed up at the Finca. A year earlier, Gianfranco had landed a job with a Havana shipping company while the Hemingway’s were in Europe and had been given free run of the Finca.

Hemingway was still plagued by his infatuation with Adriana (pictured left with her brother Gianfranco), but not only did she not reciprocate his feelings, she became smitten with a good-looking Cuban.

Although Hemingway had asked for his new novel not to published in Italy for a few years to forestall any possible scandal, Venice still got to hear about it and there was a shocked reaction.

Adriana was easily identified as the model for the novel’s ‘Venetian noblewoman’ (though a friend of Adriana’s claimed she herself had been the model) and eventually Dora decided she and her daughter should move out of the Finca and into a Havana hotel for the sake of appearances.

To make it worse for Hemingway, Adriana was unimpressed with his novel and declared that a young Venetian woman from a sheltered background who would jump into bed with an older man was ‘unbelievable’. It would simply not happen.

As usual Welsh bore the brunt of Hemingway’s anger and misery. At one point he threw his glass of wine at her in front of his guests. When Welsh had offered to help Gianfranco by typing a US visa application, for no apparent reason Hemingway became furious when he walked into the room and saw them, and threw the typewriter on the floor. Yet again Welsh simply rolled with the punches.

Hemingway insisted that Adriana was ‘a muse’ and that her presence helped him write, and while she and her mother were still staying at the Finca — and in the wake of the dismayed reaction to his novel — he began writing The Old Man And The Sea.

He had resurrected the story from one of his Esquire features that had appeared in April 1936. This in turn was based on a tale Carlos Gutiérrez, his first mate on the Pilar at the time, had told him.

The new work is often referred to as a novel, but at just 27,000 words it is more a novella. Under a deal struck with Life worth $40,000 ($436,769 in 2022), the story was published in full in the magazine’s Sept 1, 1952, edition of which all five million copies of sold out.

It was also chosen as a Book of The Month for which Hemingway was paid $21,000 ($229,303), and when Scribner’s published it a week after it appeared in Life, it had an initial 50,000 print run.

Eventually, producer Leland Hayward paid Hemingway $150,000 ($1,637,884) for the film rights and his help as an advisor.(It should be pointed out that a great deal of the money went to the US Inland Revenue Service in tax, although Hemingway was able to mitigate how much tax he paid because he lived outside the US.)

