As the iconic journey to Spain in The Sun Also Rises finally begins, long-time friends Jake Barnes and Bill Gorton find themselves with a rare moment of separation from their group in the lush Spanish countryside.  Over breakfast, Bill and Jake comfortably exchange light-hearted banter and poke fun at various features of their lives. Suddenly, Bill tells Jake, “‘You’re a h*** of a good guy, and I’m fonder of you than anybody on earth.  I couldn’t tell you that in New York.  It’d mean I was a f*****”’ (93).  By calling Jake a “good guy,” Bill pushes the conversation towards a discussion of an emotionally deeper realm typically unexplored: the nature of their own friendship.   His surprisingly honest acknowledgement of the possible homosexual interpretation of his words communicates trust that Jake will understand his meaning.  When Jake does not object to or make fun of Bill’s vulnerability, he is able to fulfill the expectation of trust that has been placed. Bill’s vulnerability and candor abruptly change the tone of communication between the two.  As a result, this interaction is one of the few rare instances in the novel where characters are able to directly reaffirm bonds of trust and friendship with each other.

What makes this piece of dialogue stand out is how different it is from Hemingway’s typical male conversations. Throughout the novel, the spoken interactions between male characters are ruled by antagonistic undertones and subtle implications often used to gain a moral upper hand.  Furthermore, Ernest Hemingway portrays this using a style of dialogue which is indirect and evasive.  However, this scene wholeheartedly breaks these expectations: Bill uses straightforward dialogue to honestly tell Jake how he feels without any malicious ulterior motive. He is even willing to risk being seen as homosexual in order to honestly convey his thoughts.  Why does Hemingway choose to portray this scene in such a refreshing light?  As one of the most trusting and vulnerable scenes in the novel, this incident seems to portray an ideal of male relationships.  It seems likely that Hemingway’s own ideal masculine relationship contains many of the qualities witnessed between Bill and Jake, where mutual honesty is used to forge deeper bonds.  Moments such as these in which the characters become surprisingly honest with themselves and their friends all highlight significant tonal changes within the novel.  

An analysis of the male dialogue in The Sun Also Rises reveals the importance of honesty to the masculine ideas of the characters.  The times in which characters are honest allow them to reaffirm bonds of trust and provide support with one another because they can act as equals without worrying about the usual competition within interaction.  However, honesty can also be used as a powerful tool of deprecation for the sake of spectacle and more intense competition.  More importantly, Hemingway’s dialogue details the conflicts male characters face in using honesty and their rationale behind resorting to competition.  His laconic style of writing portrays the insecurity and uncertainty characters faced, as well as highlighting the significant tonal changes which accompany being honest.  The interactions between his male characters seems to reflect his ideals of masculine relationships and behaviors which run counter to typical notions of brusque, closed off, and independent Hemingway masculinity.

A model of the typically indirect Hemingway dialogue can be found in the conversation between Jake, Bill (Jake’s long-time friend who moved back to America after the war), and Robert on the second day of the trip where they discuss whether or not Brett and Mike will show up.  ‘“I’m not sure they’ll come,” Cohn said. “Why not?” Bill said.  “Of course they’ll come”’ (76).  Although on the surface this topic seems rather trivial, the exchange plays host to condescending undertones.  Robert and Bill adopt polar and equally unwavering positions.   Of course, Cohn is correct because he was the one who suggested their stopping in San Sebastian.  However, Bill is just as confident with his prediction despite his lack of knowledge.  ‘“They’re always late,” I said. “I rather think they’re not coming,” Robert Cohn said’ (76). Rather than directly telling Bill and Jake what he knows, Cohn decides to butt heads once again and further their disagreement. Jake and Bill also remain surprisingly obstinate despite Robert’s confidence and air of superiority.  There does not seem to be a logical explanation for why Cohn would withhold his information.  Rather, it seems that Cohn savors holding exclusive knowledge over the others.  Even such a simple interaction as this has turned into a competition for pride.  However, neither of the parties addresses it to one another, instead adopting a pretense of complete friendliness.  Later, Jake and Bill privately complain about their annoyances with Robert but they are careful to hide any indication of their true feelings in conversation.  This subtle competition between the characters creates a blueprint for the dialogue throughout the rest of the novel.  In their conversations the characters are not blatantly hostile, but they do say things that have an air of subtle condescension and antagonism.  Meanwhile, they disguise their intentions behind artificial facades of indifference and friendliness. This interaction provides a perfect model of the typical Hemingway dialogue between male characters.

This style of masculinity holds many similarities with the style of Hemingway’s writing.  Much like the characters’ concealment of their feelings, Hemingway’s writing style rarely directly informs the reader of the different motivations and emotions surrounding a scene. Hemingway’s decision to communicate this style of masculinity through his subtle writing massively contributes to the effect that honesty holds on the story.  The omniscient narration which accompanies many other examples of story-telling would inoculate readers to the refreshing effect of honesty in Hemingway’s male dialogue.  His laconic style emulates the social mores of conversation which dictate that people can’t always fully express their emotions for the sake of grace.  To mimic a realistic example of daily conversation, Hemingway uses a concise dialogue which forces readers to try to guess the intentions of other characters on their own.  The audience depends on the narrator (Jake Barnes) for information. Hemingway’s writing allows us to fully understand and experience his own insecurities and curiosities.  Thus, when characters provide straightforward communication, their honesty leaves a much deeper impact which indicates a departure from the typical tone of male interaction.  Although concise in its communication, Hemingway provides enough information to understand and empathize with the situation of the novel and its characters.  

The characters begin to show breaks from the expected Hemingway dialogue even before our initial example showcasing Bill’s vulnerability. While eating breakfast, Bill starts poking fun at Jake’s status as an expatriate and his injury during World War I.  Although not explicitly described, Jake’s injury has been shown to be a topic of sensitivity and insecurity which he avoids discussing with others.  Thus, he might be expected to feel annoyance at Bill’s teasing.  Jake’s reaction, however, seems counterintuitive: “I was afraid he thought he had hurt me with that crack about being impotent” (93).  Instead of being annoyed, Jake is afraid that Bill has misjudged his sensitivity.  Their close relationship explains why Jake would be accepting of Bill’s teasing, but it does not account for why he would be afraid. What Jake seems to be afraid of is that their understandings of each other and mutual levels of closeness have diverged.  Jake realizes that their ability to banter is a symbol of their closeness.  If Bill were to feel as if he couldn’t banter with Jake, then their friendship would be unbalanced.  Bill’s ability to continue the conversation as if nothing has happened is an indicator that he still understands Jake and recognizes what will and will not annoy him.  Thus, Jake sees this interaction as a signal reaffirming the friendship between the two.  

Jake’s hypersensitivity to this issue is peculiar because of its seeming insignificance.  Why must Jake worry about and scrutinize such an ordinary and seemingly friendly piece of the conversation?  The reason for Jake’s hypersensitivity is likely due to the fact that the male characters rarely address their feelings in a serious and straightforward manner.  He does not receive open support or communication, nor does he expect to.  Instead, when he wants to test whether Bill still views their relationship in the same light, he must resort to using subtler methods. Hence the curious overemphasis on such minute details of the conversation are due to the lack of honesty between male characters.  

This atmosphere of trust is sustained throughout the trip.  As Jake and Bill relax in the shade after an uneventful afternoon of fishing, they are once again able to talk in complete privacy and seclusion.  Perhaps encouraged by the isolation and separation from civilization of the countryside, Bill asks Jake an incredibly straightforward question.  ‘“Say,” Bill said, “what about this Brett business… Were you ever in love with her?”’ (99)  What follows is an equally straightforward answer: ‘“Sure.”’ (99)  Jake’s straightforwardness on this topic is surprising because it is undoubtedly a sensitive one.  In contrast with our initial example, the characters in this scene are incredibly honest.  Jake answers Bill’s question without hesitation even if this places him in a vulnerable spot.  There are no power struggles or competitions underlying this scene; neither of the characters need to jockey for a higher position because they have already acknowledged their relationship as equals.   Seeing as Jake is willing to open up to him, Bill responds by exercising an emotion rarely seen in Hemingway’s male dialogue: sympathy.  “Oh h***!” Bill said.  “I’m sorry, fella.” (99) “It’s all right,” I said.  “I don’t give a d*** any more… Only I’d h*** of a lot rather not talk about it.” (99)

As Jake begins to tire of talking about Brett, more differences between Hemingway’s typical interactions emerge.  Perhaps what makes this scene so shocking is the lack of avoidance in their conversation.  Almost all of the conversations between characters in the novel contain some form of pretense or concealment of true feelings.  However, with Bill, he is able to clearly express his annoyance because he realizes that Bill will understand and respect his feelings.  Even if he is not properly able to explain his full mindset, Jake is still able to convey clearly that he wishes not to continue the conversation with Bill.  Coupled with the solitude of the countryside, their dialogue is a refreshing change of tone which is not reflected throughout the majority of the novel.

The contrast between the breakfast scene and other conversations highlights the facetiousness of normal conversation and how breaking down the facade of indifference can hold such a positive impact on the mindsets of the characters. The ways in which the characters provide mutual support but are not overbearing in their communication hint that Hemingway views vulnerability as a possible catalyst for development among male characters.

