Ernest Hemingway's a Moveable Feast : The Making of Myth

by Jacqueline Tavernier-Courbin

Examines Hemingway's methods of self-mythologizing and argues that the anecdotes in "A Moveable Feast" were written shortly before his death, not in the 1920s as he claimed

Genres: Classics

261 pages, Hardcover

First published June 1, 1991

Reviews

[Robin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Just how much of “A Moveable Feast” was, as its introduction states, compiled from documents Hemingway left in two trunks the Ritz Hotel in Paris in 1928 and recovered in the 1950s? How accurately does “A Moveable Feast” portray Hemingway’s friends and life events in Paris during the 1920s? And since the book was published posthumously, how much editing was done after the author’s death, and to what effect? These and other complex questions are explored in this scholarly and well-documented tome. Though generally considered to be reasonably autobiographical, Tavernier-Courbin proves beyond reasonable doubt that (1) “A Moveable Feast” was largely written in the 1950s, and (2) it is largely fiction.

Hemingway himself stated that his book was fiction. However, popular opinion held that he said this only to avoid being charged with libel. Indeed he exaggerates certain characters, notably Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald, in unflattering ways. Tavernier-Courbin painstakingly combs through archived documents to separate fact from fiction, to elaborate on the characters, and to assess the likelihood that the events described might have happened.

The section on posthumous edits is most interesting. Hemingway’s last wife, Mary, added her own editorial slant by revising words and phrases to downplay the depth of Hemingway’s feelings for his first two wives. Scribner, the publisher, failed to correct numerous misspellings of Parisian streets, parks, and buildings. The reordering of chapters makes the book’s character and pace rather different from what Hemingway intended.

Though there’s an excess of detail for the average reader, and various sections can be skimmed, the careful analysis does make one rethink the apparent facts presented in “A Moveable Feast.” Rather than detracting from Hemingway’s book, this adds depth and intrigue to its stories, as we see him more as a participant and less as an innocent bystander.

I’ll leave the fascinating mystery of the two trunks at the Ritz to be explored by the reader. Anyone who enjoyed “A Moveable Feast” will also enjoy perusing this book.

[Catherine · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is worth reading only if you have an insatiable appetitie for Hemingway and his life. It's supposed to be about Paris in the 1920s, but instead of focusing on the city and people around them, he, in his self-absorbed way, only talks about them in order to tell his own story.

[Travis · Rating 5 out of 5]

I think this is the version I read, I'm not sure. The version I read had an intro by his son or grandson, and it had photographs of the original manuscript (in Hemmingway's handwriting) as well as extra chapters which Hemmingway may or may not have wanted published as part of the book.
The book is brilliant. It will make you fall in love with Paris. Reading it made me want to be a writer. If you are a fan of Hemmingway, or a fan of Paris, or if you live in Paris, or if you are a fan of the expatriate artists who lived in Paris in the 1920's, you must read this. This is a story of Hemmingway's life when he was a young man in Paris, with his loving wife. He visits on his artist and writer friends, and writes amusing stories about those encounters.

[Colby Droscher · Rating 5 out of 5]

Beautiful snapshot of his life in Paris in the 20's. Really beautiful and surprisingly understated. Great road trip read.

[Teri Pastorino · Rating 4 out of 5]

this was a great book to read after having read The Paris Wife. interesting to know the back story and read a little more into his writing of this book

[Paug]

loveee hemingway

[David Baume · Rating 4 out of 5]

sehr schöne Beschreibung Hemingways seiner ersten Zeit in Paris!
Das Leben, Begegnungen und Personen in einer rückblickenden Perspektive.

„Aber Paris war eine sehr alte Stadt und wir waren jung und nichts war dort einfach, nicht einmal Armut, noch plötzliches Geld, noch das Mondlicht, noch Recht und Unrecht, noch das Atmen von jemandem der mit einem im Mondlicht lag“

„Mittlerweile wusste ich, dass alles Gute und Schlechte, wenn es aufhörte, eine Leere hinterließ. Aber wenn es schlecht gewesen war, füllte sich diese Leere von selbst. Wenn es gut gewesen waren, konnte man diese Leere nur füllen, indem man etwas besseres fand“