For Whom the Bell Tolls
discussion
Does anyone agree with Gore Vidal's assessment of Hemingway as a Novelist.
Philip wrote: "I imagine these mandarins sitting across a smart dinner table, slurping fancy wine and gradually tearing strips off each other. I don't know if they ever met in person. Perhaps they had more in com..."Well said! :-)
Hemingway also could say so much in so few words, truly the gift of someone who sees the world in a unique and clear way. Wallace Stegner liked Ansel Adams because he wanted to write the way the pure lens saw the world. And he did. So did Hemingway. For those of you you love Hemingway's work, I suggest reading or rereading Tender is the Night by Fitzgerald, which paints with a beautiful brush in a similar way.
Poor Ernest. I' m from Italy and I never heard of this Gore Vidal guy .Probably that' s a point.
I' ll do some research, anyway.
@Caleb, I always think at Hemingway and Fitzgerald as something that, together, complete the picture of their era. Reading the letters between the two was enlighting and a real fun.
Tim wrote: "I have read one novel by Vidal. I have read several by Hemingway.At the moment Hemingway is winning..."
Haha! I was reading down the comments and just before reading yours I thought... funny, I've never read anything by Vidal and I think I've read 4 or 5 of Hemingway's Novels.
I have read For Whom The Bells Tolls twice - I loved that book.
Karl wrote: "I thought using the above mentioned Novel to springboard the discussion."One of the reasons that the gifted Hemingway never wrote a good novel was that nothing interested him except a few sensuou..."
Vidal has a point but he presents it in a crude, rude and dismissive manner, calling attention to his own failings.
Hemingway had his faults, but he's demonstrated more courage than Vidal. He volunteered to go to war at eighteen and came home a wounded hero, despite the fact that he was only in uniform five weeks. Afterward he went repeatedly in harms way as a journalist in the Spanish Civil War and World War II.
To say Hemingway didn't have much to say about war is to ignore most of For Whom the Bell Tolls and much of A Fairwell to Arms. It's almost an absurd comment. He showed that war is hell. He personalized it, put faces on it. He didn't just regurgitate something he'd read; he went there and came back with a first-hand account. We need that as much or more than we need Vidal's armchair academic posturing and analysis.
Hemingway had his faults, but we all have our demons, Gore Vidal included.
Yes, Hemingway concentrated on romance, adventure and military conflict and had a relatively narrow socio-cultural footprint. In a sense he was a child compared with a John Steinbeck or a Leo Tolstoy. Vidal wanted more. So? He can read Tolstoy.
Kirsty wrote: "I took a college course on Hemingway, and after reading most of his novels, I couldn't understand why he was such a big deal. Then I read The Old Man and the Sea, and finally understood. Hemingway'..."I suspect Vidal is distinguishing here between gifted writing and being gifted as a novelist, Hemingway's gifts being limited to the artistic mechanisms of writing rather than thematic breadth and depth.
Vidal strikes me a big picture man. (I'm not defending him; just trying to understand where he's coming from.) Writers like Tolstoy, Steinbeck and Victor Hugo covered a lot of social landscape, whereas Hemingway's focus was more limited: love, war, fishing, hunting. Tennessee Williams would have said "fucking and fighting." Hem touched on philosophy in only one novel that I recall, The Sun Also Rises, and there in a narrow and abstract way, analogizing life as a string of exchange transactions.
George wrote: "When I returned from Vietnam as a 21 year-old war veteran, I was in pretty bad shape. My personality was blown apart and lying in pieces all around me. This was 1969. I never felt so alone, angry a..."Well said, George. Now I'm going to reread that story. Slowly this time. Before, I rushed through it.
Reading through the last few comments, I saw both these writers as examples of that peculiar breed: the Great American Snob (though H's snobbery was more of the inverse kind).Vidal thought himself simply superior to everyone else, and indeed he was Emperor of Middle-Brow; whereas Hemingway knew he could write a second-rate book (for example, "To Have and Have Not") and still sell a million plus movie deal.
I think Gore Vidal is a moron for saying that. A Farewell to Arms is a masterpiece.
Vidal may be a great writer but his head is up his ass on this one.
I'm not sure that I would have personally liked either Vidal or Hemmingway. I've read both. I do not remember anything about Vidal's style that makes his stand out. Hemmingway's style, on the other hand, if very appealing. I don't write novels or short stories but I do write legal briefs. I have been accused of being "Hemingwayesque" because I favor short, punchy, easily understood sentences. Hemmingway is the master of that style.
Dr. Michael wrote: "One m in Hemingway"Indeed - I may be a minimalist but clearly not a good speller!
Vidal? Doesn't he make shampoo? Never had any inclination to read his books. Hemingway on the other hand, is one of my favorites. Reading the Old Man and the Sea made me feel sorry for the old man. Reading what Vidal wrote makes me feel sorry that he needs to put others down to make himself feel superior.
Disagree. I think Hemingway's commentary on war is subtle. I prefer his writing because you gain an understanding of his view of war without having him say his position. That is, in my opinion, a characteristic of a good writer.
No, no, no...you've got it all wrong. BLUE is the BEST color!geez.
Lest anyone think I'm trolling I guess I should address Gore Vidal being a "paid critic" as someone else mentioned. It's fair to say you don't like a person's writing. It's easy to say it's crap. It's hard to justify your judgements.
Vidal's comments make him sounds like someone who lives in an isolated bubble. Two comments in particular stood out to me.
"a few sensuous experiences, like killing things and fucking—interesting things to do but not all that interesting to write about." and "Hemingway chased after wars, but he never had much of anything to say about war"
Spoken like someone who has never experienced much of life. He sounds like he may have copulated but never fucked. He also sounds like a pretentious twit who would probably soil his trousers if he were ever to find himself in the middle of a war. Worse, he probably wouldn't have anything to say about it other than some antiseptic commentary on the political reasonings of why it started. I prefer authors who write about sensuous experiences.
Vidal studies life.
Hemingway experiences life.
Thanks Thomas.Your comments are harsh and on the mark. I have only read one of Vidal`s books, MYRA BECKINRIDGE, which I put down on the first try 40 years ago because I found the principal character so disgusting. Two years ago I read it again from start to finish and actually enjoyed it. He`s a good writer, but not of the class of a Hemingway. Vidal lacks the all engrossing compassion of an H.
I have made the same comment about T. Wolfe the 2nd. BONFIRE OF THE VANITIES was a phenomenal novel, a minor masterpiece, but Wolfe in his all encompassing cynicism lacks humanistic compassion. This is the very quality that stands out in the best of 20th century literature and propels authors such as Steinbeck, Dos Passos, Cather, Hemingway, Wharton and others, (Dickens, Eliot and Hardy come to mind)to mega status. Vidal doesn`t have it, down deep knew it, and resented the fact he was not fully human. Now that is harsh.
Geoffrey wrote: "Thanks Thomas.Your comments are harsh and on the mark. I have only read one of Vidal`s books, MYRA BECKINRIDGE, which I put down on the first try 40 years ago because I found the principal charac..."
An excellent assessment.
Vidal, and I know him only through documentaries and interviews, struck me as a man who reveled being unlikable. Only Truman Capote also seemed to enjoy pissing people off, particularly competitors. I understand Capote much better because I've read a lot of his work; so I accept his character flaws. I've not reached that point with Vidal and suspect I never will try. I've owned Beyond the Welfare State for decades and haven't gotten past page 1.
Geoffrey wrote: "Thanks Thomas.Your comments are harsh and on the mark. I have only read one of Vidal`s books, MYRA BECKINRIDGE, which I put down on the first try 40 years ago because I found the principal charac..."
I think you've hit the nail on the head there. If it's a lack of human compassion then I can definitely see that being mistaken for detachment and lack of experience.
I read an interesting blog post where the author talked about the difference between an artist of the caliber of Michelangelo vs a technically superior artist but who lacks that human imperfection that makes a work a masterpiece. Sometimes, being perfect isn't the best thing...striving for perfection can be better.
Thomas wrote: "a technically superior artist but who lacks that human imperfection that makes a work a masterpiece. Sometimes, being perfect isn't the best thing...striving for perfection can be better. "How profound. You've really touched on something here.
In my own words: The wounded soul enslaves himself to his art in penance, seeking redemption in the joy his work will bring to others.
I have to say I think the reason Hemingway draws this downplay from a lot of writers is his titanic impact it had on modern style. Gore Vidal never wrote anything as soul crushing in as few words as For Whom the Bell Tolls and he knew it.
