You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.9 AVERAGE
3.9 AVERAGE
This was a very quick read and as a lover of Hemingway, I'm always interested to learn more about his life. However, I think I was looking for more of a romance here, but it just felt a little jumbled. Overall, it did go over his different wives, and it is clear that his true love was Hadley, but this book felt a bit directionless as it also showcased his life in general. With a title like "Hemingway in Love," I wanted it to be more focused.
This was short and sweet, which is exactly what it needed to be. I wouldn't have wanted to read a long, protracted account of his feelings for his different wives but the author kept this short and on point, only using what he learned directly from Hemingway and not embroidering too much on it. I think it would help to know a little about Hemingway's life before reading this, since it assumes the reader already does and so doesn't explain why Hemingway was at certain places at certain times, etc. That said, if you don't know much, you won't be entirely confused so give it a try if you'd like.
This book offers a glimpse into Hemingway's psychology. And let's face it, whether you like his work or not, he lead a really interesting life.
This book offers a glimpse into Hemingway's psychology. And let's face it, whether you like his work or not, he lead a really interesting life.
I love/hate when books make me realize something I hadn’t realized about myself. Loved seeing Hemingway from a new angle. Thank you to Goodreads Giveaway for the opportunity to read this.
After reading A Moveable Feast, Ernest Hemingway’s posthumous memoir of his life in Paris during the 1920’s, I picked up A.E. Hotchner’s 2015 book Hemingway in Love: His Own Story. Hotchner was a writer who became friends with Hemingway in 1948 and he traveled extensively with Hemingway during the last decade of his life. Hotchner wrote the famous 1966 memoir Papa Hemingway, a huge best-seller that showed the writer’s life up close. Hemingway’s widow Mary Walsh Hemingway sued Hotchner in an unsuccessful attempt to stop the publication of Papa Hemingway, claiming that Hotchner had violated her privacy. Mary was also upset that Hotchner made it clear in the book that Hemingway’s death was a suicide, while she was still claiming that it was accidental. (The lie about his death being accidental allowed Hemingway to have a Catholic funeral service.)
Hotchner was also friends with Paul Newman, the impossibly handsome actor, humanitarian, and race-car driver. Hotchner and Newman were the co-founders of Newman’s Own, the non-profit food company. Hotchner died in 2020 at the age of 102.
Hotchner helped with the editing of A Moveable Feast, and he provided the book with its title, based on a conversation he and Ernest had about Paris. Hemingway in Love contains material that was too sensitive to be included in A Moveable Feast. At the time A Moveable Feast was published in 1964, Hemingway’s widow was still alive, as was his first wife Hadley. By the time Hemingway in Love was published in 2015, everyone was dead, except for Hotchner.
Hemingway in Love is largely comprised of conversations that Hotchner had with Hemingway in 1954 and 1955. Hotchner kept copious records of his conversations with Hemingway at the time, and the story Hotchner tells is in keeping with the wistful nostalgia of A Moveable Feast.
The Ernest Hemingway of Hemingway in Love comes off as a much more sympathetic character than the Ernest Hemingway presented to the reader in A Moveable Feast. For one thing, we don’t have Hemingway constantly lording his information and expertise over us. Hemingway is often guilty of what we would now call “mansplaining,” and he strikes me as the type of person who knows three facts about a subject and then suddenly thinks he’s the world’s leading expert.
The book presents a more nuanced look at Hemingway’s friendship with F. Scott Fitzgerald. Hemingway actually says some nice things about Fitzgerald, rather than just damning him with faint praise, or lobbing a passive-aggressive insult towards Scott. Hemingway tells Hotchner about Fitzgerald “there was a sense of bonding from the very beginning, a sense of brotherhood.” (p.28) In another passage, Hemingway says of his relationship with Fitzgerald, “Affectionately criticizing each other was the bond of our friendship.” (p.86)
We learn that Hemingway met Pauline Pfeiffer, who would become his second wife, through the Fitzgeralds. (p.30) At that time, Ernest was married to Hadley, and much of the book details with Hemingway’s conundrum as he found himself in love with both women at the same time. As the love triangle developed, Fitzgerald emerged as a sensible voice of reason, a role that Hemingway did not allow him to play in A Moveable Feast. When Scott and Ernest were at a café on the Riviera, Scott confronted Ernest about the situation, saying of Pauline “She’s going to bust up your marriage if you don’t get rid of her.” (p.39) Ernest protested that he was enjoying being the object of affection of two women. Scott’s reply was: “A man, torn between two women, will eventually lose ‘em both.” (p.40) Hemingway also tells us that “Scott said I was a sad son of a bitch who didn’t know a damn thing about women.” (p.40) For those of us who are Fitzgerald fans, it’s rather refreshing to hear Scott say that to Ernest, rather than the other way around.
