At 11:17 AM 10/12/98 +1000, you wrote: > >> Hmm, Late as usual, I am. But I cannot sit back as someone insults "my" >> Hemingway. I once heard that many women dislike him because of his >> pseudo-macho exterior. Let a man be a man. > >O boy, sister ... watch your back, you're likely to get battered in a >backstreet with myriad dog-eared copies of The Female Eunuch for that one! >(: I'm Trying to work on this feminine thing :o) That's why I'm considering going to Smith or Wellesley. Perhaps it's not to late to be reformed!!! >The thing I don't like much about Hemingway is simply that to me he's a >man's writer. The subjects he talks about aren't of any real interest to me >as a woman. And I don't mean fashion or cooking or makeup or what have you, >because none of them interest me remotely. I far prefer authors who can >create a good balance between male and female readers and characters. These >to me are the books which approach that much discussed state, >`universality'. I certainly don't dismiss his work - it's difficult to >dismiss *anyone's* work I think - but simply assert that no matter the >quality of the writing its content doesn't interest me. > Indeed, I understand your point. I guess I somehow look past the obvious subjects of Hemingway's novels and see a deeper side of his writing. That's not to say it's actually there...Perhaps I'm reading far more into it than I should. Have you read his _Garden of Eden_? It's quite different compared to the other, "macho" works. Misty Aimer, Travailler, et Souffrir