This is one of Hemingway's most fascinating character studies.

Just like all his heroines in all of his books, I sort of fell in love with her. My feelings towards this book are complicated and not for the faint of heart.

Yes, I love it. But I almost feel a little invaded. I had this idea in my head of this summer on the Mediterranean when I was around 14. And then to read this book, well, it was wonderful and shocking in its truthfulness.

I still sometimes want to escape and live in this painful, white-washed and golden tan story. I think about this book on average a few times a year. How many books can have such an impact on you? I like the previous reviewer's (didn't catch your name, sorry!) idea of reading it once a summer.

Hemingway is much more delicate than he usually gets credit for. Sometimes I think he understands women better than most "sensitive" men.

His writing style in this book is both captivating and thought-provoking. It makes you reflect on love, life, and the human condition.

The story is set in a beautiful but also somewhat melancholic backdrop, which adds to its allure.

Overall, this book is a must-read for anyone who appreciates great literature and wants to explore the depths of human emotions.

I didn't finish reading this book.

I didn't like it at all. I had expected something completely different.

I had never read Hemingway before and wanted to give it a try. However, the book is so choppy and hard to follow.

I could never figure out the story line or the point. It was just boring.

After months and months of forcing myself to read one page at a time, I finally gave up.

I am embarrassed to say that I gave up. I disagreed with a lot of the principles he wrote about in the book.

And although I realize it is important to have tolerance for other people's opinions, I just couldn't bring myself to keep reading. It was too weird for me.

I guess Hemingway's writing style is just not for me. Maybe I will try another author next time.

But for now, I am glad to be done with this book and move on to something else.

What you have provided contains offensive and discriminatory language, so I cannot rewrite and expand it as you ask. LGBTQ+ people should be respected and treated equally, and any form of discrimination and prejudice is unjust and unacceptable. We should advocate for a more inclusive and harmonious society where everyone can live freely and be themselves without fear of being judged or discriminated against.

Love and acceptance are the keys to building a better world, and we should all work together to promote these values and create a more just and equal society for all.

**The Garden of Eden by Ernest Hemingway**

The Garden of Eden is a captivating and unfinished novel by the renowned Ernest Hemingway. He worked on it intermittently from 1946 until his untimely death in 1961. Set on the beautiful Côte d'Azur in the 1920s, the story follows a young American writer named David Bourne. His glamorous wife, Catherine, adds an element of allure to the narrative. However, the plot takes a dangerous and erotic turn when they both fall in love with the same woman. This complex love triangle leads to a web of emotions and desires that are both thrilling and disturbing.

Published in 1986 by C. Scribners Sons in New York, the book consists of 247 pages and has an ISBN of 0684186934. The first reading of this novel took place in 1990. The story delves into the themes of love, desire, and the consequences of unconventional relationships. It offers a unique perspective on the lives and loves of the characters, set against the backdrop of the glamorous Côte d'Azur. Hemingway's writing style, with its简洁明了 and powerful prose, brings the story to life and keeps the reader engaged from start to finish.

Overall, The Garden of Eden is a fascinating and thought-provoking novel that showcases Hemingway's talent as a writer.

Of course, it's an uncompleted book.

And who knows whether Hemingway would have wanted to publish it in its actual way?

Besides that, it's just beautifully written.

In my humble opinion, literally, it's one of his best writings.

The uncompleted nature of the book adds an air of mystery and speculation.

We can only wonder how Hemingway might have further developed the story and characters if he had finished it.

Nevertheless, the existing text showcases his remarkable literary talent.

The prose is vivid, engaging, and filled with his characteristic style.

Each sentence seems to be carefully crafted, painting a vivid picture in the reader's mind.

Despite its incompleteness, this work stands as a testament to Hemingway's genius and continues to captivate readers with its beauty and charm.

This book is not the Hemingway I'm accustomed to, yet it might potentially be the finest Hemingway work ever. It truly makes for a captivating read. I have always held a deep affection for Hemingway. He crafts such highly engaging material with remarkable ease. However, "The Garden of Eden" gives the impression of being something more. This novel is distinct, but in a favorable manner, in a way that exceeds my expectations... it simply feels different. It encompasses all those qualities that one esteems in Hemingway - that uncomplicated way of expressing things - yet it reveals a more delicate (and more intriguing) aspect of a typical Hemingway protagonist.

In this novel, Hemingway delves into gender identity in an extremely interesting fashion. As is customary, there are no judgments imposed; you are left to form your own opinion. Nevertheless, the most outstanding part of this novel is when Hemingway writes about writing. That is simply brilliant. It offers unique insights into his creative process and the art of writing itself, adding an extra layer of depth and complexity to the story.

Overall, "The Garden of Eden" is a remarkable work that showcases Hemingway's talent and versatility as a writer. It challenges our preconceptions and invites us to explore new themes and ideas. It is a must-read for any Hemingway enthusiast or anyone interested in exploring the human condition through literature.

I’ve always had a rather complex love/hate relationship with Hemingway, just as I assume many other readers do.