Finally, as the situation came to a head, Hadley got Ernest to agree to not see Pauline for 100 days. If at the end of the 100 days he was still in love with Pauline, she would grant him a divorce. Hadley also didn’t see Ernest during the 100 days. To hear Hemingway relate it to Hotchner, he was in crushing agony during this time, and he was strongly considering suicide during the 100 days: “I decided the best way would be to jump off an ocean liner at night.” (p.93) During the 100 days, Fitzgerald again emerges as a voice of clarity, telling Hemingway “You need the shining qualities of Hadley. Her buoyancy. Neither Pauline nor her money can provide that.” (p.88)
After 71 days, Hadley had enough and wrote a letter to Ernest saying that she was going to divorce him. Ernest got what he thought he wanted: the freedom to marry Pauline. Hemingway converted to Catholicism for the devout Pauline. Fitzgerald, who was raised Catholic but left the church when he was an adult, chided him about his sudden conversion. “Well, old Mackerel Snapper, wolf a Wafer and a Beaker of blood for me,” Fitzgerald wrote in a letter from July of 1928. (By Force of Will: The Life and Art of Ernest Hemingway, by Scott Donaldson, p.226) Hemingway in Love tells us the information that after a bout of impotence with Pauline, Hemingway was “cured” after praying in a Catholic church. (p.117-19)
To hear Ernest tell it to Hotchner, his marriage to Pauline was not much fun, even from the beginning. Of course, it’s tough to say if this was really how Hemingway felt in 1927, or it was more reflective of his mood in 1954 and 1955, when he was discussing these events with Hotchner.
Interestingly enough, Hemingway married three writers after his divorce from Hadley: Pauline Pfeiffer, Martha Gellhorn, and Mary Walsh. Hemingway complained to Hotchner in 1955 that Mary was bugging him about wanting to write more, comparing her complaints to Martha Gellhorn’s. “Martha was just as bad, constantly drumming me about her writing, how we had to make time to fit her schedule, where and when we had to go here and there for her assignments. She was a pretty good writer, I’ll give her that, but also as a writer, I wasn’t about to put her needs before mine.” (p.79) Well, that sounds like a fun marriage, doesn’t it?
There is an inaccuracy from Hemingway regarding Fitzgerald. Hemingway claims “I never use actual names in what I write,” saying that he gave Scott a cover name in “The Snows of Kilimanjaro.” (p.97) This is incorrect—in the original Esquire magazine text, the narration mentions “poor Scott Fitzgerald,” and how Fitzgerald’s admiration of the rich had wrecked him. (To add insult to injury, Hemingway also gets the quote from Fitzgerald’s short story “The Rich Boy” wrong.) Only after repeated badgering from Maxwell Perkins and Fitzgerald himself did Hemingway agree to changing it for book publication to “Julian.”
Hemingway in Love also has Ernest recalling a scene with Fitzgerald in Paris where both writers were at a low ebb. Zelda has had mental breakdowns, and Ernest says that Pauline is about to divorce him. The last time the Fitzgeralds were in Europe was September of 1931, so it’s possible such a meeting occurred then, but Ernest and Pauline wouldn’t actually get divorced until 1940, so 1931 seems to be too early for this scene. But maybe Pauline was just thinking about divorcing Ernest in 1931?
One other timeline oddity, which we can probably just put down to the vagaries of memory, is when Hemingway says about Hadley, “What threw me was how quickly Hadley had married.” (p.129) Hadley married journalist Paul Mowrer in July of 1933, six years after her divorce from Hemingway. Contrast that to Hemingway’s haste to wed Pauline: Ernest and Hadley were divorced in January 1927, and he and Pauline were married in May of 1927. Six years hardly seems “quickly” compared to less than six months.
Hemingway in Love is a fascinating little book, and if you’re interested in Ernest and Hadley, it’s a must read.
Hotchner was also friends with Paul Newman, the impossibly handsome actor, humanitarian, and race-car driver. Hotchner and Newman were the co-founders of Newman’s Own, the non-profit food company. Hotchner died in 2020 at the age of 102.
