Have only read a few of his books, but can't help but think he was more of a great man who wrote than a great writer independent of his persona. He was an artifact of a time in need of stories. Criticism of him by lesser writers through modern eyes falls into the category of, "no man is a hero to his valet," but there is some truth in looking back now at what we thought of novelists even just 20 years ago and wondering how much of what we idealized about them could have been true.

The particular criticisms in the article are dismissable, an attempt to fold old icons into a current critical theory, with the familiar clunk and rattle of grinding his memory through the cogs of an ideology, but the question of why a man of any physical substance would write fiction today seems still to be with us. The Hemmingway mystique of masculinity is completely absent from pop culture now, where even news anchors and world leaders aren't the sort of men anyone would call in an emergency.

The upside for writers is to compete for attention with pictures of others' butts on instagram. I happen to know more than a few men who would meet the description of great or Hemmingway'esque and none of them are writing. Maybe this signals the opportunity, as it's obvious to anyone who looks that the authors critical theory of writers and men represents a nadir in the culture, and the guy who gets people to use instagram "for the articles," will become a literary king?