Fitzgerald-Men and Hemingway-Men
There are two types of men in the world: The Fitzgerald-Man and The Hemingway-Man, the rest falling on a spectrum in between these two absolute archetypes. I’ve been repeating this unsubstantiated claim for a while, mostly because I’ve never had to justify it. People seem to grasp what I’m talking about without an explanation, but I’d like to discuss my intentions anyway.
I’ve been advised not to include disclaimers since it detracts from the credibility of my writing, but I felt these were necessary and glibly inserting them into the body of the text would only further deteriorate it. Firstly, if you’re a student looking for ideas, feel free and plagiarize away, but there is no guarantee that your teachers will like my ideas, or that they’re even logically inconsistent. The interpretations I share are more based on my readings and impressions as opposed to substantiated research. Second is the palpable testosterone in this piece. Yes, it’s about men, maybe applicable to straight men only. When women are mentioned, they are usually objects for hetero-male character development, as are they in writing by Hemingway and Fitzgerald. Sorry everyone else, feel free to dodge this, especially if you’re looking for good ideas about the Lost Generation. Lastly, if this reads too closely like the lovechild of Harold Bloom and Jordan Peterson, I apologize again in advance.
It’s not difficult to grasp the essence of my truism, at least superficially, owing largely to Hemingway’s protagonists and our tendency to map them onto the author. Hemingway’s heroes are so well established that there exists the concept of a Hemingway Code Hero, a stoic man that is perhaps a little antiquated in our modern era. They hunt animals, fight others, drink alcohol, and love women, but also live honourably and courageously.
This is the Hemingway-Man. A man’s man, a lady’s man, the everyman’s aspirational man. Like the Classical Cool, it seems like an anachronism of a previous age, but for some reason, for whom all men have a primal respect. Onto this Hemingway-Man, Hemingway projects his ideals of masculinity, conquering nature, women, and other men. Hemingway himself was an avid fan of boxing, game hunting, sport fishing, bull fighting, binge drinking, and marriage — the act, not so much the institution. His image as a muscled mountain man was further supported by his desire to exhibit himself as such, as well as several non-fiction pieces of writing.
Now, the Fitzgerald-Man is most easily understood in reference to the Hemingway-Man, as its antithesis. Where the Hemingway-Man is a burly jack-of-all-trades in flannel and a leather jacket, oozing raw strength and masculinity, the Fitzgerald-Man is a svelte city-slicker in a three-piece suit and a bow tie, exuding sophistication and sass. The Hemingway-Man’s tools protrude from his shoulders and hips, the Fitzgerald-Man’s are located between his ears: not just the one he uses to do his thinking, but also the high-bridged nose, crystalline eyes, and glass-cutting cheekbones. The Hemingway-Man is one of a few words, like the prose of his progenitor, whereas the Fitzgerald-Man speaks in references and exaggeration to the point where he could be the narrator in his creator’s novels.
Like messieurs Blaine, Diver, and Gatsby, the Fitzgerald-Man is not the Beast or Gaston, but the Prince. He is considerate and confident, well-mannered and well-spoken, like Fitzgerald by most accounts. The source of a Fitzgerald-Man’s masculinity also comes from mastery of his domain, but his is one of money and influence. As with the Hemingway-Man, his position is further entrenched by a penchant for alcohol and women. If literary scholars and critics are to be believed, Fitzgerald drew inspiration for his novels from his life, making him the embodiment of the Fitzgerald-Man, masculinity updated for the twentieth century and beyond.
Charting all men in the world across this dimension is too singular, even just to explain the difference between the Hemingway-Man and the Fitzgerald-Man. It’s important to note that this scale is one of superficial comportment and values, rather than one of meaningful competency and virtue. A Fitzgerald-Man is no less virile or male despite Hemingway’s best efforts to show otherwise. Hemingway-Man can be more sensitive and acquainted with their emotions than a Fitzgerald-Man. Likewise, a Fitzgerald-Man can be more courageous and composed than a Hemingway-Man.
When faced with uncertainty, fear, or challenge beyond their control however, the Fitzgerald-Man and the Hemingway-Man react differently. The Fitzgerald-Man hides behind his wealth and wit, avoiding decisions when possible, and rationalizes poor choices with self deprecating humour and talk when he cannot. On the other hand, the Hemingway-Man stonewalls, speaking less than he already does, but when the moment comes, confronts the issue head-on, with or without all the facts, likely unproductively and occasionally physically.
Hemingway and Fitzgerald maintained a careful duality in that they remained conscious of their feelings and those around them, but unable to resolve their frustrations, despite being able to convey them with intensity and accuracy. They didn’t live up to the standards set by their literary stand-ins — or in some cases, followed in the footsteps of their tragic heroes. Though Hemingway and Fitzgerald, with the characteristic insensitivity of the time, downplayed alcoholism and mental health in their novels as something to overcome with fortitude and sheer willpower, they also genuinely believed that they could do the same with these issues in their lives, but were shown to be wrong. Either Man cannot triumph over these issues alone, or neither of them were that Man.
Despite this, both the Fitzgerald-Man and the Hemingway-Man can be emotionally available and have a handle on their alcohol. They can be faithful to their wives and spend money prudently. The modern Hemingway-Man living in the city can be a weekend warrior, balancing his career, family, and ultra-marathon goals. The modern Fitzgerald-Man can be an armchair intellectual and a movie buff, despite throwing the best Super Bowl party in town and helping out at the local soup kitchen.
By these definitions, the modern man seems to have transcended these extremes, maintaining a well-balanced mix of either end. But that is precisely the point, that while every man is a combination of these atavistic extremes, he is simultaneously aspiring towards one of them, just as Hemingway and Fitzgerald were, a collection of both perfunctory physical qualities and sincere values. Subconsciously, he knows that the Fitzgerald-Man and the Hemingway-Man are irreconcilable, and a choice must be made between smooth and rough.
After too many vodka seltzers or neat whiskeys, one man starts using progressively longer words when discussing politics and the other decides it’s a great time to have a pull-up competition. The Fitzgerald-Man prefers a Tesla in the city and a Subaru in the country, and the Hemingway-Man alternates between a Range Rover and a Ram. But it’s not just about the image they project, the difference in hobbies, or the choice between cerebral or physical pursuits. It’s about what they believe to be their highest calling.
The Hemingway-Man understands the ephemeral nature of life, and that despite this, he must face every day with courage, staring death in the eye. Despite how it may make others feel, he will not compromise his values in even in the face of overwhelming pressure. The Fitzgerald-Man’s greatest virtue is that of honesty, if only to himself. He understands who he is and what he wants, permitting himself to follow social convention and play the game, so to speak, so long as he doesn’t lose sight of this truth. For the Fitzgerald-Man, the ends justify the means whereas the Hemingway-Man doesn’t differentiate between the two.
Returning to the modern man who may have dressed himself with the trappings of an outdoorsman or coated himself with the veneer of an intellectual: though physical appearances can be deceiving, they are often not. But recall that every man is a nebulous mix of both the Fitzgerald-Man and the Hemingway-Man. The distinction then falls to which Man they truly admire, which Man they honestly aspire to be, like the aspirations of Hemingway and Fitzgerald.
When bringing up the idea of the Fitzgerald-Man and the Hemingway-Man, I’m often asked which one I am. Which one do you think I am? Which one do you think you are?
