Latham, N.Y.: University Press of America, 1999. [In the following essay from an anthology celebrating Hemingway's centennial, Knott reviews responses to the author's controversial novel To Have and Have Not.] Manning: "Is there anything you've written that you would do differently if your could do it over?" Hemingway: "Not yet." "Hemingway in Cuba," from Bruccoli's Conversations EXPECTATIONS Lionel Trilling's 1937 statement sounds a ring of truth today: "More than any writer of our time he has been under glass, watched, checked up on, predicted, suspected, warned" (62). By the time The Sun Also Rises (TSAR) was published in 1926, the seeds of the Hemingway legend were firmly planted, and the accompanying stream of criticism with its penchant for entanglement in E. H.‘s life had begun. Edmund Wilson described the situation in 1927: "The reputation of Ernest Hemingway has, in a very short time, assumed such proportions that it has already become fashionable to disparage him" (Shores 339). From that time and into the present, a great deal of criticism on E. H.‘s works has focused on linking his personal life to his fiction and his characters to living people. Nadine DeVost says that "by 1952, when the film version of ‘The Snows of Kilimanjaro’ appeared, Hemingway's life and the plots of his stories and novels had become thoroughly interchangeable in the public's mind . . ." (39). Of course, E. H. added fuel to these fires. Yet, we want to remember that although some incidents in Hemingway's life and individuals that he knew may have served as a basis for his fiction, such insights are not necessary for an enjoyment or understanding of his fiction.‘ Michael Reynolds says, "After he wrote The Sun Also Rises, most of his readers and more than one biographer assumed that all of his fiction was thinly veiled biography, which it almost never was" (Paris Years 61). Also, as Peter Hays, Robert Lewis (Hemingway in Italy), Reynolds (Hemingway's First War), and others have discovered, most of the time E. H. conducted research before he wrote. It is unfortunate when guesses detract from an objective reading or analysis of his works. To Have and Have Not (THHN) particularly has suffered from conjectures and to such an extent that until recently the novel's text and its clues have not received the attention that they deserve. As if biographical confusion were not enough, Trilling believed that derogatory criticism had a negative effect on E. H. and blamed it "for the illegitimate emergence of Hemingway the ‘man’"-meaning that E. H. attempted to respond in his works to demands put upon him by critics (62). Trilling is not the only one who believed this; as a matter of fact, this tendency-also prevalent in THHN criticism-serves as a good example of how in some respects Hemingway criticism has changed little over the years. Thirty-three years after Trilling wrote the above, Arthur Waldhorn wrote that "the confusion of sounds from within and without damaged Hemingway's artistic inner ear and contributed to the intellectual imbalance of To Have and Have Not" (153). Jeffrey Meyers wrote thirteen years later than THHN "was a half-hearted attempt to meet the contemporary demand for political awareness . . ." (Biography 292, emphasis added). Seven years later, Michael M. Boardman stated, "The effect of such continuous scrutiny, especially on a man of such strong aesthetic convictions, was a defensive stance toward his reader" (165, emphasis added). Again, while opinions regarding critical influence on Hemingway's writings may hold interest for some, such speculations offer no insight into his works. Instead-like biographical guesses-they obscure his artistic skill, or relegate it to second in importance. Also, while E. H. was irritated by misguided criticism, it is difficult to prove that much of it ever went so far as to influence his published work. It may, however, have influenced his first drafts, which seem to have served as release valves; it was not uncommon for him to use his own name and those of acquaintances in early drafts. Yet, I have difficulty imagining that he would have allowed anyone or anything to interrupt his search for truth in writing. One possible reason that some of E. H.‘s contemporary critics heaped detrimental criticism upon him may be that he did not fit neatly into the literary or intellectual mold, nor did he try to fit. He never cared to attend college, an option open to him, nor did he value a college degree. Yet, many Ivy League graduates were impressed with his intelligence and perception, as were the many artists, poets, and authors that he met. Hemingway possessed "perhaps the best ear that has ever been brought to the creation of English prose," and his mind worked like "a vacuum cleaner . . . picking up any little thing, technique, or possible subject that might be of use" (Benson 3). He was a self-taught man and a voracious reader, and he also absorbed knowledge from almost all around him: "every torero, every fisherman, every writer, every statesman, every soldier, every historian, and every person whose life and expertise merited his attention" (Gajdusek E-mail 31 Jan. 1995). Certainly E. H. was disturbed by the practice of some of his contemporary critics to write a review without seeming to have taken the time to actually read his work. For example, Cyril Connolly found THHN "morally odious" and then proved that he didn't read the work or pay much attention to it by saying that Harry Morgan broke the neck of the man who didn't pay him for his fishing lessons (228). Hemingway wrote in 1936 to Ivan Kashkin, a Russian critic for whom he had respect: "Wilson is really very funny .. .I'm not sure he really read the Green Hills book even. I think he read the criticisms" (Baker, SL [Selected Letters] 430). Ironically, Wilson, "considered America's foremost man of letters in the twentieth century" (Contemporary Literary Criticism 101), admitted in 1935 that critics may be guilty of the practice of not actually reading a workalthough he did not specifically implicate himself: He [the author] has been laboring for months or for years to focus some comprehensive vision or to make out some compelling case, and then finds his book discussed by persons who not only have not understood it, but do not even in some instances appear to have read it. (Shores 599) Hemingway wrote to Kashkin in 1935: Here [in America] criticism is a joke. The bourgeois critics do not know their ass from a hole in the ground. . . . Edmund Wilson is the best critic we have but he no longer reads anything that comes out. [Malcolm] Cowley is honest. . . . He is also tending to stop reading. The others are all careerists. (Baker, SL 417-18) Wilson also reinforced E. H.‘s perception that critics’ articles "are often copied word for word from one another" (Shores 599). Such ploys enabled critics to write a greater number of articles for a greater amount of money-hence, "careerists." Wilson added that we shouldn't expect these writers-overburdened as they were by "one or more books a day for five or six days a week"-to give us "much serious criticism" (601). Years later, Joseph DeFalco agrees: "Not surprisingly the nature of the criticisms often reflected the preoccupations of the critics themselves": Those of the left, for example, were nearly of a mind that To Have and Have Not (1937) and For Whom the Bell Tolls (1940) presented crucial proletarian issues but failed to present a convincing portrait of solidarity within the masses. (143) Hemingway could not help but also be disturbed by some of the blatantly personal attacks published during his lifetime. He must have been angered by such comments as Louis Kronenberger's in a 1937 review: "These may seem like artistic rather than intellectual matters, but their failure as art is based on a defect of intelligence" (182). Surely there was no way to ignore such comments. Hemingway wrote in July 1938 to his editor, Maxwell Perkins, "I don't think it is persecution mania or egotism if I say that there are a lot of critics who really seem to hate me very much and would like to put me out of business" (Baker, SL 471). Elliott Paul agreed in his 1937 essay: "No other American writer would be subjected to such an impertinent barrage, no matter what he published" (110). Unfortunately, the habit has not been restricted to E. H.‘s lifetime; Waldhorn wrote in 1972: "Among other crippling thoughts, To Have and Have Not is hobbled also by lame thinking" (153). While disappointed with the aforementioned brands of criticism-"I think there's nothing more discouraging than unintelligent appreciation" (Wilson, Shores 123)-at the same time, E. H. was appreciative of honest and thorough examinations of his talent. He wrote in January 1936 to Kashkin: You know more about my writing than anybody but you do not know anything about me and I have very great pride and a hatred of the shit that will be written about me and my stuff after I am dead (I am not so silly but to know that my work will last) and though you may be an enemy of what I believe in I would rather have one setting down by an intelligent enemy who knows you than all the blurry minded, fuzzy brained shit we produce in this country and call criticism. (Baker, SL 432) It is small wonder that Hemingway delighted in witnessing a critic being put in his place, so to speak, or in putting a critic in his place. At the same time, he looked forward to a new dawning in the critical profession: The critic, out on a limb, is more fun to see than a mountain lion. The critic gets paid for it so it is much more just that he should be out on that limb than the poor cat who does it for nothing. Altogether I believe it has been quite healthy and the extremely dull thuds one hears as the critics fall from their limbs when the tree is shaken slightly may presage a more decent era in criticism-when books are read and criticized rather than personalities attacked. (Breit 65) Hemingway also was aware, considerate, and appreciative of the essential part of the reader and the critic in the creation and interpretation of a work, its success, and its continued popularity. Yet, during a 1958 interview, when asked about symbolism in his works, in spite of his stated distaste for discussing symbols, E. H. finally answered: You can be sure that there is much more than will be read at any first reading and having made this it is not the writer's province to explain it or run guided tours through the more difficult country of his work. (Plimpton 120) This statement, of course, relates to his iceberg theory or theory of omission in which much material in his works is purposely excluded and left to the interpretation of the reader. Gerry Brenner says that the iceberg theory "notifies serious readers to bring special equipment or vision if they hope to see many of those eighths below the water line" (Concealments 10). At the same time, Hemingway also was alert to the possibility of getting too far ahead of his critics and readers: "And as long as they do not understand it you are ahead of them. Oh sure, I thought, I'm so far ahead of them now that I can't afford to eat regularly. It would not be bad if they caught up a little" (A Moveable Feast 75). Nonetheless, he persevered, being true to his writing. His third wife, Martha Gellhom, also a writer and a friend of President and Mrs. Roosevelt, wrote Eleanor that E. H. was "a marvelous storyteller": "In a writer, she noted this would be called imagination, ‘in anyone else, it's lying. That's where the genius comes in’" (Mellow 484). "In writing, I have moved through arithmetic, through plane geometry and algebra, and now I am in calculus," Hemingway told Harvey Breit during a 1950 interview (62).2 In Green Hills of Africa (GHOA), the main character refers to a "fourth and fifth dimension" of writing (26-27). No one is sure exactly what E. H. meant when he referred to these other dimensions, but there has been much speculation. For more on this subject, see essays by Robert E. Gajdusek ("Sacrifice and Redemption"), Tracy Banis, Larry Grimes, and Toni D. Knott ("Time Will Tell") in this book. Of course, not all critics were or are "careerists," engage in personal attacks, or focus on linkages between the man's life and his fiction to the exclusion of examining the fiction. Many were and are serious readers and reviewers of his works, and their carefully considered interpretations, meant to shed light on subtle layers of meaning, are refreshing and delightful to read, as well as instructive. Recent scholarly articles tend to be serious considerations based on at least one reading of a work. Today, a reviewer is more apt, as Wilson says, to be more or less familiar, or be ready to familiarize himself, with the past work of every important writer he deals with and be able to write about an author's . . book in the light of his general development and intention. (Shores 603) There are many different interpretations of a Hemingway work, and there are just as many critics, scholars. and readers who are convinced that they know beyond a doubt each work's true meaning. (Of course, there are just as many who cringe at the thought of a true meaning.) The elements in E. H.‘s works simply do not combine in the same manner each time, resulting in the same conclusion. Adding to the moral ambiguity of THHN, for example, is that there are many unanswered questions throughout the novel; at least, they remain unanswered in any conventional sense. Near the end of the novel, after Harry's death, Harry's girls ask their mom: "How's Daddy?" "Marie did not answer," the text tells us (255). The nature of these questions and others throughout the novel is that they are not easily answered, or, as John Clark Pratt says, they "can of course be answered by many, but only from their own particular points of view" (156). There are individual truths for each reader, critic, and scholar to discover in the mirror that E. H. holds for us in the work-in all of his works. "Consequently . . . Hemingway . . . has been denounced and condemned by groups which do not regard him as P.C. [politically correct] and also by feminists who see in him a hateful macho" (Asselineau 3). Gajdusek says: Even as we began to move away from our biographical obsession, cleared to read the texts, we were putting on the blinders of post-modernist modes, removing one determining filter by replacing it with another. ("Mad, Sad" 37) This replacing of one set of blinders with another is particularly true of THHN, and Robert Lewis’ words, although he applied them to A Farewell to Arms (AFTA), describe this novel, as well: It is not reducible to easy understanding from only one or two perspectives. Looked at from feminist, Marxist, psychological, and historical vantage points, the novel grows in our consciousness. Looked at from a narrow perspective, as it sometimes has been, the novel narrows. ("Inception and Reception" 95) Hemingway expected and depended upon different reactions from different readers. One of his greatest skills lay in the wide range and variety of individual responses that his images evoked and continue to evoke, ensuring the longevity of his works. Needless to say, some individuals were not and are not comfortable with some of the feelings that THHN arouses. It is a disturbing book, another possible reason for its unpopularity. It not only reflects the times but also forces us to face our own mirrors, for the human characteristics portrayed by E. H. are enduring. The most eloquent expression of the importance of each individual reader's part, with impressive insight into the value of each future reader's perception, as well, is found in E. H.‘s 1954 Nobel Prize acceptance statement: Things may not be immediately discernible in what a man writes, and in this sometimes he is fortunate; but eventually they are quite clear and by these and the degree of alchemy that he possesses he will endure or be forgotten. (196) Such a statement is apt for a book as complex as THHN. However, immediately after its release, one critic went so far-Watch that limb!-as to say that the work "is a stupid and foolish book, a disgrace to a good writer, a book which should never have been printed" (Schwartz 123). Unfortunately, this statement is only the tip of the iceberg in this particular regard. To understand why the immediate critical reaction to the novel was so harsh, an examination of the atmosphere leading up to its publication is enlightening. In essence, because of expectations, most of E. H.‘s contemporary critics misinterpreted-and consequently denounced-THHN's title, structure, characters, hero, and themes. Unfortunately, some of these misunderstandings have persisted to this day. Hemingway was disappointed with the critical response to Death in the Afternoon (DIA) and GHOA, his fiction/nonfiction works-the choice is left to us-appearing before THHN. He described the critical climate leading up to THHN's publication and immediately afterward in letters to Perkins: "For Christ sake Max don't you see that they have to attack me to believe in themselves. You can't be popular all the time unless you make a career of it. . . . I will survive this unpopularity . . ." (Baker, SL 423). In 1936, he wrote: "I stink so to the N.Y. critics that if I bring out a book of stories no matter how good this fall they will all try to kill it" (448). After the publication of THHN, he wrote: "You want to remember, Max, there was about the biggest gang-up in the reviews on that last novel . . . which was not a bad novel, that you would almost ever see" (471). Soviet critics were compelled to comment on the negative treatment that Hemingway received at the hands of American critics. A reprint of a Wilson article in a 1936 issue of Internatsionalnaya Literatura was accompanied by an editorial comment noting that "when Green Hills of Africa came out . . . a regular Witches’ Sabbath took place in the literary departments of the newspapers and magazines" (Shores 626). SOCIOPOLITICAL STATEMENT . One of the reasons that most critics, including Granville Hicks and Wilson, panned GHOA is because it seemed an almost frivolous book written and published during a time when most Americans were greatly suffering-the Depression. Hicks would "like to have Hemingway write a novel about a strike, to use an obvious example [and an ironic one], not because a strike is the only thing worth writing about, but because it would do something to Hemingway. If he would just let himself look squarely at the contemporary American scene, he would be bound to grow." (Donaldson 103) Although E. H. lived in an era of "‘isms’ (Dadaism, existentialism, Fascism, Communism), he swam against the current of those isms" (Sullivan E-mail 18 Oct. 1998). Featuring an American on an expensive African safari-drinking, joking, and sharing "anecdotes" around the campfire when not shooting for trophiesGreen Hills of Africa also was written in an almost insouciant tone. As a result, Wilson viewed the work as evidence that Hemingway was "losing interest in his fellow men" (Meyers, Critical Heritage 28). Such criticisms also intimated hope that E. H. would write a more appropriate and serious work exhibiting social and political concern-showing that the evils of the world could be cured with a certain political and/or economic system, if you will. In response, Hemingway presented the world with a peculiar and evocative book, and many simply did not know what to make of it. It didn't help that Time magazine gave the book the biggest publicity in a cover story of October 18 . . . [which] relied heavily on the fact of Ernest's current involvement in the Spanish Civil War and stated that the conflict had pushed Ernest into a new social awareness that had given birth to the novel. Of course, this was not true, since the book had been begun a full two years before Ernest's involvement in the war effort. (McLendon 171) However, believing that E. H. had striven to respond to their demands, many Hemingway contemporary critics agreed-and some scholars still agree, also believing that E. H. was responding to critical demands-that the culmination of the plot, Harry's dying line, is not supported by the rest of the work. Some critics read the line as an indication that E. H. was "turning away from his earlier individualism" and even embracing Marxism (Donaldson 106-07). Cowley believed that Harry's last gasp was E. H.