Hotchner helped with the editing of A Moveable Feast, and he provided the book with its title, based on a conversation he and Ernest had about Paris. Hemingway in Love contains material that was too sensitive to be included in A Moveable Feast. At the time A Moveable Feast was published in 1964, Hemingway’s widow was still alive, as was his first wife Hadley. By the time Hemingway in Love was published in 2015, everyone was dead, except for Hotchner.
Hemingway in Love is largely comprised of conversations that Hotchner had with Hemingway in 1954 and 1955. Hotchner kept copious records of his conversations with Hemingway at the time, and the story Hotchner tells is in keeping with the wistful nostalgia of A Moveable Feast.
The Ernest Hemingway of Hemingway in Love comes off as a much more sympathetic character than the Ernest Hemingway presented to the reader in A Moveable Feast. For one thing, we don’t have Hemingway constantly lording his information and expertise over us. Hemingway is often guilty of what we would now call “mansplaining,” and he strikes me as the type of person who knows three facts about a subject and then suddenly thinks he’s the world’s leading expert.
The book presents a more nuanced look at Hemingway’s friendship with F. Scott Fitzgerald. Hemingway actually says some nice things about Fitzgerald, rather than just damning him with faint praise, or lobbing a passive-aggressive insult towards Scott. Hemingway tells Hotchner about Fitzgerald “there was a sense of bonding from the very beginning, a sense of brotherhood.” (p.28) In another passage, Hemingway says of his relationship with Fitzgerald, “Affectionately criticizing each other was the bond of our friendship.” (p.86)
We learn that Hemingway met Pauline Pfeiffer, who would become his second wife, through the Fitzgeralds. (p.30) At that time, Ernest was married to Hadley, and much of the book details with Hemingway’s conundrum as he found himself in love with both women at the same time. As the love triangle developed, Fitzgerald emerged as a sensible voice of reason, a role that Hemingway did not allow him to play in A Moveable Feast. When Scott and Ernest were at a café on the Riviera, Scott confronted Ernest about the situation, saying of Pauline “She’s going to bust up your marriage if you don’t get rid of her.” (p.39) Ernest protested that he was enjoying being the object of affection of two women. Scott’s reply was: “A man, torn between two women, will eventually lose ‘em both.” (p.40) Hemingway also tells us that “Scott said I was a sad son of a bitch who didn’t know a damn thing about women.” (p.40) For those of us who are Fitzgerald fans, it’s rather refreshing to hear Scott say that to Ernest, rather than the other way around.
Finally, as the situation came to a head, Hadley got Ernest to agree to not see Pauline for 100 days. If at the end of the 100 days he was still in love with Pauline, she would grant him a divorce. Hadley also didn’t see Ernest during the 100 days. To hear Hemingway relate it to Hotchner, he was in crushing agony during this time, and he was strongly considering suicide during the 100 days: “I decided the best way would be to jump off an ocean liner at night.” (p.93) During the 100 days, Fitzgerald again emerges as a voice of clarity, telling Hemingway “You need the shining qualities of Hadley. Her buoyancy. Neither Pauline nor her money can provide that.” (p.88)
After 71 days, Hadley had enough and wrote a letter to Ernest saying that she was going to divorce him. Ernest got what he thought he wanted: the freedom to marry Pauline. Hemingway converted to Catholicism for the devout Pauline. Fitzgerald, who was raised Catholic but left the church when he was an adult, chided him about his sudden conversion. “Well, old Mackerel Snapper, wolf a Wafer and a Beaker of blood for me,” Fitzgerald wrote in a letter from July of 1928. (By Force of Will: The Life and Art of Ernest Hemingway, by Scott Donaldson, p.226) Hemingway in Love tells us the information that after a bout of impotence with Pauline, Hemingway was “cured” after praying in a Catholic church. (p.117-19)
To hear Ernest tell it to Hotchner, his marriage to Pauline was not much fun, even from the beginning. Of course, it’s tough to say if this was really how Hemingway felt in 1927, or it was more reflective of his mood in 1954 and 1955, when he was discussing these events with Hotchner.
