We are reading Farewell to Arms in January. Please post your thoughts and questions on the book in this thread.
Book Club Procedures
Printable View
We are reading Farewell to Arms in January. Please post your thoughts and questions on the book in this thread.
Book Club Procedures
Crap, can we slow the months down I still haven't finished Love in the time of Cholera, The french Leuitenants woman, or Hogfather!!! Now Farewell to Arms?? Alright, anything for Ernie.
Some things to keep in mind:Quote:
Originally Posted by papayahed
The book was based on Hemingway's experience as a 19-year-old ambulance driver on the Italian front of World War I and his love affair with the older British nurse who took care of him after he was wounded. But, unlike Lt. Henry, Ernie never went over the wall as a deserter. And exactly how he was wounded is shrouded in mystery. The "official" version is in the book: he was blown up by an artillery shell while delivering cheese to troops in the field. But another version said he was taking a bath when the hot water heater blew up. Only Ernie knew the truth, but I suspect the second version is what really happened because friends and family back in Oak Park, Illinois, observed that he was very reluctant to discuss details of his wounding after he was declared a war hero upon returning home.
One of the most interesting parts of the novel is a strange aspect of the relationship between Lt. Henry and his nurse-lover. It borders on clinical paranoia as Lt. Henry muses that people who find happiness in love are doomed to be destroyed by "the world" (whatever that means.)
Hemingway re-wrote the last paragraph of the novel over 100 times. Read it as carefully as he wrote it because it's a masterpiece of understated emotion. The obvious things he omits is what makes the ending so powerful. (Hemingway once said what a writer leaves out is just as important as what he puts into a story -- which is a very Zenlike idea.)
The real British nurse dumped Ernie as too young to marry and he carried a torch for her for many years, even after he married another woman. You never forget your first love, etc.
Whatever you do, DON'T watch the two movie versions of this novel. The 30s version starred Gary Cooper, who acted as dumb as a fence post. In the 1957 version Rock Hudson delivered his lines like a shell-shock victim and Jennifer Jones' lipstick was all over her face.
(The link below to an in-depth analysis is no substitute for actually reading the book, but it may help to understand the story if you get stuck:
http://www.bookrags.com/notes/fta/)
I think Star is getting ahead of everyone. Let's start with the first chapter. Why does Hemingway start with this? No introduction of a character; just 2 pages for a whole chapter; 5 paragraphs in all; and all he basically talks about is the weather? Are the themes of the novel carefully imbedded here?
Papaya (I hope you don't mind me droping off the last syllable of your name; it seems so much more elegant), you'll find that A Farewell to Arms is a much faster read.Quote:
Originally Posted by papayahed
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Papaya is just fine, its waaayy better then P-hed which someone else tried to slip by me.
I think I read A farewell to arms previously but have no recollection of the book except the beginning part where he is injured.
P-hed!!! Now why didn't I think of that? I must be getting slow.Quote:
Originally Posted by papayahed
I have just started reading it (couple of chapters yet) but it is developing nicely although I am finding Hemingway's prose hard work... Half a page long sentences and all (This is my second Hemingway book read in English).Because Hemingway was desperate to impress his readers with his descriptive powers right from start??? :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I read the first chapter twice yesterday trying to place things... and I thought that he is talking more how weather affects the war (no more fighting because of snow) rather than talking 'about the weather' and how the small village where they are positioned is affected by all this. The picture drawn is far from being a pretty one and somewhat lacking passion... Detached almost.
I love this sentence:(Chapter 3)Quote:
I had drunk much wine and afterward coffee and Strega and I explained, winefully, how we did not do the things we wanted to do; we never did such things.
'Winefully' is such a nice way to put it.
Dispassionate and detached=understated, which was the essence of Hemingway's writing style. He thought it produced a more powerful impact on the reader than hyperbole.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
Descriptive narration was not a strong point at this stage of Hemingway's career. He was still in his 20s when he wrote "Farewell."
Let me answer some of my own questions, given that I've read this a couple of times. Here's what I think he's doing in the first chapter:Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
>He sets up the central mood of the novel, the dreary rain. Hem said he liked to write like Cezanne painted. I think he does this with the first chapter.
>The rain becomes important later on. It's also nature imposing itself on human events, again forshadowing.
>He also introduces the theme of modern mechanized life (tractors, motor-cars, guns, 6.5mm clip). Again this is important to the story.
>He ends the chapter with disease and death. Another forshadowing.
>And in the last sentence, he introduces irony ("only seven thousand died" "but it was checked"). Irony is a constant as the novel progresses.
To some degree, the first chapter is the novel in a miniature.
