From Whitman to Hemingway? Zhu Hong's history of American literature cannot be longer than that of this young country itself-in other words, it is only a part of history. But if it is compiled, it is not inferior to other countries at all-it must be a thick book. Introduction to Contemporary American Literature of Harvard University, edited by Daniel Hoffman, commented on American literature from the end of World War II to the end of 1970s. However, he has been struggling to grasp this short 35 years: "To describe, analyze and evaluate such a huge and diverse literary work, even in a 600-page book, it is like stuffing a feather mattress into a shoe box." At the beginning of this period, from 65438 to 0945, novelists such as Hemingway, Steinbeck and Faulkner and poets such as Frost, Stevens, Eliot, Pound and Auden still controlled the whole literary world and maintained their hegemony. But then who appeared? Norman mailer, Updike, Salinger, Ginsburg, Bly, Mervyn, Plath ... A group of more cutting-edge writers set new records for their predecessors. Due to political, economic, diplomatic, military and many other reasons, writers born in this superpower are also very cheap, and they seem to gain worldwide influence more easily than their counterparts in other countries. Allen Trattonberg concluded: "The history of a period of thought, to some extent, must also be a social and cultural history: a history of changes in the forms of work and entertainment, a history of personal and public life. As far as American society is concerned, this is a history of changes in social attitudes such as race, gender, wealth and poverty-and a history of changes in views on the United States itself and its position in the world. " American literature has attracted much attention in the twentieth century, which is closely related to its national image, strength and even international status. American literature seems willing to promote the image of a tough guy. Whitman is the representative of19th century, and Hemingway is the representative of 20th century. In other words, they represent American poetry and novels respectively. In my eyes, they are like the embodiment of the same person: rough and bold; Tough and optimistic. It can be compared that Hemingway has appeared in American poetry in the19th century in advance-or Whitman has continued his life through American novels in the 20th century. From Whitman to Hemingway, there has always been an American spirit full of masculinity-including cowboys. American literature has grown from scratch, from barren to rich, which determines that it must be constructive-its original author also has a pioneer temperament. And this temperament is precisely heritable. "In Louisiana, I saw a live oak tree growing alone. There are no friends or lovers nearby, but there are so many happy leaves in my life. " The strong oak tree that Whitman sang became the tough guy in Hemingway's works-the tough guy didn't dance, and the tough guy was silent. I just wonder, does Hemingway realize that he has inherited Whitman's legacy? "When he started writing, it seemed that he was determined to create an image beyond his own works and create a style that runs through his works. He created a world, in which his own storytelling voice is beyond the standard of personal innocence, and all the characters in his works should be measured by this standard. Writing belonging to individual labor constitutes an overwhelming force and a professional metaphysical system. " This is Leo Broudy's evaluation of Hemingway, but it seems that it can also be used to summarize Whitman. Whitman's 1336 line "My own song" is an indulgent praise of self-which embodies the basic idea of "self is everything, and everything is self". It can even be said that Leaves of Grass contains 40 1 poems he wrote after graduation, which is a self-portrait of his spirit-almost every poem walks or hides its own shadow. "I am relaxed and happy to go to Kaminooji. I am healthy and free. The whole world is spread out in front of me, and the long loess road can lead to the place I want to go. From then on, I no longer want to be happy, and I am happy myself. " Song of the Road This road full of masculinity also extends to Hemingway's feet. Just like Whitman himself often appears in his own poems (using the first person more), "liberating himself from the shackles that bound me with irresistible will", "Hemingway tried to combine all kinds of praises from the public with a free, biased and stubborn unique personality all his life, and at the same time gradually and consciously fulfilled the writer's' professional responsibility'. Even so, he still provided a typical writer life for many young writers. " (Leo Broudy) Whitman in the poem is a demigod-full of vitality, like the sunrise in the East. In Hemingway's era, romanticism was replaced by realism, and "demigod" became a "tough guy" with superhuman