User:KWatson/sandbox: Difference between revisions

Line 58:

friendship and working relationship. Hemingway usually brought Matthews, who did not have a car, on his excursions. When Matthews left Madrid for a break in mid-April 1937, he had already ensured Hemingway would provide coverage to the ''Times'' through NANA. For one thing, Hemingway did not have to worry about Matthews as a rival for the history books. He could endorse his friends’ book, ''Two Wars and More to Come'', and praise him as “the ablest and the bravest war correspondent writing today” who “when the fakers are all dead [. . .] will be read in the schools” (Advertisement 21) because Matthews posed no threat to Hemingway’s own chances to be read in the schools. The only brief Hemingway ever expressed he really reserved for Matthews’ editors, for not wanting his Teruel street-fighting story and for cutting references to himself in Matthews’ Teruel dispatches so that it appeared only Matthews had been there (“To Hadley”462).

As for Hemingway’s neglecting to name everyone with him for every story, the ''Times'' cutting of his name suggests that such exactitude was hardly a priority. A paper had no incentive for announcing the fact that a competitor’s correspondent stood beside its own to see and report the same events. NANA changed at least one vague Hemingway “we,” which admits to the presence of others, to “this correspondent” (NANA, “American Veterans”)—we can hardly fault Hemingway for working in the spirit of his employer’s standards.6** Do readers care that Matthews, Delmer, Gellhorn, and others were there? The story’s effect and the

limited word count also weighed against such roll calls. One editor chose not to clutter the dispatch on the great retreat across the Ebro with all the names of the American International Brigade volunteers Hemingway encountered, an omission of

content more far serious than that of omitted correspondent names.7** Hemingway often gave the names of the reporters with him, such as at Teruel; nor was he the only reporter to sometimes neglect to do so. Martha Gellhorn, for example, used a vague “we” and singled herself out as the primary participant in some of her stories.

@@ Line 58: / Line 58: @@
 friendship and working relationship. Hemingway usually brought Matthews, who did not have a car, on his excursions. When Matthews left Madrid for a break in mid-April 1937, he had already ensured Hemingway would provide coverage to the ''Times'' through NANA. For one thing, Hemingway did not have to worry about Matthews as a rival for the history books. He could endorse his friends’ book, ''Two Wars and More to Come'', and praise him as “the ablest and the bravest war correspondent writing today” who “when the fakers are all dead [. . .] will be read in the schools” (Advertisement 21) because Matthews posed no threat to Hemingway’s own chances to be read in the schools. The only brief Hemingway ever expressed he really reserved for Matthews’ editors, for not wanting his Teruel street-fighting story and for cutting references to himself in Matthews’ Teruel dispatches so that it appeared only Matthews had been there (“To Hadley”462).
+As for Hemingway’s neglecting to name everyone with him for every story, the ''Times'' cutting of his name suggests that such exactitude was hardly a priority. A paper had no incentive for announcing the fact that a competitor’s correspondent stood beside its own to see and report the same events. NANA changed at least one vague Hemingway “we,” which admits to the presence of others, to “this correspondent” (NANA, “American Veterans”)—we can hardly fault Hemingway for working in the spirit of his employer’s standards.6** Do readers care that Matthews, Delmer, Gellhorn, and others were there? The story’s effect and the
+limited word count also weighed against such roll calls. One editor chose not to clutter the dispatch on the great retreat across the Ebro with all the names of the American International Brigade volunteers Hemingway encountered, an omission of
+content more far serious than that of omitted correspondent names.7** Hemingway often gave the names of the reporters with him, such as at Teruel; nor was he the only reporter to sometimes neglect to do so. Martha Gellhorn, for example, used a vague “we” and singled herself out as the primary participant in some of her stories.