How Does Hemingway Develop Characters Without Traditional Exposition?
Author: Martin Munyao Muinde
Email: Ephantusmartin@gmail.com
Direct Answer
Ernest Hemingway develops characters without traditional exposition through his pioneering “Iceberg Theory” or “Theory of Omission,” where he reveals character through action, dialogue, and subtext rather than direct narrative explanation. His minimalist writing style eliminates lengthy character descriptions and internal monologues, instead allowing readers to infer personality traits, motivations, and emotional states from what characters do and say. Hemingway’s characters emerge through behavioral patterns, sparse but revealing dialogue, symbolic actions, and carefully chosen physical details that suggest deeper psychological realities. This indirect characterization method forces readers to actively participate in constructing character identity, creating a more immersive and psychologically realistic literary experience that revolutionized twentieth-century fiction.
Understanding Hemingway’s Iceberg Theory and Character Development
Ernest Hemingway’s approach to character development represents one of the most significant innovations in modern American literature, fundamentally challenging conventional narrative techniques that dominated nineteenth-century fiction. Traditional exposition in literature typically involves authors providing direct information about characters through lengthy descriptions of physical appearance, detailed explanations of personality traits, extensive backstories, and direct access to characters’ thoughts through omniscient narration. Hemingway rejected these conventions, believing they created artificial and overly explanatory narratives that diminished reader engagement and emotional impact. Instead, he developed what he called the “Iceberg Theory” or “Theory of Omission,” a technique where only one-eighth of a story’s meaning appears on the surface while seven-eighths remains submerged beneath, requiring readers to actively interpret and construct meaning (Smith, 2018). This revolutionary approach transformed character development from a process of authorial telling to one of reader discovery, where characters reveal themselves gradually through their actions, speech patterns, and interactions rather than through direct narrative exposition.
The philosophical foundation of Hemingway’s characterization technique stems from his early training as a journalist for the Kansas City Star, where he learned to write in clear, economical prose that emphasized factual reporting over interpretive commentary. This journalistic background profoundly influenced his fiction writing, leading him to adopt a documentary-style approach that presented characters through observable external details rather than internal psychological analysis (Baker, 1972). Hemingway believed that by stripping away unnecessary descriptive language and authorial interpretation, writers could create more powerful emotional resonances because readers would discover character truths independently rather than having them explained. His method reflects modernist literary principles that valued showing over telling, objectivity over subjectivity, and implication over explication. This technique also aligned with post-World War I disillusionment with grand narratives and excessive sentimentality, as Hemingway and his contemporaries sought more honest, stripped-down forms of expression that captured the psychological fragmentation and emotional numbness of the modern condition (Wagner-Martin, 2007).
The Role of Dialogue in Hemingway’s Character Construction
Hemingway’s dialogue serves as the primary vehicle for character development, functioning not merely as conversation but as a complex system of revelation where what characters say matters less than how they say it and what they deliberately avoid saying. His dialogue technique eliminates attribution tags beyond simple “he said” or “she said,” removes adverbial modifiers that would explain tone or emotion, and presents conversations in a stripped-down, almost theatrical format that forces readers to infer subtext from rhythm, repetition, and strategic silences. In works like “Hills Like White Elephants,” the entire story unfolds through dialogue between an American man and a woman named Jig discussing an unnamed operation, with Hemingway never directly stating that they are debating an abortion (Hemingway, 1927). The characters’ relationship dynamics, power imbalances, emotional states, and individual personalities emerge entirely through their conversational patterns, word choices, and the subjects they approach or avoid. This dialogue-driven characterization demonstrates Hemingway’s belief that people reveal their authentic selves not through what they explicitly articulate about their feelings but through the linguistic strategies they employ when navigating emotionally charged situations.
The technical sophistication of Hemingway’s dialogue extends beyond mere brevity to encompass subtle linguistic markers that distinguish individual characters and reveal psychological complexity without authorial commentary. Each character possesses distinctive speech patterns, vocabularies, and rhetorical habits that function as character signatures, allowing readers to identify speakers even without attribution tags while simultaneously revealing education levels, social backgrounds, emotional states, and personality traits. Hemingway carefully calibrates repetition within dialogue to create rhythmic patterns that suggest obsession, anxiety, or avoidance, as characters circle around uncomfortable topics without directly confronting them (Svoboda, 1983). His dialogue also employs strategic ambiguity and understatement, techniques rooted in his Iceberg Theory where the most important emotional content remains unspoken but powerfully present beneath surface-level conversation. Characters in Hemingway’s fiction often communicate through indirection, using mundane topics as proxies for deeper concerns they cannot or will not directly address. This creates a layered communicative structure where readers must simultaneously process literal content and infer symbolic meaning, actively participating in character construction rather than passively receiving authorial explanation.
Action and Behavior as Character Revelation
Hemingway’s characters emerge most vividly through their physical actions and behavioral choices, with the author presenting sequences of concrete, observable activities that reveal personality, values, and emotional states without interpretive commentary. This action-based characterization reflects Hemingway’s conviction that people’s authentic identities manifest not in what they claim about themselves or how narrators describe them, but in what they actually do when confronted with challenging circumstances. In “The Old Man and the Sea,” Santiago’s character develops entirely through his actions during his struggle with the marlin—his careful preparation of fishing lines, his respectful treatment of the fish, his perseverance despite exhaustion, and his philosophical reflections spoken aloud to himself all reveal his dignity, professionalism, and existential worldview without Hemingway ever providing traditional character exposition (Hemingway, 1952). The novel contains almost no physical description of Santiago beyond his age-weathered appearance, yet readers develop a comprehensive understanding of his character through witnessing his behavior under extreme conditions. This technique demonstrates how Hemingway uses action sequences not merely to advance plot but as primary mechanisms for character revelation.
The behavioral patterns Hemingway selects for presentation carry symbolic weight that extends characterization beyond immediate narrative context into broader thematic significance. Characters’ relationships with rituals, routines, and codes of conduct reveal their philosophical orientations and value systems. In “A Clean, Well-Lighted Place,” the older waiter’s insistence on maintaining the café’s cleanliness and light, his sympathy for the elderly customer, and his own fear of darkness and nothingness all emerge through his actions and working habits rather than through psychological exposition (Hemingway, 1933). Similarly, in “The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber,” the protagonist’s character transformation from cowardice to courage manifests entirely through his hunting behavior, with Hemingway presenting the external actions of running from a wounded lion and later standing firm against a charging buffalo without explaining the internal psychological shift that occurs between these moments (Bennett, 1990). Readers must infer the character development from behavioral evidence, constructing psychological explanations for observable actions rather than receiving authorial analysis. This technique places significant interpretive responsibility on readers while creating characters whose complexity emerges from the gap between external action and implied internal motivation.
Physical Description and Symbolic Detail
Although Hemingway drastically reduces physical character description compared to traditional literary practice, the selective details he does include carry concentrated symbolic and psychological significance that reveals character far more efficiently than conventional elaborate descriptions. Rather than providing comprehensive physical portraits, Hemingway isolates specific bodily features, gestures, or material objects associated with characters, using these concrete details as metonymic representations of larger personality traits or emotional states. These carefully chosen physical markers function as visual shorthand that readers decode to construct fuller character portraits. In “The Sun Also Rises,” Jake Barnes’s war injury is never explicitly described in clinical detail, yet this physical wound serves as both literal reality and symbolic representation of psychological and emotional damage that defines his character and shapes all his relationships (Hemingway, 1926). The understated treatment of this crucial physical fact demonstrates how Hemingway uses selective physical detail to suggest complex psychological realities without exposition.
Hemingway’s technique of associating characters with specific objects or physical settings creates a form of material characterization where possessions, clothing, and environmental preferences reveal identity and values. The sporting equipment, drinks, and spaces characters choose become extensions of their personalities and indicators of their philosophical orientations. In “The Snows of Kilimanjaro,” Harry’s infected leg wound becomes a physical manifestation of his moral and creative decay, with Hemingway using this concrete bodily detail to externalize internal corruption without psychological exposition (Josephs, 1969). The protagonist’s memories and regrets emerge through fragmented flashbacks triggered by physical deterioration rather than through reflective interior monologue. This technique of embodying psychological states in physical conditions or material circumstances allows Hemingway to maintain his objective narrative stance while still conveying deep character interiority. Physical details in Hemingway’s work function as surface indicators of submerged psychological icebergs, providing readers with interpretive clues that suggest rather than explain character complexity. The disciplined selection of which physical details to include and which to omit reflects Hemingway’s broader characterization philosophy that effective character development emerges from strategic reduction rather than comprehensive accumulation.