Interestingly enough, Hemingway married three writers after his divorce from Hadley: Pauline Pfeiffer, Martha Gellhorn, and Mary Walsh. Hemingway complained to Hotchner in 1955 that Mary was bugging him about wanting to write more, comparing her complaints to Martha Gellhorn’s. “Martha was just as bad, constantly drumming me about her writing, how we had to make time to fit her schedule, where and when we had to go here and there for her assignments. She was a pretty good writer, I’ll give her that, but also as a writer, I wasn’t about to put her needs before mine.” (p.79) Well, that sounds like a fun marriage, doesn’t it?
There is an inaccuracy from Hemingway regarding Fitzgerald. Hemingway claims “I never use actual names in what I write,” saying that he gave Scott a cover name in “The Snows of Kilimanjaro.” (p.97) This is incorrect—in the original Esquire magazine text, the narration mentions “poor Scott Fitzgerald,” and how Fitzgerald’s admiration of the rich had wrecked him. (To add insult to injury, Hemingway also gets the quote from Fitzgerald’s short story “The Rich Boy” wrong.) Only after repeated badgering from Maxwell Perkins and Fitzgerald himself did Hemingway agree to changing it for book publication to “Julian.”
Hemingway in Love also has Ernest recalling a scene with Fitzgerald in Paris where both writers were at a low ebb. Zelda has had mental breakdowns, and Ernest says that Pauline is about to divorce him. The last time the Fitzgeralds were in Europe was September of 1931, so it’s possible such a meeting occurred then, but Ernest and Pauline wouldn’t actually get divorced until 1940, so 1931 seems to be too early for this scene. But maybe Pauline was just thinking about divorcing Ernest in 1931?
One other timeline oddity, which we can probably just put down to the vagaries of memory, is when Hemingway says about Hadley, “What threw me was how quickly Hadley had married.” (p.129) Hadley married journalist Paul Mowrer in July of 1933, six years after her divorce from Hemingway. Contrast that to Hemingway’s haste to wed Pauline: Ernest and Hadley were divorced in January 1927, and he and Pauline were married in May of 1927. Six years hardly seems “quickly” compared to less than six months.
Hemingway in Love is a fascinating little book, and if you’re interested in Ernest and Hadley, it’s a must read.
Quick read, but not really anything I didn't already know.
"Hadley's terse, stark letter, giving up on me, made me feel her pain, her exclusion, the loss I had inflicted on her, and my thoughts became very concerned about my soul" (108). The premise of this book is that Hemingway's six year marriage to first wife Hadley Richardson (immortalized in Paula McLain's beautifully written historical fiction novel "The Paris Wife") was the one true love of his life. Yet, consider the above quote. When realizing how hurt and gutted she must be by his decision to leave her for his mistress (soon-to-be-second-wife), his first reaction is concern for his soul.
Concern. For. HIS. Soul.
Not her heart. Not his son with her. His soul.
And thus begets the true premise of this love-letter to Hemingway by a writer clearly enamored of "Papa." Papa was mostly concerned with Papa throughout his life.
Unashamedly, and seemingly offering a vulnerable, real, human side to the man who is too-often maligned as a sexist man's man, the author recounts direct conversations from Hemingway about how his second wife used "schemes and ruses, subterfuges, connivances" to wheedle her way into his inner circle, befriending his wife and offering to babysit his child, to get him for herself (31). In spite of friend Scott Fitzgerald warning him to extricate this "femme fatale" from his life, Hemingway was holding out for having them both--wife and mistress. But for some reason, this wasn't acceptable to the usually very loving and accommodating Hadley.
With the hindsight afforded by thirty years, Hemingway has gained a deep respect for her decision and recast their relationship as the one true love of his life. They were poor in finances but rich in love. She supported his writing and trusted him implicitly, even encouraging him to attend restaurants and theater productions with her well-to-do friend Pauline (wife #2) when she couldn't go. Pauline had a wealthy uncle who paid for her every whim. She promised that once they were married, Uncle Gus would buy them a house in Key West (he did) and they could travel and do any number of things--money being no object for once for the struggling writer.
And yet.
Once she "has" him and schedules a wedding date, Hemingway escapes on a men-only hunting trip to Africa, forcing her to delay the wedding. At one point he extols the values of Catholicism because after he goes to a church and prays for his erection to return, he and Pauline are finally able to have "as good a session as we'd ever had" (119). He decides Catholicism may not be all bad. Oh thank God!
And more.
When Pauline has Hemingway's son, he is off-put by the baby and his constant needs and escapes to a friend's dude ranch in Wyoming where he, "praise the Lord . . . had a really good three weeks away from Pauline" and was able to work on his next novel, fish, hunt, and enjoy "good ranch vittles and good bootleg whiskey" (131). Are we swooning yet, ladies?
