|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2009 19:43:59 GMT
Hemingway is being resurrected with a "restored edition" of A Moveable Feast, setting straight some of the relationships. New York Times article |
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Jun 28, 2009 20:29:51 GMT
Hmm, that is interesting, although the "recast" of the article may be more accurate than "restored". Certainly Pauline's reputation is meant to be rehabilitated.
A bit of spiteful literary gossip ~~ supposedly Pauline remonstrated with Hemingway when he was leaving her for Martha Gellhorn, and H. responded with, "Live by the sword, die by the sword."
|
|
|
|
Post by Nic on Jun 29, 2009 0:47:01 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by spindrift on Jun 30, 2009 17:41:06 GMT
Interestingly - I am presently reading a biography of the wonderful Martha Gellhorn. How I admire her!
|
|
|
|
Post by bjd on Jun 30, 2009 18:43:52 GMT
I also read a book about Martha Gellhorn a couple of years ago. Hemingway came out of that book sounding rather unpleasant.
|
|
|
|
Post by spindrift on Jun 30, 2009 20:34:29 GMT
Yes, very unpleasant.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2009 20:44:15 GMT
I am under the impression that most "great" writers were not at all nice people.
|
|
|
|
Post by spindrift on Jun 30, 2009 21:30:44 GMT
That sounds right.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jazz on Jul 1, 2009 13:01:32 GMT
A Moveable Feast is one of my most loved books about Paris. I would like to read the 'restored edition' very much. Since neither (apparently) reflect what Hemingway himself wanted to publish, I am very curious about the new material. Literary history is as relative as any other history.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2009 1:36:19 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by nic on Jul 15, 2009 5:21:32 GMT
Not a bad review at all, Cas. I have to call BS on the reviewer naming A Moveable Feast his greatest novel, however; that's a distinction for another, better book. I'll be picking up my copy tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
Post by nic on Jul 20, 2009 8:10:19 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2009 9:42:43 GMT
Intriguing,particularly in light of the fact that Mr. Hotchner was so involved with the first publication,was Hemingway's friend ,and also a writer. One has to wonder when a family member especially a grandson,gets a hold of a memoir( that does not depict his grandmother in a very pretty light) and revises it. I don't know if I approve of Scribner allowing this to happen. But, we know what their motivation is of course.
Thanks for this nic.
|
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Jul 20, 2009 16:10:19 GMT
Great minds, etc., Nic!
I just came in here in order to link that very article. I read Hotchner's book, but that was at least thirty years ago so I wouldn't trust my critical memory of it now.
The thing is, how is the average reader to determine who is really right about a famous person? Hotchner may well have been as close to Hemingway as he claims, or he may simply be a good enough writer to make a plausible case for what he claims.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jazz on Jul 21, 2009 17:03:33 GMT
Thanks Nic, this was a good article to balance the discussion. I will read what I consider the 'new' book and see what I think then. To me, they will be two books that are 'seperate but equal', perhaps. Hemmingway himself was confused and erratic about his wives, how would we know?
I don't think much of people 'rewriting' another person's book years down the line. This lacks the original integrity of what the person wanted to do. This particular situation is murky because the original was published after his death. However, the 'new' rewrite is so very much later after original and does seem to have the prime motivation of ensuring his relative a place in history where she is looked at more favorably. He will also make money.
|
|
