Hemingway and the Creation of Twentieth-Century Dialogue

Abstract

[W]hile one can do nothing about choosing one's relatives, one can, as artist, choose one's ancestors.. . . Hemingway [was] an ancestor. - Ralph Ellison (140) In July 1961, Saturday Review devoted a special memorial issue to Ernest Hemingway, which writers and critics from around world paid tribute to recently deceased author and attempted to assess his impact on their own national literatures. Although Hemingway mystique was given heavy emphasis, many contributors also spoke to his artistic influence. The exiled Spanish political philosopher Salvador de Madariaga observed that manner of writing, his direct, simple, yet forceful had exerted an undoubted influence on new generation of Spanish novelists (18). From Italy, novelist Carlo Levi credited Hemingway's art as fundamental in determining character and mode of thought of our (19). And Alan Pryce-Jones, former editor of Times Literary Supplement, asserted that there was a living writer England who has been unaffected by laconic speed of his dialogue, subtle revelation of character that lies behind a spoken phrase (21). Today, such claims remain undisputed; most critics take for granted that Hemingway's techniques have profoundly influenced subsequent generations of writers across boundaries of nationality, gender, race, ideology, sexual orientation, class, religion, and artistic temperament.(1) Pryce-Jones ventured that Hemingway's art, especially his innovative dialogue, might turn out to be his enduring memorial as a writer, whatever his fascination as a man (21). However, years since his death, Hemingway criticism has focused more on biographical, thematic, and cultural content of his work than on his narrative techniques, and while it true that his prose style has been exhaustively analyzed and countless passages of his dialogue read for content, there exists not one single systematic or even a sustained analysis of his art of dialogue. The following essay attempts to redress that neglect. Through a close examination of passages from three stories, written between 1923 and 1927, it will show how Hemingway evolved techniques that would change nature of twentieth-century fictional dialogue. The passages are drawn from Indian Camp, which he for first time employed characteristic devices that distinguish his dialogue; A Canary for One, which he elevated banality speech to level of art through extension of repetition to dialogue; and Hills Like White Elephants, which he blurred line between fiction and drama, allowing dialogue an unprecedented constructive role a story's composition. The essay concludes by assessing historical and aesthetic significance of Hemingway's revolution writing of dialogue. MINIMUM SPEECH AND MAXIMUM MEANING: THE FUNCTIONS OF MODERN DIALOGUE . . . Hemingway one who had most to do with my craft - not simply for his books, but for his astounding knowledge of aspect of craftsmanship science of writing. - Gabriel Garcia Marquez (16) In Notes on Writing a Novel, Elizabeth Bowen cut to crux of exactly why modern dialogue so difficult to write. She observes that it must imitate certain qualities: spontaneity, artlessness, ambiguity, irrelevance, allusiveness, and erraticness. Yet, behind mask of these faked realistic qualities, it must be pointed, intentional, relevant. It must crystallize situation. It must express character. It must advance plot (255). It must, other words, be truly verisimilar - like reality, but not an actual transcription of reality itself. Speech, Bowen goes on to say, is what characters do to each other; aside from a few extreme physical acts, it the most vigorous and visible inter-action of which characters . . . are capable (255). Consequently, speech crystallizes relationships. …