Since I haven't read the whole book, I cannot comment on how the first chapter relates to the rest of the novel but I find it rather matter of fact... and as I said earlier, quite detached; not one expects from a book about a war. However, I think that is maybe the point Hemingway was trying to make? That once you are caught up in it, even the war becomes an ordinary thing... Numbers are just figures on papers and people still carry on with their usual ways (drinking, dating etc), which seems rather trivial on the face of something as devastating as the war.
Re. Hemingway's descriptive powers... Even though I loved it in Old Man and The Sea, I am not so keen on it in this book. Maybe Starr has a point that his style was somewhat immature in this book. His dialogues are, on the other hand, very strong. They contrast wonderfully with his long and detailed narrative. They are short, sharp and snappy. I loved reading Chapter 5, which offers plenty of these. People don't even speak in full proper sentences but so plainly express themselves.
And could someone please tell me about the stick Catherine was carrying? Is it something like a whip? 'a thin rattan stick like a toy riding-crop, bound in leather'?
I was a little worried about her in Chapter 6 initially but I think I can understand her better now.
Looking to get one?Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
Not unless you recommend it!Quote:
Originally Posted by papayahed
;)
Actually, I never thought about that riding crop until you pointed it out. Catherine had it as a remembrance of her previous boy friend who was killed. It does fit with one of the themes Hemmingway is after: War is no longer the Romantic endeavor for young men, that the mechanized modern war has changed everything and has no sense of romance. The riding crop suggests the calvary or chivalry of a past age.
Let's discuss the chapters before Henry meets Catherine, for a moment. Hem is setting up two characters that are diametrically opposite: Rinaldi and the priest. With henry almost caught in between. What's that all about?
The riding crop did seem oddly out of place when it was first mentioned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I was wondering about the priest myself, was he an actual person or was he made up to be the "opposite". It doesn't seem to me that the priest and Rinaldi are opposites, just Different priorities....maybe.
The riding crop as a symbol seems heavy handed. What is she doing carrying it around? She doesn't have a horse. It does seem odd too; not one of the finer points of the novel.Quote:
Originally Posted by papayahed
I think they are a kind of opposites:
Rinaldi: experienced; surgeon, dealing with grim biological matters; from the city, I believe; visits prostitutes; thinks of women for biological needs, to put it in a nice way; atheist.
Priest: innocence; deals with metaphysical things; from the country; celibate; thinks the best of people; obviously not an atheist.
So that brings us to Frederic Henry and his relationship with Catherine. At first he's no different than Rinaldi and could be seen as following in his footsteps. Here's a quick scene from the end of chapter 5:
...Rinaldi was lying on his bed. He looked at me.
"So you make progress with Miss Barkley?"
"We are friends."
"You have that pleasant air of a dog in heat."
I did not understand the word.
"Of a what?"
He explained.
"You," I said "have that pleasant air of a dog who--"
"Stop it," he said. "In a little while we would say insulting things." He laughed.
"Good-night," I said.
"Good-night, little puppy."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Last night I was thinking that these 2 were perhaps examples of the different parts of Henry. He did claim to be an athiest yet took the St. Anthony medal.
Or maybe, how Henry was vs. how he will be, this is the one where his injuries left him "altered" correct?
I'm not sure of the answer. Perhaps you're right. Is Henry more like Rinaldi at the beginning? Probably closer to Rinaldi than the priest. I don't think Rinaldi is capable of love. Typically when an author does presents two characters like this he's presenting alternative paths for the central character. But what happens is he chooses neither. His relationship becomes more than hormonal. He falls in love with her. Some key sections:Quote:
Originally Posted by papayahed
The end of chapter 7:
"I went to the door and suddenly I felt lonely and empty. I had treated seeing Catherine very lightly, I had gotten somewhat drunk and had nearly forgotten to come but when I could not see her there I was feeling lonely and hollow."
And then toward the end of chapter 11, the priest says:
"Yes," he[the priest] said. You do. What you tell me about in the nights. That is not love. That is only passion and lust. When you love you wish to do things for. You wish to sacrifice for. You wish to serve."
And then at the end (why are all his key moments at the end of chapters?) of chapter 14:
"She went out. God knows I had not wanted to fall in love with her. I had not wanted to fall in love with any one. But God knows I had and I lay on the bed in the room of the hospital in Milan and all sorts of things went through my head but I felt wonderful..."
Has he been pursuaded by the priest? It seems to me he didn't have much of a choice. Love overtook him rather than choosing.
I found the riding crop absurd in that scene and somewhat in the book; especially because it was sent to Catherine by her dead fiance's family... It is not something you would like to have of your dead ex, is it? And it is surely not something you would like to carry with you during the war when you are a nurse working in a hospital. I am not sure that it symbolizes chivalry but I thought it might be suggestive about Catherine nature maybe but I don't think I have read enough to make any comments on that yet (Chapter 12).