However, sincere conversation is not merely an omen of peace and goodwill. Furthermore, these moments begin almost directly after Hemingway’s description of the fishing trip.  However, the settings of these events are quite different, as they take place in the rowdy city of Pamplona with the whole group of friends present.  Following their first day of bullfights, the group discusses the events of the day when Mike bluntly asks Cohn, “Why do you follow Brett around like a poor bloody steer?  Don’t you know you’re not wanted?” (113)   Mike’s comparison using a steer is especially vivid because it provides an image of powerlessness and emasculation which touches upon many of the frustrations the characters held with Cohn.  Furthermore, the viciousness and complete disregard for Cohn’s feelings with which Mike delivered his insults would be considered uncouth in any setting.  However, these observations do not explain how this conversation assumes such a pivotal role. 

Although Mike’s comments were certainly cruel, they should not come as a surprise to any reader.  Jake’s internal narration and even conversations with other characters have directly addressed a collective animosity towards Robert Cohn.  The reason for the shocking nature of Mike’s comments is, once again, the sincerity with which he delivers them.  Up until this point, the characters remained courteous and tolerant of Cohn when dealing with him, as if raising a polite facade.  Mike’s contradiction of this rule completely breaks the tone of conversation as it has existed thus far in the novel, and his lack of restraint is indicative of the sincerity of his words.  It also sets a new social precedent in which the characters gradually become less tolerant of Cohn’s demeanor.  Once again, honest dialogue sparks a pivotal moment in the novel, albeit inspiring opposite emotions.  

Although the two anomalous episodes of dialogues hold many similarities between the honesty of their communication, they are vastly different in terms of emotional and tonal impact.  On one hand, the honest dialogue between Bill and Jake provides an uplifting picture of two friends supporting each other.  On the other, the raw insults Mike delivers to Cohn convey a tone of nastiness and anger which remain throughout the trip.  Why are these situations so different if they are both products of honest emotion?  It seems likely that the answer lies within the motives and audience of the dialogue.  In the example of the fishing trip, Bill and Jake are the only two to hear their conversation.  Thus, their dialogue seems to be motivated purely by genuine concern and support.  Without having to worry about who hears their interactions, Bill and Jake are able to be vulnerable in what they choose to reveal, and do so completely by their own accord.  In contrast, the example with Mike and Robert is oriented towards an audience composed of their close friends.  This audience includes people whose opinions Mike values, especially Brett.  Instead of being honest with Cohn for the sake of being honest, Mike seems more interested in creating a show for the others to laugh at.  He relies on characters such as Jake and Bill, who he knows are not fond of Cohn, to support him in his attacks.  Coupled with the frustration he feels over numerous people such as Cohn getting close with his girlfriend, Mike’s outburst seems to be driven more by desperation and irritation than by desire to actually communicate his thoughts.  These two scenes seem to depict exact opposites in terms of masculinity, in which one displays the masculinity of mutual support and vulnerability, whereas the other displays the masculinity in aggression and competition.  

Because Hemingway’s dialogue addresses seemingly superficial issues, the motivations behind his writing leave a vast openness to interpretation.  Hemingway’s unwillingness to foist a message on the reader makes the honest moments in his writing much more noticeable and significant.  The scholarship on Hemingway’s misogyny has greatly expanded since he first published The Sun Also Rises, and many contemporary readers seem to be wary of placing too much importance in his literature.  However, as such an influential figure in early 20th century writing, Hemingway was largely considered an idol of masculinity for young men.  His work was published in the wake of the most devastating war at the time, and many questioned the role of masculinity.  Thus, Hemingway was able to provide a model for many young readers.  Although arguably flawed, Hemingway’s model of masculinity largely persists today, and his work seems to exist as an archive of the struggles of the Lost Generation.  A large amount of the critique on Hemingway’s masculinity dismisses it as unhealthy because it belittles feminine traits and weakness.  However, an examination into the male interactions of The Sun Also Rises breaks this notion that Hemingway favored men who did not reveal their vulnerability to others.  Bill and Jake’s fishing trip provides numerous moments in which both characters displayed vulnerability through honesty and were able to reaffirm bonds of trust as a result. However, Mike’s tirade upon Robert Cohn also vividly depicts how a man being too honest could ruin his relationship with his acquaintance and inspire tension within a group. A misunderstanding might have occurred in which critics assumed Hemingway’s characters were emotionally distant by choice.  Rather, for many characters it merely seemed far less risky to maintain a facade of indifference than being completely honest.  Analysis of his dialogue highlights the significance and polarity of honesty in these struggles, and the insecurities of the characters in the novel are able to provide readers with an empathetic understanding of people who subscribe to his masculinity.  Hemingway did not detest male vulnerability and honesty; he merely recognized its danger.

Works Cited

Hemingway, Ernest. The Sun Also Rises. New York: Scribner, 1954.