After carefully examining the story of Hemingway’s Fifty Grand, this article concludes that like Frederick Henry, Jack Brennan is a man of both courage and integrity regardless of the assertion that he fixed the fight and arranged with the gamblers prior to the fight in order to win the bet

Tackach, James

English

Attempts to redeem Jack Brennen as a man of courage and integrity by comparing him to Frederic Henry of A Farewell to Arms, a character who violates the code of military conduct only after he himself has been violated. Goes on to assert that his opponent, not Jack, fixed the boxing match, thus exonerating Jack of wrongdoing

University of St. Thomas, Minnesota

Whose Fix Is It, Anyway?: A Closer Look at Hemingway’s  Fifty Grand

DOCS@RWU

Roger Williams UniversityDOCS@RWUFeinstein College of Arts & Sciences Faculty Papers Feinstein College of Arts and Sciences5-6-2000Whose fix is it anyway?: a closer look atHemingway’s Fifty GrandJames TackachRoger Williams University, jtackach@rwu.eduFollow this and additional works at: http://docs.rwu.edu/fcas_fpPart of the English Language and Literature CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Feinstein College of Arts and Sciences at DOCS@RWU. It has been accepted for inclusionin Feinstein College of Arts & Sciences Faculty Papers by an authorized administrator of DOCS@RWU. For more information, please contactmwu@rwu.edu.Recommended CitationTackach, James. 2000. "Whose fix is it anyway?: a closer look at Hemingway’s Fifty Grand." The Hemingway Review 19.WHOSE FIX IS IT. ANYWAY?:-JAMES TACKACH•Roger Williams UniversityREADERS AND CRITICS WHO VIEW the typical Ernest Hemingway heroas a man of courage and integrity are confounded by Jack Brennan of "FiftyGrand," who places a substantial bet against himself and purposely loses hischampionship fight by delivering a low blow to his opponent in the bout's fi-nal round, thereby winning the bet. Many readers would agree with EarlRovit and Gerry Brenner's ass~rtion that Jack "breaks the code in bettingagainst himself" (45) or with Phillips G. and Rosemary R. Davies's cornmentthat the code of the Hemingway hero "can be seen most clearly when thecourageous action is performed ~or its own sake" (258), not, as in Jack's case,for the sake of making money. Even James J.Martine, who claims that "thereis nothing 'unethical'" about Jack's decision to make money by bettingagains't himself, concedes that Jack has sacrificed" all he had, his integrity"(127), in his final championship boxing match.Much of this criticism of Jack Brennan, however, results from the mis-taken notion that he fixed the fight-that, prior to the bout, he arrangedwith the gamblers Morgan and Stein felt to lose intentionally so that he mightwin his bet. David Thoreen (27), Robert P. Weeks (85), Leo Gurko (178)-:and probably most readers-make this assumption, based on the meetingbetween Jack and the gamblers the day before the championship fight, ascene which readers view only partially because Jerry Doyle, the story's nar-rator, leaves the room. Neither Jack's comments after that meeting nor his ac-tions in the boxing ring, however, suggest that Jack fixes the titl~ fight.Accepting the premise that Jack Brennan did not fix the fight presents theboxer in a more heroic light, as a man of both courage and great integrity.TilE IIEMINGWAY "[VieW, VOL. 19, NO.2, oPRING 2000. Copyright©20ooTheErnestHemingway Foundation. Published by the University of Idaho Press, Moscow, Idaho.The widespread notion that Jack fIxes the fIght derives from the secretmeeting between the boxer and the gamblers, SteinfeIt and Morgan, whovisit the champ's training camp the day before his title' bout with Walcott.Jerry Doyle brings the gamblers to Jack's room and then is asked to leave.Jerry departs and eventually returns with Hogan, the training camp man-ager, but does rtot witness whatever deal transpired between Jack and thegamblers. Most readers assume that, during this meeting, Jack agrees to loseto Walcott on purpose. The'discussion between Jack and Jerry after the gam-blers' departure, however, suggests otherwise. Jack does indeed advise Jerryto bet on Walcott, and Jack informs Jerry that he has bet fifty grand on thechallenger, at two-to-one odds. But Jack denies fIxing the fIght. '''How can Ibeat him?' Jack asks Jerry. 