Customer Reviews

A Moveable Feast: The Restored Edition

5 star:		(20)
4 star:		(10)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

This book is Ernest Hemingway's reminisce about his life in Paris in the 1920s and the literary figures he knew, such as Gertrude Stein, Ford Maddox Ford, Ezra Pound, and F. Scott Fitzgerald. It was left unfinished at the time of Hemingway's death in 1961 and originally published in 1964, edited by his fourth and last wife, Mary. This new "restored" version presents the same book as re-edited by Hemingway's grandson Sean.

The original book is a highly-regarded literary work of art, leaving open the question of why the world needs a new version. The one and only advantage is the inclusion of new, previously unpublished chapters included after the main text, called "Additional Paris Sketches." Anything new written by Hemingway is always welcome.

The problem is Sean Hemingway's editing and the motivation behind it. In his Introduction, he would have us believe Mary somehow wrecked Hemingway's vision of the book and he has now reshuffled the chapters to reflect what his grandfather would have really wanted. Forty-five years after the original publication, Sean writes with what seems to me unusually strong venom at Mary and what he sees as her agenda in making her edits: "The extensive edits Mary Hemingway made to this text seem to have served her own personal relationship with the writer as his fourth and final wife, rather than the interests of the book, or of the author, who comes across in the posthumous first edition as something of an unknowing victim, which he clearly was not." Sean needed to provide some sort of rationale for the new edition, and this is what he would have us believe: the original book reflected Mary's wishes, not Ernest's.

But since the manuscript was left unfinished when Hemingway died, no one knows what he really would have wanted. There is no "definitive" edition and never can one be. Even worse, Sean can well be accused of the same sin as he asserts for Mary: his edits are designed specifically to paint his grandmother Pauline Pfeiffer, Hemingway's second wife and his own grandmother, in a far more favorable light. Readers and scholars can compare the two editions and judge for themselves: is Sean protecting his grandfather's true wishes--whatever they were--or is he doing a favor for his own grandmother at the expense of Hemingway's conception? Sean dug around in the archives and found some things that look good for his grandmother, included them, and rejiggered the original contents in her favor as well.

The good news surely must be that the various heirs of Hemingway can't destroy his work, no matter what their motivations. The text is still the work of one of the 20th century's greatest and most influential writers. Most readers won't need the new edition, as the original, as literature, hasn't really been improved upon. Scholars and Hemingway fans will want to see the new sketches. Probably 45 years into the future, a "scholar's" edition will be published, sans any input from the various heirs of Hemingway, in an attempt to "set the record straight."

The relative merits of the two versions aside, the restored edition lacks the charm of the original. One can say what one wishes about the editing of the original, but whoever edited it did a beautiful job: an incomplete and at times awkward and rambling manuscript was fashioned into a finished work of art. The spirit of Hemingway's intent is just better conveyed by the original. For example, Sean Hemingway takes issue with the change to the introductory note to the chapter entitled "Scott Fitzgerald" as it appears in the original. Mr. Hemingway claims that, as edited, it takes an unwarranted swipe at Fitzgerald. But that is exactly what the restored edition does: in not one new portion is Fitzgerald portrayed as anything but a flawed personality - a talented drunk, a bumbler, with silly ideas and habits, dominated by Zelda. Another aspect of the new edition I find unsettling is that the restored portions more often than not reveal a nastier Hemingway. And insofar it attempting to portray an even more sympathetic Hadley, I disagree. The original quite poetically tells us all we need to know. The restored version merely states the obvious - tediously and at length. I first read the original edition when I was in college and loved it. I still do. I suppose the restored version has its scholarly value, but I would not recommend it to an impressionable young person as a lovely introduction to the world of the Lost Generation.

