January/Hemingway Book: 'A Farewell to Arms'

It's too early in the morning for me to be attempting coherent sentences, but here I go.

I think all the characters are somewhat roughly sketched, but I attribute it to Hemingway's inexperience as an author at the time. Fred Henry does stand out as the only truly thought-through character, much the same way as an inexperienced art student's sketches will show a varying amount of detail throughout a drawing, because they only pay close enough attention to the parts with which they have trouble, or in which they hold the most interest. Hemingway strikes me as not yet having refined the craft of character development; he spends the most time on Henry, because he's the most important to him. At this point, he still needs to learn the discipline of creating a whole world and history and personality for each of his characters, even the minor ones. Instead, he's written caricatures; the characters play their specified roles, and feel duely fake. There are exceptions to this, though; I felt that the character of Aymo must have been based on someone Hemingway knew well. There is more behind the character than a person-shaped line-deliverer, so to speak; he has a history that Hemingway does not devulge, but which I felt, even in the sparse lines he delivered.

Another thing Hemingway still struggles with is constistency of character. Henry is the only character we get to know well, as Virgil points out, but what he benefits from in depth, he suffers from in breadth. Ernest writes bad romantic sequences, which is perhaps the reason Catherine is written so poorly as a whole; all of her lines are melodramatic love-talk. When Henry attempts such language, he is equally fakey. Hemingway seems to have drawn his inspiration primarily from the Hollywood films and literary conventions of his day, which tended toward hokey over-exuberance and lots of "darling, darling, darling's." This is perhaps the most glaring inconsistency that I've noticed in the book.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emily655321

I think all the characters are somewhat roughly sketched, but I attribute it to Hemingway's inexperience as an author at the time.

---

There are only two really good Hemingway novels, this one and The Sun Also Rises, which he wrote before AFTA. He wasn't inexperienced. This was his third novel. He was only a good novelist, in my humble opimion. But I think he was a great short story writer.

I would like to respond to some of the points have been made so far but before that I would like to ask you:

What do you think this novel is about? If you were to put it onto a shelf according to its theme, which one would that be?

The loss of innocence. A farewell to arms: the arms of war and arms of love.

I'm up to book 4, I don't have a problem with the male characters. To me they just seem like "buddies" we don't need to know anything indepth about them, unlike Catherine.

Is it bad that I'm really enjoying the parts without Catherine?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

The loss of innocence. A farewell to arms: the arms of war and arms of love.

---

Have you ever thought about the difficulty of translating this title? Like Virgil pointed out, it could mean two things but it is almost impossible to find the same convenient words which would mean the same things in other languages... I know one translation which made use of 'farewell to arms=weapons'... not 'arms of a beloved'

Just a side note. :)

As I spend more time thinking about this book, the more I am inclined to believe that Hemingway must have had an agenda portraying these characters and 'love' as he did.

We all agree that there is some kind of supercificiality about the whole thing but maybe that is how it is supposed to be? Maybe the book did not aim to analyse characters and the theme of love but show the absurdity of it all. People fall in love and call each other 'darling' or simply lust and try to 'score' or pretend to be Italian even though they are American to build a career in music or win medals while trying to have pasta with cheese!

I am wondering if this book is actually about absurdity of life rather than merely war or love or whatever else.

That's a good point, Scher. Hmm... entirely possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

Have you ever thought about the difficulty of translating this title? Like Virgil pointed out, it could mean two things but it is almost impossible to find the same convenient words which would mean the same things in other languages... I know one translation which made use of 'farewell to arms=weapons'... not 'arms of a beloved'

Just a side note. :)

As I spend more time thinking about this book, the more I am inclined to believe that Hemingway must have had an agenda portraying these characters and 'love' as he did.

We all agree that there is some kind of supercificiality about the whole thing but maybe that is how it is supposed to be? Maybe the book did not aim to analyse characters and the theme of love but show the absurdity of it all. People fall in love and call each other 'darling' or simply lust and try to 'score' or pretend to be Italian even though they are American to build a career in music or win medals while trying to have pasta with cheese!

I am wondering if this book is actually about absurdity of life rather than merely war or love or whatever else.

---

Some of the things that were probably going through hemingway's mind as he constructed the novel:
Tolstoy's War and Peace where Tolstoy alternates sections of his novel between love and war.
Virgil's, The Aneaid where themes of war and love, while they don't alternate like Tolstoy, recurr. I think the first line of it goes something like, "Of arms and the man I sing."
And someone, somewhere I can't recall who said that the great, universal themes in literature are love and death. And I would add also loss of innocence. Hem does all three here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

We all agree that there is some kind of supercificiality about the whole thing but maybe that is how it is supposed to be? Maybe the book did not aim to analyse characters and the theme of love but show the absurdity of it all. People fall in love and call each other 'darling' or simply lust and try to 'score' or pretend to be Italian even though they are American to build a career in music or win medals while trying to have pasta with cheese!

---

I just finished the book and that's the impression I get. Life during war is different, it's as if Cat and Henry are trying hard, perhaps too hard, to act as if life is normal when it is not. It almost seems to me that, they talk about life being grand and that they love each other as if they're trying to convince themselves. It leads me to wonder if Cat and Henry would have stayed together if it hadn't been war time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by papayahed

It leads me to wonder if Cat and Henry would have stayed together if it hadn't been war time.

---

I wondered the same thing too, Papaya along with if they would have kept in touch if Cat hadn't appointed to the hospital where Henry was staying...

... or gotten knocked up ...

Well, I'm apt to agree with the general consensus, Cat was an awful character, the romance was forced, not very realistic for whatever reason, war, Hemmingway's intent who knows? The story really couldn't be put in any particular category on my bookshelf other than war perhaps. The romance was peculiar, more like a 1940's movie, lukewarm and unrealistic.

I felt the two main characters were annoying. I actually liked Frederic well enough up until the part where he called Othello the N word. Very racist. Very stupid and selfish man in my opinion. Good grief, he knew she'd get pregnant if he didn't take responsibility, which he didn't. How selfish was that, leaving it all up to her? Annoying pointless book with a bad ending. I had to wonder if Hemmingway was racist after reading this and I hope I never have to read another Hemmingway book again.

Darlin, I know what you mean about the racism. I get very uncomfortable when I encounter racism in old books. Even in not-as-old books, like The Bell Jar; I just read it, and at one point Plath introduces a kind of Stepin Fetchit character, who I can only assume was added for comic relief, but it made me very unhappy. I just try to tell myself that people were more ignorant of such things back then, and that it was more accepted by society, so they probably didn't even notice they were doing it. But I know what you mean; nothing spoils the mood of a book for me quite so much as negative attitudes toward race.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darlin

I had to wonder if Hemmingway was racist after reading this and I hope I never have to read another Hemmingway book again.

---

May I ask why you had to wonder? Is Hemingway to be universally condemned for using a word which at the time had very little of the power to offend it has now? Is Joseph Conrad to be considered a poor writer and a worse human being for having written The Nigger of the Narcissus? Should we simply not read that book any more? Is it right to judge past attitudes by today’s standards?

If you would like to join us for the Arms live chat, please contact me asap.

Thanks! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emily655321

Darlin, I know what you mean about the racism. I get very uncomfortable when I encounter racism in old books. Even in not-as-old books, like The Bell Jar; I just read it, and at one point Plath introduces a kind of Stepin Fetchit character, who I can only assume was added for comic relief, but it made me very unhappy. I just try to tell myself that people were more ignorant of such things back then, and that it was more accepted by society, so they probably didn't even notice they were doing it. But I know what you mean; nothing spoils the mood of a book for me quite so much as negative attitudes toward race.

---

I don't know if Hemingway was a racist. But he was inconsiderate in the way he threw epithets around. This is not the only place he uses the N-word. Hemingway was such a big admirer of Twains Huck Finn that sometimes when he uses the N word I get the feeling he's trying to emulate Twain. I don't know. But Twain's Nigger Jim was an endearing character, I don't get the feeling that hemingway is using it endearingly, if that's possible. Worst then the N-word, hemingway really slanders Jews in The Sun Also Rises. I wouldn't go as far as say he's anti-semitic, but he just spits these words out callusly. I've said somewhere in a different post that I ususally ignore (unless they are advocating slavery or genicide) these things if the writer was writing before WWII. After the halocaust there is no excuse for a writer to disparage ethnicity.

As to the Nigger of the Narcissus: Again I don't feel that Conrad is disparging. From what I remember, the black character that the novel refers to was noble or intended to be noble. I don't think Hemingway was being positive in any way.

Emily, thank you. I’m glad it’s not just me. I thought maybe I over reacted but it was truly offensive to me and gave me a poor impression of the author in general. However, you’re probably right in that it was the accepted norm of that day and they probably thought nothing of it and possibly Hemmingway wasn’t racist. One never knows I suppose and as I’m disinclined to read a biography on the man I suppose I shall never know. But thanks for your thoughts, I rather felt I might be alone in this. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emily655321

Darlin, I know what you mean about the racism. I get very uncomfortable when I encounter racism in old books. Even in not-as-old books, like The Bell Jar; I just read it, and at one point Plath introduces a kind of Stepin Fetchit character, who I can only assume was added for comic relief, but it made me very unhappy. I just try to tell myself that people were more ignorant of such things back then, and that it was more accepted by society, so they probably didn't even notice they were doing it. But I know what you mean; nothing spoils the mood of a book for me quite so much as negative attitudes toward race.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unnamable

May I ask why you had to wonder? Is Hemingway to be universally condemned for using a word which at the time had very little of the power to offend it has now? Is Joseph Conrad to be considered a poor writer and a worse human being for having written The Nigger of the Narcissus? Should we simply not read that book any more? Is it right to judge past attitudes by today’s standards?

---

Unnamable, I wondered because I hate that word. I hate being called that and dislike those who use it regardless of why they choose to use it. And for you or anyone to say the word had little power to offend at the time he used it is absolutely uninformed and completely wrong. Those who used it may have felt it had no power but those that the word was inflicted upon felt the pain of the word quite intently.

I may have not been around during that time for I was born in the sixty’s but I have grandparents, family members and acquaintances even to this day that remember those times, the racist attitudes, the fear they felt, the degradation and helplessness. Twice I have been called that and each time by a White male and once when I was with my bi-racial daughter who was probably about eight at the time. I will not go into how humiliating and painful that was. Suffice it to say unless you have experienced being called that you really have no right to judge.

It is a hurtful and disgraceful word. It wasn’t acceptable or any nicer when he was using it in his day than it is now. People may want to use the word today to try to lessen the impact of the hate and pain they feel when called such a thing but it still hurts many and most especially older people from Hemmingway’s day. Whether he was a racist or not he used a hurtful ignorant word that has offended me and discouraged any further interest in reading any of his other books but that is a purely personal decision on my part.

And speaking of Conrad’s The Nigger of the Narcissus I was just looking at that at the library last week wondering what it was about and why anyone would write something with a title like that. Having not read the book I certainly can’t say he was a racist, a poor writer or a worse human being for writing it. For all I know it may be an incredibly enlightening book however the title alone has done nothing to entice me into reading it and it is unlikely I ever will. If it’s the greatest novel ever written then that might be my loss but that again is a purely personal decision on my part.

As I mentioned before, perhaps if you were a person of color who has been called the N word you might also find things like this unacceptable, pathetic and frustrating. And as Virgil mentioned, Hemmingway’s use of the word is nothing like Twain’s in Huckleberry Finn which I actually enjoyed. There is no equivalent word that people of color could call a White person, nothing so humiliating or disgusting, but thankfully I’ve no desire to have a word that would compare. I hope this has satisfied your curiosity.

Darlin
I sympathize. While I've been called names, I can't quite know how you feel, since there is no one word such as the n word that could be thrown at me. On another thread I was criticized for rebuking someone who (while I don't think in his heart he is racist) came close in a poem. Here's how someone else replied to me:

Quote:

---

The important thing is, it's well written and holds the interest. When will people read the poem as a poem first, rather than looking for non-PC references?

---

I won't mention any names, but your post above here indicates why decency and manners are more important than how great a work of literature something is. Literature could go to hell if it's going to hurt someone. And besides, works of literature that intend to tear somebody down can never be great works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darlin

And for you or anyone to say the word had little power to offend at the time he used it is absolutely uninformed and completely wrong.

---

Here’s what I actually wrote:
“a word which at the time had very little of the power to offend it has now?”

If you can’t even read what I wrote with any degree of accuracy, I guess there is no point in my wasting any more time.

Virgil, the idea that Hemingway or anyone else has to be inoffensive by your standards to be worthy of being called ‘great’ is simply ludicrous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unnamable

Virgil, the idea that Hemingway or anyone else has to be inoffensive by your standards to be worthy of being called ‘great’ is simply ludicrous.

---

Ok, upon reflection they (being offensive & good literature) are not mutually exclusive. But why should I have any respect for an author who's blatently racist? Is literature that important? Is there a dearth of good literature? I'm not advocating banning anything. Decent people ought to shine the light of day on such crap, and let the author's character be stained for history. Such a stain would mean something to my honor. I wouldn't want to be remembered that way. I've put forth a great Ezra Pound poem in the Poem of the Week thread. Pound was a great poet, but I won't touch anywhere he expresses his racism, and certainly in my eyes he was a low-life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unnamable

Here’s what I actually wrote:
“a word which at the time had very little of the power to offend it has now?”

If you can’t even read what I wrote with any degree of accuracy, I guess there is no point in my wasting any more time.

Virgil, the idea that Hemingway or anyone else has to be inoffensive by your standards to be worthy of being called ‘great’ is simply ludicrous.

---

I read what you said and understood it. Apparently you didn't read through my post or didn't comprehend what I wrote. The word hurt then it hurts now, it wasn't less potent or less offensive then than it is now. Racists were racist then as they are now it's just that people are more politically correct now. And if anything with the Klan and Jim Crow it had the power to offend worse then not less. Nowadays young Black people use it as flippantly as you seem to view Hemmingway's use back then. That's ignorant.

In fact, your posts have led me to believe you're ignorant of what racism is and how it affects those who're abused by racists. As such you're right there's no need to waste time attempting to discuss this further. You apparently wish to remain ignorant. You asked what I thought, I told you and you replied with a childish comment completely dismissing my comments - so be it. You go ahead thinking what you like, they say ignorance is bliss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unnamable

If you can’t even read what I wrote with any degree of accuracy, I guess there is no point in my wasting any more time.

---

The Unnamable, once I asked you:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

Since on more than one occassion people have interpreted what you said in a different way than you intended, could it be possible that you are not as clear as you think you are? You should maybe consider the possibility that it is not only 'them' but also the way you express yourself?

---

And here I am still wondering the same thing. If you are not happy with the responses you receive, please feel free to ignore them.


Darlin, The Unnamable and everyone,

The Book Club is a very special part of the Forum, where those of us who would like to read books together meet. Please keep the discussions free of personal attacks and unnecessary frictions. If you don't like the discussions, feel free to ignore them but please do not ruin it for others who enjoy them.

Thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Darlin
I sympathize. While I've been called names, I can't quite know how you feel, since there is no one word such as the n word that could be thrown at me. On another thread I was criticized for rebuking someone who (while I don't think in his heart he is racist) came close in a poem. Here's how someone else replied to me:

I won't mention any names, but your post above here indicates why decency and manners are more important than how great a work of literature something is. Literature could go to hell if it's going to hurt someone. And besides, works of literature that intend to tear somebody down can never be great works.

---

Virgil, I wanted to thank you for sharing your opinions and stating them so well. After reading your thoughts I've decided Hemingway just isn't for some people, me in particular.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

The Unnamable, once I asked you: And here I am still wondering the same thing. If you are not happy with the responses you receive, please feel free to ignore them.


Darlin, The Unnamable and everyone,

The Book Club is a very special part of the Forum, where those of us who would like to read books together meet. Please keep the discussions free of personal attacks and unnecessary frictions. If you don't like the discussions, feel free to ignore them but please do not ruin it for others who enjoy them.

Thank you.

---

He asked a question I responded. It just happened to be about a particularly touchy subject and since there are few people of color on this forum I certainly don't expect everyone to understand that his question, which I'm assuming was asked in ignorance, was offensive to me and begged a response.

But sure, in the future you bet I won't respond to people who seem to alienate people whether intentionally or not, a sad quality in a person. And I won't ruin the book club by stating any opinion in the future that might rise someone's ire or curiosity thus enciting an response from me that others may not care for.

I apologize for upsetting and ruining the enjoyment of those who participated in the January book read, please accept my most sincere apologies. I had no intention of continuing the discussion as I mentioned before and you may rest assure it will never happen again.

Darlin,

I sincerely hope you understand that my reminder (which was addressed not only to you but to all) was not because you shared opinions and feelings on a subject which you feel very strongly about (which I respect and cannot claim to know how it feels). Those posts were made couple of days ago. However, the recent turn that the verbal exchanges have taken hardly seems like to prove fruitful or desirable for any of us.

As in the other parts of the Forum, in the Book Club we are all happy and eager to hear about others' interpretations and thoughts on the books we read. We all have so much to gain from each other's experiences and insights. However, once the posts begin to be laced with personal attacks and insinuations, they hardly achieve anything other than upsetting the parties involved. By ignoring such provocations, we can prevent unnecessary headaches for ourselves.

You may rest assured that the Forum Moderators are and will be doing their best to deal with those in the most appropriate manner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

I don't know if Hemingway was a racist. But he was inconsiderate in the way he threw epithets around. This is not the only place he uses the N-word. Hemingway was such a big admirer of Twains Huck Finn that sometimes when he uses the N word I get the feeling he's trying to emulate Twain. I don't know. But Twain's Nigger Jim was an endearing character, I don't get the feeling that hemingway is using it endearingly, if that's possible. Worst then the N-word, hemingway really slanders Jews in The Sun Also Rises. I wouldn't go as far as say he's anti-semitic, but he just spits these words out callusly. I've said somewhere in a different post that I ususally ignore (unless they are advocating slavery or genicide) these things if the writer was writing before WWII. After the halocaust there is no excuse for a writer to disparage ethnicity.

---

Thank you for bringing Mark Twain and Finn up, Virgil! :)

Not so long ago, we had a discussion on the Forum regarding this very issue; ie, whether Twain was racist. I am not sure if we can label an author as racist because he is reflecting the conditions of his time. Of course, glorifying and advocating racism would be a racist attempt but I am not sure if Hemingway actually does that in this particular book.

The authors create characters (some good, some bad) and then they have to fulfill the requirements of that particular character to make them look realistic but because the characters act in certain ways/say certain things, does that mean that the author himself is actually advocating those? Not every character is a replica of the author him/herself surely? For example, if there is a rapist or serial murderer in a book, does that mean that author is actually advocating those? (At this point, I am reminded of The French Lieutenant's Woman by John Fowles, in which Fowles suggests that once created, the characters are on their own and the writer has little say on their actions (because for them to be realistic the writer needs to let them grow and develop freely).

I think a lot depends on how the matter is handled and what the author is aiming to express by these things. It is also possible to argue that if we turn certain terms into taboos, we will never be able to educate the next generations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

I think a lot depends on how the matter is handled and what the author is aiming to express by these things. It is also possible to argue that if we turn certain terms into taboos, we will never be able to educate the next generations.

---

Yes I would absolutely agree. I can think of two types of situations where it might be appropriate. (1) If the author puts it into the mouth of a bad character to show what's in that character's heart. (2) if the author is creating the realism (verisimilitude, for those who are into the teechnical jargon of writing) of the time and place, like the American south in a William Faulkner or James Wright novel. Perhaps others might consider additional situations; if so, I would be interested. What it shouldn't be is gratuitous. The way Hemingway used it was gratuitous. I look at that passage and I don't see a reason for it.