Skitz wrote: "I have to say I think the reason Hemingway draws this downplay from a lot of writers is his titanic impact it had on modern style. Gore Vidal never wrote anything as soul crushing in as few words a..."Writers like Vidal and a lot of other professionals in literature can't comprehend Hemingay's popularity and many are jealous or suspicious of what they don't understand. I've studied him extensively and published my findings elsewhere: (http://redroom.com/member/monty-heyin....
Most writers attempt to convey meaning through specificity and direct communication, whereas Hemingway delivers meaning indirectly by inference.
In being non-specific Hemingway is trusting and engaging the reader's imagination and getting himself out of the way. The concept is so counter-intuitive to people who are intent on conveying precisely, precisely, what they want the reader to experience that they fail to employ the bottom 78% of the iceberg , the wealth of human knowledge lying submerged in our collective unconscious.
Thanks for ignoring my iPhone typing deficiency.
Monty J wrote: "Skitz wrote: "I have to say I think the reason Hemingway draws this downplay from a lot of writers is his titanic impact it had on modern style. Gore Vidal never wrote anything as soul crushing in ..."Being able to "deliver meaning indirectly by inference" is what, I think, separates good writers from great writers.
Thomas wrote: Being able to "deliver meaning indirectly by inference" is what, I think, separates good writers from great writers. "As far as reportage goes... but what about the role of research and imagination; and how do you infer the unknown?
Hemingway, Faulkner, Fitzgerald and other Americans writing between the two world wars produced entertaining literature that is great to study and has stood the test of time. They gave voice to their age and their voices were of that age. They mostly conveyed impressions and meaning by the way in which they utilised contemporary language and styles of discourse. However, they could only produce successful stories of their time, the people they knew and the places they visited.
Gore Vidal, MacKinlay Kantor and Joyce Carol Oates, for example, are all American writers who (in different ways) have taken a much broader canvas than the above. Whether by examining a wider circle of contemporary culture than their own (Oates), exploring and re-exploring historical settings (Kantor) or tackling political themes from ancient Rome to modern day Washington (Vidal), their work is less reliant on a utilisation of contemporary idiom. That's not to say they never "deliver[] meaning indirectly by inference" - but that they are more successful handling specific objectives.
There is also the argument that such objective voices don't intrude so much, though perhaps Vidal's patrician objectivity does become overbearing.
Surely, what separates "good writers" from so-called "greats" is the gap between good writing and great writing - of whatever sort.
Philip wrote: "Thomas wrote: Being able to "deliver meaning indirectly by inference" is what, I think, separates good writers from great writers. "As far as reportage goes... but what about the role of research..."
Maybe my last comment there was a bit of a generalization. If we're talking about technique, the ability to deliver meaning through inference is a technical ability not all writers are capable of. I believe it is a big part of that "gap" you mention.
I was trying to explain my impression of the gap, rather than just acknowledge that one exists.
Thomas wrote: If we're talking about technique, the ability to deliver meaning through inference is a technical ability not all writers are capable of.There's a great example of inference in "I, Claudius" by Robert Graves, towards the end of the first book, I think it is. It's a first person narrative and when narrator comes to the part where he is made Emperor of Rome, he tells it as though the whole thing came about merely by chance. That in the chaos after the death of Caligula he could just has easily have been murdered as be taken up and championed by his father's old legion.
Robert Graves' skill is in planting the clues, even though the narrator himself can't see them. Claudius has been groomed for power because everyone thinks he's a cretin and can be manipulated. Graves even manages to give Claudius both irony and hidden intelligence (ie hidden from the other Romans). In "Claudius the God" (second book in the series) he half pretends to posterity that he doesn't know of Messalina (his wife)'s adultery with about 100 men. By then, we're onto him - but it still works. You really feel for the guy (and the girl!).
Not even my heroes are immune to "PaPa envy." Hitchens on Hemingway on Charlie Rose - "...[Hemingway] never got over the fact that he wasn't as butch as Gertrude Stein..."
Byron 'Giggsy' wrote: "Vidal: "Hemingway chased after wars, but he never had much of anything to say about war, unlike Tolstoy or even Malraux"I read For Whom the Bell Tolls this Summer, and sure, the setting for the n..."
So True, I read for whom the bell tolls and even before reaching the end, I had this unrelenting feeling of sadness for Robert Jordan. As if I knew he would die. Every thing seemed so hopeless in the novel. Imo more than anything, Hemingway's three great war novels are more or less about disillusionment, love and the innate feeling of hopelessness that many a person had after WWI/Spanish Civil war.
