A Moveable Feast [Hardcover]

If you just want one edition of this fascinating, touching, detailled, amusing and inspiring memoir of Paris life in the 1920s when Hemingway was a young and hungry unknown, then I would recommend the 1964 original. If you already own that book, then for the price, this 'restored' text would be of interest too. The chief selling points of this book for those already familiar with "A Moveable Feast" are the drafts of sections not included in the 1964 text and pictures (of Hemingway's manuscript drafts and photos of the main protagonists).

Taken on its own, I'm not sure this edition ('restored' by the author's grandson Sean) cuts it as a decent version of the book. Hemingway started work on it after he came into possession of an old trunk in the 1950s that he'd left in the basement of the Paris Ritz Hotel back in 1930. It contained all manner of things he'd left behind, including working notebooks, and so was in effect a time capsule. Soon the floodgates of memory opened and he had a draft of "A Moveable Feast", his memoir of 20s Paris. Now according to the Hemingway Estate, what you have in this book is the FINAL draft Hemingway was working on around the time of his suicide in 1961. In their view, this supercedes the original 1964 text and is, in effect, the true version. The estate object to the 1964 book, seeing it as inferior on the grounds that it was put together by Hemingway's fourth wife Mary alongside Harry Brague, an editor from Hemingway's publishers. The Estate didn't like the way it made decisions they didn't think Hemingway himself would have taken, and didn't like the way the book's ending (which alludes to the break up of Hemingway's first marriage) portrayed his second wife Pauline (who just happens to be the grandmother of the 'restored' version's editor).

All that's fair enough isn't it? Well no it isn't. If you read AE Hotchner's take on the whole matter (try googling for it; Hotchner was a close friend of Hemingway's in the final decade of his life) around the end of 1959 the author entrusted Hotchner with a draft of "A Moveable Feast" to deliver to the publishers in New York. To Hotchner's mind, the draft he read was effectively the draft that was published give or take a few details (mainly the lack of an introductory note, a set final chapter and a title, the working version of which was "Paris Sketches").

On balance of probability it seems to me that the Hemingway estate's restored version is that first draft, plus a few alterations (a chapter removed here, a few rewordings of passages there) that Hemingway was tinkering with in his final two years of life. The trouble was, though, that the poor bloke didn't know whether he was coming or going a lot of the time towards the end. After his death his editors did a fine job in getting the book into final shape and presented it to the world as a fitting final work: the 1964 text. If you want any evidence as to the kind of trouble the old man was in when trying to rework this book, then look at the 'Fragments' included by his family at the end of this book. They consist of attempts to hammer out an introduction and an ending to the work, and have a pretty desperate tone to them to my mind, as if the poor man couldn't fix his words on the page. God knows what state his mind was in and I don't think their inclusion really helps illuminate anything except his suffering. Instead they made me realise what a good job his editors did in taking these fragments and assembling a brief intro and a fitting end of their own. They also made sound judgements about what would make a better book, clearly things Hemingway might not have been able to judge clearly for himself.

The 1964 book, then, is leaner, sharper and more focussed- precisely the kind of tightly constructed work that would have emerged had Hemingway lived to discuss it properly with his editors. In contrast, this restored version goes with Hemingway's final chapter order. This isn't as effective, since this book now closes- rather bathetically- with the chapter about Scott Fitzgerald's concerns over the size of his manhood, rather than the original's chapter which takes place in the mountains during skiing trips and deals with Hemingway's infidelity that led to the break up of his first marriage. Another new editorial change I'd take issue with is the beginning of the chapter in Scott Fitzgerald: in the 1964 text they go with a draft that takes a negative tone in summing up that author's character. In this restored version Sean Hemingway uses a later draft that is more positive about Fitzgerald. Trouble is, the chapter is pretty negative overall in its portrayal of Fitzgerald's weaknesses, so the original editors' choice of intro to me seems more fitting.

As I said above, the extra material given in the appendices is interesting, the pictures are great and if nothing else this book allows the Hemingway devotee to enable us to play the amateur textual critic. But by going with Hemingway's second thoughts on the book- at a time when writing anything was clearly so difficult- and in trying to present a kinder picture of his Grandma, Sean Hemingway ultimately hasn't done (Grand)Papa Hemingway any favours. Sean writes quite dismissively of fourth wife Mary Hemingway's editing of the original version, as if this book is the final settling of an old score. But again if Hotchner is to be believed she was less involved with producing the book than Harry Brague was. Either way, I think the 64 text is your own best way of getting back to the wonders of Paris in the 20s.

The introduction makes clear that this is a collection of chapters/sketches relating to Ernest Hemingway's time in Paris between the wars. Chronology is at best variable; arranging the order seems to have been somewhat arbitary. What emerges is a multi-layered portrait of a city at an interesting period of artistic life; of a few famous people who lived there; and of a marriage that progresses from tranquil happiness to disintegration. Hadley, the author's first wife, is the victim; much of the book reads like a remorseful apology for his part in the failure.

The incidental recreation of Paris in the 1920's - the cafés, the race tracks, the apartment above the sawmill where the Hemingways lived - yields some vivid vignettes. The goatherd driving his goats through the street, pausing to milk one for a customer, calls for a readjustment of one's Parisian preconceptions.

Of the people, there are insights into Gertrud Stein, James Joyce, Ezra Pound and especially Scott Fitgerald. The boxer Larry Gains appears and, with him, the macho Hemingway, showing off what he knows about the fight game. There is also the sentimental Tatie - the dialogue that accompanies his hair-growing contest with Hadley is almost too embarrassing to read.

But through it all there is Hemingway wrestling with the business of writing, frequently returning to the conviction that what is left out reinforces what remains - a philosophy that can be seen in some of the better sketches. Of course, the book is uneven but as the long sentences unroll, held together with multiple conjunctions and a minimum of punctuation, the master's hand is apparent.

This is so much better than 'The Sun Also Rises' which I found irritating and self centred/indulgent. Hemmingway is not my favourite character and the 'set' he belonged to are revolting, but in this book he actually comes across as reasonably human. I don't actually think he was a brilliant writer; he repeats himself frequently and has a tendency to ramble on, but I would recommend this book to anyone who wants to understand, or know more about, Hemmingway himself. A good read.