The Mailer Review/Volume 4, 2010/A Visionary Hermeneutic Appropriation: Meditations on Hemingway’s Influence on Mailer: Difference between revisions
APKnight25 (talk | contribs) m Updated volume edition |
APKnight25 (talk | contribs) Added page 163. |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
{{Byline |last=Nakjavani |first=Erik |url=TBD |abstract=TBD}} | {{Byline |last=Nakjavani |first=Erik |url=TBD |abstract=TBD}} | ||
[T]here is nothing in the critical field that should be of greater | [T]here is nothing in the critical field that should be of greater | ||
philosophical interest or prove more rewarding to analysis than | philosophical interest or prove more rewarding to analysis than | ||
the progressive modification of one mind by the work of | the progressive modification of one mind by the work of | ||
another. | another.{{sfn|Valéry|1972|p=241}} | ||
'''I. Prologue''' | |||
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}} | |||
=== Notes === | === Notes === | ||