The End

Hemingway's A Movable Feast has been my literary study for the past nine weeks, leaving this week's post as the last one. With that knowledge, this post should provide some sort of conclusion to the whole study. I plan on doing this through looking at conclusions in general.

The conclusion paragraph of A Movable Feast summarizes the main themes of the whole memoir. It relates back to the everlasting quality of Paris, the benefits of happiness and health, and the theme of wealth or rather lack of wealth. These points are important because they accomplish what every conclusion is supposed to: summary, analysis, and conclusions from that analysis. It summarizes the book through those main themes. It analyses the whole point of why he was writing with his comment, "Paris was always worth it and you received return for whatever you brought to it" (Hemingway 211).  It then concluded that Paris is Paris.  This may sound like it makes no sense by itself, but when you see it against the book you understand. While Paris is a place to many people, to the people who spent the longest periods of time there, especially during the expatriate time during World War 2, it became something more. It became the cultural hotspot, the fantastic place of learning, the Mecca for writers, poets and thinkers. So while Paris is Paris would mean to a tourist that Paris is French and diffferent and fun, to those thinkers, Paris is Paris means so much more. It embodies everything he experienced there. He may have been poor and struggling but while in Paris, even that couldn't hold him back. He was happy. Paris meant happiness to Hemingway.

Aside from what Hemingway tells us about his time in Paris, we can also see a lesson in his conclusion.  Humdrums to be avoided at all times. Hemingway shows us that a conlcusion can be more than a restatement of the intro paragraph. It can provide insight as well as leave the literary work in your memory. I personally unerstand the ease of switching the wording around of my thesis into the intro sentence of my conclusion. I am a repeat offender. But as of this year, I have tried for more. We learned about the importance of conclusions in Mr. Miller's class. It should actually be interesting. God forbid a piece of writing is actually fun! If you write something more than the boring standard that we have been taught then people will actually care about reading it. We put so much work into the introduction hook and middle supporting paragraphs, why should we just let it die out in the final paragraph? We should keep their interest the whole time and make them remember us. Think about the ending to any great movie, book or play. It always is more interesting than just restating what was already said. The Great Gatsby ends with a great quote about being borne back against the tide. It provides a new metaphor, but also ends the book in a memorable way. Before I ahd even read the Great Gatsby, I had heard that quote before. That's the mark of a good conclusion. It makes people REMEMBER.

So basically, what we just talked about is how Hemingway made a good conclusion. He also provided an example of what we should do, as writers, in our own conclusions. This post was a conclusion of the AMF study as well as being about a conclusion. I enjoyed AMF.

(See? Wasn't that boring? You will probably forget it because it isn't memorable. It just restates.)

Places to Go, People to See

I've always understood the importance of setting. As I expounded on in a previous blog, I absolutely love imagining what is happening in any story. Only two things can be seen in my minds eye to imagine a story: setting and characters. Characters are undoubtedly the obvious thing people notice when reading books. Everyone cares who the next James Bond is, but not as many people care whether the movie is set in Rio De Janeiro or my backyard. I, on the other hand, have taken into account how far setting actually goes. However, as I was reading Hemingway's AMovable Feast, I never appreciated that setting plays on more than one or two levels.

Setting is not just the rosy sunset behind the dusty western town. It is also the feel and pulse of a place. As AMF is set in Paris, everyone automatically conjures up the tired cliche images of the baguette stores and the Eiffel Tower and adorable little cars that look like the toddler children of an SUV. The actual setting of the book does touch on the cafes and shops and french landmarks, but that is all the physical importance of a setting. On the much deeper level, so many things hinge on where the characters are. This is a memoir of sorts, so the characters are not truly characters, but actual people. Those actual people are drawn to Paris. They also happen to be famous people that are world renowned. F. Scott Fitzgerald, Ezra, Hemingway and even Picasso. Why Paris? Because the socio cultural pulse of the time is to be in the new center of liberal arts, free thinking and innovative, progressive movements. It is not like these great artists and writers are spending their time writing their penny papers at the Starbucks in Kingstowne and meeting for a party at Baja Fresh or Chipotle. They are in France. Doing better and bigger things.

So does setting have a deeper pull and meaning to a story? OF COURSE. Even in Miller's class we fill out discussion sheets and one is inevitably, " What are the social and cultural contexts of the story and how does that effect it?". Well the setting is the answer to that because setting isn't always just the pretty background but also the time, mood, and all of the other insinuated things we just naturally pick up on. So while James Bond may end up in my backyard, there is probably some other reason that is important to what is actually happening in the world today.