Most Helpful Customer Reviews
25 of 31 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Changing contracts, September 3, 2000
By A Customer
For one to understand why Hemingway wrote a book of this caliber, it must be understood that Sherwood Anderson, whom Hem parodied, had a contract with the same company Hemingway had signed a contract with. An offer had also been made by Scribner which was more prestiegeous of the two literary firms. To get out of the contract, Hem offered this book, which he knew would be turned down by the firm of Boni and Liveright, thus giving Hemingway the chance to accept the contract from Scribner. The contract essentially said that if the second book of a three book contract was turned down, Hemingway could break the contract. Hemingway knew that Boni and Liveright would never publish a book which lampooned Sherwood Anderson (one of the stars of Boni and Liveright). Hemingway actually had other offers besides Scribner's. He did, however, take Scribner's offer, basically because he had given his word to Maxwell Perkins who worked at Scribner that he would work with them. The book was not intended as a great literary work, and thus must be examined in the light of which it is written. There are many funny idosyncrasies which Hem used for some of the characters in the book. Most of these came from people he knew there in Paris. Entertaining? Yes it was to me. A great literary work? It achieved what he was looking for. So you be the judge.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
12 of 15 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Still holds up after all these years., December 5, 1999
I thought I'd read everything Hemingway ever published, but I was not even familiar with this one. When I read that it was a parody, I thought I might not get it, since it had been a long time since I'd read any of the authors he was targeting. Instead I found myself laughing out loud. So much reminded me of best-sellers I had read in recent years(The Bridges of Madison County is one which comes to mind). It just goes to show, great writing can come in many styles, but bad writing remains amazingly consistant over the years.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
5 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
to fully enjoy the parody, read the object of the joke first, June 11, 2006
This isn't a novel that would be very enjoyable to someone who doesn't have much experience with other literary works of the 1920s. Read alone it is pretty silly and vulgar. Read -after- you have finished Sherwood Anderson's _Dark Laughter_, however, this book is very funny. Hemingway spoofs both Anderson's style and his silly plot. And throughout, EH offers a treatise on the art of parody. The book is very short, and tightly controlled by Hemingway (something Anderson didn't get right with Dark Laughther). The book is also interesting for those invested in the perennial Hemingway was/was not a racist argument. Read alone, the bits about Indians would be highly offensive, but read in light of Anderson's horrifying primitivism and liberal use of the N-word in Dark Laughter, Hemingway's depiction of the Indians is really a chastisement of Anderson's silly racist story. Hemingway's complex sense of humor, visible in his other novels under the surface, is fully on display here. Too bad time has eradicated a fuller understanding of all the jokes. I recommend this book for Hemingway aficionados and for students of modernism who need a wake-up call about Hemingway's place (and his understanding of that place) in the modernist canon.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|