The Sun Also Rises -- terrible story and writing

[Fruit]

Am I missing something about Hemingway? This is my first Hemingway book, and it may be my last if the rest of his works are written like this.

First of all, the story is boring. There is no actual conflict or catalyst that sets the main character into motion towards a goal. No real forces of antagonism other than ennui. Is this supposed to be a slacker novel?

Second, the writing style is unbearable. How could this man have won a nobel prize for literature? The sentences are choppy, redundant, and repetitive. Sometimes the dialogue is unbelievable and incredibly witless--as if spoken by middle schoolers. To make things worse, sometimes I get confused as to who is speaking because of the way he sets up speakers. Also, sentences clump together in odd ways, as in two successive sentences ending with the same word. The metaphors are also really weak--nothing evocative.

I'm at page 50. Should I give it a chance or move on to another American "great"?

[Hank Stamper]

There is no actual conflict or catalyst that sets the main character into motion towards a goal.

this has been discussed fairly recently on here.. I didn't join in because I have only read the book once and while I really enjoyed it, there are others on here who know the book much better than I and so are better placed to defend it

I would say though that it is problematic and restrictive to read literature in the way you describe above.. does literature really need to be so formulaic to qualify as being 'good'?

But Hemingway is clearly one of those writers like Kerouac who will always be divisive, which I think is a good thing.. world would be boring if we all liked the same rubbish eh?

[PeterL]

Am I missing something about Hemingway?

Probably


First of all, the story is boring. There is no actual conflict or catalyst that sets the main character into motion towards a goal. No real forces of antagonism other than ennui. Is this supposed to be a slacker novel?

I think thst you want to finish it and find out for yourself


Second, the writing style is unbearable. How could this man have won a nobel prize for literature? The sentences are choppy, redundant, and repetitive. Sometimes the dialogue is unbelievable and incredibly witless--as if spoken by middle schoolers. To make things worse, sometimes I get confused as to who is speaking because of the way he sets up speakers. Also, sentences clump together in odd ways, as in two successive sentences ending with the same word. The metaphors are also really weak--nothing evocative.

I don't especially like Hemingway's prose, but his dialogue is excellent. It catches the verbal styles of his characters. To a significant degree the characterization is done through dialogue. If you pay attention to the subtle changes in style, you can tell a lot about what is going on. The lack of moving metaphors also shows a lot about the author and the characters. Hemingway didn't have to "murder his darlings", because he had none.


I'm at page 50. Should I give it a chance or move on to another American "great"?

There are much better novels, but that's a fair example of Hemingway.

[kelby_lake]

I'm not too keen on Hemingway's prose but A Moveable Feast is great. That'll also give you some insight into other American greats.

[ktm5124]

I recently made a thread saying that I felt dissatisfied with the novel after finishing it. I felt that it didn't go beyond drawing a portrait of people living empty lives. But after thinking about it for a while, reading critical essays on the novel and discussing it here, I changed my mind completely. I came to really like the novel.

The prose is certainly not terrible as you say it is. It is spare for the reason that Hemingway meant it to be spare. His style of writing is itself a small revolution in literature. Ezra Pound hailed it as the best prose he had seen in many years. In fact, Pound encouraged Hemingway in the spareness of his prose. There are scholars who say that Hemingway has a debt to Imagism - recall Pound's dictum, "Use no superfluous word, no adjective which does not reveal something." Not only did Pound and Hemingway have a working relationship, but the young Hemingway, living in Paris, spent considerable time writing Imagist poetry.

One of the strengths of Hemingway's writing style is that his prose is very, very easy to read. You rarely have to linger on a sentence to puzzle out the meaning, as you might with say Henry James. Everything is very clear. Furthermore, his novels are concise. The characters are developed very well in a short space. There are no byroads. You get a very strong picture of setting and characters.

And lastly, just because the prose is unadorned, doesn't mean the novel has no depth to it. If you decide to finish the novel, you should read the recent discussion: http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52498. Don't go there now, though, there are spoilers in the first post.

