Project Mailer

The Mailer Review/Volume 4, 2010/A Visionary Hermeneutic Appropriation: Meditations on Hemingway’s Influence on Mailer: Difference between revisions

← Older editNewer edit →
m Added banner.
Started corrections. Added abstract and url.
Line 2: Line 2:
{{Working}}
{{Working}}
{{MR04}}
{{MR04}}
{{Byline |last=Nakjavani |first=Erik |abstract=An examination of influence theory making intelligible the nature of Hemingway's unusual influence over Mailer’s imagination. This analysis shows how Hemingway’s influence on Mailer characterizes itself as a highly differentiated case. Mailer’s speculation on the nature of Hemingway’s freely chosen, everyday exposure to death is reminiscent of Martin Heidegger’s notion of “being-toward-death.” It does not connote a morbid obsession with death but rather a maximally authentic “way-of-being” human. Imagination constituting the highest faculty of the mind in romanticism, Mailer's lament for Hemingway turns out to be a vibrant imaginative song of life but in a different register, Hemingway’s own. |url=http://prmlr.us/mr04nak}}


{{Byline |last=Nakjavani |first=Erik |url=TBD |abstract=TBD}}
{{Quote|[T]here is nothing in the critical field that should be of greater philosophical interest or prove more rewarding to analysis than the progressive modification of one mind by the work of another.{{sfn|Valéry|1972|p=241}} }}


<blockquote>
==I. Prologue==
[T]here is nothing in the critical field that should be of greater
{{dc|dc=N|orman Mailer and Ernest Hemingway.}} This phrase brings into proximity two prominent twentieth-century American writers. The phrasal contiguity of the two names suggests an arrangement that at first glance conceals more than it reveals. For, upon reflection, their proximity sketches out areas that often tend toward more pronounced darkness rather than light. One repeatedly thinks about Hemingway’s influence on other writers. Colleagues at various academic conferences refer to it. It appears in scholarly journals, popular magazines, and newspapers. Still one does not readily see what might constitute Hemingway’s influence on Mailer, that is, aside from what amounts to and is derided by some critics as Mailer’s imitative behavior in the worst meaning of the adjective.
philosophical interest or prove more rewarding to analysis than
the progressive modification of one mind by the work of
another.{{sfn|Valéry|1972|p=241}}
</blockquote>


'''I. Prologue'''
Mailer’s imaginal thematics,which often touches on the phantasmagoric, his baroque stylistics, and his distinctive intellectual concerns, all seem to be divergent from those developed and practiced by Hemingway. Does this {{pg|163|164}} mean, then, that the conjunction “and” in my initial verbless and therefore as yet inactive sentence misleadingly sets forth commonalities between the two writers? I think not. Because I would expect one may at least adumbrate a theoretical common ground between them. The conjunctive “and” will exceed its usual grammatical function and eventually carry out an exceptional task. The promise of latent and multiple vistas of the connection between Mailer and Hemingway, which as yet remain unknown, will still become known. However, the fulfillment of this promise requires wide-ranging conceptual meditations and may take a long and nonlinear course. The meditative approach I am proposing will offer an inkling of possible signifying links between Mailer and Hemingway.
 
Norman Mailer and Ernest Hemingway. This phrase brings into proximity two prominent twentieth-century American writers. The phrasal contiguity of the two names suggests an arrangement that at first glance conceals more than it reveals. For, upon reflection, their proximity sketches out areas that often tend toward more pronounced darkness rather than light. One repeatedly thinks about Hemingway’s influence on other writers. Colleagues at various academic conferences refer to it. It appears in scholarly journals, popular magazines, and newspapers. Still one does not readily see what might constitute Hemingway’s influence on Mailer, that is, aside from what amounts to and is derided by some critics as Mailer’s imitative behavior in the worst meaning of the adjective.
 
Mailer’s imaginal thematics,which often touches on the phantasmagoric,
his baroque stylistics, and his distinctive intellectual concerns, all seem to be
divergent from those developed and practiced by Hemingway. Does this{{pg|163|164}}
 
mean, then, that the conjunction “and” in my initial verbless and therefore as yet inactive sentence misleadingly sets forth commonalities between the two writers? I think not. Because I would expect one may at least adumbrate a theoretical common ground between them. The conjunctive “and” will exceed its usual grammatical function and eventually carry out an exceptional task. The promise of latent and multiple vistas of the connection between Mailer and Hemingway, which as yet remain unknown, will still become known. However, the fulfillment of this promise requires wide-ranging conceptual meditations and may take a long and nonlinear course. The meditative approach I am proposing will offer an inkling of possible signifying links between Mailer and Hemingway.


Clearly, Hemingway and Mailer’s names are heavily laden with literary, cultural,religious, educational, and socio-political implications. They often connote factual differences, even inevitable conflicts. Consequently, now and again, the differences may seem to be unbridgeable and militate against the prospect of serious comparative studies of the commonalities between the two writers. Since such study endeavors to go beyond wading in the shallows of mere superficial similarities and comparisons, the complexity of its conceptual framework will also proportionally increase. But I would like to go straight to my conclusion and confirm that such a study is indeed realizable, in spite of undeniable obscurities, or paradoxically because of them. For such seemingly impenetrable areas force us to rethink our theoretical guiding principles of literary influence and reconfigure constitutive elements.
Clearly, Hemingway and Mailer’s names are heavily laden with literary, cultural,religious, educational, and socio-political implications. They often connote factual differences, even inevitable conflicts. Consequently, now and again, the differences may seem to be unbridgeable and militate against the prospect of serious comparative studies of the commonalities between the two writers. Since such study endeavors to go beyond wading in the shallows of mere superficial similarities and comparisons, the complexity of its conceptual framework will also proportionally increase. But I would like to go straight to my conclusion and confirm that such a study is indeed realizable, in spite of undeniable obscurities, or paradoxically because of them. For such seemingly impenetrable areas force us to rethink our theoretical guiding principles of literary influence and reconfigure constitutive elements.
Retrieved from "https://projectmailer.net/pm/The_Mailer_Review/Volume_4,_2010/A_Visionary_Hermeneutic_Appropriation:_Meditations_on_Hemingway’s_Influence_on_Mailer"