The Old Man And The Sea certainly salvaged Hemingway’s career as a writer. Contemporary reviewers hailed it as a ‘return to form’, but praise was not universal and often a muted. Fellow novelist William Faulkner began his review with
His best. Time may show it to be the best single piece of any of us, I mean his and my contemporaries.
In the New York Times Orville Prescott declared
The Old Man And The Sea is a short novel, only 27,000 words. It is much simpler and enormously better than Mr Hemingway’s last book, Across The River And Into the Trees . . . Within the sharp restrictions imposed by the very nature of his story Mr Hemingway has written with sure skill. Here is the master technician once more at the top of his form, doing superbly what he can do better than anyone else.
In the Partisan Review Delmore Schwartz noted, perhaps a little tactlessly, that
The ovation which greeted Hemingway’s new novel was mostly very nice. For it was mostly a desire to continue to admire a great writer. Yet there was a note of insistence in the praise and a note of relief, the relief because his previous book [Across The River And Into The Trees] was extremely bad in an ominous way, the insistence, I think, because this new work is not so much good in itself as a virtuoso performance which reminds one of Hemingway at his best.
Writing in the Virginia Quarterly Review John Aldridge had some good words to say about the story before admitting
But one must take care not to push these generosities too far, if only because they spill over so easily into that excess of blind charity we all tend to feel for Hemingway each time he pulls out of another slump and attains to the heroism of simply writing well once again.
He suggested the novella should be recognised
for the degree of its success in meeting the standards set down by his own best previous achievement as an artist. I have these standards in mind when I say that The Old Man and the Sea seems to me a work of distinctly minor Hemingway fiction.
In sum Aldridge remained unconvinced and wrote
In the best of the early Hemingway one always felt that the prose had been forced out under great pressure through a tight screen of opposing psychic tensions . . . now the prose [in The Old Man And The Sea] . . . has a fabricated quality, as if it had been shipped into the book by some manufacturer of standardized Hemingway parts.
Several decades on, critics and reviewers were even less kind. In the Atlantic Monthly in October 1983 James Atlas simply recorded that
The end of Hemingway’s career was a sad business. The last novels were self-parodies, none more so than The Old Man And The Sea. The internal monologues of Hemingway’s crusty fisherman are unwittingly comical (‘My head is not that clear. But I think the great Di Maggio would be proud of me today’); and the message, that fish are ‘more noble and more able’ than men, is fine if you’re a seventh grader.
And in his biography of Hemingway 12 years later, Kenneth S Lynn was almost brutal, though arguably his summing up The Old Man And The Sea is fair:
Today, there is only one question worth asking about The Old Man. How could a book that lapses repeatedly into lachrymose sentimentality and is relentlessly pseudo-Biblical, that mixes cute talk about baseball (‘I fear both the Tigers of Detroit and the Indians of Cleveland’) with crucifixion symbolism of the most appalling crudity (‘he slept face down on the newspapers with his arms out straight and the palms of his hands up’) have evoked such a storm of applause from highbrows and middlebrows alike — and in such overwhelming numbers?
Fellow biographer, James Mellow, is a little kinder but also not as impressed with the novella as Hemingway hoped readers would be. He writes
Critics read [the sharks] as tropes for critics. In a letter to Edmund Wilson, Hemingway insisted on setting the record straight: ‘You know I was thinking about actual sharks when I wrote the book and had nothing to do with the theory that they represented critics. I don’t know who thought that up.’ But Hemingway, with a new book in process [the sea war element of his ‘big book’] and still smarting over the critical reception of Across The River, was promulgating his own metaphor of the artist at bay. In a letter to Harvey Breit, he spoke of the lobo wolf: ‘He is hunted by everyone. Everyone is against him and he is on his own as an artist is.’ There was no doubt that The Old Man And The Sea was a surrogate fable of Hemingway’s own life as a writer who had dared to venture to far from the shore on the wide blue Gulf Stream, which had become Hemingway’s major metaphor for the mysterious force of life. . . Hemingway, too, was a former champion trying for a comeback, as Santiago was formerly El Campeon, not only a great fisherman, but rather awkwardly — it is one of the sentimental flaws of the novel — the champion arm wrestler of the island. The too easy identification of Santiago with Hemingway himself unavoidably taints the narrative with a kind of self-pity.
Hemingway’s novella, the last work he published in his lifetime, not only evoked a storm of applause (and some relief that ‘Papa’ was not yet passed it), but won him the Pulitzer Prize and is also believed to have smoothed the path to being awarded the Nobel Prize in 1954.

Also smoothing that path, some suggest, were the two plane crashes Hemingway had survived at the conclusion of his African safari earlier that year. It had possibly decided the Nobel committee that perhaps he should be awarded the Prize before death did carry him away.

For years, not least because of Hemingway’s simple and uncomplicated prose, The Old Man And The Sea became a staple in school and college English literature syllabuses, and as such became part of the fabric of many a man and woman’s early years.

Many might thus remember it fondly, although how much it would delight their rather more mature minds in later life is another matter.

. . .

In the late 1940s and early 1950s Hemingway came to the notice of young academics who had heeded Malcolm Cowley’s urging in his introduction to The Viking Portable Hemingway to take the Ernest Hemingway’s work more seriously as art.

At different times he was contacted by and corresponded with Carlos Baker (who was later appointed, with Hemingway’s consent, to write his biography), Phillip Young and Charles Fenton. The British writer and journalist John Atkins also contacted Hemingway.

All were initially rebuffed by Hemingway who again insisted he did not want his private life examined or delved into. Soon, however, Hemingway began to provide limited cooperation, at first with two and then three of them.

Baker was able to persuade him that he simply intended to analyse the work in terms of the artistic process and Hemingway eventually agreed that passages from his stories and novels could be quoted.

John Atkins, who planned something similar — an appraisal of Hemingway’s art — also met little resistance and proceeded. Hemingway later declared himself pleased with Atkins’s book, The Art of Ernest Hemingway. Although it was subtitled ‘His Work And Personality’, it did concern itself almost wholly with the work. On the other hand Young and Fenton had no luck at all.

Charles Fenton was planning an account of Hemingway’s early ‘apprenticeship as a writer’, covering when he wrote and helped to edit his high school newspaper and magazine, his seven months with the Kansas City Star and short pieces he sold to the Toronto Star. He had already been interviewing family and friends who knew Hemingway from those early days, and James Mellow writes
When Fenton also began querying his sister Marceline and his outlawed sister Carol . . . 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.
Hemingway — inexplicably given public stand on the matter — even suggested who Fenton might like to contact to find out more. Hemingway’s attitude might sound odd, but one aspect of his personality was a narcissistic egocentricity and he loved to be the centre of attention. That might explain why he blew hot and cold with Fenton whose book eventually appeared in 1954.

