Talk:Big Two-Hearted River

A couple of points

Just from the first parts of the article:

• In the first paragraph of the lead, most readers will have to use the link to find out what the "theory of omission" is (I did). Thus they have to leave the article within seconds of starting it; some may not come back, given that the link article is far from WP's finest. I recommend that you add a brief explanation of the term to the lead.
• In the "Background and publication history" section the "Background" part seems a little thin. For example, shouldn't it be mentioned that Hemingway served in WWI, given that the war is relevant to the story? Did his experiences help him in writing it?

Brianboulton (talk) 22:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, I've removed the easter egg for the Iceberg Theory and want to think a little about how to distill that concept into a couple of sentences. The biographical details are later in the article in the themes section, but probably need some splitting out. I remember having enormous trouble with the structure here, so the feedback is welcome. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Many months later - I've tried working on both of these points. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Prose issues

-picked up during my FAC reading, 18-19 November

Background etc

• Don Stewart is not described, though Edmund Wilson is.
• "while wintering Schruns, Austria" - requires "in" after "wintering"
• Delete "anxiously" (WP:WEASEL
• What is the meaning of the parenthetical "with capital letters"?
• I think including the number of the print run is overdetailing
• I am unable to understand "the parts are listed separately in the table contents, divided an interchapter vignette".

Iceberg theory

• Contractions ("wasn't") are best avoided

Cezanne

• "At the time he wrote "Big Two-Hearted River" in 1924, Hemingway was influenced by Paul Cézanne's painting style". Can a writer be influenced by a "painting style"? I think it would be better to be a bit less specific about style and merely say that at the time, Hemingway was an admirer of the paintings of Cezanne.
• "When the story was written in Paris, Hemingway was more influenced by modernists—such as Stein and Pound—than by his boyhood in Michigan." This sentence breaks the prose flow, by interrupting discussion of the post-impressionist influence by referring to a different influence – before switching back to Cézanne.
• "middle ground" not hyphenated
• "well-described" should be just "described"; we are not in the business of lit crit
• "shown as the figure in a painting" - maybe "a figure" rather than "the"?

More to come, but bed beckons - it's -4 °C outside. Brianboulton (talk) 00:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you - thinking about these. Some off the cuff remarks - there were two separate volumes of In Our Time - one published as in our time in Paris, a second 1925 edition published in New York as In Our Time. I don't know how to distinguish, and to prevent people from changing thinking it's a typo, other than to say that one has capital letters in the title whereas the other doesn't, but will give it some thought. in our time consisted of vignettes only; these were kept as interchapter pieces for In Our Time. The print-run was a matter of dispute between Hemingway and Boni & Liveright and one of the reasons he broke his contract with them and moved on to Scribners, who continue to publish his work. That said, probably none of this is necessary here and can all safely be deleted. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• I should have picked up what the parenthetical note "with capital letters" referred to, and have reintroduced the note in a slightly more explicit form. That should avoid the impression that the capitals are a typo. You might consider another hidden note, to deter would-be correctors. I agree with the other deletions that you have made, and will try and complete my comments today. Brianboulton (talk) 11:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Continuing:-

Symbolism

• Not sure about "force the reader"; maybe "help the reader"?
• "In "Hemingway and Cézanne: Doing the Country", Kenneth Johnston writes that Hemingway substituted symbolism for paint and brushstrokes. The burnt town with the railroad tracks that "slash across the landscape" he sees as similar to a Cézanne painting." Doesn't this belong to the Cezanne section rather than "Symbolism"?

War

• "admitted" sounds as if he was confessing a crime. Suggest "acknowledged"
• Flora has already been described as a Hemingway scholar
• "Nick's unspecified wound is mentioned for the first time in "Big Two-Hearted River"..." Indeed, Nick's wound wouldn't be first mentioned anywhere else. I think what you mean is: "The theme of an unspecified wound is mentioned for the first time in 'Big Two-Hearted River', and becomes a feature in Hemingway's future writing".
• "Benson believes the autobiographical construct is most notable in Hemingway's best fiction such "Big Two-Hearted River". Apart from an apparently missing "as" after "such", this statement requires a bit of clarification. Was Benson maintaining that "Big Two-Hearted River" was an example of Hemingway's best fiction? That seems a little extraordinary.
• "Before his death by suicide in 1961, writing in A Moveable Feast..." etc - I think we can take it for granted that he wrote this before his death. Perhaps: "Shortly before..."?
• In the qiote, dod Hemingway write "I sat in corner" or "I sat in a corner"? If the former, I'd add [sic] after "corner"

Nature

• "a non-specific and representational manner" - I'm not sure what you mean by this; is it simply that the lanscape described is not specifically identified as Michigan?
• "Hemingway is fundamentally an American nature writer according to Susan Beegel." I would flip this: "According to Susan Beegel, Hemingway is fundamentally an American nature writer" - But who is Susan Beegel?
• I suggest that you pipelink "Agassiz Movement" to Louis Agassiz, rather than (or as well as) the later link.

