Subject:

Comments:
: Pjk wrote: : : In the same way, it seems to me, it would lessen the impact of the novel to simply describe : : Pedro Romero as a great athlete or even as a great cylist. He *had* to be a bullfighter and : : for the reader not to understand the ritualistic nature of the bullfight is to miss a part : : of the novel. : the fact that it takes place in Paris and Spain : : and involves bull-fighting is critical to it, and it would be diminished if other cities or : : events were used. : Pjk, I cut and pasted the above because it makes something very clear to me know. I believe L. Swilley has also pointed this out, but not as concretely as you do here. I'm not referring to the current discussion about the real/ideal in Hemingway's work. I mean, the fact that for a writer it is best to "show" what a character is or isn't than to "describe" them. Hemingway shows how good Romero is a bullfighter, rather than simply telling you. The only place where "describing the character" would be more appropriate than simply showing the character in action would be if the act of describing the character was necessary for the character doing the describing. For example, to show that a character was kissing up to somebody by describing them gloriously. That sort of thing. : I don't know if you understand me here. What I mean is this: in "The Killers" Hemingway describes the two thugs as "Both wore overcoats too tight for them." He does little more than that, relying more on how they push the patrons of the restaurant around. : Zak : :

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: