Book Review: In Our Time is better than I'm going to make it sound here. It had a revolutionary impact on writing style. Hemingway has several valuable skills as a writing teacher: his writing is short, concise, with few extraneous words. While this can be taken to an extreme, for those used to the Victorians it must've seemed like a blessing. Hemingway works to use the right word, it's a "Wagner apple from beside the road," not simply some generic, undescribed apple as so often pops up in writing. He'll spend a paragraph describing grasshoppers. He also knows what he's writing about. When Hemingway tells how to do something (here usually camping or fishing), you know he's done it dozens of times and one could practically learn the process through his story. He'll spend paragraphs on setting up a tent. Too often readers complain that when they find some flaw, inconsistency, or inaccuracy (such as legal issues in a mystery) in a story, they lose confidence in the author. Not so here. For me, the greatest strength and interest of In Our Time is Hemingway's ability to seem to be writing about one thing, while the real subject of the story lingers beneath the surface like one of his trout, nibbling at the reader's awareness. He's the master of the subliminal story. So, what are my tiny problems? First, several of these are "Nick Adams" stories and he just seems like a rather bland, awkward character to me -- something I doubt Hemingway was. I'm unsure that Nick Adams is the best vehicle for the stories, he's often less interesting than the other characters. Second, Hemingway's style, while a step forward can also become its own parody. Young writers in their teens or 20s are often infatuated by the freshness and clarity of Hemingway's writing, but then turn out endless reams of unintended parody. Hemingway himself falls into this. It can become a bit "See Jane run": "She loved to fish. She loved to fish with Nick." He also falls into writing that sounds British: "It was absolutely topping." Then, as Mailer did later, he uses euphemisms: "That son of a crutting brakeman." As a craftsman, if you can't use the word you want to, use something real, even "son of a dog" would sound better. Euphemisms are, by definition, the wrong word, and the wrong word won't cut it when you're brilliant. Two words that become a habit in Hemingway's writing are "good" and "much." When he says "good" he's making a small value judgment, without providing any explanation. "It was a good camp." "It was a good feeling." Why? What makes it good? Saying the cabin was tight, warm, and bright might be better than saying, "the cabin was good." Also, the word "much," which I suspect he appropriated from the Spanish. Again, when he repeats the word it almost sounds like he's parodying himself. Overall, of course, his writing is amazing, but when you're known as a master craftsman, small flaws grow large and it hasn't all aged well. I can see why readers today may puzzle at the "Genius writer" title. Again, these are minor criticisms of a great writer. As far as the macho thing, I didn't see it. In most of the stories the female character (when there is one) is more mature, independent, and capable than the male character. The men are immature, inarticulate, unsure what they want. There was one vignette that overdid the gore (in both senses of the word, pobre caballo), but that has nothing to do with gender. In Our Time hasn't entirely aged well, and though it has some excellent stories it doesn't have his best work, but as a historical step in writing and as a workshop for learning to write solid, seaworthy stories, it's invaluable. [3½★]
No comments:
Post a Comment