'It ain't crooked. How can I beat him? Why notmake some money on it?'" (CSS 240).Earlier in the st~ry, Hemingway, through Jerry Doyle's narration, estab-lishes the fact that Jack ~rennan's best boxing days are past. He is out ofshape, over the hill; this fight will be his last. He'has not trained well and has.slept poorly. He knows that Walcott will defeat him' soundly. Jack has as-sessed his chances for victory honestly and h~s decided that he cannot win.Early in the story, when Soldier Bartlett tries to encourage Jack by saying,"He [Walcott] can't hit you, Jack," Jack replies, "I wish to hell he couldn't"(CSS 231). Jack knows he cannot defeat the younger, stronger Walcott, so hebets against himself, but he does not agree to lose the fIght on purpose. }tickcalls jerry Doyle "the only friend I got" (240); he would not lie toJerry bysaying that the fIght "ain't crooked" (240).Moreover, logic suggests that Jack has not fixed this fight. The bettingodds are two to one against Jack, which indicates that those wl)o follow thefight game are well aware of Jack's defIciencies and the challenger's prowessin the ring. SteinfeIt and Morgan, two "sharpshooters" (CSS 237) who cer-tainly follow boxing closely, would surely know that Jack's chances of victoryare slim. Why would they have to arrange with him to throw a fIght that he isvery likely to lose? Any doubts that the gamblers had about Jack's conditionwould have been erased by Jerry Doyle. When Stein felt, Morgan, andCollins, Jack's manager, arrive at Jack's training camp, Jerry tells them thatJack "is pretty bad .... He isn't right" (235).Furthermore, if Jack has agreed, during his meeting with Steinfelt .andMorgan, to throw the fIght, what is his take? The gamblers would be offeringJack money to lo~e on purpose .. If Jack is paid to lose int~ntionally, why~'(.;'I:,~,I ~would he have to lay a bet to make money on the fight? He risks fifty gra ndby betting on Walcott; and at two-to-one odds, he can win only twenty-five.If Jack agreed to lose the fight, he would have accepted a flat payment fromSteinfelt and Morgan for the loss, and he would not have to risk his ownmoney by laying a bet. Throughout the story, Jerry gives examples of Jack'sstinginess with his money. For example, Jack gives a tip of only two dollars tohis training camp rubdown man; he takes a cheap hotel room in New YorkCity on the day of the fIght; and he does not tip the boy who handles his lug-gage. Would this man risk fIfty thousand dollars if he could make the sameamount-or more-by agreeing to fIx his title fIght?What, then, transpired between Jack and Steinfelt and Morgan at thetraining camp? One possibility is that they offered money to Jack to throwthe fIght, but he refused. That is unlikely, as suggested earlier, because thegamblers have no reason to pay a boxer to lose a fight that he would proba-bly lose anyway. Perhaps during his meeting with SteinfeIt and Morgan, Jackmerely placed his $50,000 bet. Indeed, shortly after Morgan and Steinfelt de-part, Jack fIrst mentions the $50,000 wager to his best friend, Jerry Doyle,and encourages Jerry to make a bet as well.If Jack did pla<;e his bet during that meeting, did that wager prompt thegamblers to arrange subsequently with Walcott to throw the fIght? That sce-nario does not seem to be very likely. Its plausibility, however, depends onhow much money Stein felt and Morgan stand to win or lose on this fight.Earlier in the story, Hogan calls the gambling duo "wise boys" and refers toSteinfelt as a "big operator"; he also informs Jerry Doyle that they own a-poolroom (CSS 237). But Hogan's use of "wise boys" and "big operator" could beironic; he uses irony and sarcasm earlier in the story-for example, when hetells his two "health-farm patients with the gloves on" who are afraid to hiteach other to "stop the slaughter" and take their gloves off to prepare for arubdown (236-7). The two "wise boys" could be booking ten and twenty dol-lar bets at the poolroom, in which case Jack's $50,000 wager might certainlyinspire them to approach Walcott with an offer to take a dive. They could payWalcott $25,000 to lose the bout and collect $50,000 from Jack Brenna.n-ahandsome profit for two poolroom operators who generally handle relativelysmall bets. On the other hand, if Steinfelt and Morgan are booking only smallbets, how could they gain access to a boxing champion and the contender aday before the big title fight? Moreover, would Walcott agree to forfeit hischance to win the title for only $25,000 or $30,000?Of course, we can only speculate about what took place during this meet-ing between Jack and the gamblers-because Hemingway chose ~o removehis 'narrator from the room while the encounter took place. What seemsfairly certain, however, is that Jack did not agree to throw the fight at thatmeeting. Nonetheless, many readers and critics continue to assume that thesecret meeting resulted in a fixed fight.During his bout with Walcott, however, Jack certainly does not fight like aboxer who intends to lose on purpose. After four rounds, "Jack has him'bleeding bad and his face all cut up" (CSS 246). He pounds away at the chal-lenger's face: "It's just like it (Jack's fist) was connected with Walcott's faceand Jackjust had to wish it in every time" (246). Any of those hard left jabs tothe face is a potential knockout punch. In the seventh round, Jack lifts hisshoulder into W~lcott's nose, an illegal tactic designed to break his 9Ppo-nent's nose, which often results in excessive bleeding and defeat by technicalknockout. An honest fighter and a m<1nof great integ~ity, Jack is trying veryhard to win this fight, even though he will lose $50,000 if he beats Walcott.But Jack, as expected, begins to tire in the late rounds. His left arm, whichhas done most of the damage to the challenger, gets heavy; his legs tire; andthe younger Walcott begins to pommel him badly. By the twelfth and finalround, Jack can barely walk, but he refuses to quit; he intends to avoid aknockout, finish the fight, "nd win his bet. , .The fix becomes apparent in the final round, but it is Walcott's fix, notJack's. Walcott intentionally fouls Jack with a low blow. Iflack falls and is un-, ,able to continue, Walcott is disqualified, and Jack wins the fight but loses hisbet. But quickly sensing the fix, and seeing his fifty grand slipping away, Jackcourageollsly remains standing, despite incredible pain, and waves away thereferee. In the next exchange, Jack belts Walcott twice in the groin, and Wal-cott falls to the canvas. Jack is disqualified for the low blows, and Walcott isdeclared the winner.In the end, Jack did throw the fight, but he made that decision in the mid-dle of the final round, not during the pre-fight meeting with Steinfelt andMorgan. During the fight, Jack maintains his integrity; he fights to win, eventhough winning would cost him fifty grand. Jack decides to lose intention-ally only after he is fouled, when he realizes that Walcott has fixed the fight~nd in tends to lose by delivering a low blow to Jack in the final round. In thatsense, Jack calls to mind another Hemingway hero, Frederick Henry of AFarewell to Arms, who honorably performs his duty as a soldier until he is~1~efouled. During the great retreat at Caporetto, Italiqn officers and battle po-lice are randomly selecting retreating officers and shooting them for aban-doning their troops during combat. When Frederick Henry is grabbed by abattle policeman and selected for execution, he deserts. By deserting, he vio-lates the military code of conduct, but only after he has been violated. "Angerwas washed away in the river along with any obligation," he says after. his es-cape. "Although that ceased when the car~biniere put his hands on my col-lar" (AFTA 232).Like ,Frederick Henry, Jack Brennan is a man of both courage and in-tegrity. Like other Hemingway heroes, Jack abides by the rules of his profes-sion-he'fights to win a championship bout, even though a victory will costhim big money. He participates in no pre-fight fix; he takes no dive. Jackbreaks the rules only after realizing that his opponent has violated the mostsacred code of the profession to which Jack has devoted his life. Paul Smithstates that Jack fails morally by hitting Walcott twice, once "to set thingseven" and a second time to win his bet (130). But Walcott certainly deserveswhat he got; he holds the title but is no champion. Jack has lost his title, but,as David L. Vanderwerken notes, he goes down swinging (9). He also winshis bet and, more importaritly, earns the re~pect of the men in his corner.John Collins, Jack's manager, is on the mark with his remark to his fighter inthe dressing room after the fight: "You're some ~oy, Jack" (CSS 249)·WORKS CITEDDavies, Phillips G. and Rosemary R. "Heminl,rway's 'Fifty Grand' and the Jack Britton-MickeyWalker Prize Fight." Americal1 Literatllre37 (1965): Z51-58.Gurko, Leo. Ernest Hemil1gway al1d the Pllrsllit of Heroism. NY: Thomas Y.Crowell, 196&.Hemingway, Ernest. The Complete Short Stories of Ernest Hemil1gway: The FinCil Vigia Editiol1.New York: Scribner's, 1987.--. A Farewell to Arms. New York: Scribner's, 1929.Martine, J~mes J. "Hemingway's 'Fifty Grand': The Other Fight(s)." JOllmal of Modem Litera-tttre 2.1 (1971): 123-27.Rovit, Earl and Gerry Brenner. Emest Hemil1gway. Rev. ed. Boston: Twayne, 1986.Smith, Paul. A Reader's GlIide to the Short Stories of Ernest Hemil1gway. Bqston: G.K. Hall, 19~9.Thoreen, David. "Poor Ernest's Almanac: The Petty Economies of'Fifty Grand's' Jack Bren-nan." The Hemingway Review 13.2 (Spring 1994): 24-36.Vanderwerken, David L. "Another Fix on Hemingway, Sport, and the Twenties." Aethlon: TheJournal of Sport Literatllre 6 (1989): 5-10.Weeks, Robert P. "Wise-Guy Narrator and Trickster Out-Tricked in Hemingway's 'Fifty,Grand.''' StlIL1iesill American Fic/ioI1I0.1 (Spring 1982): 83-91.

Whose fix is it anyway?: a closer look at Hemingway’s Fifty Grand

HELIN Digital Commons

https://docs.rwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&amp;context=fcas_fp

Whose fix is it anyway?: a closer look at Hemingway’s Fifty Grand

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of St. Thomas, Minnesota

DOCS@RWU

HELIN Digital Commons