"I do not follow the fashions in politics, letters, religion, etc..." Ernest Hemingway wrote to Paul Romaine in 1932. "If the boys swing to the left in literature you may make a small bet the next swing will be to the right and some of the same yellow bastards will swing both ways. There is no left and right in writing. There is only good and bad writing.... I'm no goddamned patriot nor will I swing to left or right."
Hemingway was notorious for his dislike of politics. His ideas stemmed from concern, of course, about a lack of understanding on either side of a political debate.
"Books should be about the people you know, that you love and hate, not about the people you study about. If you write them truly they will have all the economic implications a book can hold.... Read another book called War & Peace by Tolstoi and see how you will have to skip the big Political Thought passages, that he undoubtedly thought were the best things in the book when he wrote it, because they are no longer either true or important, if they ever were more topical, and see how true and lasting and important the people and the action are. Do not let them deceive you about what a book should be because of what is in fashion now."
That said, I politely agree, since politics is all wrapped up (especially today) in hurt feelings and resentment and misunderstanding. The lack of give and take in American political dialogue is frightening. But how much of this is true. Hemingway's own writing, including his epic novel For Whom the Bell Tolls, echoes through with political implications.
America was founded on politics and on politics it continues forward, through corruption, disillusionment, disappointment, hope, triumph, and redemption. In fact, if the mindfulness of fiction and poetry were brought to the political arena (as in Robert Penn Warren's All the King's Men), perhaps our political system would not suffer, but would be reformed.
The trick, I think, is in choosing a subject of politics and then draining the prose of idealogical bullshit, talking points, lies, and other distortions. If one writes about politics and "gives everyone an even shake," as Hemingway liked to say, even the people he or she despises the most, then two sides might reach some kind of understanding. Dialogue implies give and take on both sides and not just shouting of positions. As Jon Stewart once pointed out, shows like the canceled Crossfire are not honest debate. They are partisan hackery. If you have time, you can watch Jon Stewart scold the hosts of Crossfire below, shortly before the show was canceled forever.
Hemingway was notorious for his dislike of politics. His ideas stemmed from concern, of course, about a lack of understanding on either side of a political debate.
"Books should be about the people you know, that you love and hate, not about the people you study about. If you write them truly they will have all the economic implications a book can hold.... Read another book called War & Peace by Tolstoi and see how you will have to skip the big Political Thought passages, that he undoubtedly thought were the best things in the book when he wrote it, because they are no longer either true or important, if they ever were more topical, and see how true and lasting and important the people and the action are. Do not let them deceive you about what a book should be because of what is in fashion now."
That said, I politely agree, since politics is all wrapped up (especially today) in hurt feelings and resentment and misunderstanding. The lack of give and take in American political dialogue is frightening. But how much of this is true. Hemingway's own writing, including his epic novel For Whom the Bell Tolls, echoes through with political implications.
America was founded on politics and on politics it continues forward, through corruption, disillusionment, disappointment, hope, triumph, and redemption. In fact, if the mindfulness of fiction and poetry were brought to the political arena (as in Robert Penn Warren's All the King's Men), perhaps our political system would not suffer, but would be reformed.
The trick, I think, is in choosing a subject of politics and then draining the prose of idealogical bullshit, talking points, lies, and other distortions. If one writes about politics and "gives everyone an even shake," as Hemingway liked to say, even the people he or she despises the most, then two sides might reach some kind of understanding. Dialogue implies give and take on both sides and not just shouting of positions. As Jon Stewart once pointed out, shows like the canceled Crossfire are not honest debate. They are partisan hackery. If you have time, you can watch Jon Stewart scold the hosts of Crossfire below, shortly before the show was canceled forever.
Leave a comment