Maybe he introduced himself as Robert Jordan and the Spaniards were unsure how to address him, he being foreign.
Printable View
Maybe he introduced himself as Robert Jordan and the Spaniards were unsure how to address him, he being foreign.
It is not only the other characters that refer him like that. The narrator always calls him "Robert Jordan" as well.
Chapter 10.
It's odd that Hemmingway censors swear words when the violence is so horrific. I doubt Quentin Tarrantino could film that.
The reference to the worthless drunks reminded me of a history book called The Pursuit of the Millenium by Norman Cohn. It was real Name of the Rose stuff about Medieval heresies. Sometimes a charismatic leader would start a new heretical sect with an emphasis on poverty and brotherhood. They would start rampaging through the countryside and attack rich people, especially the clergy. Resentful peasants and especially drunken layabouts would eagerly join in. Then the guards would catch up and that would be that.
It is more of a comment upon society that Hemingway. He was forced to censor the swear words because the publishers would not print such words. On the other hand apparently society had not qualms about violence. Not so different from today really. While swearing is not quite the taboo it used to be, people will make a big todoo about nudity and sex, and barely raise an eyebrow when it comes to showing graphic violence on TV.Quote:
Originally Posted by kev67
Yes, it is odd.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
Are you sure you mean Maria? I thought Pilar was the pain in the neck. Maria is only annoying if you are a feminist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Darnay
I was amused by all the talk about the earth moving after Robert and Maria's hump in the heather. I wonder if this book is where the phrase comes from.
I love Pilar! No, my problem with Maria is how two dimensional she is, particularly when compared to other Hemingway women - such as Catherine and Brett.
Even though I like Maria I can understand that. It is true she is far less complex than many of Hemingway's other female characters. And I agree Pilar is great, and quite interesting. She is certainly an example of a very strong and independent woman.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Darnay
I have to say I was somewhat amused, and somewhat annoyed with Pilar's story about the Bullfighter, it seemed like something of an unnecessary diverge from the story and just kind of felt like Hemingway letting his own passion for bullfighting get in the way. He could not resist the urge to try and find somewhere in the book to mention bullfighting. So he creates this little side story that I did not really see as being relevant or bearing any great significance, but just this kind of rambling detour.
Maria is weak, but to be fair, she has not much alternative. She was rescued by the others, so she owes everyone her life. She is told what to do all the time, especially by Pilar. She has no skills except home-making ones such as cooking or cleaning. Her only trump cards are her youth and beauty, and naturally enough she is drawn to the young, blond foreigner with the bomb making skills.
Yes, that was a good chapter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
The story of the bullfighter helps in "humanizing" her a bit - showing that before they were "the rebels" they were ordinary people trying to live. But yes, I would not put it past Hemingway to slip a good bullfighting story in wherever he possible could.
How does the language in this book compare with Hemmingway's others? It often seems rather stilted. For example, in chapter 15 when the guards are chatting to each other, one of them replies to another: 'Yes. But they are not as formidable as our aviation. We have an aviation that is insuperable.' Is this an attempt to make English resemble Spanish, or does he always write like that?
Ah yes that is a good point. It does illustrate the way in which they were just ordinary people once before the war changed them into being rebels, having to live in caves in the mountains.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Darnay
Friction is mounting in the cave. It is difficult to imagine yourself 1) deliberately winding up a dangerous killer, 2) shooting someone you know even vaguely. Don Roberto has bigger cojones than I have.
Chapter 18 was interesting. Was the British economist (Mitchell, I think) a reference to a real person? The only famous British economist I can think of from that time was John Maynard Keynes. I can't imagine him roving around Spain during the Spanish Civil War. If it wasn't a reference to a real person then it seems an odd thing to write about. Robert Jordan's reminiscence of his discussion with Karkov in Gaylords about the POUM putsch was interesting. George Orwell fought with the POUM and wrote with great bitterness on how the communists had betrayed and murdered his friends. Karkov implied that the POUM were not very effective. iirc Orwell said not many of them had had much military experience, and that also it could take a long time to make decisions, because, as they were an anarchist group, decisions had to be negotiated and voted for. Orwell said it was still worth the trouble. Orwell was nearly killed himself. He was shot through the throat by a fascist. I cannot remember exactly how he got out, but I bet the communists later regretted letting him slip through their fingers.