‘s "own free translation of Marx and Engels: ‘Workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose . . .‘" (Lynn 463). Some Russian critics also thought that THHN indicated that E. H. was coming "to grips with economic and social problems . . ." (Brown 308). They cheered a bitter article written by E. H. for New Masses in 1935, about the Bonus March veterans portrayed in THHN, which blamed the United States government for the deaths of several thousand unemployed war veterans that it had sent to the Keys during the hurricane months: The article was immediately translated and printed in the Russian edition of International Literature, with the following editorial footnote: "We insert the article by Ernest Hemingway as one of the most important documents of the development of revolutionary literature in America." (Brown 307) The Russian critic Platonov "felt that Harry [Morgan] displayed most of the traits of a real proletarian hero," although he found that Harry lacked "an understanding that one must ally oneself with all workingmen" (Brown 308). The "critic Silman remarked approvingly that Hemingway was beginning to release himself from the shackles of ‘absolute neutrality’ by seeking ways of effective protest against bourgeois society" (307-08). Scott Donaldson said in 1977, "To conclude . . . that Harry Morgan's last words signaled Hemingway's political change of heart would be to distort everything that the novel has to say" (110). Boardman said in 1992 that THHN "is a thumbing of the nose at those critics who insist Hemingway join the [socialist] movement" (180). As anyone can see, the novel has a strong sociopolitical framework but it does not convey a message, as sought by some critics; instead, E. H. sought to objectively reflect the times. Ironically, his desire to be a part of the Spanish Civil War "caused Hemingway to interrupt the meditation on the role of the writer and his responsibilities to his talent and to his fellow human beings that was evident in works such as To Have and Have Not and ‘The Snows of Kilimanjaro’" (Fleming 84). THE TITLE Again-as a result of expectations, as well as preconceived notions-most critics determined that the novel's title was simply what it most obviously was: a reference to the financially rich and poor of America. Leo Gurko says, "The novel emphasizes the absolute separation of rich and poor. . . . Its title, ending with ‘have not’ [is] an obvious reference to the dispossessed" (Pursuit 143-44). While the financial angle of the title is obvious, more recently some reviewers have surmised that the "have nots" were actually the "haves," and also that the distinction may apply to more than financial divisions: In fact, Hemingway effects an irony by creating the materially wealthy people as have-nots. To have what? To have not what? How are the haves separated from the have-nots? Who are which? To answer these questions is to find more complexity and rewarding thought in the novel than is usually conceded. The characters can be divided according to economics, but such a division is insignificant as well as overlapping and frustrating . . . Hemingway is saying that his have-have not distinction crosses social, economic, and political lines. (Robert Lewis, Love 115-16) Steven T. Ryan notes that "Hemingway's distinctions of have's and have not's has little to do with being affluent in the ‘it’ world" (31).3 "Instead of economic have's and have not's . . .Hemingway's final contrast is between those who have had Life and those who have had only life . . " We also note that there are differences not only between the rich and the poor but also between individuals within the same class division: What distinguishes Harry from Albert, and from most of the other working men in the novel, is an excess of cojones, an unwillingness to rely on anyone or anything other than himself to support his family. (Cooper 67) Hemingway, although it took him some to decide, was happy with the novel's title: I have got now to like the title To Have and Have Not very much. Certainly it fits the Vets in a literal fashion, and in some sense it fits everything that will be in the book. I would be for sticking to it. (Bruccoli, Correspondence 251) Clearly, the title's meaning is not as simplistic as many thought and may think; its meanings go much deeper. Knowing Hemingway's familiarity with the Bible, that he'd found at least one other title there, and that Biblical quotations are integral to many of his works, we acknowledge that THHN's title also was derived from the Bible. It comes from the thirteenth chapter of St. Matthew, which begins with Jesus relating to the multitudes the parable of the seed sower. For more on this, see the essay, "Dimensions of Love" [in Knott's One Man Alone]. CHARACTERIZING Many critics continue to find fault, as did many of E. H.‘s contemporary critics, with his character portrayals, particularly of the intellectuals or the monetarily rich. Delmore Schwartz found the conversations "often farcical in their effort at satire, or simply false" (127).4 Cowley said that a serious weakness "lies in the characters themselves, or rather in the author's attitude toward [them]" (234). He felt that these people were very similar to those described in TSAR but added, "This time Hemingway really hates the people" (234). Similar feelings have been expressed in more recent critical essays. Anne Rowe finds the wealthy yacht owners to be "merely caricatures of people" (100), and Waldhorn says, "Even those few among the affluent who escape censure-Helen Gordon and the Happy Family-earn approval as symbols rather than as characters" (158). Ralph Ellison, on the other hand, knew that in fiction stereotypes partake of archetypes. . . . And yes, in literary form stereotypes function as do other forms of characterization, as motives. . . . But the point is that they act as imposed motives which treat reality and character arbitrarily. Thus to redeem them S. .the writer is challenged to reveal the archetypical truth hidden within the stereotype . . . (Thompson et al. 80) In this respect, Hemingway succeeded. LITERARY INTELLECTUALS Hemingway also had to contend with those critics who were upset when, expecting to find a theme exalting literary intellectuals, instead they found a work seemingly demeaning intellectuals and praising a man with little learning and lots of cojones. Some of them took it very personally, as a matter of fact, judging from their comments: Nothing could be more inept here, more lacking in true insight, than Hemingway's brand of satire against literary loafers and the complacent rich. It is not only crude and slapdash, misunderstanding its own ends, but some of it is hardly professional. (Kronenberger 182) Schwartz complains that "throughout the narrative the role of the rich is underscored very heavily and they are presented in an unrelieved nastiness which amounts to little else than the worst caricature" (125). Stephen Cooper says, "The rich characters . . . are presented satirically, with no sympathy and very little understanding" (68). Hemingway may have thought that such critics are merely exposing that measure of themselves that they bring to the work. Indeed, his brilliant pegging in his works of some intellectuals as vain fools was a source of irritation for many years to many critics and friends, some who faulted him for turning against friends: The heavy-handed satire on successful, individualistic capitalists at the end of the novel-which links financial manipulation with sexual perversion-is flawed because Hemingway condemns his own economic class from the ‘have-not’ point of view while continuing to enjoy his comfortable life. (Meyers, Biography 293) Critics failed and often still fail to realize that E. H.- who first had to bravely face his own mirror's reflection before he attempted to write-included himself as one of the biggest of those vain fools, and that his animosity was not directed toward all rich literary intellectuals but only toward snobs and the "wasteful wealthy" (Donaldson 103). Philip Young discovered, as others could have and can, that "a sensitive reading of the book will show some of the Haves, whom we expect to despise as the villains, to have been drawn with considerable sympathy . . ." ("Focus" 48) AFRICAN-AMERICANS AND WOMEN It is amazing that critics and readers did not-and that some still do not-recognize or admit that few characters in THHN escape being labeled with disparaging terms or described negatively. Many of the terms used by the novel's omniscient narrator or by Harry or Albert-such as Chinks, nigger, and yellow stuff-were prevalent during the thirties, particularly in America. It is unfortunate that many of these terms continue to be heard in our time. The debate over THHN's meaning and E. H.‘s intent with regard to this particular aspect continues, as well. More recently, there are those who believe that Hemingway aimed the novel's most insulting remarks at African-Americans. In her essay on THHN, Toni Morrison says that she used the novel "to test some of the propositions" that she has been "advancing" in her book, Playing in the Dark (70). She states that many writers, among them, Hemingway, included African Americans in their works to enable the white characters-with specific reference to Harry Morgan-to gain identity "from the wholly available and serviceable lives of Africanist others" (25). Morrison's basic thesis that whites disparaged and belittled African Americans and other people of color cannot be faulted, although her belief that they did it in order to raise their own sense of self-worth may be questioned. Likely there were many reasons, among them ignorance and cruelty. Also, that this disparagement and belittlement should be a literary device employed by writers indeed emphasizes their limitations, as she asserts. However, Morrison is misguided when she attributes such motives to E. H., and she exposes her own misunderstanding of at least one of the messages of THHN by making such statements as those previously mentioned. See the essay, "Dimensions of Love" [in Knott's One Man Alone] for more on this subject. In thinking that the novel's black characters serve to make Harry Morgan look good, Morrison aligns herself with Hemingway's critics, past and recent, who view Harry as the hero of the novel and believe that E. H. intended for Harry to be perceived as admirable. Although it is true that Harry possesses some worthy traits, it is also true that he makes some very wrong choices and performs some downright despicable actions, such as killing Mr. Sing, that could not possibly be construed as heroic. There is a world of difference between a hero and a main character or protagonist or indeed an antihero. We do not approve, nor should we, of the majority of Harry's actions, whether or not we understand or accept his motives. Therefore, Hemingway had no intention of employing African American characters to accomplish such a need as that claimed by Morrison, specifically with reference to Harry Morgan. Hemingway's portrayals of women in THHN also were and are viewed as being unnecessarily harsh. It is true that women suffer a great deal of negative treatment in the novel-again, along with most of the other characters. At the same time, E. H.‘s portrayals of women in the novel were drawn with sympathy and understanding. Richard Hovey says that "To Have and Have Not . . . sounds a new note: its author displays a wiser sympathy with women": There is nothing new in his sympathetic treatment of Marie; but Hemingway is also on the side of the more complex and sophisticated Helen Gordon. And though he does not much care for a narcissistic type like Dorothy Hollis, he is remarkably fair in presenting what is tender and affectionate in her and her clear-cut preference for monogamy. (143) More recently, Lisa Tyler finds that Hemingway "suggests, obliquely, that women are more skilled at interpretation than men, and he implies that women might make better writers" (58). SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS The sexual aspect of THHN is significant to one of the novel's levels of meaning; however, once again, some critics have misunderstood their significance. (See the essay, "Sacrifice and Redemption" [in Knott's One Man Alone] for more on the significance of sexual relationships in THHN.) Philip Young says that the "superiority of the Nots is apparently based on the superiority of the sex life of the Morgans . . ." (Ernest Hemingway 18). Furthermore, he attributes this superiority "to the somewhat chance fact that he [Harry Morgan] has only a stub for one arm" (Reconsideration 101).‘ John S. Hill illustrates his misunderstanding of Harry's relationship with his wife when he says, "Nowhere does Hemingway indicate more than a sexual relationship between [them]" (352). At one point in her essay, Morrison focuses on Harry's answer to Marie's question regarding what it's like to "do it with a nigger wench" (THHN 113). Harry tells her that it's "like nurse shark." Morrison states that "the strong notion here is that of a black female as the furthest thing from human, so far away as to be not even mammal but fish," and she views this identification as "brutal, contrary, and alien" (85). Yet, the comparison likely was meant as complimentary by Harry, for the female nurse shark is a slow-moving, graceful fish and a choosy lover, often leaving her mate collapsed on the bottom of the sea after a spectacular lovemaking session. Also, nurse sharks are not aggressive or carnivorous; they also are not nurses. These are facts that a fisherman such as Harry would possess. At the same time, it is worth noting that "Conchs"-the term that the natives of Key West use to describe themselvesare mollusks, and that Harry describes his missing arm as being "like a flipper on a loggerhead" (THHN 113). These textual facts seriously weaken Morrison's argument. It is also significant that throughout the novel, marine life parallels human behavior, adding another dimension of meaning. (See Larry Grimes’ and Carl Eby's essays [in Knott's One Man Alone] for discussions on Harry's animalism.) HERO Another source of critical debate surrounds the question of "whether Harry Morgan should be regarded as an admirable figure or as a modern antihero" (Donaldson 108-09). Most criticisms assert that Harry is the hero of the novel and that the other characters serve as mere foils and contrasts to him. Indeed, Harry was one of the first tough-guy heroes developed in the 1930s, a characterization that influenced many writers of that genre; To Have and Have Not had an enormous influence on detective fiction. Gurko intimates that "Dashiell Hammett, an early master of the genre, took his cue mainly from the stories of In Our Time and Men Without Women" (Heroes 151). It was Hemingway who made tough guys famousmen who learned at an early age that the world was a tragic place in which ‘one's breath was drawn in pain.‘ and who developed a code of endurance and bravery which enabled them to survive in it without losing their manhood. (Gurko, Heroes 186) In To Have and Have Not Hemingway wrote what is probably the best tough novel of the Thirties and certainly that which best depicts both the moral pragmatism of the hard-boiled hero and the class conflict which is a subtle but recurrent factor in the work of [future] tough guy writers. (Grebstein 19) However, critics who viewed and view Harry as a hero in a conventional sense concluded and conclude that E. H. failed with this particular aspect of the novel, as well. Wilson wrote that "the hero is like a woodenheaded Punch . . . or, rather, he combines the characteristics of Punch with those of Popeye the sailor ..." (Wound 229). Frederick Busch states that E. H. sacrificed unity and smoothness in order to make Harry "what a Hemingway hero should be" (100). Unfortunately, Busch's statement not only abets the assumption that E. H. was responding in his published works to pressures from critics but also insinuates that he was responding to pressure put upon himself, arising from his past works. Just as there are many different interpretations of a hero, there are many levels of the genre. Despite Camus's reservations about such American tough guys, Harry Morgan is the apotheosis of existentialism. He is courageous, acts independently, has the will to endure, and never . . . contemplates suicide. . . . While he may be unscrupulous, he also has feelings of responsibility toward his friends and toward Marie. (Lehan 50) According to Gurko. in THHN, "the ‘never-say-die’ spirit of the Horatio Alger hero was now lifted into a complex level of action" (Heroes 187). Others see in Harry one of the last of the American Western heroes; he also is similar to a 1936 famous hero, that varmint Rhett Butler. Harry's name links him to a seventeenthcentury pirate, Henry Morgan, one of the most obvious sources for his character. Brenner views Harry as a tragic hero in a classical tradition ("Classical Tragedy"). According to Lawrence R. Broer, "Harry is the first major Hemingway protagonist to act out dramatically the author's vision of the majestic life and death of the matador" (80). Harry possesses "particularismo-[an] intensely individualistic and bellicose nature" (21) and "pundonor, with pride as its governing value," which "raises the peasant to the level of the king and his courtiers" (61, 63). Hemingway wrote in DIA: "In Spain, honor is a very real thing. Called pundonor, it means honor, probity, courage, self-respect and pride in one word" (91). Also, "like those defiant Spaniards . . . Harry has cojones-Hemingway's [adoption of the] Spanish symbol for manliness and integrity-and must prevail on his own terms no matter what the cost" (81-82). Allen Josephs says. "You must have cojones for valor . . ." (64). Harry uses his cojones to protect and provide for those who depend on him, which distinguishes him and his cojones from a currently popular term-macho. Broer concludes that the Hero's fatalistic acceptance of the Spaniard's view of the world as endlessly unjust and destructive leads him to sanction the destructive impulse to cruelty and death-dealing in himself and in the world around him. But at more rational moments, the hero seems to recognize that these aggressive impulses are preludes to moral and physical disaster ... (76) Harry Morgan is similar to the "composite protagonist" described