When his second wife becomes pregnant with baby #2, and, after another painfully long labor ending in a C-section, the doctor says she can no longer conceive children, and he should make sure of that. Hemingway knows then that this marriage is over. A condom? Coitus interruptus? Not for this man's man. He decides to go on a fishing expedition and take on a 20-something mistress very publicly so Pauline gets the idea that their marriage is done (after all, that worked with Hadley). Instead, she promises that she will have Uncle Gus pay for them to take a $25,000 African safari. He will buy Ernest a car. A boat! Whatever he wants! She and the boys will "follow him around 'like a little dog'" (135).
And all the while our author is interviewing and recording Hemingway regaling us with these tales of his vulnerable humanity, his current wife, Mary, who was with him the last 15 years of his life, is delivering thoughtful food and drink as the old friends chat. She invites them to movies. She makes sure they are happy and comfortable. While her husband waxes nostalgic about his first wife, who apparently moved on, thankfully, to a happy second marriage. In fact Hotchner considered Mary such a good friend that he waited until well after her death to write and publish "Hemingway in Love." The author seems like a stand-up guy (other than his seeming hero-worship of EH). My view of Hemingway was, at best, affirmed and, at worst, rendered even darker and more disappointingly selfish and sexist by this book. But it was an interesting read! There is even a surprising twist at the end . . . .
Concern. For. HIS. Soul.
Not her heart. Not his son with her. His soul.
And thus begets the true premise of this love-letter to Hemingway by a writer clearly enamored of "Papa." Papa was mostly concerned with Papa throughout his life.
Unashamedly, and seemingly offering a vulnerable, real, human side to the man who is too-often maligned as a sexist man's man, the author recounts direct conversations from Hemingway about how his second wife used "schemes and ruses, subterfuges, connivances" to wheedle her way into his inner circle, befriending his wife and offering to babysit his child, to get him for herself (31). In spite of friend Scott Fitzgerald warning him to extricate this "femme fatale" from his life, Hemingway was holding out for having them both--wife and mistress. But for some reason, this wasn't acceptable to the usually very loving and accommodating Hadley.
With the hindsight afforded by thirty years, Hemingway has gained a deep respect for her decision and recast their relationship as the one true love of his life. They were poor in finances but rich in love. She supported his writing and trusted him implicitly, even encouraging him to attend restaurants and theater productions with her well-to-do friend Pauline (wife #2) when she couldn't go. Pauline had a wealthy uncle who paid for her every whim. She promised that once they were married, Uncle Gus would buy them a house in Key West (he did) and they could travel and do any number of things--money being no object for once for the struggling writer.
And yet.
Once she "has" him and schedules a wedding date, Hemingway escapes on a men-only hunting trip to Africa, forcing her to delay the wedding. At one point he extols the values of Catholicism because after he goes to a church and prays for his erection to return, he and Pauline are finally able to have "as good a session as we'd ever had" (119). He decides Catholicism may not be all bad. Oh thank God!
And more.
When Pauline has Hemingway's son, he is off-put by the baby and his constant needs and escapes to a friend's dude ranch in Wyoming where he, "praise the Lord . . . had a really good three weeks away from Pauline" and was able to work on his next novel, fish, hunt, and enjoy "good ranch vittles and good bootleg whiskey" (131). Are we swooning yet, ladies?
When his second wife becomes pregnant with baby #2, and, after another painfully long labor ending in a C-section, the doctor says she can no longer conceive children, and he should make sure of that. Hemingway knows then that this marriage is over. A condom? Coitus interruptus? Not for this man's man. He decides to go on a fishing expedition and take on a 20-something mistress very publicly so Pauline gets the idea that their marriage is done (after all, that worked with Hadley). Instead, she promises that she will have Uncle Gus pay for them to take a $25,000 African safari. He will buy Ernest a car. A boat! Whatever he wants! She and the boys will "follow him around 'like a little dog'" (135).