Reception

• Personally, I don't think the fair use rationale for the image of the 1925 publication of the story is strong enough to justify usage. The image is not of the edition mentioned in the adjoining text, and in any event provides no significant information.
• First sentence: "In our time was published in Paris in 1924, part of Pound's modernist series through Three Mountains Press, and at that time Hemingway's writing style attracted attention". Several points:-

• Needs "as" before part
• Move first comma to follow "series"
• change "through" to "by"
• Change the final phrasing to "and brought Hemingway's writing style to public notice" (thus avoiding close repetition of "attention")

• "...in the 1940s he wrote..." - "he" being Wilson? If so I would specify, and say that he wrote of, rather than about "Big Two-Hearted River".
• crtics claimed..." I think they were expressing a view rather than making a claim. I would softer: "critics asserted..." or "critics wrote that...", perhaps
• It's been a while since Flora was mentioned, and I had forgotten who he was. Maybe refer to him again as "Joseph Flora", to avoid possible confusion arising from a girl's name.
• " one of the better American short stories" sounds quite a feeble tribute when compared with the encomiums offered by Baker and Flora. And who "considers" it so?

That finishes it. Please ping my talk when you have dealt with these, and I will return to the FAC age. Brianboulton (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for these. I'll probably have other questions but one that jumps at me is about Benson's view of the story. Not quite sure what you mean. Can you please clarify? The story is considered one of Hemingway's best - hence the reason for spending the time to write an article about it - are you questioning that Benson would have said that, or that it's H's best fiction, or that the source has been misrepresented? Benson is a notable Hemingway critic, as are all the critics mentioned, and that's his consideration, as is it that of most Hemingway critics. I can remove the sentence - it doesn't fit as well as it did before I moved the biographical information, and it's not strictly necessary, but I am curious. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Adding, I've struck the bit about removing. It does fit here and Benson's opinion is important, but won't keep it if it is being disputed. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Benson's opinion is not being disputed; I'm sorry if it seemed I was doing that. I wanted to make certain that I understood properly, because it seemed fairly extraordinary to me that a story by the 23-year-old Hemingway was considered by a leading critic to be among his best fiction, considering all of Hemingway's mature achievements. But if that is the case, fair enough - please feel free to reinstate your wording. Brianboulton (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I misread it because in my mind it makes perfect sense but of course when you present it like that, it is extraordinary. His early fiction was his best; the later fiction not so good. He wasn't very prolific either, so within about 15 years of this was pretty much done. This story is indeed considered one of the best, but it underscores to me the importance of reviews - another set of eyes is always needed to find these kinds of points. I think it's important, particularly for this story and this article, so I've gone ahead and leaned heavily on Benson with a longer direct quote. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Adding more: I've done all of these but a few points to make.

• The wound seemed important because the Nick Adams stories aren't presented chronologically, so other stories in the volume show him perhaps after the war and unwounded, but that I suppose can be added to another article.
• I added, and now trimmed out, the bit about H writing before his death by suicide because 1., many people don't know he committed suicide, 2., that book was published posthumously and heavily edited by his wife; 3., the manuscript was lost for 40 years, and finished months before his death. This, I think, is a situation of knowing more than the lay reader needs to know, but I'm not sure I'm thrilled about trimming it. Thinking about that one.
• Susan Beegel, current editor of the Hemingway Review, compares this story to the others. I no longer have that particular book at hand (library book retrieved through inter-library loan) and I'd prefer not to say "best" without looking. I did look at Benson (which I have) and he definitely says best, but I've tweaked that a bit.

• Adding - I was able to view this portion online and rephrased accordingly with a direct quote. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• The pic of the book is indeed the first edition of the In Our Time but I've deleted. If the rationale doesn't stand here, I'll also delete from "Indian Camp"

Thanks for these, will ping. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

plot / no plot?

Can the opening section say the story has no plot when the article has a separate section on its plot?Catherinejarvis (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

River

Not a single link to the Two Hearted River or only a buried reference to the Fox River (Michigan) which is the more likely inspiration. Rmhermen (talk) 02:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)