More seriously for Hemingway, Philip Young announced that he believed Hemingway’s fiction was not just rooted in the severe wounds he had received at Fossalta in July 1918, but in other ‘psychic’ wounds he had suffered when younger, such as the ending of his relationship with Agnes von Kurowsky and even earlier ones when growing up in Oak Park and at Walloon lake.

It is not clear what these ‘psychic wounds’ might be apart from the knockbacks every youngster encounters to a greater or lesser extent while maturing into adulthood. Hemingway not only complained that Young had no medical qualifications for undertaking such an examination, but he also had a deep suspicion of psychiatrists and psychiatry.

In the mid-1930s he threatened legal action against a Lawrence Kubie, the psychiatrist attending Hemingway’s mistress Jane Mason’s after she either jumped or fell from the second storey of her villa in Cuba (and whether it was a real suicide attempt or not has never been established.)

Hemingway heard that Kubie intended, as part of a series on several authors, a psychological analysis of Hemingway based on his fiction. Young was now planning something very similar.

Young’s dilemma was that he had already completed his book and had found a publisher, but his publishers would not proceed without permission from Hemingway to quote from his work. According to Young (in a preface to Hemingway: A Reconsideration, the 1961 revised edition to his book) the dispute over use of quotations carried on for over a year.

Young, a junior academic with a growing family and running out of money, was becoming ever more desperate as his publishers began to lose interest. Accounts of how the matter was resolved differ (and those differences are instructive on how much we can rely on biographers). According to James Mellow, Hemingway had written to Young

asking for [his] word ‘that the book is not biography disguised as criticism and that it is not a psychoanalytical study of a living writer’. Other than that he would have no objections to allowing Young to quote from his books.

This is certainly not the account Young gave in his preface to the 1961 edition of his book. As the book was exactly the kind of psychoanalytical study Hemingway feared — and hence his objection that Young had no medical training equipping him to undertake it — it makes sense that for more than a year Hemingway withheld permission for the quotations to be used. Mellow makes no mention of that.

The matter was finally settled when the kind heart that so often beat in Hemingway’s breast came to the fore: sympathetic to Young’s increasing financial plight, he simply changed his mind and granted his permission.

As for Carlos Baker’s book, he was so pleased with it that eventually he nominated the academic to be his official biographer. His only stipulation was that he and Baker should never meet.

. . .

In 1941 after the Pulitzer Prize board accepted the jurors’ recommendation to award the prize to Hemingway for For Whom The Bell Tolls, one influential board member insisted that Pulitzer Prize should not be associated with a novel with such profane and sexual content.

The board decided not to aware the prize Hemingway after all (though it did not award it to another author, either). Twelve years later though, he did succeed and won the Pulitzer prize for The Old Man.

That same year he began planning his second safari in East Africa. When Look magazine heard about it, it struck a deal with Hemingway and agreed to pay him $10,000 for a 3,500-word feature on the safari and another $15,000 for a series of pictures to be taken by their staff photographer Earl Theisen, at total of $25,000.

Yet again those figures also counsel caution when we read a biography: according to Kenneth Lynn, Hemingway was to be paid double that sum: $25,000 for the feature and another $25,000 for posing for Theisen’s pictures. So which is it? Who knows?

He and Mary Welsh set off for Europe in June and planned to visit Paris and then Spain before carrying on for Kenya. It was the first time Hemingway was back in Spain since Franco’s Nationalist defeated the Republicans, and he was apprehensive.

Their visit took in Valencia and Madrid as well as July’s Pamplona festival. As in 1925, Hemingway surrounded himself with friends for his Pamplona visit, but his return — perhaps another trip down memory lane — was not a great success. For one thing the town was now overrun with visitors, and he and Welsh could not find accommodation less then 25 miles away.

In Pamplona Hemingway was reunited with Juanito Quintana (left), who had appeared as the hotel owner Juanito Montoya in The Sun Also Rises, and yet again there are several versions of just how warm their friendship was.

In The Sun Also Rises Jake Barnes (i.e. Hemingway) is acknowledged by Montoya (i.e. Quintana) as a man who shares the true afficon for bullfighting and he treats Barnes with respect as an insider (a role Hemingway always liked to play), although he disapproves when the Barnes group seem to lead the young matador Pedro Romero astray.

This is a rosier account of Quintana’s feelings according to Jeffrey Herlihy-Mera, of the University of Puerto Rico. Writing in the Hemingway Review Spring 2012 edition, he says that Quintana had mixed memories of Hemingway and his friends
[Quintana] said they were ‘big drunks’ who misbehaved and were so disrespectful that he once had an employee serve some of the Hemingway crew lobster water as if it were consommé. When asked if Ernest’s behavior made him angry, the ever-polite Quintana replied ‘close to it’ and went on, ‘when he was too drunk he would disturb the other guests and I couldn’t put up with that’. Perhaps the most compelling of Quintana’s memories concerns Hemingway as a person: ‘Hemingway was strange, very strange. He was a strange man’.

1945-1961 — Part IV: Cheating death in Africa, the winning the Nobel Prize and entering his anecdotage

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.





A lot of nostalgic nonsense is often written about poverty and hunger by successful authors who no longer have to experience them.
Novelist Julian McLaren-Ross

I met Ernest Hemingway at Sun Valley last week, and was taken totally by surprise. I had not been prepared by talk, photos, or interviews for a) that charm, and b) that beauty.
Leonard Bernstein in a letter to Martha Gellhorn, Jan 7, 1959


AT THE beginning of August Hemingway and Welsh finally set off for East Africa and their safari. In Kenya they linked up with Mayito Menocal, a friend from Cuba whose father had been president for eight years, Life photographer Earl Theisen and white hunter Philip Percival who had organised Hemingway’s safari in 1934.

(Jeffery Meyers writes that the Kenyan government, dealing with the Mau-Mau insurgency which was scaring off tourists, hoped that the publicity generated by Hemingway’s visit would persuade potential visitors that there was little danger and persuaded Percival to come out of retirement.)

Like Hemingway’s return to Pamplona after 22 years, his return to East Africa also fell a little flat. His alcoholism and ageing eyesight meant his shooting was often poor.

In 1934 it had Charlie Thompson, a Key West friend — two other friends had bowed out, protesting they could not afford the trip, but privately apprehensive of falling foul of Hemingway’s competitiveness and temper — who had outshot him and bagged more trophies. Now it was Mayito Menocal who was besting him and Hemingway did not like it.

Alcohol didn’t help: according to Kenya game warden Denis Zaphiro who was assisting Percival, Hemingway was drinking all the time. Quoted by Meyers, Zaphiro said
[Hemingway’s] drinking would have killed a less tough man. Two or three bottles of hard liquor a day. Wines etc with meals. Gin a favourite drink. I suppose he was drunk the whole time but seldom showed it. Just became merrier, more loveable, more bull-shitty. Without a drink he was morose silent and depressed.
Hemingway was once so drunk, he fell out of a fast-moving Land Rover driving through the bush. At one point he began to apologise to Percival for his poor marksmanship, but Percival was having none of it and cut him off, telling him simply ‘Oh, Ernest, don’t give me that nonsense, the whole thing has been a disgrace’.

Hemingway also became obsessed with the local Kenyan Masai culture and began to ape the Masai. While Welsh was away from the camp on a short pre-Christmas break in Nairobi, he shaved his head, dyed his clothes the colour of theirs and took up with a local young woman to whom he insisted he was now engaged. (He claims he also had sex with her but this is doubtful.)

Welsh behaved stoically throughout as though she were unconcerned, and curiously, biographers report, Hemingway’s odd behaviour acted as a stimulus to their sex life.

Often quoted by biographers is a passage Hemingway added to the diary she kept (the former journalist in her always had one eye on in the future publishing a book on her life with Hemingway). In it he makes direct reference to their sex life, one night indulging in role reversal in bed. He wrote that
Mary had always wanted to be a boy and thinks as a boy without ever losing any femininity . . . she loves me to her girls [sic], which I love to be, not being absolutely stupid . . . I loved feeling the embrace of Mary which came to me as something quite new and outside all tribal law.
More seriously once the safari proper had ended, he was almost killed, though his drinking cannot be blamed. On his 1934 safari he had contracted amoebic dysentery and had to be airlifted to Nairobi for emergency treatment.

Nineteen years later, he was treating Welsh to several plane trips to see the country from the air and he almost died in the second of two crashes.

The first crash occurred on January 24, 1954, when the pilot was flying low over the Murchison Falls in Uganda along the Victoria Nile, tried to avoid a flock of birds and his plane clipped a telegraph wire. The plane’s rudder and, crucially, the radio antenna were disabled.

The pilot managed to crash-land in the bush and no one was badly hurt, though Welsh was later found to have broken two ribs and Hemingway’s dislocated shoulder was thought to have been caused in that first crash.

With radio communication out of service, the pilot could not call for help. To avoid crocodiles in the river Hemingway, Welsh and the pilot took to higher ground for the night. When a BOAC airliner spotted the
wreckage, but saw no sign of life and an search plane that was alerted could also spot no one, Hemingway was presumed dead, and his ‘death’ made the headlines around the world.

The following day the three were rescued by a passing river launch and taken to a town on the east bank of Lake Victoria where a second pilot was waiting to fly them to Entebbe.

However, the ‘runway’ was simply a stretch of very rutted baked earth and the plane crashed on take-off, bursting into flames.

Welsh, their first pilot and their second pilot escaped through a small window.

But Hemingway was trapped, too large to squeeze through the window and the port door was jammed shut. With flames already engulfing the inside of the plane, he finally got the door open by using his head as a battering ram.

He and Welsh were driven inland to another town where Hemingway received only perfunctory medical help (a doctor reportedly simply bandaged his head and cleaned up superficial cuts but examined him no further).

The next day they were taken to Entebbe where Hemingway agreed to a press conference — the world now alerted that the famous writer had not died after all —and he played up to his image as the ‘indestructible’ Papa Hemingway’.

In fact he was in great pain, seeing double and was intermittently deaf. After three days resting in a Nairobi hotel bed (and already drinking again), he was up and about, though he ears were still ringing and he was still seeing double. Several weeks later he made a fishing trip with his son Patrick and Philip Percival and others, but he was in considerable pain and often irascible, so much that Patrick upped and left the party after his father shouted at Patrick’s wife and made her cry.

To compound his already serious injuries Hemingway insisted on helping put out a bush fire, fell into the flames and suffered second and third-degree burns. It wasn’t until he and Welsh were back in Europe that, in Venice, he received proper treatment and the full extent of his injuries were established.

They included two cracked discs in his spine, ruptures to his liver, spleen and a kidney, a dislocated shoulder and right arm and his skull had broken open. Pressure on a nerve paralysed his sphincter muscle (which meant for some time he was obliged to defecate standing up). He had also suffered his fourth severe concussion in ten years.

He spent a month in bed in Venice recuperating, and a friend who saw him in said he had looked more like 70 hair now white.

. . .

In the spring of 1954, at 54, Hemingway still comparatively young. But the years of heavy drinking, his several concussions and his latest round of injuries had taken a severe toll. His slow but terminal decline, mental as well as physical, over the following seven years was now underway.

In addition to medication for his high blood pressure and insomnia, he was taking several other drugs and, crucially, it was not clear how all these interacted. For several of the drugs depression was a known side-effect, and he certainly should not have been mixing all that medication with alcohol.

Months before his death in 1961, while being treated for his depression in Minnesota, his doctors also diagnosed haemochromatosis, a hereditary disease which stops the body from ridding itself of iron and from which he would have been suffering all his life.

The slow but steady accumulation of iron causes damage to the heart and liver, as well as the swelling of arms, legs and feet and erectile dysfunction, all conditions from which Hemingway had suffered for many years. Mentally, he became ever more irascible and his mood fluctuated wildly and, as was now usual, Welsh carried on bearing the brunt of his unpredictable and often manic behaviour.

Later that year Hemingway was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature. He had always displayed his characteristic ambivalence towards the award, purporting to disdain all such baubles and prizes; but even years earlier, in a letter to Charles Scribner, he was hinting that he might be due to win it.

That he was finally honoured in October 1954 suggested to some biographers that his near-death in East Africa had persuaded the Nobel Committee it might be better to hand the prize to Hemingway sooner rather than later while he was still alive.

The letter he had sent to Scribner had been written in anger: in November 1941 Hemingway was awarded the gold medal of the ‘Limited Editions Club’ for his then new novel For Whom The Bell Tolls. He told Scribner’s he would be unable to attend the award ceremony in New York and asked them to send a stenographer to record the speech fellow writer Sinclair Lewis would make. But Scribner’s forgot to do so and Hemingway was furious.

In his letter to Charles Scribner complaining about it — he had hauled Max Perkins over the coals a few days earlier — he claimed the speech might have been printed as a pamphlet and could have secured him the Nobel Prize for Literature. His logic in making his claim is not clear, but what is clear is that even then he considered himself to be great writer who should be honoured by the Nobel Committee.

Despite his ostensible indifference to the prize, he was very put out when William Faulkner, his rival, fellow writer and also an alcoholic had won the Nobel Prize four years earlier. In a letter to a friend, the New York Books Review editor Harvey Breit, he wrote
You see what happens with Bill Faulkner is that as long as I am alive he has to drink to feel good about having the Nobel Prize. He does not realise that I have no respect for that institution and was truly happy for him when he got it.
To which claim Evelyn Waugh might have responded ‘Up to a point, Lord Copper’.

. . .

Since Hemingway had returned to Cuba from Europe in 1945 until the last year of his life, it became his habit to work on one manuscript, then carry on with, or even start, another. Writing Across The River And Into The Trees had interrupted his work on the ‘big war book’, and in the wake of that novel’s publication, he had written and published The Old Man before returning to writing his ‘big book’ about the World War II.

By then this had become purely the ‘sea’ element of his planned trilogy and the ‘air’ and ‘land’ war volumes had gone by the board. At some point between returning from Europe and the mid-1950 she had also started to write what became The Garden Of Eden. Hemingway continued working on it intermittently before — no one knows why — abandoning it and packing it away at his bank in Havana.

In 1956 he also began writing a ‘semi-fictitious’ account based on his second African safari, a book he apparently hoped would be something between a novel and reportage. This became True At First Light and was published in 1999 to mark the centenary of Hemingway’s birth, though the original 200,000-word manuscript had to be extensively cut by more than half and edited before it was deemed to be in any shape.

Increasingly after he won his Nobel Prize in the autumn of 1954, the peace and quiet Hemingway had enjoyed and valued at the Finca Vigia became elusive. He was now one of Havana’s tourist sights and coachloads of sightseers pitched up outside the Finca’s gates to catch a glimpse of the legendary ‘Papa’ Hemingway.

Quite apart from the tourist hoi polloi, the number of friends — some old, many increasingly new, some invited, others not — who turned up grew. It seemed dropping in on Nobel Prize winner and famous writer Ernest Hemingway had become part of the social round. Hemingway was both irritated and pleased but made them all welcome.

Then, in the summer of 1955, preliminary work on filming The Old Man And The Sea began, and to honour his contract with producer Leland Hayward to ‘advise’ with the script and shooting, Hemingway was obliged to put aside his writing and spend a great deal of time with the production team. He soon found it frustrating.

For one thing he had disagreements with Hayward’s screenwriter Peter Viertel, who wanted to alter one or two aspects of the story. Hemingway was having none of it. Leland also began some location shooting in Cuba and it seems Hemingway’s ‘assistance’ was also required for that. 

But when the film people had departed for the year, he returned to his African ‘novel’, though not for long: at the end of 1955 and early 1956 he was laid up in bed for three months with nephritis (once known as Bright’s disease)and hepatitis. Once he had recovered, Hayward was back in Havana in the spring and wanted his help filming the fishing sequences.

All in all Hemingway, who had previously avoided being involved with the filming of any of his previous work, found his involvement thoroughly dispiriting experience. Michael Reynolds records that Hemingway was
determined to have real sharks attacking and actual marlin in an authentic ocean. That was the Hollywood promise written down on paper; but as he was to learn, words written on the West Coast somehow had different meanings from standard English. Moreover, anything scheduled, promised or planned meant absolutely nothing in the movie business.
It got no better:
Trying to coordinate the weather, film crew, blood bait and sharks was proving almost impossible. When the camera crew were ready, the weather was too rough to film. When twenty gallons of slaughterhouse blood and four tubs of fish heads were standing by, the film crew was somewhere else. One part or other never got to the right place on time. Days were wasted. Money was spent and spent again. If not the sharks, then the marlin would not cooperate — too small, to far away, not jumping enough. When not wasting time at the dock, they wasted time at conferences or waiting for Spencer Tracy to show up.
When Tracy (right), an alcoholic but on the wagon, did arrive in Havana, he started drinking again. Hemingway also thought that Tracy was miscast as ‘the old man’ because he looked too fat and healthy for the unlucky but stoic fisherman who had spent three days and nights at sea with no sleep whatsoever. 