In an op-ed published in the New York Times on July 20, 2009, a close friend of Hemingway's, A. E. Hotchner, has questioned the grandson's editing of the book, which Hotchner claims was exactly the way Hemingway wanted it when he gave it to him (Hotchner) to drop off at his publisher's back around 1960 or so. The op-ed renders grandson Hemingway's work dubious at best. You may want to snap up the originally published version of "A Moveable Feast" soon, as it may be your last chance to read what Ernest Hemingway actually intended for you to read. As Hotchner's article points out, the implications of Scribner's action in publishing this "restored edition" is indeed troubling. Caveat emptor.

Regardless of which side you believe (Patrick and Sean Hemingway's or A.E. Hotchner's) you have to admit the original version is hard to beat. It was superbly edited. It is an excellent book and a classic. Still, with this editition, I enjoyed the new tidbits of information, the extra chapters not published before, and the photographs of the handwritten manuscript. It would have been better to reproduce the original faithfully, add the never-before-seen stuff as extra sections at the end of the book, and comment the heck out of it--whatever the bias or spin. The easy things they should have fixed, but didn't, are the flipped photos 5 and 6 in the insert. In later editions, those are mirror images of the ones in the 1964 version.

I have read most of Hemingways's books and avoided the posthumously published work: the exceptions being 'A Moveable Feast' and 'By-Line: Ernest Hemingway'. Reading from the blurbs and gleaning from the noise and chatter, I wonder, could anyone claim with a straight face to know what Hemingway would have wanted? If he were alive he would punch that person in the nose, sit down, order a fine à l'eau, and not give it a second thought.

Leaving out the quote on the title page about how the book came to have its title is inexcusable. Mentioning it as an afterthought in the rambling Foreword is irresponsible. The Introduction sounded like a lot of rationalizing. The lead-in to the 'Scott Fitzgerald' chapter was more poetic, and probably more true, in the original. If Patrick and Sean Hemingway had their way, 'A Moveable Feast' would end with F. Scott Fitzgerald's worrying about the size of his manhood. Wait. In this "Restored" edition, it does.

I dislike this Internet age in which we live where everything is open to revision. Every year, authors of computer books trot out 2nd, 3rd,..., 100th edition of their original--with very little new information--in the hope of making a quick buck. Maybe it's inevitable the literary folks are thinking the same. What's next, should we have a "Restored" edition of 'To Have and Have Not' where language we now find objectionable is cleaned up?

My advice: It's not a bad idea to get this edition if you are a big Hemingway fan. I did. It's still excellent literature. If you want to get a feel of the Paris scene as it was when Hemingway started out, read this book but get the original edition as it is much, much better.

Patrick Hemingway who holds the rights to this book has butchered the original which was meticulously compiled and edited by Hemingway's last wife, Mary Hemingway.

Patrick (whom I met in Key West once at The Hemingway Days in the 1980's) has done his father a disservice by eliminating and re-writing parts of this book. I am thrilled to own a first edition of this book as it was intended in the early 60's shortly after Ernest's suicide.

It seems this is a kind of Freudian attempt to slap his father in the face and capitalize on his memory. Shame on you Patrick. Write your own book.

Both Charles Scribners and Maxwell Perkins, had they been alive, would have forbidden this manuscript being re-tooled in this manner. They are all turning in their graves. DON'T BUY INTO THE LIES.

Premier, le difference. The Restored Edition omits the last essay "There Is Never an End to Paris" which was published in the A Moveable Feast. Seconde, the Restored Edition adds, most importantly, "The Pilot Fish and the Rich" which is, in my opinion, a great addition. Here is the explanation--

The editor of the Restored Edition is Sean Hemingway, grandson of Ernest and Pauline Pfeiffer, Papa's second wife. He believes that "Ernest's fourth wife [Mary Welsh], cobbled the manuscript together from shards of an unfinished work and that she created the final chapter, 'There Is Never Any End to Paris.'"

I am quoting from a July 19, 2009 Op-Ed in the New York Times by A.E. Hotchner called "Don't Touch a Moveable Feast" which I recommend you read. Hotchner was a close friend of Ernest and played a part in getting A Moveable Feast from Hemingway to Scribners. While I disagree with his conclusion, that it shouldn't have been re-edited, I respect his knowledge of the facts and his closeness to the events leading to the publication of the original.