And all the while our author is interviewing and recording Hemingway regaling us with these tales of his vulnerable humanity, his current wife, Mary, who was with him the last 15 years of his life, is delivering thoughtful food and drink as the old friends chat. She invites them to movies. She makes sure they are happy and comfortable. While her husband waxes nostalgic about his first wife, who apparently moved on, thankfully, to a happy second marriage. In fact Hotchner considered Mary such a good friend that he waited until well after her death to write and publish "Hemingway in Love." The author seems like a stand-up guy (other than his seeming hero-worship of EH). My view of Hemingway was, at best, affirmed and, at worst, rendered even darker and more disappointingly selfish and sexist by this book. But it was an interesting read! There is even a surprising twist at the end . . . .
A very interesting look at Ernest Hemingway as told by his friend who visited him in hospital during the last weeks of his life. Short and sweet, this one leaves me wanting more. I plan to pick up Hotchner's other Hemingway memoir to see if the gaps are filled in. Hotchner knew Hemingway for 13 years and hung out with him and his last wife, Mary, on frequent occasions. Hemingway in Love only recounts Papa's thoughts about Hadley and Pauline, with no mention of Martha and only contextual references to Mary, such as when she left to go to a party and Hemingway and Hotchner stayed behind at the Key West house to talk. Very good overall and a very quick read!
A lot of what you read in this book are stories that have been told elsewhere, but it feels more intimate to me coming from the man himself. A deeply personal story with passion and regret, followed by the inevitable sad ending of his life.
Back to the Well
Review of the St. Martin's Press hardcover edition (October 1, 2015)
This one feels off and gives the impression that [a:A.E. Hotchner|2937536|A.E. Hotchner|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1338860516p2/2937536.jpg]''s publisher & editor went back to the well to try to cash in on the recent popularity of Hemingway spousal related publications e.g. [b:The Paris Wife|8683812|The Paris Wife|Paula McLain|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1320545874l/8683812._SX50_.jpg|13556031], [b:Paris Without End: The True Story of Hemingway's First Wife|11356275|Paris Without End The True Story of Hemingway's First Wife|Gioia Diliberto|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1348926122l/11356275._SY75_.jpg|16286302], [b:Mrs. Hemingway|18114165|Mrs. Hemingway|Naomi Wood|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1410759569l/18114165._SY75_.jpg|25441395], [b:Unbelievable Happiness and Final Sorrow: The Hemingway-Pfeiffer Marriage|14289890|Unbelievable Happiness and Final Sorrow The Hemingway-Pfeiffer Marriage|Ruth A. Hawkins|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1339200634l/14289890._SX50_.jpg|19930649] etc. and films e.g. "Papa", "Hemingway and Gellhorn", "Midnight in Paris" etc.
The editor seems to have constructed this from Hotchner's notes for 1966's [b:Papa Hemingway|10791|Papa Hemingway|Hotchner|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1322677932l/10791._SX50_.jpg|1259323] and expanded it with material from other sources (probably some of those listed above) in order to build a story of Hemingway supposedly telling Hotchner the story of his simultaneous love of Hadley Richardson and Pauline Pfeiffer and the supposed 100 days of separation that first wife Hadley Richardson imposed on the Hemingway/Pfeiffer relationship before she would grant a divorce. This is presented as if Hemingway told Hotchner the story over the course of their 13 years of friendship.
On the way to present a more dramatic story, various incidents or facts seem to be invented and these "wrong notes" are what put me off this book. I'm picking these up as a self-admitted Hemingway nut, and an actual Hemingway scholar would probably pick up even more of them. A few examples of what I mean:
- Hemingway and Picasso meet during the supposed 100 days (which would have been from late Sept. 1926 to end of Dec. 1926) and then go to a party at [a:Gertrude Stein|9325|Gertrude Stein|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1422989334p2/9325.jpg]'s apartment where they proceed to argue about the way that author portrayed then in [b:The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas|527495|The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas|Gertrude Stein|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1403192593l/527495._SY75_.jpg|2285834], a book that wasn't even published until 1933.
- several times it is mentioned that Hemingway's fishing boat "Pilar" was bought with Gus Pfeiffer's (Pauline Pfeiffer's uncle) money whereas Hemingway was inordinately proud of buying the boat with his own money earned or advanced by Scribner's and Esquire Magazine.
- Hemingway's voice only occasionally sounds authentic here, although quote marks are used throughout as if his speech was being quoted verbatim. For instance, I would expect a "mano a mano" conversation between Hemingway and Hotchner to have much rougher language, but the speech here seems all cleaned up and romanticized. The only off-colour word I remember was "shitmaru" which is a Hotchnerism from [b:Dear Papa, Dear Hotch: The Correspondence of Ernest Hemingway & A.E. Hotchner|159423|Dear Papa, Dear Hotch The Correspondence of Ernest Hemingway & A.E. Hotchner|Albert J. DeFazio|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1328806949l/159423._SY75_.jpg|153877]
Anyway, maybe that seems thin to some, but I remember those without even going back to look them up. If I took notes while reading I'm sure there would be several more specifics but the overall impression would still be the same. I'll be interested to read what a Hemingway authority review of this would be.
So, this is probably a 4 rating as a dramatic fiction (which is what its average rating seems to be) but I only give it a 2 due to deception.
Review of the St. Martin's Press hardcover edition (October 1, 2015)
This one feels off and gives the impression that [a:A.E. Hotchner|2937536|A.E. Hotchner|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1338860516p2/2937536.jpg]''s publisher & editor went back to the well to try to cash in on the recent popularity of Hemingway spousal related publications e.g. [b:The Paris Wife|8683812|The Paris Wife|Paula McLain|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1320545874l/8683812._SX50_.jpg|13556031], [b:Paris Without End: The True Story of Hemingway's First Wife|11356275|Paris Without End The True Story of Hemingway's First Wife|Gioia Diliberto|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1348926122l/11356275._SY75_.jpg|16286302], [b:Mrs. Hemingway|18114165|Mrs. Hemingway|Naomi Wood|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1410759569l/18114165._SY75_.jpg|25441395], [b:Unbelievable Happiness and Final Sorrow: The Hemingway-Pfeiffer Marriage|14289890|Unbelievable Happiness and Final Sorrow The Hemingway-Pfeiffer Marriage|Ruth A. Hawkins|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1339200634l/14289890._SX50_.jpg|19930649] etc. and films e.g. "Papa", "Hemingway and Gellhorn", "Midnight in Paris" etc.
The editor seems to have constructed this from Hotchner's notes for 1966's [b:Papa Hemingway|10791|Papa Hemingway|Hotchner|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1322677932l/10791._SX50_.jpg|1259323] and expanded it with material from other sources (probably some of those listed above) in order to build a story of Hemingway supposedly telling Hotchner the story of his simultaneous love of Hadley Richardson and Pauline Pfeiffer and the supposed 100 days of separation that first wife Hadley Richardson imposed on the Hemingway/Pfeiffer relationship before she would grant a divorce. This is presented as if Hemingway told Hotchner the story over the course of their 13 years of friendship.
On the way to present a more dramatic story, various incidents or facts seem to be invented and these "wrong notes" are what put me off this book. I'm picking these up as a self-admitted Hemingway nut, and an actual Hemingway scholar would probably pick up even more of them. A few examples of what I mean:
- Hemingway and Picasso meet during the supposed 100 days (which would have been from late Sept. 1926 to end of Dec. 1926) and then go to a party at [a:Gertrude Stein|9325|Gertrude Stein|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1422989334p2/9325.jpg]'s apartment where they proceed to argue about the way that author portrayed then in [b:The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas|527495|The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas|Gertrude Stein|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1403192593l/527495._SY75_.jpg|2285834], a book that wasn't even published until 1933.
- several times it is mentioned that Hemingway's fishing boat "Pilar" was bought with Gus Pfeiffer's (Pauline Pfeiffer's uncle) money whereas Hemingway was inordinately proud of buying the boat with his own money earned or advanced by Scribner's and Esquire Magazine.
- Hemingway's voice only occasionally sounds authentic here, although quote marks are used throughout as if his speech was being quoted verbatim. For instance, I would expect a "mano a mano" conversation between Hemingway and Hotchner to have much rougher language, but the speech here seems all cleaned up and romanticized. The only off-colour word I remember was "shitmaru" which is a Hotchnerism from [b:Dear Papa, Dear Hotch: The Correspondence of Ernest Hemingway & A.E. Hotchner|159423|Dear Papa, Dear Hotch The Correspondence of Ernest Hemingway & A.E. Hotchner|Albert J. DeFazio|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1328806949l/159423._SY75_.jpg|153877]
Anyway, maybe that seems thin to some, but I remember those without even going back to look them up. If I took notes while reading I'm sure there would be several more specifics but the overall impression would still be the same. I'll be interested to read what a Hemingway authority review of this would be.
So, this is probably a 4 rating as a dramatic fiction (which is what its average rating seems to be) but I only give it a 2 due to deception.