<span xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" style="font-style:italic;">Ernest Hemingway: Machismo and Masochism</span> (review)

Abstract

Reviewed by: Ernest Hemingway: Machismo and Masochism Suzanne Del Gizzo Ernest Hemingway: Machismo and Masochism. By Richard Fantina. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. Pp. 224. $69.95 (cloth). Masculinity has arguably always been the central feature of scholarship on Ernest Hemingway; one need only think of the masculine qualities credited to that earliest and most enduring of critical responses to Hemingway's work: the isolated, stoic, brave Hemingway "code hero," who must perform gracefully under pressure. Since the 1990s, with the publication of studies like Mark Spilka's Hemingway's Quarrel with Androgyny, critical discussions of Hemingway's masculinity have become increasingly complex and often contradictory, in part because they are now almost invariably linked to the issue of his sexuality. Galvanized by an ever-expanding arsenal of gender theories and the brilliant work on masculinity by scholars like Anthony Rotundo and Michael Kimmel, this new wave of scholarship has been largely characterized by an understanding of Hemingway's masculinity as "in crisis." Along the way Hemingway has been the subject of much speculation as scholars have mined the details of his childhood, his relationships, and even his sexual habits and proclivities. In recent years he has been considered (or reconsidered) in light of issues such as latent (or not-so-latent) homosexuality, transvestitism, and sexual role reversal. Although the deeply personal and invasive nature of such work is enough to give even the most stout-hearted critic pause, this scholarship has undoubtedly illuminated enigmatic aspects of Hemingway's life and work that were glossed over by earlier critics. Still, these well-researched, carefully considered theories about Hemingway's motivations for constructing his hypermasculine public image all eventually run aground of the irrefutable realities of that image itself. As a result, we are left with either incommensurable versions of Hemingway's masculinity or an all-too-neat understanding of his public displays of masculinity as a cover for an unconventional private life. It is onto this busy critical field that Richard Fantina steps with his book Ernest Hemingway: Machismo and Masochism. At first glance the book [End Page 290] appears to be another attempt to "charge" Hemingway with yet another form of "unconventional" sexual behavior, but, upon closer inspection, it is in fact a rich, multilayered, and provocative contribution to a difficult discussion, one that, refreshingly, questions some of the most basic assumptions of that discussion to date. In particular, Fantina challenges the idea that Hemingway's masculinity is a cover designed to compensate for transgressive desires in his private life. Rather, Fantina argues that Hemingway valued traditional masculinity; he notes: "I do not try to make the case that Hemingway did not sincerely share those virtues, but simply that he shared others as well" (8). From this starting point Fantina attempts to account for what he calls Hemingway's "dual masculinity," by which he means Hemingway's ability to explore vulnerability and empathy in his work and life while also "preserving and reinforcing traditionally stoic masculine values" (9). He identifies evidence of this "dual masculinity" in a variety of inconsistencies that have notoriously irked Hemingway scholars, most notably, Hemingway's awe and respect for women, which coexists with his misogyny, and his fascination with sodomy, which coexists with his homophobia. Throughout the book Fantina rejects the "either/or" premise that underlies most discussion of Hemingway's masculinity in favor of a "both/and" model that is compelling and satisfying. Rather than seeing the contradictions in Hemingway's masculinity as a problem (a stance suggested by the language of the "symptom" inherent in psychoanalytical approaches), Fantina argues that "Hemingway's embodiment of diverse models of masculinity may be his greatest legacy" (3). As a scholar addressing all aspects of Hemingway's masculinity, Fantina (as have many critics before him) must make some difficult methodological decisions. In particular, he understands that his combination of textual and biographical analysis will trouble some readers (especially those who believe "the author" to be long dead). But as any Hemingway scholar can tell you, some authors are easier to keep dead than others. Hemingway is a particularly persistent presence, so much so that Nancy Comley and Robert Scholes theorized the existence of what they termed...