Compare and contrast the American view of Paris in ‘On Paris’ by Hemingway and ‘The Sweet Life in Paris.’

Hemingway’s critical portrayal of Parisian life and their unfair treatment towards Americans contrasts with Lebovitz’s focus on the grubbiness of French water and its economical use of it . Hemingway exposes the false perception of Parisian life and reveals the truth behind France with its ‘two o’clock’ robberies of tourists and accommodation of fraudulent musicians in the city centre. On the other, the American chef Lebovitz is astounded by the difference in French water including its sewage system and its reluctance to distribute free water to American tourists in restaurants.In the text ‘On Paris’, Hemingway portrays Paris as a city which creates a false image without really possessing genuine musicians and artist. He criticises the Rotonde claiming ‘you can find anything you look for at the Rotonde – expect serious artists.’ The use of the adversative conjunction ‘except’ creates a humorous and ironic tonic whereby it becomes apparent that the café cannot even conform to the most basic musical expectation of having a genuine performer. Hemingway’s American schema of Parisian life differs to the typical perception of Paris’ arts fulfilling its expectations. Hemingway’s use of declarative and assertive sentences in this paragraph exemplify the strong attitude held by Hemingway against the false portrayal of Paris. Furthermore, using the plural noun ‘loafers’ to describe musicians at the Rotonde generalises the experience of Hemingway’s short encounter with this pretentious individual. Adding the ‘s’ suffix to the word loafer conveys a generalisation of the music industry in Paris. The perception of Paris from the perspective of the American Hemingway is that dishonesty and a difference to expectations are prominent features of Parisian life. Hemingway’s use of the disjunct ‘occasionally’ highlights the rarity of encountering the ‘real nightlife’Similarly, Hemingway portrays Paris as a city whose inhabitants exploit tourists, particularly Americans. Him feeling the necessity to incorporate the clause with the assertion that taxi drivers ‘automatically crank up five francs’ when an American enters their cab reinforces the view of Hemingway. He presents himself and Americans as a victimised branch of society in the Paris. Despite Paris being stereotypically deemed a city popular to tourists, Hemingway views the city as an exploitation of its visitors. The disgust of Hemingway towards taxi drivers is demonstrated in his repetition of the deictic pronoun ‘he’ to create an image of all cab drivers resembling the persona he is attempting to portray. The repetition of the anaphoric reference ‘he’ in successive clauses with only one use of the antecedent ‘taxi driver’ exemplifies the hostile attitude of Hemingway towards them. The stereotypical portrayal of Paris as a city idyllic for walking as a mode of transport due to the proximity of its centre is reinforced with the negativity towards taxi drivers. Overall, Hemingway feels used as an America and antagonises certain aspects of Parisian society before generalising these encounters with the rest of Paris’ residents.
On the other hand, the American Lebovitz directs his criticism of Paris towards its appearance and facilities initially rather than the people. The use of negation regarding the water with the modal verb ‘cannot’ being informally used with the contraction in the word ‘can’t’, ridicules the quality of water and the difficulty in drinking it. The exclamative response cry ‘Yuck’ hints at the American perception of Parisian water and its facilities being subordinate to American’s. Lebovitz portrays America as being superior to the city he moved to in 2004. Like Hemingway, he criticises the Parisian treatment of native Americans when water is requested. The superlatives ‘biggest’ and ‘priciest’ connote that Parisians go to great extents to ensure that they can rip off tourists. Lebovitz and Hemingway share a common view that Parisians exploit Americans, particularly in restaurants and cafes where they know that tourists are likely to accept paying extortionate prices.
Nevertheless, Lebovitz acknowledges that despite his emphasis on the less favourable aspects of Parisian life, there is perhaps an American envy. The conjunction ‘or’ preceding the declarative ‘maybe ‘I’m just jealous’ suggests that the criticism of Parisian may merely be a traditionally American cultural ritual where they scrutinise every aspect of foreign culture. The informal adverb ‘maybe’ suggests that there is a possibility of Americans simply viewing Paris derogatively merely because of being envious. For example, the French bathrooms are criticised purely because of the difference to American bathrooms. Ultimately, both memoirs form stories which are intended to entertain the audience. Part of the appeal to their American audience requires the Parisian lifestyle to be lamented. Whether it is the water or the cafes, part of their culture is seemingly to question minor aspects of Paris.