by Bickford Sylvester who as he grows up is progressively failed by every source of guidance, security, and authority (both individual and institutional) that he has inherited a need to believe in-inherited as representative human being, as American and European romantic idealist, and as twentiethcentury man set up and betrayed by the western tradition, the failed faith of his consequently failing, psychically-wounded and impotent leaders. ("Waste Land Parallels" 12) Sylvester also says, "These older people fail their dependents because . . . twentieth-century functionaries are not ‘saved’ by belief in a purpose beyond themselves" ("Complex Unity" 77). They merely mirror "their own confusion and emptiness" (85). Nonetheless, unlike Hemingway's early protagonist, Nick Adams, Harry Morgan was able to successfully connect with Marie and share love. For more on these subjects, see the essays, "Sacrifice and Redemption," "Dimensions of Love," "‘Juxtaposition’ and ‘Contrast,‘" and "Time Will Tell" [in Knott's One Man Alone]. SHIFTING PERSPECTIVES Most critics also agreed and agree that the shifting points of view within the work cause confusion; consequently, they labeled and label it a failed experiment along with the other perceived failures of the novel. There seems to be a general consensus that Hemingway changed points of view willy-nilly. Schwartz says, "Such shifts . . would be less intolerable if there were any effort to make them systematic" (252). Cooper says that the shifts damaged the novel's unity, and Waldhorn despairs that the "random shifts . . . add to the reader's despair" (66; 157). The reasoning behind switching points of view is to render significant perspectives "both from outside and inside consciousness" (Williams 119). After seeing how Harry reacts to pressure and threats to his means of living and his level of wellbeing, the seemingly tacked-on ending shows us how other characters respond to their own problems. Robert Lewis also recognizes that the shifting points of view are essential to the novel's thematic structuring, complementing "the growing impersonality of the inevitably corrupting forces of nonlove" (122). Each individual on each yacht reacts differently to each individual problem, whether it is by contemplating suicide, masturbating, or reaching for a bottle of luminol-except for the "happy family," who find comfort in each other. The veterans lose themselves in excessive drinking, and they come to enjoy giving and receiving pain. As E. H. skillfully illustrates, one of the keys to this novel is that life's stresses and dangers are not merely related to finances, and they are not easily solved.‘ After all, Harry's situations do not offer choices between good and evil; they only offer choices among many evils. There simply are no good choices. In essence, the shifting points of view were essential to the structure, as well as some of the meanings, of the novel. Genevieve Hily-Mane says, "Hemingway has shown himself to be very much aware of the advantages and disadvantages of both the first and third person narrative techniques" (37). She concludes: Thus all sorts of relationships are woven between the narrator and the characters he impinges upon; between the narrator and his story, which he deforms, mutilates, creates or thinks of creating; between the narrator and the reader who is seized and impinged upon as wellnot to mention the discrepancy between the reader and the image of himself held up to him by the story; or the relationship between the narrator and the author. (44) STRUCTURE Nonetheless, the perceived fractured structure of the novel has been another source of critical derision, and, once again, critical expectations may have kept some from understanding E. H.‘s tactic in this respect. Cowley wrote, "As a whole it lacks unity. . . . Part of its weakness is a simple matter of plot structure" (179). Sinclair Lewis said that the work "is not even a novel but a thinly connected group of tales [that are] not only dull [but] annoying" (178). Schwartz says, "The progress of the story is . . . poorly constructed" (125). Years later, while acknowledging the experimental nature of THHN, Carlos Baker wrote that "the attempt to dove-tail and arc-weld two essentially disparate plots" was unsuccessful (Writer as Artist 216). Ignoring modern writers’ well-established approach to thematic structure, some recent essays agree with the view prevalent during Hemingway's time that the work is a combination of two previously published short stories and a third tacked on, "seams showing" (Busch 97). Although Boardman comments on the "seamlessness" of E. H.‘s works-a feat learned from "a number of great novelists, but especially from Conrad" (178)-he does not feel that Hemingway accomplished this in THHN: "He fails to make clear the connections between his main action and episodes . . ." (187). When discussing the failure or success of THHN's structure, we ponder such Hemingway quotations as the one that seems to agree with the above assessments: "The thing wrong with To Have and Have Not is that it is made of short stories" (Van Gelder 20). We know that from experience E. H. was aware that many critics failed to understand his works; he grew weary of being asked to explain complexities to them. The previously published short stories, "One Trip Across" and "The Trademan's Return," undoubtedly played an important role in Hemingway's progression toward the completion of THHN, as they were incorporated into the published novel. However, the stories stand as separate entities deserving special attention, just as THHN, in its published form, merits its own special attention. Gajdusek notes that E. H. "may have suddenly shouted ‘Eureka!‘ when he realized that the whole was a gradually evolved whole reaching toward its fulfillment at last in the tripartite structure that was ‘given’ to him" (E-mail 4 February 1995). Other Hemingway quotations that may be considered with regard to the novel's structure include the following. I think To Have etc. . . . is a good book. Jerry built like a position you fortify quickly and with errors but declare to hold. It is much better than people think and not nearly as good as I hoped . . . threw away about 100,000 words which was better than most of what left in. It is the most cut book in the world. (Baker, SL 648)7 I am trying, always, to convey to the reader a full and complete feeling of the thing I am dealing with; to make the person reading feel it has happened to them. . . . Because it is very hard to do I must sometimes fail. But I might fail with one reader and succeed with another. (Baker. SL 380-81) The latter statement is particularly true of a novel as complex as THHN. Nevertheless, many critics continued and continue to feel that E. H. threw the book together without much care. Again, such opinions undermine the talent and effort involved in the writing of THHN; they also ignore the many years spent on its creation. . . . There are many more valuable Hemingway comments to prove that he cared deeply for THHN. He told Perkins in 1936 that he had cut his Esquire pieces to six a year "so as not to interfere" with the writing of THHN (Baker, SL 448). In another letter to Perkins, he wrote, "Have not wanted to do any writing that would interfere with this book," adding, "I hate to have missed this Spanish thing [Civil War] worse than anything in the world but have to have this book finished first" (Baker, SL 454-55). And so it was finished-until Perkins insisted that E. H. cut much of the work for fear of libel. Perkins never failed to guide E. H. in such essential considerations of publication, and he was instrumental in the great writer's success. Yet, as he said, "Nobody ever edited Hemingway. beyond excising a line or two for fear of libel S. . (Wheelock 228). Hemingway had already missed some of the "Spanish thing" and after meeting and falling for Gellhorn, who was soon leaving to cover the war-and having his own assignment as a North American Newspaper Alliance correspondent-E. H. may have gotten anxious about getting THHN to press. However, after Perkins’ reminder that sending a potentially libelous novel to press is not a good decision, Hemingway decided to take the work with him to complete the editing, again lamenting "the excellence of the stuff cut out"-regardless of its possibly libelous nature. His brother, Leicester, says that Hemingway told him that "in many ways . . . [THHN was] the most important story he had ever written. From this point on, he really gave a damn about other people's lives" (204). Paul says that E. H. was "dangerously fond" of the characters of the novel, adding that there "is not a writer in America who treats his people with such extraordinary . . . delicacy or who is capable of so many shades of meaning, in the lines and between them" (111). Granting that THHN comprised previously published short stories, we also should acknowledge and embrace the fact that E. H. felt a need to transform these short stories into a greater whole with its "full revelation and statement" (Gajdusek E-mail 4 Feb. 1995). It also goes without saying that Hemingway is not the first-nor will he be the last-to meld short stories into novels; the practice has become even more common in our time. PRAISE Of course, not all reviewers disliked or dislike the novel. In 1937, Paul wrote that "a few modest men saw the worth of [THHN] and disdained to amplify the absurd legends that have been published . . . about Hemingway's personality and his activities" (110). He also said that "of the novels I think the new one To Have and Have Not is by far the best-style, subject matter, dialogue, and all" (109). F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote to E. H.: I never got to tell you how I liked To Have and Have Not either. There is observation and writing in that that the boys will be imitating with a vengeance-paragraphs and pages that are right up with Dostoiefski [sic] in their undeflected intensity. (Bruccoli, Fitzgerald 470) There are others who extol the novel's virtues. Brenner offers an explanation as to why the unfortunate qualifier-THHN being one of E. H.