Finally, unable to get the footage of marlin and sharks needed, Hayward, Hemingway and the film crew took off to the coast of Peru for just over a month to try their luck their.

Yet again the marlin caught were to small for the ‘part’ they were to play, and Hayward eventually settled for using a large plastic model to represent the Marlin the old man catches and straps to the side of his skiff, only for it to be eaten by sharks. Hemingway was not pleased.

By the summer of 1956, almost 30 months after the plane crashes, Hemingway’s recovery was still incomplete and his health was suffering in new ways. In addition to his high blood pressure and excess weight, his cholesterol count was became excessive and both he and Mary Welsh were found to be clinically anaemic.

As much to get away from the steady stream of ‘celebrities’ who were dropping in as for their health, they decided on another break in Europe and Africa and set sail at the beginning of September. The conflict between Israel and Egypt (which had blocked the Suez Canal by sinking more than 40 vessels) put paid to any notions of visiting East Africa, but they were able to tour bullfights in Spain, although in Madrid Hemingway fell ill again and was laid up in bed for several weeks.

Eventually returning home and stopping off in Paris in November, Hemingway is said to have been reminded by the Ritz Hotel of two small trunks he had supposedly stored in the hotel basement at the end of the 1920s.

. . .

The discovery of these small trunks or boxes was certainly serendipitous (and some might sceptics might prefer to refer to it as their ‘discovery’). The generally accepted account, first given by Leonard Lyons on December 11, 1957, in the gossip column he wrote for the New York Post, is that they contained old notebooks, newspaper clippings and manuscripts. In 1964 in the New York Times Book Review, Mary Welsh wrote that the
two small, fabric-covered, rectangular boxes, both opening at the seams . . . [contained] blue-and-yellow-covered pencilled notebooks and sheaves of typed papers, ancient newspaper cuttings, bad water colors done by old friends, a few cracked and faded books, some musty sweat shirts and withered sandals. Ernest had not seen the stuff since 1927, when he packed it and left it at the hotel before going to Key West.
Such a detailed description might seemed copper-bottomed proof of the discovery and the boxes and their contents, although notably Mary Welsh’s source was Hemingway himself. The same was true of Lyons: he had been informed of the contents by Hemingway when he had lunch with him at the Finca.

Hemingway later wrote that it was finding the two trunks that led him to reminisce about his years in Paris and and decide him to write a memoir. One sceptical academic, however, Jacqueline Tavernier-Courbin, then of the University of Ottowa, suggested that, on balance, it is more than possible the supposed discovery was just another Hemingway myth.

Writing in the Autumn (Fall) 1980 edition of the journal College Literature and expanding her claim 11 years later in a full-length book, Ernest Hemingway’s Moveable Feast: The Making of a Myth, Tavernier-Courbin outlines the arguments for and against her scepticism. She attempts to demonstrate — and perhaps succeeds — that the ‘discovery’ was more probably what we might today call a public relations exercise.

Tavernier-Courbin suggests the revelation was a convoluted ruse by Hemingway to get himself off a hook: he had previously claimed that writers who resorted to composing their memoirs were tacitly admitting they were at the end of their career and had more or less thrown in the towel. ‘Finding’ the two trunks and claiming they caused him to reminisce might acquit him of that charge.

To substantiate her claim, Tavernier-Courbin describes several oddities and inconsistencies in the Lyons and Welsh’s accounts. For example, she writes, the suitcases were said to have been stored at the Ritz in 1927 when Hemingway travelled to Key West for the first time. In fact, he didn’t do so until 1928.

One of the boxes was said to have contained the original manuscript for A Farewell To Arms, but it could not have done: Hemingway had later presented that manuscript to his new wife’s uncle, Gus Pfeiffer. Storing the items would not have been in itself have been unusual: two other suitcases that had been stored at another hotel at about the same time.

But these were referred to in several letters written by Hemingway in the late 1920s, yet the first mention of the supposed Ritz trunks is more than 30 years later in Lyons’s column in 1957.

According to Welsh the Ritz Hotel had first asked Hemingway to remove the trunks in 1936, though she could only have been told this by Hemingway himself; thus it can have no bearing either way on whether the story of the trunks is true.