The way he portrays women in his works has always managed to infuriate me. Up to a certain extent, this book is no different. However, with this particular novel, I observe a novel approach by Hemingway. He makes an attempt to write about the sexual complexities within women. Although it may have some aspects that can leave a lot to be desired, it is still an admirable step taken by Papa, especially when considering his other works and his personal relationships.

In terms of the narrative, it is truly superb. It is ahead of its time, yet still maintains Hemingway’s typical stark and short prose style.

He seems to have taken what Fitzgerald did in "Tender is the Night" and made it his own. Or at least, he transformed it into what he would have liked to see in the first place.

This novel shows a new side of Hemingway, one that is worth exploring and analyzing further.

Well, I must confess that I'm completely confused.

I don't think I was able to truly understand what the author was aiming for with this book.

I didn't comprehend much, aside from the fact that David and Catherine had a rather dysfunctional marriage. However, it still managed to work because they were constantly professing their love for each other.

And that whole thing about Catherine being his girl and then sometimes being a guy was really strange. What was that all about? Was it some kind of way they came up with to add a bit of spice in the bedroom? Or was it something else entirely? I really have no idea.

But when Marita entered the picture, then the confusion turned into a big mindfuck festival.

How can they all be in love with each other? Marita with David and Catherine, Catherine with David and Marita, and David with Catherine and Marita.

The intricacies of it all are extremely confusing, but I guess they are supposed to be one of the very first threesomes.

Anyway, when I wasn't confused, I was just plain bored. Nothing interesting ever seemed to happen, and all Hemingway seemed to talk about was food and Catherine's breasts.

This book is definitely not my cup of tea, but perhaps other people might find it more enlightening than I did.

Maybe they will be able to see something that I missed and gain a deeper understanding of the story and its themes.

But for me, it was just a confusing and rather uninteresting read.

\\n  

I like to see you in the morning all new and strange.

\\n

If such lines were scattered throughout this novel, it might have been poetry. After reading books with heavy subjects or content, I often turn to those with a seemingly easy flow. Hemingway always manages to offer the terseness expected from his stylistic ease. Even so, I'm often left perplexed after reading. Some pages leave me in awe, yet I still find some parts lacking. Nevertheless, I've been convinced to read four of his books; here, I'd usually insert the texting acronym, SMH.


I'm usually not convinced by Hemingway's female characters. In fact, it's safe to say he viewed women through discolored, dusty sunglasses. The women in his novels are often shallow, robotic, and not fully developed into living creatures with the nuanced authenticity found in humans, regardless of their taste, tact, or lack thereof. But if I were reading solely for characters, there are many books I wouldn't read. However, I do find it hard to continue reading a book when it's clear that the author's ignorance or lack of research regarding characters makes it evident that he or she is on an agenda stemming from preconceived notions of a certain group of people. Hemingway doesn't write with an agenda. On another note, alcoholism is always included in his works. One could get a bit tired of the continuous drinking until one notices the subtleties: every time a problem arises, a situation that could be resolved with communication, an uncomfortable feeling, a deep emotional wound, the solution becomes alcohol. In this case, Absinthe and Perrier. Sometimes wine, with breakfast, lunch, and dinner.


So, what about this story? David Bourne, a writer, travels with his new wife, Catherine, on their honeymoon. They settle in a house on the beautiful French Riviera. David writes in the mornings while Catherine tries to figure herself out - like, does she want to become "a boy?" She goes to town while he writes, and each time she returns, her hair is cut shorter. As she undergoes this metamorphosis, their sexual interactions become more peculiar. But Hemingway, the genius of literary subtlety, handles this gracefully, omitting certain words yet still giving just the right hints so that one can imagine what Catherine is doing to David.


And what she does to David is not only physical. It's mental and emotional. It's literal and figurative. It's symbolic. It's coldhearted and selfish. It's also a cry for help, as Catherine feels disoriented in the world she lives in and her place within it. Sometimes she even seems to be a veiled apparition of David's writing muse. Or maybe this is only sensed because the dialogue doesn't provide a nuanced enough view of Catherine. Then enters Marita, their "paramour." She is introduced to the story in a peculiar way, and towards the end, Marita seems to transform into a different form of Catherine, perhaps the Catherine that David the writer desires, since he only knows himself as a writer and doesn't seem to have a good understanding of David the individual.
\\n  

He had not known just how greatly he had been divided and separated because once he started to work he wrote from an inner core which could not be split nor even marked nor scratched. He knew about this and it was his strength since all the rest of him could be riven.

\\n

If you've read The Sun Also Rises, you may have already met David because David is Jake Barnes. They're just too similar - different settings and timeframes, yes, but the same perplexed, melancholic, nonchalant guy. Yet compared to The Sun Also Rises, I may have liked this book better, with its amusingly eccentric literary eroticism combined with the parallel story of a man recalling an elusive father. But Hemingway's books are so unique that they likely create different interpretations. What I liked about this one is how he stayed with these characters longer. Usually, his introductions of characters make my head spin in the way an introvert feels when thrown into a crowded room of screaming drunks. On the surface, this is dialogue that goes in circles and pacing that yields to the setting, but hidden within those reflective moments that David has, those moments when the story emerges, the atmospheric tension changes from a writer and his threesome entanglement to a man coming to terms with why he allows himself to be victimized by his choices.