will. Santiago, the hero in The Old Man and the Sea, is an "old tough guy" who does not give in to setbacks. Some people think that Hemingway's new literary sensitivity smacks of narcissism. That's half right. Hemingway, like Whitman, has a narcissistic complex, and they keep getting closer to their ideal man model through writing. It's hard to say whether they are eulogizing great men or praising themselves. In any case, these two American writers of different times are both strengthening the gender characteristics of literature-both trying to create an absolutely masculine literature. Hemingway defined style as "elegance under pressure". This pressure comes not only from the outside world, but also from the author himself. Perhaps, any work needs some pressure to produce-just like a fountain squeezed out by an invisible hand to form a beautiful ray. We can imagine the priority of output from its shape. So, what is Hemingway's own style? It is urgent, vivid, concise and simple, as if accompanied by marching drums. Leo Broudy, an American critic, said: "The power of theme (non-literary by the standards of19th century) can be conveyed by concise new style, the rhythm of language use, the vivid and accurate images of news prose and imagist poetry. In Hemingway's early works, there seems to be both the frankness of Jack London and the sensitivity of sherwood anderson. Direct simplicity is his greatest advantage. " In Hemingway's novels, there is already an obvious industrial flavor-at least, this is also the flavor of blacksmith's workshop. Caution and rigor arising from repeated practice with a hammer. Some people describe Hemingway's writing as "telegraphic language"-I think it is more like a telegram sent by gunfire. It is said that he is used to writing standing up, but his articles give the impression of sitting on the top of a volcano or writing on a powder keg. It not only conveys a deep pressure, but also shows a kind of speed-speed can also create beauty. Why are you so impatient? "Because my heart may explode at any moment-I must release it as soon as possible." This is an imaginary conversation with Hemingway. Whitman and Hemingway are spokesmen of American spirit, or/kloc-0 and two literary idols strongly recommended by the United States in the 9th and 20th centuries respectively. They are nothing in themselves. It should be said that it came into being. Just as Gorky was a literary idol of the former Soviet Union. Hemingway is nothing but "Gorky of America" in my eyes. (Of course, it can also be said that Gorky is Whitman or Hemingway of the former Soviet Union. ) Gorky didn't go further than old Tolstoy. The same is true of Hemingway, who is the continuation of Jack London, the earliest wandering novelist in America. This is the same sorrow as Gorky or Hemingway: literary idols in the 20th century, while writing novels in the style of19th century, are destined to be only nostalgic (not advanced) writers-half a beat slower than the pace of literary history, so they are likely to be completely abandoned when the new literary era matures. After all, they lived in an era when Kafka was born. There will be amazing "coup" in the aesthetics of novels. Obsolete idols will inevitably collapse with the "old regime". Modernism will stand out in the challenge to ancient realism. Hemingway finally committed suicide for unknown reasons-but I guess it might be because of Jiang Lang. Not to mention whether he realized that he would become old and superficial in Kafka's era (the era of modernist literature), at least, he could clearly feel the threat from his side-Faulkner would shake his position; Compared with Faulkner's "noisy and restless" novel world, Hemingway is just a storyteller who can only tell stories. Please forgive me, I'm not belittling Hemingway-I'm depriving him of his superfluous aura and restoring his simple image. Spanish movie master bunuel holds a similar view: If Hemingway was born in Paraguay or Turkey, who else would read his works? He also said, "Steinbeck is nothing without American cannons." Steinbeck should be regarded as "Little Hemingway". The same is true of Hemingway: he is a literary bomb carefully concocted by the United States. Or, use the American trademark. "After the war, he was more important as an idol than as an example; In people's minds, he is a great writer who often fishes with celebrities, the Nobel Prize in Literature winner of 1953, and a unique character with gray hair who often appears on the cover of magazines. " (Leo Broudy) In this way, it seems too much for me to compare him boldly to "Gorky of America". Post-war America needs that tough guy who has suffered a lot but never compromised-as an image ambassador to publicize his mental outlook to the world. I wonder if this is Hemingway's luck or his misfortune? Just as Ginsburg will surpass Whitman, Hemingway will be deposed and ousted from the throne by Faulkner.