Such inconsistencies are, though, circumstantial and might well simply be down to misunderstandings and faulty accounts by Lyons and Welsh. Furthermore, whether or not two small suitcases were found is neither here nor there: Reynolds suggests that by late 1956 Hemingway had already begun musing on the past and in letters to friends seemed to be rehearsing various anecdotes.

Certainly, from mid-1957 until his death he was writing and re-writing sketches — in tandem with other projects — for what became A Moveable Feast (which was not a title chosen by Hemingway). At one point he declared the memoir completed — Reynolds writes that Hemingway claimed the first draft was written in six months — and delivered the manuscript to Scribner’s; then he changed his mind and halted publication. In a letter to Charles Scribner the year before he died, he explained he wanted to re-write parts of his memoir and that he was also afraid of suits for libel.

A Moveable Feast was eventually published in 1964 after Mary Welsh had edited it. She insisted she had not changed a word Hemingway had written but had merely re-arranged some of the chapters and corrected grammar and spelling.

That is not wholly true: when her edited version was compared to various drafts and manuscripts in the Boston JFK Library, it became obvious that Welsh had suppressed some parts of what Hemingway had initially submitted to Scribner’s, including flattering references to Hadley Richardson.

Forty-five years later, in 2009, a new edition of the memoir, edited by Hemingway’s grandson Sean, was published in which parts of the original manuscript were reinstated and chapters again re-arranged.

The first, 1964, edition was a bestseller — a month before it was published, Life magazine printed eleven of its twenty sketches and Scribner’s gave the book an initial print run of 85,000 copies. It featured on the US bestseller list for eight months and held the top spot for five of those months. The critics also liked it, and for many of them, A Moveable Feast contained the best writing Hemingway had produced in years.

Some noted what has since been described as the settling of scores — Gertrude Stein, Scott Fitzgerald and Ford Madox Ford who had all promoted Hemingway in his early, unknown years were made to look foolish or otherwise flawed. Scott Fitzgerald especially is made to look very silly.

Though not named, Pauline Pfeiffer, John Dos Passos and Gerald and Sara Murphy are condemned as being responsible for the break-up of his marriage to Richardson; biographers repeatedly note that Hemingway always managed to shift the blame for his misdeeds on to others. Yet on those sour notes the critics gave Hemingway a pass, perhaps relieved that the writing was not as bad as it had become over the past twenty years.

Slightly more sceptical were several British critics: in the London Magazine the novelist Julian McLaren-Ross felt that Hemingway’s adoring portrayal of Hadley Richardson seemed to be the model for all the ‘far too admiring and acquiescent’ women in his fiction and notes tartly — but honestly —that
A lot of nostalgic nonsense is often written about poverty and hunger by successful authors who no longer have to experience them.
In the journal Encounter the Cambridge academic Tony Tanner suggested that
The book is written with a good deal of arrogance: every episode is turned to leave Hemingway looking tougher, more talented, more honest, more dignified than anyone else.
In the New York Review Of Books Frank Kermode, another Cambridge academic, welcomed the memoir as
in some ways, Hemingway’s best book since the 1920s
which could, though, be understood as a tacit admission that a great deal of the work Hemingway produced since A Farewell To Arms appeared in 1929 more than 30 years earlier was quite not up to snuff.

Referring to the blatant score-settling, Kermode also notes ironically that Hemingway’s famous built-in ‘shit detector’
can purge not only your prose but your acquaintance.
Something of a mystery and still so far unexplained is the last line in Hemingway’s preface that
If the reader prefers, this book can be regarded as fiction
and although he adds
but there is always the chance that such a book of fiction may throw some light on what has been written as fact.
It is not at all clear how. The obvious, rather puzzling question is: exactly why might a reader prefer the book to be regarded as fiction?

Although A Moveable Feast did not appear until three years after Hemingway’s death, he cannot have known its publication would be delayed when he wrote his preface, and presumably he expected it to appear in his lifetime.

If he had concerns about possible libel suits, he would, or should, have known that these were unfounded: those men and women he named in his memoir who might have objected to what he wrote about them — and sued for libel — were long dead. Those who were not yet dead were not named.

Some critics were charmed by Hemingway’s descriptions of his ‘we wuz poor, but we wuz happy’ domestic bliss with Hadley, their toddler ‘Bumby’ and F Puss their cat; others perhaps agreed more with McLaren-Ross’s implication that it was all a little sentimentally unreal.

In that respect it might well be regarded as fiction, and the dialogue from a writer whose gift for dialogue had long been championed is curiously stilted, artificial and cloying.