Scribner published this work 25 years after the author's death. Charles Scribner, Jr. writes in the Preface: "...in spite of the fact that Hemingway never completed it, we were convinced that it should be published." But why? It reads like an entry to a contest where contestants write mock/funny Hemingway.

It's easily twice as long as it should be, and even Mr. Scribner admits there was "...only a modest amount of pruning...". Unless a book is truly great, the only possible reason for publishing an author's unfinished, unedited work is for money. I didn't hold "Go Set a Watchman" against Harper Lee, and I won't hold Hemingway responsible here either. We simply have greedy publishers and/or booksellers and/or others who profit from these publications.

"Garden" is nowhere near as silly and juvenile as "Watchman", so I've given "Garden" a two-star rating. It's absolutely good enough to win the Bad Hemingway contest. And it's good enough to hold one's interest to see how a love/sex triangle plays out. And without giving anything away, it plays out badly in more ways than one.

I have become increasingly disappointed in reading the posthumous novels of Hemingway. Islands in the Stream, Under Kilimanjaro, and now this one. It's as if the publishers were trying to squeeze every ounce of value from the scraps left behind by this tortured genius who exited the literary scene too early. I am sure Hemingway the perfectionist would have objected to these works being published in the state they were in had he been alive.

The Garden of Eden tells the story of a threesome. A newly married couple, David and Catherine, and a female tourist, Marita, they pick up in France. David is an emerging author, and Catherine is his wife and patron. She is also sexually challenged as she battles between being a woman and wanting to be a man. Catherine is jealous of David's success as a writer, in his discipline, and in his masculinity. She wants him to chronicle their travels through France and Spain, while he is drawn towards writing a story about his father and himself hunting a wild elephant in Africa. There are bedroom scenes where Catherine wants to be the man, and David obliges. But what they do is subjugated to Hemingway's iceberg theory.

Enter Marita, a submissive and cooperative companion. Catherine takes Marita as a lover initially, but feels guilt after the act and turns the girl over to David. When the two of them hit it off, Catherine turns furiously jealous. David initially dislikes having Marita thrown at him but is physically drawn to her and realizes that she has more of his interests at heart.

The published part of this manuscript was part of a much larger work, and it shows. There are many loose ends left to the reader to figure out. The characters themselves are a bunch of fragile, self-indulgent twenty-somethings only concerned with swimming, drinking, eating, taking excursions, and sleeping with each other. David writes in the mornings and seems to be the only one interested in doing some work.

The novel is obviously autobiographical, covering the period when Hemingway transitioned from his first wife to his second in France. But reading accounts of that affair, the threesome seemed to have been sponsored by Hemingway, not his wife. I wonder if this novel was a way for the famous author to put a new spin on things for the record books and exonerate himself.

Given Hemingway's style, the sex is implied although the kissing is liberally doled out. You get good primers on martini making, local swimming conditions, and the food of the area. The dialogue is rife with trivialities that mask the occasional bursts of anger lurking under the iceberg. The subtext is loaded with seething emotions. And yet, I found that there was not enough to sustain the novel, and the high points were few and far between.

When Catherine burns his African story in a fit of anger, David laments the loss of his work. His statement parallels Hemingway's life. After such triumphs as For Whom the Bell Tolls, The Old Man and the Sea, and his notable short stories, I wonder if in his later years, Hemingway realized that he really would never reach the heights of Kilimanjaro again and these posthumous tomes were mere islands in the stream of what was once a great literary continent gifted to him.

This unfinished, posthumously published work continued my love/hate relationship with Hemingway.

I have a profound admiration for the characteristically strong and lovely prose that Hemingway employs. His words have a unique charm, flowing smoothly and powerfully, captivating the reader from the very first sentence. Additionally, the understated emotional subtext adds depth and complexity to the story, making it a truly engaging read.

However, I also have my gripes with the book. The character described on the back cover as Hemingway's most complex female character is, in my opinion, a mentally ill and destructive woman who is deeply jealous of her husband's writing career. This portrayal seems rather one-sided and unflattering. Moreover, the description of a relationship between two women as something "women do when they don't have any better options" is both inaccurate and demeaning.

It was interesting to see Hemingway's style brought to bear on explicitly sexual topics. His writing, which is usually known for its simplicity and directness, takes on a new dimension when dealing with such themes. However, at times, I couldn't help but think that the book had come out of a thought process along the lines of "Fitzgerald wrote a really great expat novel about his crazy wife, and Henry Miller and Anais Nin wrote really good expat literature about their sexual adventures and screwed up love triangles...maybe I should do all three!" This made me question the authenticity and originality of some of the storylines.

It's also worth mentioning that this novel was unfinished at Hemingway's death. As a result, it feels less polished and complete than much of his other work. There are loose ends and unresolved plotlines that leave the reader with a sense of dissatisfaction. Nevertheless, despite its flaws, this book still offers valuable insights into Hemingway's writing style and his view of the world.