As to Huck Finn, I had a black english professor way back in undergrad (Prof. Brown) who I had great respect for, consider this topic in class. He didn't have a problem with the use of the N- word in Twain's novel. But he still had a problem with the novel. He felt that Jim was too simple a person, being afraid of ghosts and superstitions. He felt it questioned black people's intelligence. At the time I felt that how much intelligence could a person raised as slave and without education have, and so I disagreed with Prof Brown on the basis of realism. Since then, I've thought about it further, and I still disagree with Prof Brown, but for a different reason. Jim, is what I call the moral center of the novel, that is right and wrong eminates from his character. Twain's point is that such a simple fellow is more moral than all the other sophisticated characters. Morality in Huck Finn is linked to the natural man, he who has not been distorted by society. Is the fact that the natural man, Jim, is black racist? I don't know; Huck himself is almost as natural, and yet he's not black. Frankly, except for that subtle implication I I think Twain's heart is in the right place.

The most amazing thing still grasped my inquisity is the meaning of the word "arms" , as it can both refers to weapon and the part of human body which was clasped when the two lovers departed.

I loved this book as well. I thought the way it was written is the most powerful of all the statements made. The prose is stream-of-consciousness-like so we get a real insight on what the character is thinking, the bad part is that the character is a typical Hemingway character: a Stoic. So he doesn't think much about his love or his troubles, just keeps calm; nothing compared with a Faulkner or Woolf character. But it is, nevertheless, an amazing book and the incredible juxtaposition of death (war) and life (nature) in the first paragraph of the book is still one of my favorite passages in any book I've read.

Hemingway went out of his way often to appear uncultured. Probably felt that might undermine his nihilistic manliness. The title is actually taken from an Elizabethan poem.

Nihilistic? What makes ou say he was nihilistic? And I disagree. He went out of his way to appear super cultured.

Booze, bullfighting, brawling and eventually suicide. Yup. Nihilism. And it's all there in his novels and stories disguised as manly stoicism. Of course he was educated and cultured and travelled but he deliberately wrote from the persona of a tough guy. Maybe it was an alter ego. Anyway he's MY favourite nihilist!

I think it's pretty obvious from A Farewell to Arms that Hemingway saw humankind as a self-destructing species and that there are only those that are saved by love that can flee this self-destruction. This might be some of the nihilism that Ennison sees in Hemingway, but I think the nihilism is not complete in Hemingway since LOVE always gives hope and a true nihilist would not even believe that this LOVE can save the earth. That's my opinion, at least for now...

from Merriam-Webster:

Quote:

---

nihilism
One entry found for nihilism.
Main Entry: ni·hil·ism
Pronunciation: 'nI-(h)&-"li-z&m, 'nE-
Function: noun
Etymology: German Nihilismus, from Latin nihil nothing -- more at NIL
1 a : a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless b : a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths
2 a : a doctrine or belief that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake independent of any constructive program or possibility b capitalized : the program of a 19th century Russian party advocating revolutionary reform and using terrorism and assassination

---

I think Hemmingway finds comfort in traditional values and rituals. His searching through Spain in The Sun Also Rises is a attempt to find moral truths in the traditions that have past. His moral code is hardly nihilistic. He finds the modern world troubling and his solution, perhpas implied, is to return to an earlier time. That is why Frederick Henry in A Farewell To Arms (as well as other heros in other works) is constantly assessing and the quality of wine wine and bullfighting and other cultural rituals. And so too, fishing and hunting. No where is he advocating a revolution of any sort. In fact he fights for noble efforts. His disillusion in A Farewell To Arms is not a nihilistic thought, but from the realization of the lack of nobility of WWI. In future novels, Hemmingway has heros fight in the Spanish Civil War and WWII, and there is no disillusionment there.

By the way, Hemmingway committed suicide because he was dying and didn't want to face the pain, not from any nihilistic idea.

I haven't read Farewell to Arms but just wanted to add... I've recently had the pleasure of watching part of this made-for-tv series: Michael Palin's (of Monty Python fame) "Hemingway Adventure".

If you have a chance to rent it from your local (public or school?) library or video store I highly recommend it if you want to get a humorous but thorough background of Hemingway. Also, this site below has some video clips from the series! :D

http://www.palinstravels.co.uk/static-132
.
.

He's still my favourite nihilist.

I still can't believe everyone here knows what "nihilist" means. I have a very large vocabulary for my age, and that word totally escapes me...

No latin roots i'm guessing haha.

Honestly, you people teach me almost two new words every time I'm on...