The included chapter, "The Pilot Fish and the Rich" speaks to Hemingway's affair with Pauline Pfeiffer while still married to his first wife, Hadley Richardson. It is his apology to Hadley and a declaration of love to Pauline. However, he repeatedly says that Hadley, to whom he was married while living in Paris, is the heroine of A Moveable Feast.

In "The Pilot Fish and the Rich" Hemingway is wracked with pain and guilt and repeatedly tries to explain how he could actually love two women, Hadley and Pauline, at once, and how it tore him apart. Some of "The Pilot Fish and the Rich" is in the last chapter of the original, but he it is published in its entirety.

I could see why Hemingway would omit that chapter while he was still married to Mary. However, the lesson here is poignant--his first wife was the love of his life, and while the passion may have dimmed over time, his first love could never be replaced, not even by Mary.

If you are fascinated by Hemingway, like I am, read this Restored Edition and compare it to the original. It is more of an adventure that way.

By and large, people in their 20's don't read. By and large, A Moveable Feast is Hemingway's most appropriate collection of stories for people in their 20s because he relates his life in Paris as a struggling writer. How it came about is itself an interesting story.

In 1956 the Paris Ritz Hotel asked Hemingway, who was now famous, to pick up two steamer trunks. He had left them there 28 years earlier. When he opened them he found that they contained his notebooks from his early days in Paris. It stirred his memory, which had been partially erased by shock therapy.

Before it could be published he ended his own life, and his fourth and final wife edited it.

The Restored Edition has been re-edited by Hemingway's grandson, putting back in some of the passages which Mary Hemingway had left out.

Is it strikingly different? Perhaps not, but the omitted passages were those that were most painful, and therefor most poignant.

This is Hemingway for people in their 20s interested in becoming great, or at least famous writers.

It is the kind of thing that most authors can only dream about. A new edition of one of your earlier books comes out. Christopher Hitchens writes an extensive review in The Atlantic. Other publications, such as the Kansas City Star, do the same. In an op-ed piece in the New York Times, a friend blasts the new edition, stating that the original edition is much preferable. And the son of your publisher writes a letter-to-the-editor of the Times also supporting the original edition. But even these negative pieces help publicize that the new edition has been published.

Few authors have such experiences. And even fewer have them nearly 50 years after they die. But that is much the way with the posthumous life of Ernest Hemingway. Even though he won both the Pulitzer and Nobel Prizes and was a bestselling author in his lifetime, he has sold more books since his death in 1961 than in life. In fact, the new edition of his memoir A Moveable Feast lists him as the author of 26 books, with 12 of them published posthumously.

A Moveable Feast was first published in 1964. It was subjected to considerable editing by Harry Brague of Scribners and Hemingway's fourth wife, Mary. Among other things, Mary cobbled together a preface from various manuscript fragments and signed Ernest's name to it.

But, even with the edits, the book has always regarded as being Hemingway's work, just as A Moveable Feast: The Restored Edition, must also be recognized as Hemingway's work. The new edition was edited by Hemingway's grandson, Sean. Sean's uncle, Patrick, provided an enthusiastic foreword to the work.

The Hemingway archives at the John F. Kennedy Library are probably the most extensive archives of any prominent author. If it was on paper, Hemingway filed it away. He wrote before the days of word processing, so his notes, drafts with deletes and edits, and correspondence are generally available to anyone with an interest in Hemingway.

Because of the existence of all of this material, there have been arguments among scholars since the initial publication of A Moveable Feast as to what Hemingway did or did not intend to have included in the book. About the only thing they fully agree on is that the title for the book was never one of the titles that Hemingway considered. It came from a conversation that A.E. Hotchner said he had with Hemingway in Paris in the 1950s.

Hotchner, a friend of Hemingway's during his later years, wrote a scathing op-ed piece in the New York Times concerning the new edition of the book. He states, among other things, that he had delivered the original manuscript of Scribners in 1960 in exactly the format that Hemingway wanted it published. An interesting claim when you consider that Hemingway was still making changes to the manuscript as late as April 1961 and had only come up with titles for three of the book's original twenty chapters at the time of his death.

Hotchner also states that he thinks that much of the driving force behind this new edition is to make Pauline Hemingway, Ernest's second wife, appear in a better light than in the original edition. Pauline was Patrick's mother and Sean's grandmother. She may appear in a slightly better light due to the addition of some materials left out of the original addition. But the classic line about his love for his first wife, Hadley, remains - "I wished I had died before I ever loved anyone but her."

It should come as no surprise that the publication of this new edition would be anything less than controversial. But, unlike the edition that Mary Hemingway edited, Sean Hemingway makes considerable effort to explain the justifications behind his editing decisions. He has reordered some pieces into a more chronological fashion than in the original edition. He has also relegated some chapters to a section in the rear of the book titled "Additional Paris Sketches." And there are also several new pieces that apparently Hemingway had kept from the original edition in hopes of eventually publishing a second volume of memoirs.

Regardless of the content, I would have bought this new edition just for the cover. The original edition's cover with a painting of Pont Neuf in Paris has been replaced by a classic Hemingway photo. There are an estimated 10,000 photographs of Hemingway at the Kennedy Library. My favorite of the lot is his 1923 passport photo, taken prior to his move to Paris. It disproves the old adage that there is no such thing as a good passport photo. In my mind, it is the best photo ever taken of him and having it on the cover of the new edition makes it worth the price of purchase.

The end result is yet another great Hemingway book. Scholars, friends and family members may squabble over the differences between the two editions, but The Restored Edition is 100% Hemingway at his best and a treat to read.

There has been some controversy about this new edition of Hemingway's memoir/fiction. Just be aware that A. E. Hotchner's attack in the New York Times on Sean Hemingway's editing - that it is mere opportunistic, personally-motivated meddling with a perfectly finished Hemingway text - is not consistent with decades of academic scholarship. Analysis of the original manuscript shows that Mary Hemingway was deeply involved in editing the original '64 edition (contrary to Hotchner's assertions) and as such altered Hemingway's original intentions and emphases.

Scholars have called for a "restored" edition of this book for decades. Let's wait until they've had a chance to evaluate Sean Hemingway's work before we dismiss it as some literary travesty.

See the commentary going on in the blogosphere. Also see Gerry Brenner's 1982 article "Are We Going To Hemingway's Feast?" (American Literature, volume 54, number 4, pages. 528-44).

The Kindle edition of this great book is not worth a dime: almost ALL the illustrations are missing, at least in my copy, and the 2 that do appear, are hazy and smudgy, like poorly done mimeographed copies. Some chapter titles are mis-formatted: the two-sided text justification format is applied to the titles, resulting in ridiculous text placement. It is a shabby treatment of a great book. I do not believe I need to add anything to the many positive reviews of this immensely readable and enjoyable volume of (partly fictionalized) memoirs from Hemingway. But spend just a bit more and get the print edition, paper or hardback, of this work, please.

A Moveable Feast consists of several short stories loosely based on Hemingway's time spent living in Paris and traveling in Europe. His wife Hadley and son "Bumby" make appearances here, as does second wife Pauline (albeit very briefly). Also showing up in these pages are some from the famous Paris "scene" of the time, such as Ezra Pound, Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald, and Gertrude Stein.

Although the Hemingways personal life was interesting also, what I really enjoyed about this book was the glimpse into the other writers' lives, and Hemingways portrayals of them. Not sure how accurate it actually is, but his comments about Ford Madox Ford are hilarious, if cruel. It's very obvious Hemingway did not care for the man. Equally entertaining are his stories about the Fitzgeralds, in particular a trip he takes with Scott to pick up a car. In all, I very much enjoyed this look into a time now past; and all the main players now dead.