In terms of Vidal point, I don't think Hemingway ever set out to write a novel that taught people about the war, or really much of anything else a "intellectual" would be interested in. I feel he was writing to make people understand him, understand human emotion. He wanted to make work that transcended, not just lingered in pretentiousness. He was weaving works of art for fathers to pass on to their sons etc. Kinda what Kerouac did for the disenfranchised post WWII
**MINOR SPOILERS**I think Hemingway comments a lot about the futilities and ironies of war, as well as about loyalty and betrayal, and the battle between hope and despair in For Whom the Bell Tolls (FWTBT).
The main characters in FWTBT, from Robert Jordan to Pablo and Pilar, constantly struggle to repress the fear of potential failure throughout the book, in deference to their loyalty to the cause. H beautifully portrays a hope of a better future burning brightly, as well as the flame flickering in the face of adversity. This must have been one of the most prevalent emotional conflicts for people fighting in the ideological wars of the time; the very real fear of failing and the future such a failure would hold.
The scene where Andres is travelling to deliver Jordan's message and muses on the fact that he could just as easily have been a fascist soldier as this red guerillero, is so casually executed, that it demonstrates that many of the faceless people lost to wars, are no different as those standing and firing directly against them. The story of the football match in no man’s land between German and British troops springs to mind. This theme arises again and again, when Jordan and Anselmo survey the enemy sentries, during the siege of Sordo's band and again at the very end. "There but for the grace of God, go we", perhaps.
As well as this, I think the main success of FWTBT is the intricate and detailed narration of such a short period of time - "less than four days [sic]" - which again speaks of war in the way that modern films, such as Hurt Locker, have also done; in war so many small, individual battles are fought constantly, and these many tiny pixels are what fill in the lines of the larger political image. Where H succeeds with this novel, is the balance between the individual experience, and the wider political context, referenced expertly in the scenes toward the end of the book, as the generals and officials discuss the impending attack.
In answer to the original question, and as much as I do admire Vidal, I would have to say no, I do not agree.
RP
don presnell wrote: "gore vidal should clean his own back yard"heh
I agree with Gore Vidal. As a woman, Hemingway is completely unlikable and repellent as a person; which makes it very hard for me to read his works. Basically, Hemingway is to literature what Ted Nugent is to rock and roll........both are humans of marginal quality who produce work that reeks of testosterone and dead animals.
Too bad you`re so prejudiced against H, Holly. If you weren`t you would vastly appreciate a brilliant writer.
Bloke Books, so much more satisfying than Chick Lit.
Vidal's comments seem overly harsh. I give no validity to his claims at all, I've only read a couple of books from each author, and Vidal doesn't come off well.Capote's In Cold Blood and Breakfast at Tiffany's are both exceptional works of art.
Hemmingway's For Whom the Bell Tolls and The Sun Also Rises are amoungst some of my favourite books.
Vidal's Lincoln i found utterly unreadable. Gave up after 60 tediously boring pages. I enjoyed 'Messiah', it was a very amusing read, but i certainly wouldn't consider it a classic.
In my humble opinion, Hemingway wrote one great book, two that are passable, and the rest make good kindling.
"This sort of artist runs into trouble very early on because all he can really write about is himself and after youth that self—unengaged in the world—is of declining interest."Did Vidal forget that Henry Miller, another giant, wrote exclusively about himself? Also I'm surprised to see the lack of mention of The Garden of Eden which, aside from being possibly his best novel, is probably the one that best describes him himself. Far better than offhand quotes ever have anyway.
I like Vidal's novels. Creation is one of my very favorites. Vidal the cultural critic was always interesting too.But For Whom the Bell Tolls is a magnificent book and Hemingway is arguably the greatest of all American novelists.
So in that, at least, Vidal was wrong.
Tim wrote: "I have been entertained by some of Vidal's books, but I have little respect for living writers who diss Hemingway. What is to be gained by trashing a dead guy who can't respond, other than a kind o..."Strongly agree - Across the River and Into the Trees was terrible. Definitely he was off form. But the other three are among the best books I have read. I have never read anything by Gore Vidal, though I did try, once.
I found the book about WWI weak. I´ve seen the movie SNOWS OF KILIMANJARO. There is a langurous quality to it as was his story about the expats in Europe, but I found both to be unfocused.His strength is in the short stories which are most, masterpieces. His only rival is Chekhov. Or simply, the other way around.