The Elimination of Interior Monologue
Hemingway’s radical rejection of traditional interior monologue and stream-of-consciousness techniques represents perhaps his most distinctive contribution to character development methodology in modern fiction. While many of his modernist contemporaries like James Joyce and Virginia Woolf pioneered elaborate interior monologue techniques that provided direct access to characters’ thought processes, Hemingway moved in the opposite direction, systematically eliminating direct representation of character consciousness. His narratives maintain an external, observational perspective that presents characters as they might appear to a witness or camera, showing their words and actions without providing privileged access to their thoughts. This technique creates what literary critic Philip Young called Hemingway’s “dramatic method,” where fiction operates more like drama or film, presenting character through externally observable evidence rather than internal psychological disclosure (Young, 1966). The absence of traditional interior monologue forces readers to infer characters’ thoughts, feelings, and motivations from behavioral and linguistic evidence, creating an interpretive challenge that paradoxically produces deeper reader engagement with character psychology.
The psychological realism of Hemingway’s approach stems from his recognition that in actual social interaction, we never have direct access to others’ interior mental states but must constantly interpret their thoughts and feelings from external signals. By replicating this interpretive uncertainty in his fiction, Hemingway creates characters whose psychology feels more authentic precisely because it remains partially opaque and subject to interpretation. When Hemingway does present character thoughts, they typically appear not as formalized interior monologue but as fragmented, semi-conscious reflections that blur the boundary between thought and speech, as when Santiago in “The Old Man and the Sea” thinks or speaks his thoughts aloud in an ambiguous internal-external discourse (Benson, 1969). This technique suggests the fluid, often inarticulate nature of actual thought processes rather than the artificially coherent interior monologues common in traditional fiction. The elimination of conventional interior monologue also prevents authors from using characters’ thoughts as vehicles for providing background information or interpretive guidance, forcing Hemingway to develop alternative methods for conveying necessary context through dialogue, action, and symbolic detail. This constraint produces leaner, more dramatically immediate narratives where character development occurs in real time through present action rather than retrospectively through memory or reflective thought.
Repetition and Ritual in Character Expression
Hemingway employs repetition as a sophisticated characterization device, using recurring phrases, actions, and structural patterns to reveal character psychology, establish thematic resonances, and create rhythmic prose that mimics thought patterns and emotional states. Characters’ tendency to repeat specific words or return to particular subjects in dialogue suggests obsessive preoccupations, anxieties, or avoidance strategies without requiring authorial explanation of these psychological dynamics. In “Hills Like White Elephants,” the man’s repeated insistence that “it’s really an awfully simple operation” and “I’ll go with you” reveals his anxiety about the decision and his attempts to manipulate Jig through repetitive reassurance, while her repeated observations about the landscape suggest her attempts to avoid direct confrontation (Hannum, 1989). These repetitive patterns create character depth through linguistic behavior rather than through descriptive exposition, allowing readers to perceive psychological complexity through the formal structure of speech itself. Hemingway’s use of repetition reflects his modernist interest in how language shapes consciousness and how patterns of expression reveal habitual thought processes and emotional dispositions.
The ritualistic behaviors that Hemingway depicts—hunting, fishing, bullfighting, drinking—serve as structured contexts within which characters reveal themselves through their adherence to or violation of established codes and procedures. These rituals provide frameworks of meaning and value that allow characters to demonstrate competence, courage, grace under pressure, and other Hemingway-valued virtues through action rather than statement. The meticulous attention to proper procedure in activities like preparing fishing lines, executing bullfighting passes, or ordering drinks and meals establishes characters’ relationship to craftsmanship, tradition, and discipline (Josephs, 1983). In “Big Two-Hearted River,” Nick Adams’s careful, almost ceremonial approach to making camp and fishing reveals his psychological state and his attempt to maintain control and order in the aftermath of trauma, all conveyed through behavioral description without psychological exposition. The ritualistic quality of these activities provides structure and meaning for both characters navigating uncertain worlds and readers interpreting character through behavior. Hemingway’s focus on ritual and repetition creates a characterization method where identity emerges through practiced activities and habitual patterns rather than through introspective self-examination or authorial psychological analysis.
Subtext and the Unsaid in Character Interaction
The concept of subtext—the meanings, emotions, and conflicts that exist beneath surface-level dialogue and action—constitutes the foundation of Hemingway’s character development methodology. His Iceberg Theory specifically emphasizes that the most important aspects of character and situation remain unspoken, existing as powerful presences that readers must detect through careful attention to what characters avoid saying, how they deflect conversations, and what topics generate tension or silence. This technique creates multilayered character interactions where literal content and symbolic meaning operate simultaneously, requiring readers to interpret not only what happens but also what does not happen, what characters want but cannot articulate, and what emotional realities exist beneath behavioral surfaces (Brenner, 1983). In “Cat in the Rain,” the American wife’s desire for a cat becomes a transparent symbol for her deeper desires for stability, motherhood, and attention from her emotionally distant husband, yet Hemingway never explicitly states these connections, allowing the subtext to emerge through the wife’s dialogue and behavior and the husband’s indifferent responses. Character psychology manifests in the gap between stated desires and actual needs, between what characters say and what they mean.
Hemingway’s mastery of subtext extends to his manipulation of narrative silence and strategic omission, where information deliberately withheld becomes as significant as information provided. The technique of leaving crucial facts unstated—the nature of the operation in “Hills Like White Elephants,” the specific war wound in “The Sun Also Rises,” the details of Harry’s past in “The Snows of Kilimanjaro”—creates interpretive spaces that readers must fill through inference and imagination. These gaps in explicit information paradoxically make characters more vivid and memorable because readers actively participate in constructing character identity rather than passively receiving authorial description (Vernon, 1990). The collaborative nature of this reading process creates stronger reader investment in character outcomes and deeper engagement with character psychology. Hemingway’s reliance on subtext also reflects his modernist conviction that the most profound human experiences resist direct articulation and that significant emotional truths often exist beyond language’s capacity for explicit expression. His characterization technique therefore operates through suggestion, implication, and strategic silence rather than through comprehensive explanation, creating characters whose depth emerges from what remains unsaid.
The Influence of Journalistic Training on Character Presentation
Hemingway’s early career as a journalist profoundly shaped his fictional characterization techniques, instilling habits of concise, factual writing that emphasized observable details over interpretive commentary. Working for the Kansas City Star in 1917-1918, Hemingway internalized the newspaper’s style guide, which mandated short sentences, active verbs, concrete language, and elimination of adjectives and unnecessary words. These journalistic principles translated directly into his fictional style, producing character presentations that resembled factual reporting of observable behavior rather than novelistic psychological analysis (Reynolds, 1976). The journalistic influence encouraged Hemingway to adopt an objective, camera-like narrative perspective that recorded character actions and dialogue without editorial interpretation, creating what critic Charles Fenton called Hemingway’s “documentary style.” This approach treats characters as subjects of reportage rather than creations of imagination, presenting them through accumulated concrete details that readers must interpret to construct psychological understanding. The journalistic foundation of Hemingway’s style explains both his characteristic brevity and his preference for showing characters through behavior rather than explaining them through exposition.
The objectivity cultivated through journalistic practice also influenced Hemingway’s narrative stance, encouraging him to maintain emotional distance from characters and events rather than guiding reader responses through authorial commentary. This journalistic detachment creates narrative surfaces that appear simple and straightforward while concealing complex emotional depths, requiring readers to penetrate beyond factual presentation to perceive underlying psychological realities (Groth, 2018). Hemingway applied journalism’s “who, what, when, where” questions to fiction, providing concrete answers about observable events while deliberately omitting answers to “why” questions about motivation and meaning. This technique transfers interpretive responsibility from author to reader, creating a more active reading experience where character development occurs through reader inference rather than authorial declaration. The tension between journalistic objectivity and fictional emotional depth produces Hemingway’s characteristic style, where sparse, factual prose conveys powerful emotional content through implication rather than statement. His journalistic background thus provided both technical training in economical prose and philosophical commitment to objective presentation that fundamentally shaped his revolutionary approach to character development.
Code Heroes and Character Values
Hemingway develops characters partly through their relationship to what critic Philip Young termed the “Hemingway code”—a system of values emphasizing courage, stoicism, competence, and grace under pressure that characters either embody or fail to achieve. “Code heroes” demonstrate character through their adherence to these values when confronting life’s inevitable violence, danger, and meaninglessness, revealing their identity through how they face challenges rather than through introspective self-examination (Young, 1966). In “The Old Man and the Sea,” Santiago exemplifies the code hero through his patient endurance, professional skill, respectful treatment of his prey, and dignified acceptance of defeat, all demonstrated through action rather than explained through exposition. The code provides an implicit moral framework against which readers evaluate character behavior, allowing Hemingway to convey character values through behavioral evidence rather than direct statement. Characters who violate the code—showing cowardice, incompetence, self-pity, or emotional excess—reveal their inadequacy through failed actions rather than through authorial judgment.
The code hero concept also introduces a developmental dimension to Hemingway’s characterization, as characters can learn code values and transform from failed individuals into competent, courageous ones through experience. In “The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber,” the protagonist evolves from cowardly failure to code hero through his hunting experiences, with his character development conveyed entirely through behavioral change rather than psychological exposition (Waldhorn, 1972). The transformation occurs in action, demonstrated through Macomber’s shift from running away to standing firm, without Hemingway explaining the internal psychological process that produces this behavioral change. This developmental pattern appears across Hemingway’s work, particularly in his Nick Adams stories, where the young protagonist gradually learns code values through experiences with violence, death, and betrayal. The code provides structural coherence to character development across Hemingway’s fiction while allowing him to maintain his preference for showing character through action rather than explaining character through exposition. The values embodied in the code—courage, competence, stoicism, dignity—manifest in concrete behaviors that readers can observe and interpret, making abstract moral qualities tangible and dramatically immediate.
Comparative Analysis with Traditional Character Development
Hemingway’s characterization methodology differs fundamentally from nineteenth-century traditional approaches exemplified by authors like George Eliot, Charles Dickens, and Gustave Flaubert, who employed extensive physical descriptions, detailed background information, and direct access to character consciousness through omniscient narration. Traditional character development typically began with comprehensive introductions that established appearance, family history, social position, and personality traits before characters engaged in action, creating what Hemingway viewed as over-explained, excessively interpretive narratives that reduced reader engagement (Martin, 1987). Dickens, for example, devoted entire chapters to character backgrounds and provided elaborate physical descriptions that metaphorically represented psychological traits, while Eliot offered extended psychological analyses of character motivations and moral development. Hemingway systematically rejected these conventions, eliminating lengthy introductions, physical descriptions, background exposition, and psychological commentary in favor of immediate dramatic action. Where traditional authors told readers about characters, Hemingway showed characters in action and allowed readers to draw conclusions. This shift from telling to showing represents a fundamental reorientation of the relationship between author, character, and reader, redistributing interpretive authority from author to reader.
The comparison between Hemingway’s method and traditional approaches reveals different underlying assumptions about fiction’s purpose and the nature of characterization itself. Traditional authors often viewed characters as vehicles for moral instruction or social analysis, using comprehensive characterization to ensure readers understood intended interpretations and moral lessons. Hemingway’s modernist approach treats characters as aesthetic constructs whose meaning emerges through reader interpretation rather than authorial prescription, reflecting a democratic, open-ended view of literary meaning that values ambiguity and multiple interpretations (Lauter, 2001). Traditional extensive characterization assumes readers need guidance to understand character psychology, while Hemingway’s minimal approach assumes readers possess sophisticated interpretive capabilities and will engage more deeply with characters they must actively construct rather than passively receive. This philosophical difference produces radically different reading experiences—traditional detailed characterization creates fully furnished character portraits that require primarily passive reception, while Hemingway’s sparse technique creates character sketches that demand active reader participation in constructing psychological depth. The effectiveness of Hemingway’s approach depends on reader willingness and ability to infer subtext, interpret symbolic details, and construct character psychology from behavioral evidence, making his fiction more challenging but potentially more rewarding than traditional alternatives.
Legacy and Influence on Contemporary Writing
Hemingway’s characterization techniques revolutionized twentieth-century fiction and continue to influence contemporary writing across multiple genres, from literary fiction to screenplay writing and creative nonfiction. His minimalist approach demonstrated that effective characterization could occur through radical reduction rather than elaborate accumulation, liberating writers from the obligation to provide comprehensive character backgrounds and detailed physical descriptions. The Iceberg Theory’s emphasis on subtext and implication particularly influenced screenwriting, where visual storytelling necessarily relies on showing character through action and dialogue rather than through narrative exposition (Hays, 2009). Contemporary authors like Raymond Carver, Cormac McCarthy, and Annie Proulx employ Hemingway-influenced techniques of sparse prose, dialogue-driven characterization, and strategic omission, demonstrating the ongoing relevance of his innovations. The “show, don’t tell” principle that dominates creative writing pedagogy derives largely from Hemingway’s practice, reflecting his profound influence on how writers and teachers conceptualize effective characterization.
