Hemingway, A Psychological Portrait by Richard E. Hardy and John G. Cull

Abstract

Reviews 269 figures now writing out of the Canadian prairies. These take up fully twothirds of the volume and, despite an occasional tone of clubby self-consciousness coupled with displays of erudition (or non-erudition), offer a fascinating glimpse of what these writers are trying to do. The list includes the wellestablished (George Amabile, Douglas Barbour, Ken Mitchell, W. D. Valgardson ), the emerged or emerging (by far the largest groups, among them Pamela Banting, Sandra Birdsell, Lorna Crozier, Kristjana Gunnars, Aretha van Herk, David Williams), plus a couple whose presence could bear some explaining. A third section provides a biographical piece on each author plus some sug­ gestions from each on “further reading.” Taken together, the essays prove that Sproxton accomplishes in Trace just what he intends: the essays in the first section point up the beginning and influ­ ences of prairie writing prior to the ’60s and early-’70s while, in the larger second section, the breadth of thought, influence, cross-fertilization and, finally, vibrant activity are amply demonstrated. For neophyte or expert alike, Trace is an excellent book. ROBERT THACKER St. Lawrence University Hemingway, A Psychological Portrait. By Richard E. Hardy and John G. Cull. (New York: Irvington Publishers, 1988. 93 pages, $18.95.) This brief book is an attempt to treat the life of Ernest Hemingway psychoanalytically . My personal bias is that Freudian psychoanalysis is not very useful. It may be entertaining and even interesting to some readers of this book, but not useful in promoting a scientific understanding of behavior. Post-hoc. psycho­ analysis can account for all behavior, and can even be used to generate motiva­ tions and intentions. Reifying theoretical concepts, of course, does not mean that an account is true, just that it is “explained” within the confines of a par­ ticular theory. The authors present what they call a “personality portrait” with substan­ tial biographical material woven in to lend a sense of accuracy and to provide material for analysis. They emphasize Hemingway’s early experiences in an attempt to account for his actions in later life as being the result of these personality -forming events. The authors appear confident in their explanations for Hemingway’s behavior but many alternative explanations are probably more credible and certainly more acceptable outside psychoanalysis. For example, they frequently interpret the actions of this active and vibrant man as due to some repressed motive to “show the world.” Only if we accept Freudian psychology need we accept such speculation. One major trouble with Freudian analysis is that there is no way to disprove the analysis and, therefore, it is only valuable as an amus­ ing exercise and not as a scientifically acceptable explanation. It is not an account that fits the western pragmatic genre. 270 Western American Literature I found the book enjoyable in its recounting of some of Hemingway’s early life and later exploits but the constant lecturing on psychoanalysis was intrusive. The book was uneven in chapter length (2.5 pages to 11), and in continuity. One chapter would describe several episodes, the next would discuss psychoanalysis. In my opinion, the treatment was too brief, not integrated and less than original. The recent Hemingway biography by Kenneth Lynn is a similar fictional account. Hemingway had little use for psychiatrists and psy­ chologists and I don’t believe this book would have changed his opinion. CARL D. CHENEY Utah State University European Perspectives on Hispanic Literature of the United States. Edited by Genevieve Fabre. (Houston: Arte Publico Press, 1988. 160 pages, $8.50.) Chicana Creativity and Criticism: Charting New Frontiers in American Litera­ ture. Edited by Maria Herrera-Sobek and Helena Maria Viramontes. (Hous­ ton: Arte Publico Press, 1988. 190 pages, $10.00.) Both collections contain material from conferences on Hispanic cultures and literature, one held in Paris in 1986, the other in Irvine in 1987. The title, European Perspectives on Hispanic Literature of the United States, is, in fact, misleading since the Paris conference united European and American scholars in order to “celebrate and discuss the esthetics, history and contributions of literature produced by Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans, Cubans and other Hispanics of the United States.” There are also inconsisten­ cies between what...