marx/hemingway

Marx's writing is constructed in such a manner as to rewrite history in a radically polemical manner, setting class opposites as brutalized oppositions - bourgeoisie vs proletariat, capitalist vs socialist, good vs bad, rich vs poor, etc. Constructing history as a dialectical system of binaries\opposites, Marx is able to exploit injustice, reminding us always, "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." We as readers are brought into this very struggle, as each and everyone of us is apart of a particular class and situation. Marx is so effective because he appeals to the victim in each of us, the wronged "little guy" being exploited by the evil big-wig capitalist or oppressor. His rhetoric is built in this manner, as a call to the masses to get up and act, and Marx is very much an exhorter, especially in the ever famous, "Workers of the world, unite!" Marx is anything but subtle, but in this manner, Orwell would probably approve. Marx's rhetoric is grand itself, but his explicit message is never concealed; we know Marx's aims and his writing is genuinely transparent, much in the same way as Marx's polar opposite Ayn Rand.

In a jarring change of focus, I go to Hemingway's very short story, "For sale: Baby shoes, never worn." A story with only 6 words is necessarily somewhat of a novelty out of sheer brevity, but it does seem to work like any other Hemingway short story. What could the possible context be? We the readers are left to brood on this grim situation, obviously where a baby is absent (died? never born? given away?) but with the shoes still there. In fact, this story is hard to talk about precisely because of its brevity. Is there beginning, middle end? No, because we have to imagine the structure. The immense void (of meaning) surrounding the story is what gives it its meaning, like an iceberg with only a small portion visible to the eye but a huge portion totally concealed. We imagine what the rest of the iceberg is like based on how we take in the visible portion of the iceberg, and so it is with Hemingway's brief story. What is so intriguing is that Hemingway seems to be showing us his secrets of writing, laying bare his fundamental stylistic mechanics, without us necessarily being able to say precisely what it is he's doing with any accuracy. In this manner, Hemingway, while appearing transparent, is ultimately, in forced contrast with Marx, is opaque. Hemingway is very much relying upon pathos in his story as opposed to whatever it is Marx is doing, which also seems to me a crucial distinction between political and imaginative writing; fiction has the unique ability (and responsibility) to lie, but Marx and others like him either have to be genuine (telling the "truth") or at least act like they are.