‘s worst books-begins many critical articles on the novel. Agreeing with earlier remarks regarding preconceived expectations for THHN, he says that it may be caused by "our disinclination to read it . . . from perspectives other than psychobiographical or new critical ones" ("Classical Tragedy" 82). He adds, "To be bold about it, of all E. H.‘s novels, this is structurally the tightest." DeFalco says, "There remains sufficient internal evidence to indicate that Hemingway attempted such a [episodic] structure for sound artistic reasons" (146). Boardman says: To Have and Have Not works better than most of its critics would concede. . .. [Hemingway] used every narrative technique and device at his disposal to render this simple tragic story so that it would not only be understandable to what he saw as a diminished reader but would also be a novelistic tour de force. (178, 176) Jim Nagel agrees that E. H. knew what he was doing when he wrote THHN: The most dramatic device of the novel is its multiple narrative perspectives which give the reader indications of how various characters view the central action and emphasize how little any one perspective reveals of the full complexity of the events. The cause of Harry Morgan's death, for example, is never understood by any of the other characters in the novel, nor can any of them be certain that his friend Albert Tracy is actually dead. This ironic limitation of knowledge helps create a narrative of considerable suspense and emotional intensity. (110) Reynolds says that E. H. was also aware that: the first rule of the short story is never change point of view: use one narrator only or the reader will become confused. In this story ["The Undefeated"] Hemingway, without making an issue of it, neatly shifted the narrative line from one character to another, much as a movie camera will shift within a scene. It was a bold experiment, one from which he learned a good deal. (246) It is interesting to note that Hemingway continued refining the multiple-perspective technique in For Whom the Bell Tolls. To Have and Have Not was developed thematically, a structuring method common to twentieth century writings, including the works of James Joyce. It is difficult to understand why so many of Hemingway's contemporary critics derided THHN for lack of structure. War and Peace, described by E. H. as "magnificent torture" with its sprawling form, nonetheless was and still is considered one of the greatest novels of all time (Gregory Hemingway 102). Thomas Daniel Young notes that Henry James also felt that a "novel's subject should demonstrate its structure" (3). Young also says, "The modern reader expects the novelist to recapitulate human experience, not to make some comment about it" (5). As Reynolds tells us, Hemingway's aspiration was to: without telling readers how to respond, what to feel, how to judge, let images convey meaning. If action is presented truly, precisely, using only its essential elements, then readers, without being told will respond emotionally as the writer intended. (31) Reynolds says that this "technique had been in the air since early 1912 when, in London, Pound helped form the Imagist Manifesto" (31). It also has been linked to the rise of photographic realism in modern fiction (Twentieth Century Literary Criticism 135). Hemingway told Arnold Samuelson, "It's your object to convey everything to the reader so that he remembers it not as a story he has read but something that happened to himself" (11). He painstakingly sought words that evoked for the reader the feeling of being there, of experiencing "it." In a 1925 letter to his father, he wrote: You see I'm trying in all my stories to get the feeling of actual life-not to just depict life-or criticize itbut to actually make it alive. So that when you have read something by me you actually experience the thing. You can't do this without putting in the bad and the ugly as well as what is beautiful. Because if it is all beautiful you can't believe in it. Things aren't that way. It is only by showing both sides-3 dimensions and if possible 4 that you can write the way I want to. So when you see anything of mine that you don't like remember that I'm sincere in doing it and that I'm working toward something. (as quoted in Reynolds Paris Years 278) The "bad and the ugly" included, as anyone familiar with Hemingway's works is aware, obscenities that made it difficult for him to get his works published. Again, he was ahead of the times, and his efforts significantly influenced our own acceptance and now overuse of such obscenities. Today, almost no book or Hollywood movie is considered complete without an abundance of obscenities. Hemingway wrote to Perkins about AFTA: It's a fight with me for the return to the full use of the language and what we accomplish in that direction may be of more value in the end than anything I write. I never use a word if I can avoid it, but if I must have it I know it. ("Three Words" 74) He again addressed the subject in a letter to Everett R. Perry, City Librarian in Los Angeles, who had "tactfully asked E. H. what he thought was gained by using certain plain words in Death in the Afternoon": The fundamental reason that I used certain words no longer a part of the usual written language is that they are very much a part of the vocabulary of the people I was writing about and there was no way I could avoid using them and still give anything like a complete feeling of what I was trying to convey to the reader. (Baker, SL 380-81) To Have and Have Not represents a victory for E. H. in this respect, as, "for the first time, without dashes or excluded letters, Hemingway was allowed to print in full the word fucking" (from Robert Trogdon's essay, "Their Money's Worth: The Composition, Editing, and Publication" [in Knott's One Man Alone]). "No doubt the power and importance of the [Harry's] speech in the novel convinced Perkins" that the word should be printed (Trogdon's essay). The "bad and the ugly" also included violence, another prevalent force in today's books and movies, and even moreso in life these days: It is the bare happening that is set down, and only the happening that must arouse in the reader whatever emotion he is capable of according to his nature: pity, horror, disgust. (Hemingway, as quoted in Wilson, Bishop 43) Alfred Kazin notes that E. H. was "fated to become one of the great expressers of enduring disorder in this century" (54). Indeed, this very characteristic earned him the Nobel Prize for Literature: The Swedish Academy commented on the central themes of his work. Courage and compassion in a world of violence and death were seen as the distinguishing marks of "one of the great writers of our time . . . who, honestly and undauntedly, reproduces the genuine features of the hard countenance of the age." (Kirkpatrick 279) Also, the novel's emphasis on the healing power of love links Hemingway with those who "insist that love of a certain kind-a sort that contains a large measure of what was once called lust-can save humankind from the destructive forces of civilization" (Wayne Booth, as quoted in Thomas Daniel Young 4). For more on this subject, see the essays on love in the section, "In Our Time" [in Knott's One Man Alone]. To Have and Have Not is a work steeped in tradition yet improved by and flavored with E. H.‘s insight, intuition, and genius for capturing, universalizing, and immortalizing not only the essence of his time and place, but also of enduring human characteristics. Ryan realizes that after writing a novel with "limitations resulting from a meticulous focusing of character, setting, and mood"-AFTA-Hemingway felt a need to experiment and expand his skills. "He had to let loose, enlarging his scope and testing his artistic ability . . ." (27). Brenner says: One value in seeing Hemingway as a writer deeply committed to literary experimentation: it shows him in the mainstream of modern literature, aligns himthough on a much lesser scale with his fellow artistscholar-experimenters Eliot, Joyce, and Pound. (Concealments 8)‘ He adds, "Hemingway's sustained literary experimentation has been relatively neglected" (8). Philip Young writes that THHN "is in the main line of development of one of our minor literary traditions, in which naturalism goes primitive with a Nietzschean morality in Norris, and is tested and found wanting by London" (Reconsideration 199-200). In Young's opinion, E. H. "did it better." Hemingway made no secret that one of his goals in writing was to take the best of the best-most of whom were dead-and make it better. John Bishop Peale says that E. H. carried "the Flaubertian discipline . . . to a point Flaubert never knew . . ." (as quoted in Wilson, Peale 43). Hemingway's profound influence on writing continues to this day and will continue.‘ Hemingway said that Pound taught him "how to achieve a compressed and precise Imagist style" (Meyers, Biography 74). He described Pound as "the man who believed in the mot juste-the one and only correct word to use-the man who had taught me to distrust adjectives" (AMF 14). Two monologues in THHN have been connected to Joyce's stream-of-consciousness technique: those by Dorothy Hollis and Marie Morgan, after her husband's death.10 Ryan notes the significance of these "deceptively simple" soliloquies, which "the reader may fail to see" because of "the brief chapter separating them" (29). They also help prove his opinion that "Hemingway's final contrast is between those who have had Life and those who have had only life . . ." (28). There are many significant parallels and contrasts throughout the novel, and, as Ryan says, the soliloquies illustrate one of the parallels, as well as one of the contrasts: "Both women discuss a similar characteristic of the men they have known," yet, their opinions sharply contrast (31). (For more on parallels and contrasts in THHN, see the essay, "‘Juxtaposition’ and ‘Contrast’: Unifying To Have and Have Not" [in Knott's One Man Alone]). While "Dorothy Hollis accepts that men tire of a particular woman and discusses a wife's attempt to be many women," Marie Morgan "accepts the human frailty. . . . Her realization that she must be many women only adds to the fascination of life . . ." (31-32). Of course, Marie's former profession as a prostitute may have broadened her tolerance for human frailty. Hollow feelings shared by many of the characters throughout the novel represent another parallel. Harry feels hollow before and after he kills the Cubans on Freddy's boat (THHN 169, 171); "a hollow had come in [Richard Gordon] where his heart had been (185); Marie feels "hate and a hollow feeling" after Harry's death (259). T. S. Eliot's "The Hollow Men" also examines hollow feelings shared by different individuals in different ways at different points in their lives; this and Eliot's Waste-Land view of modern life with its "artificiality and impotence of modern man" are said to be evident throughout THHN (Bender 178-79). Ryan also recognizes that To Have and Have Not is unified through opposition. . . A deeper opposition is discovered when one realizes that in this novel Hemingway has enlarged his scope by examining the enormous grey area of ordinary life which lies between spiritual life and death. (28) Another parallel and contrast easily missed in the novel occurs when Harry is listening to the young boy Cuban revolutionary and grows increasingly disgusted with the revolutionaries’ justification of violent means toward an end. He does not realize that their situation parallels his own: he keeps having to perform actions that he otherwise would not perform but asks himself, "What choice do I have?" (THHN 166). He keeps using other people, as well, friends such as Eddy, Freddy, and Albert, to accomplish his ends. Harry calls the young Cuban revolutionary a "radical" (166) after Albert earlier called Harry a "radical" (96). There is more talk of radicals and Communists among the veterans in the bar (206). There is a wonderful parallel and contrast between the scenes where Richard Gordon sees and misjudges Marie Morgan from afar and the later scene when she sees him walking bloodied down the street and pities him. Gordon completely misunderstands and maligns Marie's character, then calls it "perception" (THHN 177). Marie thinks, "Some poor rummy . ." (THHN 255). (For an in-depth discussion of this scene, see the essay, "Bad Luck or No Luck at All: Religion, Magic, and Chance" [in Knott's One Man Alone].) Earlier in the novel, she expressed pity for rummies-Eddie Marshall (Eddy) and "another rummy he'd picked up .. ." after they had stopped by the Morgans’ home (64). Hemingway was caught up in a time of isms and ists with respect to literary criticism, as well as with politics. He has been described as a Romanticist, realist, naturalist, minimalist, cubist", and as an avant-garde writer, among other descriptions. Painters such as C6-zanne, Goya, and Homer also influenced him. A recent article on Winslow Homer includes a quote that sounds Hemingwayesque: Homer was especially sensitive to questions about "The Gulf Stream," perhaps because he spent so long creating the piece. . . . When a dealer in New York asked for an explanation, Homer's response was unusually acerbic: "Regret very much that I have painted a picture that requires any description ..." (98) Frederic Svoboda says that "the blend of realism and romanticism, filtered through a modernist presentation, is one factor in Hemingway's continued popularity" (Email 28 Oct. 1998). As with all writers, E. H. was influenced by many. Yet, different from most other writers, he gave back as much as, if not more than, he gavenot only to his contemporaries but also to future writers and readers. Once again, it seems that Kashkin knew Hemingway and his writing best: The fact is that he was a master of many forms of writing and at different times used them separately and sometimes together, depending on what he was aiming at, at the artistic problems to be solved, and the given circumstances. (181) Hemingway said, "I might fail with one reader and succeed with another" (Baker, SL 381). With To Have and Have Not, even the readers with whom he may have failed found an exciting action story from which a wealth of Hollywood film material was derived. Still it is the readers who not only truly enjoy the novel but also benefit from the personal and possible moral meanings that it possesses for them who are the truly lucky ones. I count myself among them. Notes 1. The fact that each Hemingway work is solidly based in a particular geographic location and time period is a different matter, as discussed in the essay, "The Setting," which reiterates Hays’, Robert Lewis’, and Reynolds’ contention that E. H. researched heavily before writing. 2. See James H. Meredith's article, "Calculating the Complexity in Across the River and into the Trees," in which he applies this statement to that novel. 3. The "‘it’ world" is explained in Ryan's article. In spite of Ryan's belief that Hemingway failed in his experiment in THHN, I have to highly recommend his article. 4. Schwartz undermines his own statements by adding that E. H. is "writing about a theme which he does not know anything about. . ." (127). 5. To call the loss of Harry's arm a "somewhat chance fact" is a misleading statement. For a deeper understanding of the significance of the loss of Harry's arm, see the essays, "Dimensions of Love" and "A Farewell to Arm: Amputation, Castration, and Masculinity" [in Knott's One Man Alone] 6. Hemingway also points out in this novel that pleasures or feelings of contentment also are not only related to finances. 7. John Dos Passos told Hemingway, "A book ought to be judged by the author according to the excellence of the stuff cut out" (Beegel 51). Hemingway modified the quotation somewhat: "But anything should be judged by the man who writes it by the quality of what he can eliminate" (Beegel 107). 8. Sylvester says that there is a "bias against seeing Hemingway as the modernist he was, the student of Pound and rival of Joyce and Eliot, who craftily demonstrated (too craftily, perhaps) that he could adapt to his unique style the allusive narrative approach and much of the vision and perspective that brought Joyce and Eliot the enviable respect of the intelligentsia" ("Waste Land Parallels" 10). 9. A superbly written work on the subject of influence is Myler Wilkinson's Hemingway and Turgenev: The Nature of Literary Influence. In spite of the title, Wilkinson also includes a broad overview of other Russian writers and their influence, as well as other possible influences. His appendices include "an interpretation of all entries on Hemingway's library cards" from Shakespeare and Company, Sylvia Beach's Paris bookstore, and an inventory of Hemingway's reading of Turgenev (13). 10. Robert E. Gajdusek's monograph is an excellent source covering Joyce's influence on Hemingway. 11. Jacqueline V. Brogan has described Hemingway's novel, In Our Time, as cubist because of E. H.‘s "tendency to offer, intentionally, multiple perspectives. . . . We see multiple conjunctions overlapping in an intricately evolved pattern. This has led me to describe it as a Cubist Novel . . ." (E-mail 15 May 1995). It is my hope that Jacque will apply her theory to THHN. Works Cited Asselineau, Roger. Preface. The Hemingway Review (Special European Issue, Summer 1992): 3. Baker, Carlos. Hemingway: The Writer as Artist. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1952. - , ed. Ernest Hemingway Selected Letters (SL) 1917-1961. New York: Scribners, 1981. Beegel, Susan F. Hemingway's Craft of Omission: Four Manuscript Examples. Studies in Modern Literature. No. 74. Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press, 1988. Bender, Bert. Sea-Brothers: The Tradition of American Sea Fiction from Moby-Dick to the Present. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1988. Benson, Jackson J. Introduction. Hemingway: In Our Time. Eds. Richard Astro and Jackson J. Benson. Corvallis: Oregon State UP, 1974. Boardman, Michael M. Narrative Innovation and Incoherence: Ideology in Defoe, Goldsmith. Austen, Eliot. and Hemingway. Durham: Duke University Press, 1992. Breit, Harvey. "Success, It's Wonderful." The New York Times Book Review (3 Dec. 1950): 58. Bruccoli, Conversations 65-67. Brenner, Gerry. Concealments in Hemingway's Works. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1983. . "To Have and Have Not as Classical Tragedy: Reconsidering Hemingway's Neglected Novel." Hemingway: In Our Time. Eds. Richard Astro and Jackson J. Benson. 1974. Broer, Lawrence R. Hemingway's Spanish Tragedy. University, Alabama: The University of Alabama Press. 1973. Brogan, Jacqueline Vaught. "Cubism." [electronic listserv] [15 May 1995]. Available from firstname.lastname@example.org ---- . "Hemingway's In Our Time as a Cubist Anatomy." The Hemingway Review 17, no. 2 (1998): 31-46. Brown, Deming. Soviet Attitudes Toward American Writing. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1962. Bruccoli, Matthew J., ed. Conversations with Ernest Hemingway. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 1986. . F Scott Fitzgerald: A Life in Letters. New York: Scribners, 1994. Busch, Frederick. When People Publish: Essays on Writers and Writing. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 1986. Connolly, Cyril. Rev. of To Have and Have Not. by Ernest Hemingway. New Statesman and Nation (16 Oct. 1937): 606. Meyers. Critical Heritage 226-29. Contemporary Literary Criticism. "Edmund Wilson." Vol. 80. Detroit: Gale Research Co., 1994. Cooper, Stephen. The Politics of Ernest Hemingway. Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press, 1987. Cowley, Malcolm. "Hemingway: Work in Progress." Rev. of To Have and Have Not, by Ernest Hemingway. New Republic (20 Oct. 1937): 305-06. Stephens 179-80. DeFalco, Joseph M. "Hemingway and Revolution: Mankinde Not Marx." Ed. Murray J. Levith. Renaissance and Modern: Essays in Honor of Edwin M. Mosely. Syracuse, New York: Skidmore College, 1976. DeVost. Nadine. "The Cover Story: How the MassMarket Paperbacks Undermined Hemingway's Work." North Dakota Quarterly 65, no. 3 (1998): 35-47. Donaldson. Scott. By Force of Will: The Life and Art of Ernest Hemingway. New York: Viking Press, 1977. Fleming, Robert E. The Face in the Mirror: Hemingway's Writers. Tuscaloosa and London: The University of Alabama Press, 1994. Gajdusek, Robert E. Hemingway and Joyce: A Study of Debt and Payment. Corte Madera, California: Square Circle Press, 1984. --- . "The Mad Sad Bad Misreading of Hemingway's Gender Politics/Aesthetics." North Dakota Quarterly 64, no. 3 (1997): 36-47. Gajdusek, Robin. "Hemingway and the Critics." [Personal E-mail to Toni Knott] [31 Jan. 1995]. . "Hemingway and the Critics." [Personal E-mail to Toni Knott] [4 Feb. 1995]. Grebstein, Sheldon Norman. "The Tough Hemingway and His Hard-Boiled Children." Madden, Tough Guy Writers of the Thirties 18-41. Gurko, Leo. Ernest Hemingway and the Pursuit of Heroism. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 1968. . Heroes, Highbrows and the Popular Mind. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Co., Inc., 1953. Hays, Peter. "Hemingway Raids the Library for For Whom the Bell Tolls." Hemingway Review 18, no. 1 (1998): 98-102. Hemingway, Ernest. Death in the Afternoon. New York: Scribners, 1932. -- . Green Hills of Africa. New York: Scribners, 1935. -- . A Moveable Feast. New York: Scribners, 1964. . "Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech." 1954. Bruccoli, Conversations 196. -- . To Have and Have Not. New York: Scribners, 1937, 1965. . Letter to Maxwell Perkins. "Three Words." 1929. The New Yorker (24 June and 1 July 1996): 73-77. Hemingway, Gregory H., M.D. Papa: A Personal Memoir Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1976. Hemingway, Leicester. My Brother, Ernest Hemingway. London: Weindenfeld and Nicolson, 1961, 1962. Hill, John S. "To Have and Have Not: Hemingway's Hiatus." Midwest Quarterly (Summer 1969): 349-56. Hily-Mane, Genevieve. "Point of View in Hemingway's Novels and Short Stories: A Study of the Manuscripts." The Hemingway Review (Spring 1986): 37-44. Hovey, Richard B. Hemingway: The Inward Terrain. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press, 1968. Josephs, Allen. "La Plaza de Toros: Where Culture and Nature Meet." North Dakota Quarterly 64, no. 3 (1997): 60-68. Kashkin, Ivan. "What Is Hemingway's Style?" Soviet Criticism of American Literature in the Sixties: An Anthology. Ed. Carl R. Proffer. Ann Arbor: Ardis Publishers, 1972. Kazin, Alfred. "Hemingway & Fitzgerald: The Cost of Being American." American Heritage (Apr.-May 1984): 49-64. Kirkpatrick, D. L., ed. Reference Guide to American Literature. Chicago: St. James Press, 1987. Kronenberger, Louis. "When He Thinks-." 1937. Rev. of To Have and Have Not, by Ernest Hemingway. The Nation (Oct. 23): 439-40. Stephens 180-82. Lehan, Richard. A Dangerous Crossing: French Literary Existentialism and the Modern American Novel. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1973. Lewis, Robert W. "The Inception and Reception of A Farewell to Arms." The Hemingway Review (Fall 1989): 91-95. - . Hemingway in Italy and Other Essays. New York: Praeger, 1990. Lewis, Robert W., Jr. Hemingway on Love. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1965. Lewis, Sinclair. "Glorious Dirt." Rev. of To Have and Have Not, by Ernest Hemingway. Newsweek (18 Oct. 1937): 34. Stephens 178. Lynn, Kenneth S. Hemingway. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987. Madden, David, ed. Tough Guy Writers of the Thirties. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press, 1968. McCaffery, John K. M., ed. Ernest Hemingway: The Man and His Work. Cleveland: World Publishing, 1950. McLendon, James. Papa: Hemingway in Key West. Miami: E. A. Seemann Publishing, Inc., 1972. Mellow, James. A Life Without Consequences. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1992. Meredith, James H. "Calculating the Complexity in Across the River and into the Trees." North Dakota Quarterly 64, no. 3 (1997): 96-104. Meyers, Jeffrey. Hemingway: A Biography. New York: Harper & Row, 1985. -- , ed. Hemingway: The Critical Heritage. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1982. Morrison, Toni. Playing in the Dark: Whiteness and the Literary Imagination. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, 1992. Nagel, James. "Hemingway, Ernest." Dictionary of Literary Biography. Vol. 9. American Novelists, 1910-1945. Part 2: F. Scott Fitzgerald-O. E. Rolvaag. Detroit, Michigan: A Bruccoli Clark Book, Gale Research Co., 1981. National Geographic. "Winslow Homer." (December 1998). Paul, Elliott. "Hemingway and His Critics." 1937. Rev. of To Have and Have Not, by Ernest Hemingway. McCaffery, The Man and His Work 109-13. Plimpton, George. "The Art of Fiction: Ernest Hemingway." The Paris Review (Spring 1958): 60-89. Bruccoli, Conversations 109-129. Pratt, John Clark. "A Sometimes Great Notion: Ernest Hemingway's Roman Catholicism." Hemingway: In Our Time. Eds. Richard Astro and Jackson J. Benson, 1974. Reynolds, Michael. Hemingway: The Paris Years. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1989. Reynolds, Michael S. Hemingway's First War: The Making of A Farewell to Arms. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1976. Rowe, Anne E. The Idea of Florida in the American Literary Imagination. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1986. Ryan, Steven T. "Prosaic Unity in To Have and Have Not." The Hemingway Review 4, no. 1 (Fall 1984): 27-32. Samuelson, Arnold. With Hemingway: A Year in Key West and Cuba. New York: Random House, 1984. Schwartz, Delmore. "Ernest Hemingway's Literary Situation." 1938. Rev. of To Have and Have Not. by Ernest Hemingway. McCaffery, The Man and His Work 114-29. Stephens, Robert O., ed. Ernest Hemingway: The Critical Reception. New York: B. Franklin, 1977. Sullivan, John. "Hemingway." [electronic listserv] (18 Oct. 1998). Available from listserv email@example.com Svoboda, Frederic. "Hemingway." [electronic listserv] (28 Oct. 1998). Available from listserv firstname.lastname@example.org Sylvester, B. "Hemingway's Italian Waste Land: The Complex Unity of ‘Out of Season.‘" Hemingway's Neglected Short Fiction: New Perspectives. Ed. Susan F. Beegel. Ann Arbor, Michigan: UMI Research Press. Sylvester, Bickford. "Waste Land Parallels Unifying In Our Time: Hemingway's Confirmation as a Modernist." Up in Michigan: Proceedings of the First National Conference of the Hemingway Society. Joseph Waldmeir, ed. Traverse City: The Hemingway Society, 1983. Thompson, James, Lennox Raphael, and Steve Cannon. "A Very Stern Discipline: An Interview with Ralph Ellison." Harper's Magazine (March 1967): 76-95. Trilling, Lionel. "Hemingway and His Critics." Partisan Review (Winter 1937). Hemingway and His Critics: An International Anthology. Ed. Carlos Baker. New York: Hill and Wang, 1961. Tyler, Lisa. "Women Have a Bad Time Really": Gender and Interpretation in To Have and Have Not. The Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings Journal of Florida Literature 7 (1996): 57-66 Twentieth Century Literary Criticism. "American Proletarian Literature." Topics Vol. 54. Detroit, Washington D.C., London: Gale Research Inc., 1994. Van Gelder, Robert. "Ernest Hemingway Talks of Work and War." New York Times (11 Aug. 1940): 2. Bruccoli, Conversations 17-20. Waldhorn, Arthur. A Reader's Guide to Ernest Hemingway. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1972. Wheelock, John Hall, ed. Editor to Author: The Letters of Maxwell E. Perkins. New York: Grosset and Dunlap, 1950. Wilkinson, Myler T. Hemingway and Turgenev: The Nature of Literary Influence. Ann Arbor, Michigan: UMI Research Press, 1986. Williams. Wirt. The Tragic Art of Ernest Hemingway. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1981. Wilson, Edmund. The Shores of Light: A Literary Chronicle of the Twenties and Thirties. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Young, 1952. -- . The Wound and the Bow: Seven Studies in Literature. New York: Oxford University Press, 1947. ----, ed. The Collected Essays of John Peale Bishop. New York: Octagon Books, 1975. Young. Philip. Ernest Hemingway. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1959. --- . Ernest Hemingway: A Reconsideration. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1966. -- . "Focus on To Have and Have Not/To Have Not: Tough Luck." 1968. Madden. Tough Guy Writers 42-50. Young, Thomas Daniel, ed. Introduction. Modern American Fiction: Form and Function. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1989.