Talk:Ernest Hemingway
|
|
| Contents |
addition/comment
I agree that the above paragraph "all right in the end" is somewhat POV and definitely could be written better. Too far out of my field for me to have a bash, how about the detractors improve it a little? Mat-C 16:48, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
comment
I agree that this article should be completely rewritten. It’s full of awkward phrasing, empty phrases and downright cheesiness. The writer often lapses into a colloquial, dumbed-down magazine style of writing which is inappropriate for an online encyclopedia. For example, “Hemingway Up Close And Personal” as a chapter or subtitle is an awful cliché that just doesn’t belong.
Another example of this magazine style: “Sadly, Hemingway couldn't use this attitude in life. Maybe the pressure simply was too high. The general public never knew the real Ernest Hemingway, a man with a man's problems.” This sounds more like a high school English teacher trying to convince his teenaged students that Hemingway was a total dude than it does an excerpt from a featured article in an encyclopedia.
“A Farewell to Arms” is described as “a kind of ambulance driver's wet dream.” Later in the paragraph: “And yet... even wet dreams come on different artistic levels.” This is just plain crass.
“It [the ambivalence of death and violence] had done some good, and taught him priceless philosophies.” The article is littered with empty phrases like this. They need to be weeded out.
After reading The Old Man And The Sea, I came to wikipedia for some info about the author, and what I found horified me, this is a terrible page, amaturely written, with little information, and overly cliched. Needs serious editing.
the code?
Shouldn't there be something resembling a bit of criticism perhaps? I mean, shouldn't there at least be a mention of his code of manliness? When I teach Papa, I make a point of his being a sort of existentialist -- not much evidence of that in this article.--Peccavimus 06:51, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
question
Can someone pls recommend a (yes, also partly critical) book-length biography of Hemingway, please. BTW, why does the article currently cite Döblin and Kundera in its bibliography section?
shotgun?
Can anyone provide a source for Hemingway's use of a Civil War pistol for his suicide? I'm sure I've read somewhere it was his favourite shotgun. Padraic 00:24, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
Hemingway's Catholicism
"Hemingway divorced Hadley Richardson and married Pauline Pfeiffer in 1927. Because of his Roman Catholic faith, some conflicts of conscience arose, but these were eventually overcome." -- This quotation is somewhat misleading. Hemingway was raised Congregationalist; his family were descended from New England Puritan stock. Hemingway did not convert to Roman Catholicism until he married Pauline Pfeiffer, who was RC. Hemingway's subsequent divorces would indicate that his devotion to the faith was irregular at best.
Category: Ernest Hemingway?
Should Ernest Hemingway recieve his own category? --Blue387 09:45, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
49 stories
I added a section about the Forty-Nine Stories which, strangely, was not present. Yet english is not my native language and maybe you want to include minor grammatical corrections or links. Please note that I took an entirely different standpoint than those that the contributors who wrote the other parts of the article did, and that was a bit too focused, at times, on irrelevancies. My assumption is that when you write about a writer, you ought to love him/her, not to be _too_ diffident of him/her, or focused only on the critics, leaving the good things as residual trailers. That's not a good formula to let a writer be known by those who may not know him/her yet. --UnitedScripters
49 Stories
I'm sorry, I felt I should delete much of the section on the short stories. The language was simply too confused (and confusing).
49 stories
To me it is fine, only you have deleted so much that it is no longer recognizable: what you have done is not to make my commentary less "confused and confusing": what you have done is bringing down the level of the section dedicated to the 49 stories to the level of this whole page about Hemingway, which not even one single commentator here missed to qualify as unidsputably low and unworthy of wilkipedia.
We do not know whom you are but if you are the person who took care of this page, you have made by GENERAL CONSENSUS such inferior a job here, that you are the least qualified to edit contributions, especially because you seem to find gossip more relvant than serious observations. Your idea of "confusing and confused" means this: confusing, namely whatever doesn't vilify Hemingway with absurd prattle, and confused namely whoever doesn't fit your limited intellectual scope which, clearly enough, gets lost as soon as a speech goes beyond the scope of the grunt.
I didn't dare delete your own essays about Hemingway, I just ADDED my own section. I see you dared much more, though dwelling in much lower intellectual places...
Rest assured anway, while you are about to delete this comment by me too as it becomes you, that it is not one section of yours that needs to be ameneded here, but it is this WHOLE page about Hemingway that should be trashed and recycled as confusing and confused.
The moon suggests, before commenting on Hemingway be sure you have read him and understood him, for the only thing that emerges from your "essay" about Hemingway is, I insit by GENERAL consensus as these commentaries prove, that you know about Hemingway as much as I know about nuclear physics: NOTHING. UnitedScripters
Major edit: June 11 2005
I have been bold and made a major edit today, one that I've been working on for some time. It was largely organizational and for cleaning purposes, something this article needed badly.
I'm not entirely finished with everything I want to do with the edit, but I think its status now in format and rendering is thoroughly improved. --DanielNuyu 06:30, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)