>quotes from a number of people:
>The movie just wasn't good, it was a classic. Even
though it
>isn't as dark or hardboiled as the book, it has some
of the best
>one-liners in the movies, and snappy dialog is a
hall-mark of
>hard-boiled.
it was a classic. i didn't like it, though. it seemed a weak
attempt to twist a good book as much as possible in order to
fit the casablanca plot and success. i thought the staging of
the competition (wrong word?) between the two women was
contrived and unbelievable. by the way, ray, ever get stung
by a dead bee? ;-)
>The first half
>of the book is actually some of Papa's best writing.
In the last half he
>seems to lose focus and meander a little, it is still
good stuff
>however.
the book was written in three parts. the first two parts came
out as stories in 1934 and 1936, one of which i believe was
in the 1935 _men without women_ 14-story collection.
hemingway's publisher pressured him into pulling it together
as a novel, so he wrote the ending and it was published in
1937. its been said that harry morgan is father to both sam
spade and philip marlowe.
and yes, the book is a combination of some good and some bad
writing. he saved his worse for _across the river and into
the trees_. i only made it about halfway thru that book. one
critic thought he should have called it _across the street
and into the bar_.
>This happens a lot in Hemmingway's novels, that is,
the second
>half losing focus and wandering. For the record, my
belief is
>that his best novel is "A Farewell to Arms." The
worst offender
>is "Islands in the Stream," but that may be unfair
because
>Hemmingway didn't get a chance to work with the
editor before
>it was published. Hemmingway was a master of shorter
fiction--
>the Nick Adams stories and "Old Man and the Sea"
being prime
>examples.
my favorite novels are _the sun also rises_(best novel i've
read in my life), _to have and have not_, and _islands in the
stream_.
_farewell to arms_ was a major success for hemingway (only
one
"m", please ;-), but i didn't like it. i thought catherine's
character weak and fawning, i got tired of them continuously
repeating how wonderful they were to each other, and whatever
conflict was there, was not enough to make the novel dynamic
and interest me. _for whom the bell tolls_ was better (more
action and the characters mixed it up a little more) but
there was still the feeble relationship between robert jordan
(never just "robert" or "jordan") and maria, his (i cringe)
"rabbit".
bottom line is as ray says. his short stories were what he
was really a master at. jim blue sort of said that... when i
praised him, he mentioned three short stories as examples.
and truman capote said that hemingway would be remembered for
his short stories and not his novels. you know truman
couldn't be wrong.
miker
-- # To unsubscribe from the regular list, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to # majordomo@icomm.ca. This will not work for the digest version. # The web pages for the list are at http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/ .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 15 Mar 2002 EST