[Seasider]

Try For Whom the Bell Tolls Tremendous mix of Love and Politics. Gripping characters especially Pilar and Pablo. And the movie with the young Ingrid Bergman as Maria was heartbreaking.

[Fruit]

I also felt that the characters weren't likeable, and that you couldnt even empathize with them.

Jake seems like an crude bore who uttered simple lines repeatedly with no real insight into anything, and Cohen is a cardboard cutout of a pansy, made to be Jake's verbal punching bag. One-dimensional characters at best.

I'll read another 50 pages, though.

[Sebas. Melmoth]

The elliptical style is Hemingway's characteristic style: less is more, and the reader is to divine what's taking place by what's left unsaid.

(See Hem's short story, "Hills Like White Elephants" for a prime example of this style.)

A Farewell to Arms is a much finer novel than The Sun also Rises.

Really Hemingway's best work is his early work (imo); he and his style really fell apart at the end.

Aside from his two early novels, his short stories are probably his best works.
http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Short-Stories-Ernest-Hemingway/dp/0684843323/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1272823623&sr=1-1

"Up in Michigan," "The Three-Day Blow," "The Battler," "Big Two-Hearted River: Parts I & II", "The Killers"--these are the "Nick Adams" stories and rank as Hemingway's finest work.

The later Spanish stories are good as well: "The Undefeated," "A Clean, Well-Lighted Place," etc. ...

Hem was awarded the Nobel Prize virtually for a lifetime achievement, for The Old Man and the Sea is pure trash, as is his other late work (Across the River and Into the Trees, etc.).

Amongst others, playwrite David Mamet has mastered Hemingway's elliptical style--along with his macho ethos...

[dfloyd]

I wondered if I was deluded by my love of Hemingway into not realizing what holes there might be in his style and story. So I pulled out my copy of TSAR and began to read it for the 5th or 6th time, the most I have read any novel. Now I have read all the fiction of Hemingway, including the short stories. Only missing some of his factual work such as Death in the Afternoon. I read TSAR in three steps in three consecutive days. At the end, I felt the same as I did when I went through it the first time: it was apocalyptic. It revealed to me the lives and loves of those expatriates who had lived nearly 100 years ago. I don't think there has been a better novel written in the 20th century, unless it was Lolita, which I am currently reading for the third time. I am glad KTM5124 has changed his mind. I hope he goes on to read the rest of Hemingway's fiction. While some of Hemingway's tales are not as good as others, I am glad I've been through the complete oevre of this remarkable American writer.

[Sebas. Melmoth]

Of Hem's nonfiction, A Moveable Feast (France in the 1920s) is best; Death in the Afteroon (Spanish bullfighting) is tolerable; Green Hills of Africa (big game hunting) I care less for.

A Moveable Feast has some great anecdotes of F. Scott Fitzgerald and Gertrud Stein--the former with his mad wife Zelda; the latter with her lesbian lover Alice B. Toklas.
It also includes a significant incident in Hemingway's early career wherein his first wife Hadley threw away some of his early short story manuscripts--which of course were irreplaceable, and was the death-knell for their marriage. Stupid woman.

Of his later novels, they made films out of For Whom the Bell Tolls, To Have and Have Not, The Old Man and the Sea--all of which were better films than books, especially To Have and Have Not which was written for the screen by William Faulkner, and starred Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall.

[dfloyd]

To Have and Have Not was not one of Hemingway's best novels, but the movie was worse. Bogart did not capture the essence of Harry Morgan, and the screen play was dismal. And it did not follow the book strory line at all. It was a commercial movie, and not something you would want to associate with Hemingway. The only two good Hemingway movies are Farewell to Arms and For Whom the Bell Tolls, both starring Gary Cooper.

To Have and Have Not featured early Lauren Bacall, and that is its only redeeming feature. Because Faulkner was a good novelist does not mean he was a good writer of screen plays. Scott Fitzgerald also failed as a screen writer.

[Sebas. Melmoth]

You are right, mon ami, in saying the screenplay greatly differed from the book; however, it was a superb commercial film--not a great work of art, but simply an hoot!

Bogey and Bacall--are you kidding? Throw in Walter Brennen and Hogey Carmichael, and you've got a box office winner!

Nice black and white cinematography too...

btw, they made a movie out of The Sun also Rises (w/Tyrone Power as Jake), and also The Snows of Kilimanjaro (w/Rock Hudson).

Actually The Sun wasn't too bad a film...

[Buh4Bee]

I haven't read any other Hemingway except The Sun Also Rises. I loved the story- quite tragic. The characters were well-developed and believable. The plot moves very quickly from quiet fishing scenes to drinking binges throughout Europe. The group is always getting tight. In the end the love story is brutal. Brett is a selfish witch that could have had it all, only if...

[dfloyd]

when playing a patriarchal hill billy on tv. I love Bogart, but this film, To Have and Have not, was not a good one. Harry Morgan was cruel and sadistic. If you'll remember, he drowned a load of illegal Chinese he was bringing into the states from Cuba. It just became another adventure movie.

The Sun Also Rises was a good movie which captured the essence of the book. Tyrone Powwer was good as Jake Barnes. Ava Gardner made a belivable Brett Ashley. Erroll Flynn played a rollicking drunk quite well; he had plenty of eperience. The other actors fit their roles also: Eddie Albert and Audrey Hepburn's first husband, whose name I can never remember. All dead now. It doesn't seem possible. The only problem with the movie is that all of the actors were much older than those Hemingway had in mind. He had lived the story - or close to it - 1925.

Rock Hudson was not in Snows. the actor was Gregory Peck. He was cast opposite Ava Gardner. Again, Hollywod changed the ending ruining the film.
Rock Hudson was in a remake of A Farewell to Arms, which was lousy. It was made before everyone knew Rock was a Rockette.

The Gary Cooper movies were the only ones Hemingway gave his blessing to: A Farewell to Arms and For Whom the Bell Rolls.

The Killers with Burt Lancaster was a good one. This short story did not delve into why the Killers were after the Swede so a screenplay had to be written. This one also had Ava Gardner. One of the killers was Marshall Dillon from radio's Gunsmoke, William Conrad.

[Babak Movahed]

I think your missing something.

Hemingway is a fantastic writer and this story in particular is one of my favorites. Sure there is no real plot and no one reads Hemingway for his prose, but this story has very interesting characters that we become engaged with because of Hemingway's dialogue.

His style of writing is much different from conventional writers, he's someone that you'll either love or hate.

[ktm5124]

I think people too often dismiss the merits of his prose. It is very excellent prose, in that it offers great clarity, allows for the detailed and rapid development of characters, and moves the story along quite quickly.

It's not that it falls short of lyricism or breathtaking imagery, it's that it doesn't intend these things in the first place. Hemingway intended a very particular kind of story, and he engineered the prose to do it.

[dfloyd]

is a perfect example of modernism in literature.

[lallison]

Isn't it pretty to think so?

The Sun Also Rises is the classic novel of the lost generation, the phrase was first publicized at the beginning of its pages. Many critics, including Harvard's Harold Bloom, consider it Hemingway's finest novel, although his first book of short stories, In Our Time, is often sited as his real masterpiece.

To really get the novel, it's important to understand Hemingway's stylistic innovation, which he likened to an iceberg. He was trying to put as much emotion and meaning below the surface, with only the small peak of it peeking its head above the water.

Fiesta, as the book was titled when released in Europe, was intended to have the earth being the real hero and inhabited by just meaningless passers by, mainly us. The fishing trip, at the earlier part of the novel, should be contrasted with the debauchery of the bull fights to emphasize this.

Another thing to keep in mind is the illusive detail that Jake is impotent from the war. It's easy to miss, as Hemingway buried it beneath the surface, but it's figuratively vital to the story and to really understand what's going on with the plot. Why would he pick up a prostitute at the beginning, and what is the deeper meaning of the last line or the policeman stopping them with his baton? The bull fighter, Romero, who gets beaten up by Cohn, is a Christ figure and the novel is also intended to usher in the death of romantic ideals, who are characterized by Cohn.

There is a lot in this seemingly simple little novel. It might help with your enjoyment to do a little background reading on it before you continue.

[kelby_lake]

In the film they make it blatantly obvious the guy is impotent. He also says it in a really strange way, as if the word 'impotent' was terribly shocking to say on film.

[Sebas. Melmoth]

As I recall, the film was fairly faithful to the book.

[keilj]

In the film they make it blatantly obvious the guy is impotent. He also says it in a really strange way, as if the word 'impotent' was terribly shocking to say on film.

It's rarely spoken of in film or in books. I'd like to see it addressed more

On a similar subject, I recently read a novel called Cass Timberlane. In it there were sections that referenced things like a gay man who is married to a woman and leading a double life, and another husband who was having sexual thoughts about his teenage daughter. I always find it brave when authors are willing to write about these rarely spoken of topics

[dfloyd]

this book and Huckleberry Finn can be read a multitude of times. You'll always find something new which you haven't realized before. It is interesting to note that Hemingway said Brett would have turned out the same if Jake wasn't impotent. He should know; he fell for her real-life counterpart when he went to Pamplona in 1925.

[kelby_lake]

Isn't it pretty to think so?

The Sun Also Rises is the classic novel of the lost generation, the phrase was first publicized at the beginning of its pages. Many critics, including Harvard's Harold Bloom, consider it Hemingway's finest novel, although his first book of short stories, In Our Time, is often sited as his real masterpiece.

To really get the novel, it's important to understand Hemingway's stylistic innovation, which he likened to an iceberg. He was trying to put as much emotion and meaning below the surface, with only the small peak of it peeking its head above the water.

Fiesta, as the book was titled when released in Europe, was intended to have the earth being the real hero and inhabited by just meaningless passers by, mainly us. The fishing trip, at the earlier part of the novel, should be contrasted with the debauchery of the bull fights to emphasize this.

Another thing to keep in mind is the illusive detail that Jake is impotent from the war. It's easy to miss, as Hemingway buried it beneath the surface, but it's figuratively vital to the story and to really understand what's going on with the plot. Why would he pick up a prostitute at the beginning, and what is the deeper meaning of the last line or the policeman stopping them with his baton? The bull fighter, Romero, who gets beaten up by Cohn, is a Christ figure and the novel is also intended to usher in the death of romantic ideals, who are characterized by Cohn.

There is a lot in this seemingly simple little novel. It might help with your enjoyment to do a little background reading on it before you continue.

Agreed. I really liked it. After the war, the characters become directionless and disillusioned, wandering around in a foreign country. It's also very good on masculinity.

[wat??]

There is no actual conflict or catalyst that sets the main character into motion towards a goal. No real forces of antagonism other than ennui. Is this supposed to be a slacker novel?

I'm at page 50. Should I give it a chance or move on to another American "great"?

What is this I don't even...

[wat??]

I haven't read any other Hemingway except The Sun Also Rises. I loved the story- quite tragic. The characters were well-developed and believable. The plot moves very quickly from quiet fishing scenes to drinking binges throughout Europe. The group is always getting tight. In the end the love story is brutal. Brett is a selfish witch that could have had it all, only if...

Only if Jake weren't impotent? I liked Brett. What were your exact problems with the character?

[Patrick_Bateman]

It's not his best but I think his description of Romero's bullfights is exquisite and the dialogue is much tidier than in For whom the bell tolls for example.

I'm a big lover of Hemingway although this story is my least favourite and starts very slow it is still a great read.

[Patrick_Bateman]

Second, the writing style is unbearable. How could this man have won a nobel prize for literature? The sentences are choppy, redundant, and repetitive. Sometimes the dialogue is unbelievable and incredibly witless--as if spoken by middle schoolers. To make things worse, sometimes I get confused as to who is speaking because of the way he sets up speakers. Also, sentences clump together in odd ways, as in two successive sentences ending with the same word. The metaphors are also really weak--nothing evocative.



it's all done with a purpose

[DougSlug]

Am I missing something about Hemingway? This is my first Hemingway book, and it may be my last if the rest of his works are written like this.

First of all, the story is boring. There is no actual conflict or catalyst that sets the main character into motion towards a goal. No real forces of antagonism other than ennui. Is this supposed to be a slacker novel?

Second, the writing style is unbearable. How could this man have won a nobel prize for literature? The sentences are choppy, redundant, and repetitive. Sometimes the dialogue is unbelievable and incredibly witless--as if spoken by middle schoolers. To make things worse, sometimes I get confused as to who is speaking because of the way he sets up speakers. Also, sentences clump together in odd ways, as in two successive sentences ending with the same word. The metaphors are also really weak--nothing evocative.

I'm at page 50. Should I give it a chance or move on to another American "great"?

My response was about the same. I appreciate the basic idea of lean, minimalist prose, but I found the writing lifeless and flat. In the end the novel seemed rather pointless and inconsequential. I haven't read any of his other work.

As for other American "greats", I would much rather spend time on Faulkner, Hawthorne, Emerson, Thoreau. I also want to explore Pynchon, Roth, Bellow, Capote, and Vonnegut.

[Drkshadow03]

My response was about the same. I appreciate the basic idea of lean, minimalist prose, but I found the writing lifeless and flat. In the end the novel seemed rather pointless and inconsequential. I haven't read any of his other work.


I just finished this book. I couldn't disagree more. I found it an extremely deep and moving work.

[kelby_lake]

I just finished this book. I couldn't disagree more. I found it an extremely deep and moving work.

Same. Surely the point is their ultimate lack of consequence and their inability to find a point to their lives? I find that a very interesting and evocative topic, more so than if it had simply been some love triangle.

[DougSlug]

To really get the novel, it's important to understand Hemingway's stylistic innovation, which he likened to an iceberg. He was trying to put as much emotion and meaning below the surface, with only the small peak of it peeking its head above the water.

That's a nice metaphor, actually. But if what little is peeking above the surface is rendered in such a tedious fashion, I fail to see the brilliance in it. For me, the words on the page have to have some life beyond just pointing to hidden meaning.

A couple of other writers I've read recently - Orwell and Camus - also have spare prose to some extent, and yet their writing has depth and vitality.

Just my humble opinion...

[kelby_lake]

That's a nice metaphor, actually. But if what little is peeking above the surface is rendered in such a tedious fashion, I fail to see the brilliance in it. For me, the words on the page have to have some life beyond just pointing to hidden meaning.

Nobody in life really says what they mean- they tend to say something dismissive and vague. The parts I found interesting in The Sun Also Rises were parts where the characters were being dismissive and vague but there was much more going on underneath. Although it can sound exaggerated sometimes in Hemingway's writing, it is an interesting technique.

[baaaaadgoatjoke]

I'm reading this right now and I can only go a couple of chapters without nodding off. What's his most "wordy" novel?

[wat??]

I actually read this recently and was very moved. I don't see the problems being voiced in this thread.

[dfloyd]

What is your last name? Loops?

[Buh4Bee]

@ watt?
I read this a few years back, so I can't quite remember the extensive details of the story as well as someone who just read the book.
Yes, Jake is impotent and Brett can't accept his flaw. For me, this conflict is the heart of the novel's tragedy. After I finished reading, I was left thinking about what is it that really keeps people apart. Would Brett have been happy, even if Jake could make love to her? Or is it that she is too emotionally shallow? Is it right to define her as a broke, spinster, drunk, despite all her cheap talk and glitz? The connection between Brett and Jake is tragic, because there is love between them. But it is not enough, at least for Brett. Hemingway leaves the reader wondering about the possibilities of what if... I was frustrated by the character's lack of humanity.

[kelby_lake]

@ watt?
I read this a few years back, so I can't quite remember the extensive details of the story as well as someone who just read the book.
Yes, Jake is impotent and Brett can't accept his flaw. For me, this conflict is the heart of the novel's tragedy. After I finished reading, I was left thinking about what is it that really keeps people apart. Would Brett have been happy, even if Jake could make love to her? Or is it that she is too emotionally shallow? Is it right to define her as a broke, spinster, drunk, despite all her cheap talk and glitz? The connection between Brett and Jake is tragic, because there is love between them. But it is not enough, at least for Brett. Hemingway leaves the reader wondering about the possibilities of what if... I was frustrated by the character's lack of humanity.

Ah, the unobtainable Brett. Is she a nymphomaniac because of Jake or because of something else?

[twit]

Probably my favorite Hemingway. I wonder if Fruit ever finished it.

I remember hating it at first too but I kept reading and fell in love. No doubt Hemingway blew his head off :(

[Buh4Bee]

Ah, the unobtainable Brett. Is she a nymphomaniac because of Jake or because of something else?

I remember her being sexually liberated, but I don't remember her being a sex addict. This is quite possible,since she had a tremendous appetite for anything that could make her feel good.

[Jassy Melson]

My problem with Hemingway is that he tried to be so clear and simple in the conversation and dialogue of his characters, that the conversation comes out stilted and artificial. No one really talks the way Hemingway's characters do

[kelby_lake]

I remember her being sexually liberated, but I don't remember her being a sex addict. This is quite possible,since she had a tremendous appetite for anything that could make her feel good.

She was a bit of a nympho. She'd bedded the entire gang except for one of them...Bill, maybe? And there was the matador...

[MarkBastable]

it's all done with a purpose

It is all done with a purpose - and the purpose of all writing is to keep the reader reading. If you have a distinctive style, then you're not going to hold the attention of all readers - so, for instance, it may be that readers who can't plough through Hemingway are enchanted by Wodehouse, and those who are transfixed by Dickens can't stomach Faulkner. I know people who find Martin Amis really hard going - I find it difficult to understand why they would, but so it goes. I know people who think Kerouac is a joy to read, and I try not to hold that against them.

Thing is, Hemingway's style does demand a certain expectation - almost a compatible worldview - in the reader. I think that that's a good thing for a writer to do, and I'm absolutely certain that it's the mark of a great writer. Hemingway - as a stylist, an innovator and an influence - is unarguably a great writer.

Me, I just can't read his stuff at all. It bores me rigid.

But it's important, I think to be able to make the distinction between one's objective assessment and one's subjective reaction.

[Buh4Bee]

Of course, the matador destroyed her. You are right that she did sleep with all of them. This brings to light to the question; why did she need to sleep with all these men? That was originally what you asked; is she a nymphomaniac because of Jake or because of something else? I don't think she acted this way to hurt Jake or because she was frustrated that she couldn't be with him sexually anymore. I think she is emotionally shallow and needs to control men though her sexuality.

[dfloyd]

and fell in with a crowd very similar to that in the book. There was even a Jew in the crowd that Hemingway didn't like. Why? Not because of prejudice, but because this person slept with Hemingway's real Lady Brett with whom Hemingway was enamored. Years later, a reader of the book stated that ir was too bad that Jake was impotent so he couldn't consumate his relationship with Lady Brett. Hemingway replied, 'Don't feel sorry for Brett. She would have acted as she did if Jake wasn't impotent.' Hemingway knew this because he had fallen for the real Brett before he wrote his novel.

[Buh4Bee]

That makes complete sense! She was a very real character. Doesn't surprise me that she was a real person.

[oshima]

Hemingway's novels have always been an enjoyable read for me, but they never really grabbed me in that "couldn't put the damn book down" sort of way. His short stories, however, those are pretty memorable.