|
|
|
|
|
by csense
4020 days ago
|
|
Stopped reading after the first part of the first sentence: "Ernest Hemingway, who may well be the greatest living American novelist and short-story writer..." I don't understand why people like him. He sucks. Back in high school AP English, his book was the only required reading I just couldn't bring myself to finish because the writing was so terrible. If it wasn't a professionally bound book on the required reading list, I'd have mistaken it for an attempt at writing by another high school student in my class who lacked literary talent (as well as vocabulary skills appropriate to the most advanced English class my high school had to offer). To me it seems like there's some shadowy cabal of literary critics who magically decided to appoint him as a great writer with no reason whatsoever, and their influence is so powerful that his praises are spoken in locations and times as diverse as a mid-century issue of The New Yorker, a millenium-era AP English required reading list, and #13 on a 2015 HN frontpage. What am I missing? |
|
Suffice it to say that breadth of vocabulary is a poor rubric for evaluating literary works, almost without exception. For Hemingway and many others, it is better to have the words at hand than forcibly to use them. For a reader, it is worth reflecting on why a writer chose the words they did, rather than assuming they could have done no differently. Much of the history of high-brow English literature consists of taking old forms and making them more nearly vulgar. More than a century before Hemingway, Wordsworth made a name for himself for his vernacular—to pick an example out of a hat. Closer to Hemingway's time, Mark Twain famously cut down James Fenimore Cooper for failing to "[e]schew surplusage" or "[e]mploy a simple and straightforward style"[1], adages that Hemingway can be said to have written by, at least in his best-remembered works. Hemingway fulfilled—or continued to work toward—one of the stronger and more common impetuses in English literature and criticism: to write using ordinary language, and to do so exactly.
I would add that it is useful in the study of literature and literary criticism to dislike something, particularly if it is an entrenched part of whatever canon you find yourself surrounded by. It means you have something to think about, concerning the work, yourself, and others. Which are the three most important things with regard to art—not in any particular order.
[1] http://twain.lib.virginia.edu/projects/rissetto/offense.html