I think the Priest and Rinaldi are reflecting different sides of Henry. It doesn't seem like he becomes more like the Priest later on to me. From the very beginning, he seems to be the only one who is 'in touch' with the priest and this is emphasised over and over again during the idle banters in the mess. He communicates with him in a way others do/cannot. And he is also able to talk and share things with Rinaldi too who seems to be interested in... lighter things in life.
I think by offering these two different characters as Henry's friends, Hemingway is trying to show what he is capable of; that there is more to him than mere womanising.
+Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
that's why math is sooo much better. :nod:
Only if it doesn't include differential equations! Calculus and below was good. Beyond calc, I lost it.Quote:
Originally Posted by papayahed
Let's not read too much into this (as I'm sure Hemingway would advise.) It's likely Hemingway was merely describing different real people he knew during the war in Italy. In military life the troops tend to practice one-upmanship and belittle each other for becoming too serious with one woman.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
Just got the book youve certinaly charged ahead wiuth this one I guess that means I'd better get cracking if I want to keep up
:D
Star - The characters are very carefully selected and drawn out in a particular way. There are themes Hem is after. These are not just randomly selected characters. Hem would not have built the reputation as a great writer if he didn't. If it seems realistic, that's a credit to Hemmingway's writing. Although their are elements of autobiagraphy here, it is not an autobiagraphy.Quote:
Originally Posted by starrwriter
I don't think trying to understand the main character in a novel is 'reading too much into' things. Like Virgil pointed out, there is a reason why Henry is presented in a certain way and the people around him help establish certain things about him and/or the background to the story.Quote:
Originally Posted by starrwriter
I mean if we had suggested that the sole reason Hemingway wrote this book was that his heart was broken by an English nurse and that he killed the female lead in the book because of he could not handle this rejection, then maybe we would be reading too much into things! ;) :p
Although it wasn't his sole reason, he was heart-broken and he didn't handle the rejection well at all. (He thought he kept seeing the nurse in crowds for years afterward.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
Killing off an old girlfriend in fiction can be quite therapeutic. I've done it more than once myself.
I am sure... In fiction, in real life... We all know the line gets blurred at times, Starr...Quote:
Originally Posted by starrwriter
:p
What have you heard?Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
I admit nothing. I deny everything.
At this point, I'd like to ask what the women especially on forum reading the novel think of Catherine. Feminist have criticized Hemingway for his portrayal of her. They find her submissive and simple. I tend to agree. As to submissive, well, that's Hemingway's perogative as the author, but I do think she's got no depth to her charcater. She strikes me as two dimensional, a stock figure. And for a major character to be so two dimensional I think it takes away from the novel. What do others think?
I agree with you, Virgil. Not that I'm too crazy about Rinaldi (those "baby's" are wearing on my nerves!), but Catherine has been driving me up a wall. I find her to be a chattery airhead with nothing to say. Not just that, though. She doesn't seem like the sort of person who's seen war. She's like an airy little debutante, instead of an experienced war nurse (V.A.D., more accurately). She deals with the victims of WWI artillery—notoriously gruesome injuries,—and it hasn't sobered her or made her think more deeply. Perhaps, in an era where everyone was sobered by war, that would have seemed attractive; innocence and vitality despite the horrors of war. But, really, come on now...
What the **** kind of twisted nonsense is that? I can see someone wanting to spend the night with that, but who could fall in love with it? Hemingway's ideal woman is a life-size Chatty Cathy doll. A Chatty-Cathy blow-up doll. I wonder if this is where they got the name for the doll? :pQuote:
"How many have you—how do you say it?—stayed with?"
"None."
"You're lying to me."
"Yes."
"It's all right. Keep right on lying to me. That's what I want you to do. Were they pretty?"
"I never stayed with anyone."
"That's right. Were they very attractive?"
"I don't know anything about it."
...
"I'll say just what you wish and I'll do what you wish and then you will never want any other girls, will you?" She looked at me very happily. "I'll do what you want and say what you want and then I'll be a great success, won't I?"
"Yes."
"What would you like me to do now that you're all ready?"
"Come to the bed again."
"All right. I'll come."
Miss Gage seems slightly more sane. I wish we'd gotten to know her better. I like Miss Gage and I like the priest. They seem quiet and level-headed.
grrr... I've got to put the book club on hold for this one. I'm preparing for teacher certification exams and this one's not on the reading list.
I've only gotten to Chapter 16 and Miss Barkley is annoying. Especially in the beginning, the second or third time Henry and Catherine met she begged him to say "I love you". Who does that????
