Brad’s Comments (group member since Dec 27, 2008)

Brad’s comments from the The Importance of Reading Ernest group.

You know, I think that short stories provide more room for discussion than novels in book clubs and groups like this. Unless I am in a classroom setting where there is a couple of weeks set aside for a novel and specific themes can be hit during each class, there seems to be a tendency to just give general feelings about novels, thereby avoiding any kind of close reading or debate. Short stories are so focused, so tight, that generalities can't get you anywhere, so we all tend to dig deeper right off the bat. Maybe that's why I love the short story form so much.

But, speaking of novels, maybe we should throw in a Hemingway novel sometime (a long time from now), but something to expand our reading of him further.

And then we could start a Faulkner group, and then we could start a...

Having sat on it for a while now, I am not so sure anyone in the story is a coward (any more or less than anyone else in the world). Francis and Margot both commit cowardly acts, and Wilson is occasionally cowardly in his silence, but they also show moments of pretty impressive bravery too. This goes back again to a theme I expect to see much discussion about over the life of this group: the depth of characters. Hemingway absolutely refuses to make his characters easy. I can't think of a single character in any story of Hemingway's I've ever read (and I have read everything but True at First Light) who is black or white, nor even black and white, every character is a shade of gray. So in terms of Macomber, I can see some cowardice, but there is so much bravery too.

I hadn't considered that Wilson was actually in on the murder (if that's what it was). Interesting idea. I'm going to have to look for that my next time through.

I, too, thought the car was significant, but my mind was moving more with the motion of the car, as though the car were a symbol of the rush to the inevitable. Like there was no holding back Macomber's death. Glad to have you joining us, Arthur.

Say hi. Tell us about yourself. I'm Brad, the crafter of this mad group, and I can't escape the shadow of Ernest.

It really is tragic, isn't it? I mean here's Francis finally finding something important in himself; here's Margot about to be forced into an escape route that she didn't even know she needed; here's Wilson about to have his faith in humanity restored, at least for a short time -- and BAM. It's over.

I love, too, that we can't really be sure whether Margot planned it or not. Wilson thinks she did, but that could just be his perspective, his misanthropy giving his mind no other recourse. Do you think she meant to do it, Gio?

Gio wrote: "...seeing the reality of humanity helps highlight your own flaws... "

And I've got plenty of those ;). I spend most of my life thinking about them, working on them, struggling with them, and maybe that's why I always like the deeply flawed characters, because then I don't seem so bad.

But no, I think the main reason I love the unsavoury folk is because even they deserve our love and attention. It may sound stupid, but as much as humanity frustrates me I can't help but love it, and for me that means loving those we see as flawed or lost or even evil as much as those we see in a positive light.

Then again it could be the other way around. Maybe I loved the flawed characters because I have no hope at all for humanity and I believe that everyone, even those who think they are perfect, are deeply flawed. That all of us are Francis and Margot and Wilson -- whether we like it or not -- and we are all ultimately lost, therefore if we can't love the flawed we can't love anyone.

Have you ever met a man who is "macho" that anyone likes? I agree that they are the same argument -- male and female cruelty -- and I think they are perceived similarly today. Cruel women are bitches, macho men (and macho certainly has a negative connotation unless it is being applied ironically to the Village People) are pricks. In fact, I'd say "macho" is just giving way to the terms "prick" or "asshole."

So maybe the real thread of discussion should be about how the view and application of female cruelty has changed from Hemingway's time to now.

An aside: even Hemingway himself is often derided today as being the "macho," chauvinistic, all-American male asshole(tags for him that I tend to disagree with), and much of his work is ignored based on those views of him. Machismo can and does have a negative impact on men in society. There is a lot less success and admiration attached than we have been led to believe.

I hadn't thought of a heterosexual/metrosexual, but now that you say that Hemingway himself was making a similar distinction. I mean, being a four letter man is to be homosexual, or perceived that way, and a metrosexual would have been seen as such in Hemingway's day.

So what do you think of the ending?

Without letting the story sink in again, I would have to say that I like everyone in the story. They may be unsavoury, but they are real. Christ, could Hemingway ever tap into the reality of internal lives.

Arthur wrote: "First impression was that it was well written. Main story was almost novel in its elements..."

I've always felt that was one of the great strengths of Hemingway's short stories -- and probably why he is considered a master of the form -- his ability to tell a complete story in little space is unsurpassed. I always feel like I've read the whole tale. Rarely is anything else is ever needed.

Okay...my first impression (although I've read Macomber many times before so it's really only my first impression from this reading): I can't help but feel the kinship between Fight Club and The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber. Both stories have something similar and important to say about violence and men, and it is tied to the stultifying effects women can have on them.

It makes me wonder what Hemingway would think of today's man, but then I think I know. He'd be appalled that men have allowed themselves to lose access to violence, living it only arms length. He'd be sad that men can only access violence through media and that they have been slowly trained into believing that all violence is bad (and that any man who engages in violence or acknowledges its worth must be either a right wing kook or mentally ill).

Papa would have admired Fight Club (particularly Fincher's version of it), but then he would have gone out and gotten into a fight so that he could live it actively rather than soaking it up passively.

So what do you think? Is there anything to what Wilson sees as "American female cruelty" (or can we say North American)? Has it disappeared since Hemingway's day? Has it intensified? Did it never really exist?

Did you like anyone in Francis Macomber? If so, who did you like and why? Or, alternatively, did you actually despise someone?

I've got lots more to say than this, but I will start with what you said about the lion. I can see what you are saying about the lion being the only one who isn't a coward, but then I am sure that the Hemingway was always closer to the animals he killed than the humans he knew. He certainly respected the animals for their "purity of spirit."

Obviously we can't talk about Macomber without discussing cowardice. So what do you make of the way Hemingway presents cowardice in the story? What do you make of the way Hemingway's characters deal with cowardice? How important is bravery in your own life?

The most obvious book to use is the Complete Short Stories because...well...it's complete and you'll never have to buy another. But if you can find any of the stories we are doing in any of his other collections, or in some anthology, or even off the net, feel free to use whatever version you can find.

I will be adding all of his published short story collections in our group books so you know what the other possible options are.

So here's the plan. We read a different Hemingway short story every two weeks. We will kick off our discussions with a "First Impressions" section, then expand our discussions into particular themes and areas of interest.

Feel free to invite anyone you know who might be interested in the group.

So what are your first impressions of The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber? Is this the first time you've read it, or is it an old friend you're revisiting?