If ACROSS THE RIVER AND INTO THE TREES is his anthology of ss, they´re brilliant. So overall, I have to agree with Vidal, but the latter is not in the same league, but a second tier writer. MYRA BECKINRIDGE was his best and a brilliant novel at that.
Harsh.Hemingway's style is a little too dense for me but I still have the utmost respect for any writer who managed to live so completely and yet still found time to write.
Gore Vidal was a pretentious idler who made a living on trite, faux-challenging prose and never wrote a good book in his life.
Vidal has a tendency to change his opinion on someone's writing based on things that have nothing to do with the writing. Christopher Hitchens being a classic example. He raved about Hitch for years (rightfully so, as he was a much better writer than Vidal), but when Hitch expressed political views Vidal did not like, suddenly Vidal thought he could no longer write well.Hard to take anyone seriously who is suffering from that much delusion or deception (hard to say which).
I really don't see how Gore Vidal, a middling writer at best, can have the nerve to denigrate a great literary writer like Hemingway. Here, IMO, you have a grade B writer trashing a grade A writer. Essentially comments such as these by Vidal do not even deserve to be addressed. Vidal's motivation, besides being nasty and bitchy, is jealously. On style points alone Hemmingway rates among the best writers of this or any time. Gore Vidal will soon be forgotten. Lita
I know it's sacrilege to disparage our icons, but I'm not actually a big fan of Hemingway as a writer, but I enjoyed the movies about his books, which might be the problem. The films "FWTBT" and "The Sun Also Rises" were wonderful films, depicting parts of the world most of us will never see. He was a man's man and writer, and, that, too, is his appeal, I believe. We are a macho nation and we like macho men. I can imagine some writers disliking that kind of writing bravado and thinking it less than intellectual. I've never read Vidal, but always planned to do so. I will put him on my list of to-read novelists. I enjoyed "Of Mice and Men," but, as for the Sun Also Rises and FWTBT, I have felt that I was "supposed" to like Hemingway, like some people extol the TV show, "The Wire." Sometimes, I just don't get it.
Vl wrote: I enjoyed "Of Mice and Men," but, as for the Sun Also Rises and FWTBT, I have felt that I was "supposed" to like Hemingway, like some people extol the TV show, "The Wire." Sometimes, I just don't get it. "POI, "Of Mice and Men" isn't by Hemingway. John Steinbeck wrote that one.
Poor Gore took his name as a mandate. I'm at work and haven't time to read all comments, so forgive me if I repeat anything someone has already said. I think the style trumps the content in Hemingway. But he was then trumped in turn, I think. Yes, the short stories are where he shines. Sad man.
Ben wrote: "I think I agree with him with regard to some of Hemingway's stuff: The Sun Also Rises, The Old Man and the Sea and Islands in the Stream, but [book:For Whom the ..."I agree with Ben. Having said that, I love Hemingway for what he wrote as much as I love Vidal for what he wrote. In the end, I think that Hemingway's best books are among the greatest books of all time and better than Vidal's best books. But Vidal's worst books are generally more interesting than Hemingway's worst books. At least that is my sense having not read every word either one wrote.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Sun Also Rises (other topics)
The Old Man and the Sea (other topics)
The Old Man and the Sea (other topics)
The Sun Also Rises (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Islands in the Stream (other topics)The Sun Also Rises (other topics)
The Old Man and the Sea (other topics)
The Old Man and the Sea (other topics)
The Sun Also Rises (other topics)
More...
Gore-Vidal, speaking on TV*, said that the modern American novel had failed to address the crucial subject of marriage. I guess he was including his own books in that collective.
The comments quoted here.. his pouring of bile over Hemingway's headless corpse... actually miss the point, but belong to the same strand of criticism:
The man didn't give twopence for the role of women. Oh, the author of "Fiesta" and "For whom The Bell Tolls" included a few skirted critters in his books, usually as tomboys, foils or molls; but he never wrote about women as fully-rounded characters. That's a hell of a blind spot for a modern writer: one bad penny covers each eye.
Hemingway's finest achievement was to raise the Boy's Own Story to the heights of great literature; thence to push some of the linguistic and narrative boundaries of the novel.
His failure was to ignore humanity's better half.
(*I think on BBC's Arena; VHS taped, mid 90s.)