Do you think Hemingway's Miss Barkley was anything like the one he described in the book? Your right Em, I can't see a battlefield nurse acting like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by emily655321
I was hoping Miss Gage stuck around....darn it.Quote:
Miss Gage seems slightly more sane. I wish we'd gotten to know her better. I like Miss Gage and I like the priest. They seem quiet and level-headed
Well, I've only gotten to Chapter 22, so she may make a revival. But at the moment it isn't looking hopeful to me.
Finished the book two days ago and have been thinking about it since then (yeah, it is a slow and painful process for some of us so we thank you for your patience and... Please watch this space! :p)
Couple of points:
-I agree with most of the sentiments expressed regarding Cat... She seems so very out of place in the war but should we blame Hemingway for it? We usually assume that the lead character in a book = writer but that is not necessarily true, is it? It is possible that Hemingway is critical of men like Henry who fall simply for looks. We hardly ever see him think or say anything about Cat other than how 'beautiful' and 'wonderful' she is. That speaks more about Henry's character than Cat's, I believe, for falling for her.
-Another thing which I wonder is that... These characters seem very un-war-like in the midst of a terrible war when we take their words at their face value. However, is it possible that this is just a way of escape for them? The WWI is, after all, the first of its kind... For the first time, people start to question the validity of wars; patriotism seemed like an empty idea because they did not know mostly what they were fighting for (the Italian soldiers question this many times in the book). Also, the devastation it caused was at an unseen scale as well so it was only natural for people to be shocked by it. In the middle of this confusion, I wonder, if people, like Henry and Cat, seeked for a refuge. The constant repetition of how 'wonderful' and 'grand' things are along with how 'good' and 'darling' they are made me think that they might be simply trying to persuade themselves that it was so despite the raging war.
So is it possible that Henry and Cat are nothing but two scared, lost souls trying not to lose their sanity in the midst of a meaningless war by playing some kind of a pretending game (like children playing 'Mommies and Daddies')?
I found the exchange between the Swiss guards most absurd and funny! :D
Catherine is starting to remind me of Gollum:
I'm scared of the rain
I'm not scared of the rain
Oh I wish I wasn't scared of the rain...
sheesh...
If she lived in today you know she'd be one of those chick on the talk show.... My man cheated on me with my sister, but I love him with all my heart and want him back...
Scher, you make a good point. It does seem to me that the mood of the book attempts the "We're just a couple of kids caught in this crazy war" angle.
When I read this my first thought was, "You can say that again!" :p But I also considered whether that was the whole point. I realized that Hemingway wrote Catherine as such a silly thing deliberately, not through some oversight or sexist bias (well, he may still have had that, but not necessarily let it cloud the writing process). When he writes, "No one ever understood it except you," could Hemingway be alluding to the thrusting of responsibilty by "powers that be" onto the shoulders of those not capable of enduring it? No one cared that Catherine was just a "simple girl" when they began the war; no one thought of the people who would really be fighting it, all the children and peasants sucked into the storm and expected to carry such a burden. Do you think Catherine is supposed to inspire pity? I think it's a likely case, but I don't think Hemingway quite hit the mark. Whether he meant to or not... he created Catherine Barkley. :lol: :rolleyes:Quote:
"You're a fine simple girl," I said.
"I am a simple girl. No one ever understood it except you."
Excellent points here about Catherine. Let me open this up a little wider. Does anyone think that Hemingway's male characters are realistic? I don't mean Fredrick Henry, all the others. All the male characters other than the central character that is essential a stand in for Hemingway himself? Rinaldi? The Priest? Count Greffi?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4611956.stmQuote:
Fire razes Hemingway island haunt
Hemingway killed himself in 1961
A hotel known as a haunt of US novelist Ernest Hemingway has been destroyed in a fire in the Bahamas.
The blaze broke out on Friday morning at the Compleat Angler on the island of Bimini, 50 miles (80km) off Florida.
Owner Julian Brown was presumed dead. There were no immediate reports of other casualties in the incident.
The flames also consumed memorabilia housed in the hotel's museum on the famous writer, who worked there on to Have and Have Not in the 1930s.
Hemingway is said to have drunk at The Compleat Angler between fishing trips around Bimini.
The site was a key tourist attraction.
"It's a tremendous pain to bear," Bimini Chief Councillor Natasha Bullard-Rolle said.
Lost artefacts included books autographed by Hemingway and original photographs, she said.
The cause of the fire is under investigation.
Oh, that's a shame. :( But I'm a little relieved, too; when I read the first line I thought it might be the home with all the cats.
Since no one is responding to me, I'll just repond to myself. I feel that Hemingway has problems fleshing out characters, other than the stand in for himself. Rinaldi is just a little too cynical and the priest is a little too idealistic and the Count is a little too romantic. For minor characters, I think he gets away with it. But Catherine is not a minor charcter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil