Since 1997, you’ve been coming to BarnesandNoble.com to discuss everything from Stephen King to writing to Harry Potter. You’ve made our site more than a place to discover your next book: you’ve made it a community. But like all things internet, BN.com is growing and changing. We've said goodbye to our community message boards—but that doesn’t mean we won’t still be a place for adventurous readers to connect and discover.

Now, you can explore the most exciting new titles (and remember the classics) at the Barnes & Noble Book Blog. Check out conversations with authors like Jeff VanderMeer and Gary Shteyngart at the B&N Review, and browse write-ups of the best in literary fiction. Come to our Facebook page to weigh in on what it means to be a book nerd. Browse digital deals on the NOOK blog, tweet about books with us,or self-publish your latest novella with NOOK Press. And for those of you looking for support for your NOOK, the NOOK Support Forums will still be here.

We will continue to provide you with books that make you turn pages well past midnight, discover new worlds, and reunite with old friends. And we hope that you’ll continue to tell us how you’re doing, what you’re reading, and what books mean to you.

Reply
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Hemingway and Women (Landscape with Figures)

I personally can't stand someone who depends (too much) on me for any kind of emotional or or spiritual support, or worse, financial. I've hated it in my life when I've become the meaning of someone else's existence. It's cloying in the extreme.


I can udnerstand that Zman - I have always thought that a man takes on a great deal of responsibility when he saddles himself with a wife, some children and a mortgage:smileysurprised:




zman wrote:
I'm not suggesting that monogamy is impossible. All I'm saying is that the practice of monogamy requires the supression of deeply-rooted instincts. Why would we need a commandment against coveting a neighbor's wife if it weren't something we were predisposed to do?

One interesting female character is the wife in "The Snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro." Here is a dedicated and loving woman that the protagonist pushes away and then draws back out of guilt. He finally escapes her altogether by dying!

As for myself, I can sympathize wholeheartedly with some of Hemingway's attitudes toward women. I personally can't stand someone who depends (too much) on me for any kind of emotional or or spiritual support, or worse, financial. I've hated it in my life when I've become the meaning of someone else's existence. It's cloying in the extreme.

And yet, there is nothing on the planet so fascinating as women.


Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Hemingway and Women (Landscape with Figures)

[ Edited ]
Didn't he live through WWI Ziki, which was a great time for female emancipation, women working in the factories and offices for the war effort etc. Would a strong woman be attracted to such a macho man though?




ziki wrote:


bentley wrote: i am not sure that i have seen yet a female character who is strong (not in the cruel sense) and does it all (home and career) portrayed in any of his stories....




I think that has also to do with the time period in which he lived.

ziki

Message Edited by Choisya on 02-21-200705:21 PM

Frequent Contributor
fanuzzir
Posts: 1,014
Registered: ‎10-22-2006
0 Kudos

Re: to the moderator



ziki wrote:
Thank you for caring for the best of all.
I for one have lost trust.
ziki

Message Edited by ziki on 02-21-200708:46 PM





Please don't.
Frequent Contributor
fanuzzir
Posts: 1,014
Registered: ‎10-22-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Hemingway and Women (Landscape with Figures)



bentley wrote:

zman wrote:
This has been an interesting if long-winded and occasionally non sequiter thread.

I believe that Hemingway's female characters portray a broad and variegated range of women, many of those characters being drawn from his own experience. I also believe that his philandering was nothing special. It was no different than the general philandering of both men and women throughout history. Let's be honest, Homo sapiens is not an intrinsically monogamous animal. After all, how do you fight billions of years of evolution designing our brains and bodies to propogate the species?

What IS special is the way he could put it all into words.




zman, they are definately drawn from his own experiences..I don't know if I think that his philandering was nothing special (considering when he wrote these stories)..guess I would like to believe that monogamy is possible (although I can see your point)..but EH seemed to take philandering to new heights (again also considering the time period in which he wrote).

he definately had a way with words and you don't miss much with the ones he included either...they are all placed perfectly. i am not sure that i have seen yet a female character who is strong (not in the cruel sense) and does it all (home and career) portrayed in any of his stories; they always seem to be more often less developed than the male characters..more of an after thought but essential to some of his story telling.

appreciate your insights and take on this..




In my reading of Hemingway, I've come across two kind of busted liaisons: the one that s predatory, intentional and tactical ("The Short Happy Life", "Snows of Kilamanjaro," "End of Something") and one that is self-pitying, ennobling ("Hills like White Elephants," and all of Farewell to Arms). I wouldn't even consider the question of monogamy and EH masculinity; a broken relationship is where masculine personality starts, the basis for its development and exposition.
Frequent Contributor
bentley
Posts: 2,509
Registered: ‎01-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Hemingway and Women (Landscape with Figures)

Hmmmm...I guess monogamy and Ernest Hemingway (oxymoron)

So what you are saying is that when a broken relationship exists (I think you are talking about the EH world) that this is where H is expressing his masculine personality? When he is being the most male, he ruins his own relationships...???
Frequent Contributor
bentley
Posts: 2,509
Registered: ‎01-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Hemingway and Women (An Interesting Read)

[ Edited ]
This is really fascinating..

http://www.vqronline.org/articles/1999/spring/meyers-hemingways-american-tragedy/

Message Edited by bentley on 02-21-200710:44 PM

Correspondent
willowy
Posts: 148
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Hemingway and Women "Cat in the Rain"

When I saw this thread on Hemingway and Women I immediately thought of Cat in the Rain one of my favorites. It is very unique in that it is told from the woman's point of view and is written in a sort of "minimalist" type way that I think Hemingway excelled at. The story was written around the time he was married to Hadley in Paris, and it is said that he wrote the story with their marriage in mind. It is kind of sad really that Hemingway could see that she need something more (more affection, more attention, more everything from him) and was able to write a story about it, but wasn't able to give any of that to her.
-----------Willowy----------
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Hemingway and Women (Landscape with Figures)

[ Edited ]
When he is being the most male, he ruins his own relationships...???


As a woman, that seems to me to be axiomatic. Extreme masculinity is, IMO, a 'turn-off' for many women and often, in order to pursue a man, a woman must not only break into the close male companionship of males but break them up. The close intimacy of a heterosexual marriage, children, a home etc. often cannot exist alongside a man's 'mates' and if he wishes to pursue that side of his life to excess, his marriage, or his relationship with women, is likely to suffer. I also think it is necessary from the point of view of a woman's survival, and that of her family, for there to be this breakaway from extreme masculinity and/or male bonding, if only temporarily.




bentley wrote:
Hmmmm...I guess monogamy and Ernest Hemingway (oxymoron)

So what you are saying is that when a broken relationship exists (I think you are talking about the EH world) that this is where H is expressing his masculine personality? When he is being the most male, he ruins his own relationships...???

Message Edited by Choisya on 02-22-200706:10 AM

Frequent Contributor
bentley
Posts: 2,509
Registered: ‎01-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Hemingway and Women "Cat in the Rain"



willowy wrote:
When I saw this thread on Hemingway and Women I immediately thought of Cat in the Rain one of my favorites. It is very unique in that it is told from the woman's point of view and is written in a sort of "minimalist" type way that I think Hemingway excelled at. The story was written around the time he was married to Hadley in Paris, and it is said that he wrote the story with their marriage in mind. It is kind of sad really that Hemingway could see that she need something more (more affection, more attention, more everything from him) and was able to write a story about it, but wasn't able to give any of that to her.




Willowy..I really liked this story too..it seemed to be told from the women's perspective which was also interesting considering Hemingway could not give his wife what she needed and he was very cognizant of what those things were.

Also, in rereading it I saw how the hotel keeper made her feel important and "she liked the deadly serious way he received any complaints. She liked his dignity"..I think she liked him better than her husband whom she loved. Possibly she would have liked her husband to cater to her in some small way and give her some feelings that she was needed (even a little). I have to admit that at the beginning of the story that the husband did offer to get the cat and did say don't get wet (so he (E) wasn't totally obtuse or inconsiderate. But nevertheless he seemed to be at a loss to fill her empty hole. Probably because he had a bigger one.
Frequent Contributor
bentley
Posts: 2,509
Registered: ‎01-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Hemingway and Women (Landscape with Figures)


Choisya wrote:
When he is being the most male, he ruins his own relationships...???


As a woman, that seems to me to be axiomatic. Extreme masculinity is, IMO, a 'turn-off' for many women and often, in order to pursue a man, a woman must not only break into the close male companionship of males but break them up. The close intimacy of a heterosexual marriage, children, a home etc. often cannot exist alongside a man's 'mates' and if he wishes to pursue that side of his life to excess, his marriage, or his relationship with women, is likely to suffer. I also think it is necessary from the point of view of a woman's survival, and that of her family, for there to be this breakaway from extreme masculinity and/or male bonding, if only temporarily.




bentley wrote:
Hmmmm...I guess monogamy and Ernest Hemingway (oxymoron)

So what you are saying is that when a broken relationship exists (I think you are talking about the EH world) that this is where H is expressing his masculine personality? When he is being the most male, he ruins his own relationships...???

Message Edited by Choisya on 02-22-200706:10 AM






Choisya..I think I am finally understanding what Bob meant. You are right. There is a saying that every woman tries to change her man and every man hopes the woman will remain the same.

It is funny but I have heard of some marriages where the man was a perennial bachelor and couldn't adapt to being married at all because for too long he was out with the guys and felt smothered in a marriage. The men think it was a great idea to begin with but then tired of it (blaming their spouses) when in fact they really didn't like the idea of not being able to pursue their male endeavors. These men prefer to be in love with love without the commitments and without changing their life outside of their home and go on to relationship after relationship and can't figure out why they cannot find someone to settle down with or why their relationships have a short shelf life.

I think when men marry younger and not for the first time when they are older, they tend to be able more to adapt because they had a close relationship with their mother as well as their father and had both of them as role models in terms of what a married relationship is all about. And they are still being nurtured to some extent by their mothers and they substitute that nurturing for their wives. It doesn't seem to be the same with women who seem to sail along no matter when they get married young or older..it seems natural for them maybe because of society and familial mores (not sure).

In EH's case he hated his mother who I think tried her best but her best for him wasn't good enough. When a man doesn't have a good relationship with his mother, it usually doesn't bode well for a marriage.
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Hemingway and Women (Landscape with Figures)

In EH's case he hated his mother who I think tried her best but her best for him wasn't good enough. When a man doesn't have a good relationship with his mother, it usually doesn't bode well for a marriage.


When a man has too good a relationship with his mother and is a 'mother's boy' it doesn't bode well either! (Ditto women.) My second husband was very close to his mother and it boded ill for our marriage:smileysad:




bentley wrote:

Choisya wrote:
When he is being the most male, he ruins his own relationships...???


As a woman, that seems to me to be axiomatic. Extreme masculinity is, IMO, a 'turn-off' for many women and often, in order to pursue a man, a woman must not only break into the close male companionship of males but break them up. The close intimacy of a heterosexual marriage, children, a home etc. often cannot exist alongside a man's 'mates' and if he wishes to pursue that side of his life to excess, his marriage, or his relationship with women, is likely to suffer. I also think it is necessary from the point of view of a woman's survival, and that of her family, for there to be this breakaway from extreme masculinity and/or male bonding, if only temporarily.




bentley wrote:
Hmmmm...I guess monogamy and Ernest Hemingway (oxymoron)

So what you are saying is that when a broken relationship exists (I think you are talking about the EH world) that this is where H is expressing his masculine personality? When he is being the most male, he ruins his own relationships...???

Message Edited by Choisya on 02-22-200706:10 AM






Choisya..I think I am finally understanding what Bob meant. You are right. There is a saying that every woman tries to change her man and every man hopes the woman will remain the same.

It is funny but I have heard of some marriages where the man was a perennial bachelor and couldn't adapt to being married at all because for too long he was out with the guys and felt smothered in a marriage. The men think it was a great idea to begin with but then tired of it (blaming their spouses) when in fact they really didn't like the idea of not being able to pursue their male endeavors. These men prefer to be in love with love without the commitments and without changing their life outside of their home and go on to relationship after relationship and can't figure out why they cannot find someone to settle down with or why their relationships have a short shelf life.

I think when men marry younger and not for the first time when they are older, they tend to be able more to adapt because they had a close relationship with their mother as well as their father and had both of them as role models in terms of what a married relationship is all about. And they are still being nurtured to some extent by their mothers and they substitute that nurturing for their wives. It doesn't seem to be the same with women who seem to sail along no matter when they get married young or older..it seems natural for them maybe because of society and familial mores (not sure).

In EH's case he hated his mother who I think tried her best but her best for him wasn't good enough. When a man doesn't have a good relationship with his mother, it usually doesn't bode well for a marriage.


Frequent Contributor
bentley
Posts: 2,509
Registered: ‎01-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Hemingway and Women (Landscape with Figures)


Choisya wrote:
In EH's case he hated his mother who I think tried her best but her best for him wasn't good enough. When a man doesn't have a good relationship with his mother, it usually doesn't bode well for a marriage.


When a man has too good a relationship with his mother and is a 'mother's boy' it doesn't bode well either! (Ditto women.) My second husband was very close to his mother and it boded ill for our marriage:smileysad:


Sorry Choisya..and you are absolutely right. It is also true of women and the other extreme is also not a good thing. Possibly the best predictor is whether the spouse's parents have/had a good marriage (both role models working together not just staying together in misery). Then again the stats for marriage are 50/50.

Just think poor EH didn't even have that to fall back on. So he identified with one of the parents and hated the other. I guess he saw things as black and white...one of them had to be right and good and the other had to be wrong and bad.
Frequent Contributor
Posts: 3,107
Registered: ‎10-27-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Hemingway and Women (Landscape with Figures)

And yet, there is nothing on the planet so fascinating as women.
---------
Including haggard hags and burned witches I hope ;-)

This is how you easily 'buy' any woman any time. Women want to be wanted, and men know how to exploit that or how to play with that. And that is what the character in Kilimanjaro is doing. It's a fear of intimacy.

There were cultures in which the young people were allowed to freely and openly experiment with their sexuality. They all lived in a comon house, had sex with whomever they wanted (similar age) until they found someone they wanted to start a family with, then they moved out into their own place and they continued to live in a monogamous relationships.
It is not so strange, they experimented when their sexual power was at peak and once they tried it all and found "what they wanted" they were happy to settle and move on with life into the next phase. No obstinate teenagers in such a community.

Rules? Some men do not mind to provide for a family, and do it beautifully and grow from it, others will be put under a tremendous preasure by their wives and become reduced to a money making machine.

you said:
I personally can't stand someone who depends (too much) on me...key word: too much...that is the game of needing to be needed and hooking into each other like the couple in Kilimanjaro did.

A need is never love.


ziki
Frequent Contributor
Posts: 3,107
Registered: ‎10-27-2006
0 Kudos

informal education

[ Edited ]
Clarification:

Choisya said she didn't see any difference between education and learning ; I thought perhaps I ought to clarify how I used the words in the contex of my previous post:

I made the distinction between education and learning on purpose.....education to me comes from an autority, there's given curriculum , deadlines, requirements to meet etc, it is more passive for the individual involved. Learning on the other hand can meander and is quite organic. It usually takes different forms for different people, occurs in different situations...and yet there's always a connection, a common ground and a dialog. A lot happens in a dialog it is an active position and a process.

You could say that in the first case you assume that the person doesn't know anything and needs to be informed, educated. In the second case you assume that the person (child) knows it all already but needs to rediscover connections in his /her own manner and develops the cognitive ability combined with creativity, responsibility etc.

In the first case you foster automatons convenient for the society in the other you sponsor independent souls and their integral development as fully functioning individuals who do not operate from fear.

I guess I said more than you bargained for. :-)

i.e.

http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-freir.htm
http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-rogers.htm

also David Bohm on dialog

ziki

Message Edited by ziki on 02-22-200709:14 PM

Frequent Contributor
Posts: 3,107
Registered: ‎10-27-2006
0 Kudos

a too good relationship

[ Edited ]
Choisya:
When a man has too good a relationship with his mother and is a 'mother's boy' it doesn't bode well either! (Ditto women.) My second husband was very close to his mother and it boded ill for our marriage
-------
You mix together a lethal cocktail here.

It is nothing but desirable that a man (or a woman for that part) has a good relationship with his mother. The point is completed psychological separation. What you called 'too good' is just a dependency.

In EH's case: if he lost his father at that early age the mother was important, seems to me EH was caught in a trap. (Later he also supported her and his brothers financially.)

ziki

Message Edited by ziki on 02-22-200709:29 PM

Frequent Contributor
Posts: 3,107
Registered: ‎10-27-2006
0 Kudos

The emancipated factory workers of female gender ;-)

[ Edited ]
Not all women worked in factories during WWI. Too big generalizations for my taste. The ladies with the fox fur around their necks we noumerous at that time. The world was a bit more complex at time, methinks...not that I witnessed that LOL...

... but it started before that, suffras etc... remember Woolf's characters in Night and Day?

Maybe what you say fits better WWII and USA...

I do not want to go down that rabbit hole right now but I know it is your favo subject :-)

ziki

Message Edited by ziki on 02-22-200709:42 PM

Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: a too good relationship

Yes, 'too good' was just a shorthand for dependency which IMO isn't good. Many of us will know of instances of this type of relationship and if you are a wife/husband within such a relationship (as I was), it can be very destructive. I was not referring to EH here but was replying to Bentley's post 'When a man diesn't have a good relationship with his mother, it bodes ill...'





ziki wrote:
Choisya:
When a man has too good a relationship with his mother and is a 'mother's boy' it doesn't bode well either! (Ditto women.) My second husband was very close to his mother and it boded ill for our marriage
-------
You mix together a lethal cocktail here.

It is nothing but desirable that a man (or a woman for that part) has a good relationship with his mother. The point is completed psychological separation. What you called 'too good' is just a dependency.

In EH's case: if he lost his father at that early age the mother was important, seems to me EH was caught in a trap. (Later he also supported her and his brothers financially.)

ziki

Message Edited by ziki on 02-22-200709:29 PM




Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: informal education

OK, I didn't see the distinction you were making earlier.



ziki wrote:
Clarification:

Choisya said she didn't see any difference between education and learning ; I thought perhaps I ought to clarify how I used the words in the contex of my previous post:

I made the distinction between education and learning on purpose.....education to me comes from an autority, there's given curriculum , deadlines, requirements to meet etc, it is more passive for the individual involved. Learning on the other hand can meander and is quite organic. It usually takes different forms for different people, occurs in different situations...and yet there's always a connection, a common ground and a dialog. A lot happens in a dialog it is an active position and a process.

You could say that in the first case you assume that the person doesn't know anything and needs to be informed, educated. In the second case you assume that the person (child) knows it all already but needs to rediscover connections in his /her own manner and develops the cognitive ability combined with creativity, responsibility etc.

In the first case you foster automatons convenient for the society in the other you sponsor independent souls and their integral development as fully functioning individuals who do not operate from fear.

I guess I said more than you bargained for. :-)

i.e.

http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-freir.htm
http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-rogers.htm

also David Bohm on dialog

ziki

Message Edited by ziki on 02-22-200709:14 PM




Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The emancipated factory workers of female gender ;-)

ziki wrote:
Not all women worked in factories during WWI. Too big generalizations for my taste.


In response to your post implying that there were no strong women in his books because of the 'time period' in which he lived, I wrote that he lived through WWI which 'was a great time for female emancipation, women working in the factories and the offices for the war effort etc', not that ALL women did so. I don't know about the US but immediately before and after WWI (not during) was also a time in the UK when the Suffragettes were at their most militant. One of the US Suffragettes, Harriot Stanton Blatch, urged Teddy Roosevelt to 'mobilize woman power' for WWI and:-

...'praised women’s contributions in Britain, where participating in the war effort had made women “capable … bright-eyed, happy.” She described England as “a world of women – women in uniforms; … nurses … messengers, porters, elevator hands, tram conductors, bank clerks, bookkeepers, shop attendants … Even a woman doing … womanly work … dusted a room for the good of her country … They were happy in their work, happy in the thought of rendering service, so happy that the poignancy of individual loss was carried more easily.”

Whether or not the US had the same degree of emancipation, I do not knowl. Historians over here have commented that the women's vote was probably won in 1918 because of the work that women did during WWI, not because of the Suffragette Movement.

EH himself moved within 'emancipated' circles, especially in Paris. However, for some reason, he chose not to to base characters on the strong women he met, like Gertrude Stein et al or on examples in the society around him. As an intellectual he would have been likely to have met a number of emancipated women of his time, at the front and in cafe society. Perhaps he chose to parody the women in fox furs instead? (He may have had strong women characters too but I have not yet come across them.)





ziki wrote:
Not all women worked in factories during WWI. Too big generalizations for my taste. The ladies with the fox fur around their necks we noumerous at that time. The world was a bit more complex at time, methinks...not that I witnessed that LOL...

... but it started before that, suffras etc... remember Woolf's characters in Night and Day?

Maybe what you say fits better WWII and USA...

I do not want to go down that rabbit hole right now but I know it is your favo subject :-)

ziki

Message Edited by ziki on 02-22-200709:42 PM




Frequent Contributor
Posts: 3,107
Registered: ‎10-27-2006
0 Kudos

Re: a too good relationship



Choisya wrote:
Yes, 'too good' was just a shorthand for dependency which IMO isn't good. Many of us will know of instances of this type of relationship and if you are a wife/husband within such a relationship (as I was), it can be very destructive. I was not referring to EH here but was replying to Bentley's post 'When a man diesn't have a good relationship with his mother, it bodes ill...'





I understand.
Thanks.
ziki
Users Online
Currently online: 20 members 263 guests
Please welcome our newest community members: