After reading this thoughtful reply it occurred to me that
was meant was that Hemingway wrote about a person effecting
the environment, situation, what ever that he was in, while
Conrad wrote about the situation effecting the person.
Put another way, one might ask what changes from the
beginning to the end of stories from these authors. Ex. The
Old Man comes back from the ocean with the carcass of a sword
fish. Yes it isn't much, and he had to fight hard to get
that, but the universe did have to yield just that little
bit. By contrast the universe in 'Heart of Darkness' is
immutable and it is the people that change. (At least as far
as my sketchy memory allows me to comment.)
To write about the human condition, is to write about the
situation that human's find themselves in, possibly at the
expense of the characters. (Seems like this is one of the
main appeals of Noir and existentialism. YMMV.) It needs
human characters to make the point, but your not really
talking about the human.
Back to the peanut gallery.
-- Clendon
-------------- Original message ---------------------- From: "Dennis Lynds" <dennislynds@cox.net> > Etienne and Michael, > > I had to think about both your takes on Hemingway, Faulkner, and Conrad. > > To me, they are all three great writers, and all three deal with the human > condition as do all good writers. They simply deal with different aspects > of this vast and complex subject. Both Conrad and Faulkner attemped to > tackle more of the complexity than Hemingway. But what Papa did he did > superbly in a deceptively spare, but actually stylized, style that was easy > to imitate but damned hard to master. > > I'm not sure exactly what Michael means when he says Conrad wrote about the > human condition and Hemingway about humans. At first glance this seems to > me an extremely fine distinction. The only useful meaning I can glean from > such a distinction, is to suggest that Hemingway deals with individual > people, and Conrad with abstractions in a social context. Yet Conrad's and > Faulkner's characters are as individually human as Hemingway's, and all > three deal with these individuals in a social context. > > I can think of an only too real critical distinction if this human > condition-human schism is looked at in a more extreme way, because that is > exactly what ocurred in American, and to some extent British, literature > after World War Two, but not in the rest of the world. > > Nelson Algren has dealt with this in an essay introduction to a new > paperback edition of his NEON WILDERNESS short story collection, but I'll > give a brief summary. Before WWII, American lit was almost universally > about man in society. But after, led by such critics as Lionel Trilling and > Leslie Fiedler, it turned sharply inward, dwelling on the individual angst > of a single psyche essentially without any reference to the social world he > or she lived in. We contemplated our navel, and while doing that presented > in a dry external style in which everything was implied, suggested, but > never said. Chekov became the model but in a more extreme version that > dealt entirely with the internal psychological struggles of an individual > divorced from the world he or she lived in. > > Socially concerned writers from Crane, Dreiser and London, to the Dos Passos > of USA, Sinclair Lewis, James T.Farrell, and Algren himself were dismissed. > > Most of the rest of the world did not do this, especially Europe and South > America. Which is why I tend to read books from those worlds instead of the > literature of my own. As Algren said, "I could easily find all my books in > the libraries of Europe, but not in the library of the city about which > they were written." > > End of tirade, but that human versus human condition, disturbed me. > > Dennis-Michael > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "E.Borgers" <webeurop@yahoo.fr> > To: <rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com> > Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 4:47 AM > Subject: Re: RARA-AVIS: Conrad, Hemingway and Faulkner (was: Dan Fortune > series) > > > > Dennis, > > > > I think that speaking of modern literature, Faulkner is one of the > > important writers. > > I do not know why, but it seems that he is not correctly paid his due by > > recent contemporary Aglo-Saxon literary critics and lit. historians. > > > > I'm glad to hear that you admire Conrad. I share this with you. > > He's one of the real founders of modern writing and modern literature. > > His legacy and influence is outstanding. > > Personally I see him *also* as one of the distant roots of modern noir, > > roots of literary or mystery noir novels. That's a point of view I > > advocated since quite some time on this list. > > Conrad can be reread and reared. And must. > > > > I think that the Hemingway heritage is more strictly focused on > > minimalization of style and "distanciation", influencing a lot of > > writers who more or less are using a behaviorist writing in their novels. > > On the other hand, his often exaggerated stand proclaiming and > > supporting a "life of action(s)" - and that kind of views he often > > developed in his novels- is now obsolete, I think. > > > > Conrad's views and feelings on the human condition, to the contrary, are > > universal. > > > > E(tienne) Borgers > > Hard-Boiled Mysteries > > http://www.geocities.com/Athens/6384 > > > > > > Dennis Lynds wrote: > > > > >Dear Jacques, > > > > > > .../.. > > >So you noticed the touch of Faulkner, did you. You may be the first one, > or > > >at least the first to mention it. (People tend to approach experience > and > > >literature with preconceived notions. We see what we expect to see, what > we > > >want to see, and most readers of mystery and detctive stories don't > expect > > >to see Faulkner, or for most part want to. Hence Barzun and Wilson.) > > > > > >But, yes, I have read and reread all of Faulkner's novels countless > times. > > >There is always more to discover in each one. He is to me the greatest > > >American writer, and possibly, together with Conrad, the greatest writer. > > >Conrad was my first great discovery, and to me it is clear that he must > have > > >been Faulkner's too. It is obvious that Faulkner owed a large debt to > > >Conrad, and the two of them have been large influences. Not, obviously, > in > > >style or meter, as you say, but in much else. In style I am of that > > >generation in which no writer could escape Hemingway (not even Faulkner > if > > >you read some of his early stories. I recall one, it's name escapes me > at > > >the moment, that was about WW One, and was perfect Hemingway.) We did > our > > >best to escape Papa, but it was difficult, and many potentially good were > > >destroyed by it. I think I succeeded with the help of Conrad, Faulkner, > > >Hardy, the American proletarian writers, and, above all, Nelson Algren. > Of > > >course none of that is really for me to say, but I thank you for noticing > > >the Faulkner in me, I couldn't have a greater compliment. > > > > > >Best, > > >Dennis-Michael > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RARA-AVIS home page: http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/ > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RARA-AVIS home page: http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/ > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > >
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Has someone you know been affected by illness or disease? Network for Good is THE place to support health awareness efforts! http://us.click.yahoo.com/rkgkPB/UOnJAA/Zx0JAA/kqIolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~->
RARA-AVIS home page: http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/ Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rara-avis-l/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: rara-avis-l-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 06 May 2005 EDT