However, Hemingway’s legacy also includes critical recognition of his method’s limitations and potential problems. Feminist critics have noted that his technique of eliminating interior monologue and emotional expression can reinforce problematic masculine stoicism and emotional repression, potentially limiting the range of human experience representable through his methods (Moddelmog, 1999). His minimalist approach also risks creating flat, opaque characters if not executed with his particular skill, and his influence has sometimes encouraged imitators to mistake brevity for profundity or to adopt sparse prose without understanding the sophisticated subtext that makes Hemingway’s minimalism effective. Contemporary writers must balance Hemingway’s innovations with other traditions that value interiority, explicit emotional expression, and comprehensive characterization. Nevertheless, his fundamental insight that characters can effectively develop through action, dialogue, and strategic omission rather than through traditional exposition remains a cornerstone of modern fiction technique. The continued prominence of Hemingway’s work in literary curricula and his ongoing influence on contemporary writers confirms the enduring power of his characterization methodology and its permanent transformation of possibilities for character development in fiction.
References
Baker, C. (1972). Hemingway: The writer as artist. Princeton University Press.
Bennett, W. (1990). The poor kitty and the Padrone and the tortured mother-artist. In J. Wagner-Martin (Ed.), New essays on The Sun Also Rises (pp. 59-82). Cambridge University Press.
Benson, J. J. (1969). Hemingway: The writer’s art of self-defense. University of Minnesota Press.
Brenner, G. (1983). Concealments in Hemingway’s works. In J. J. Benson (Ed.), The short stories of Ernest Hemingway: Critical essays (pp. 123-134). Duke University Press.
Groth, J. (2018). Hemingway’s journalism and the realist dilemma. The Hemingway Review, 37(2), 28-45.
Hannum, H. (1989). Railroad metaphors in “Hills Like White Elephants.” The Hemingway Review, 8(2), 75-83.
Hays, P. L. (2009). Ernest Hemingway. Continuum.
Hemingway, E. (1926). The Sun Also Rises. Scribner.
Hemingway, E. (1927). Hills Like White Elephants. In Men without women. Scribner.
Hemingway, E. (1933). A Clean, Well-Lighted Place. In Winner take nothing. Scribner.
Hemingway, E. (1952). The Old Man and the Sea. Scribner.
Josephs, A. (1969). Hemingway’s poor Spanish: Chauvinism and loss of credibility in For Whom the Bell Tolls. In J. J. Benson (Ed.), Hemingway: The writer’s art of self-defense (pp. 205-223). University of Minnesota Press.
Josephs, A. (1983). For Whom the Bell Tolls: Hemingway’s undiscovered country. In J. J. Benson (Ed.), The short stories of Ernest Hemingway: Critical essays (pp. 270-288). Duke University Press.
Lauter, P. (2001). From Walden Pond to Jurassic Park: Activism, culture, and American studies. Duke University Press.
Martin, R. A. (1987). Hemingway’s “The End of Something” and “The Three-Day Blow.” In J. J. Benson (Ed.), New critical approaches to the short stories of Ernest Hemingway (pp. 188-195). Duke University Press.
Moddelmog, D. A. (1999). Reading desire: In pursuit of Ernest Hemingway. Cornell University Press.
Reynolds, M. S. (1976). Hemingway’s first war: The making of A Farewell to Arms. Princeton University Press.
Smith, P. (2018). Hemingway’s theory of prose style: The iceberg principle. McFarland.
Svoboda, F. J. (1983). Hemingway and The Sun Also Rises: The crafting of a style. University Press of Kansas.
Vernon, A. (1990). Hemingway’s second war: Bearing witness and becoming responsible. The Hemingway Review, 10(1), 13-29.
Wagner-Martin, L. (2007). Ernest Hemingway’s A Farewell to Arms: A reference guide. Greenwood Press.
Waldhorn, A. (1972). A reader’s guide to Ernest Hemingway. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Young, P. (1966). Ernest Hemingway: A reconsideration. Pennsylvania State University Press.