Printable View
I'm not far in the novel, only on page 70 and so far it seems ok but I'm having a hard time reading it do to the way it's written. It seems like he's trying to give a sense of foreigners struggling to speak English.
How did you guys manage through the book?
prior to the Spanish civil war, after which he was barred from Spain by the Franco government. I don't speak Spanish, so I can't criticise the English used in the dialog written by Hemingway. I have heard Amrican students comment on the use of thee and thou as sounding biblical. I read the novel several times in my 20s and 30s, and for my part, I never had a problem with the novel. With the introduction of the more formal Spanish into the book, but in English, I can see where some might have a problem. I never did. Each time I read it, I thoroughly enjoyed it, as I have all of Hemingway's novels, but I am a Hemingway enthusiast. His prose flows, so just go with the flow, and enjoy the story of the American, Robert Jordan, and The Maria.
I read it in Icelandic unfortunately. always wanted to read it in English but I never had a problem and really loved it. sometimes it takes a while to get used to the language but when you get into it it's easy...
If you keep in mind that he never says anything in Spanish that is crucial to the events going on without clearing things up in English, that may help. I finished the work for the first time a week or so ago and thought it worth the time, if that tells you anything.
I am kinder to the novel now than I was as a student, but its tone and context does have a stilted feel, like prosaic grand opera.
I read For Whom the Bell Tolls many years ago as a teenager, not as a school assigned work but just because I wanted to. I don't now have a copy on hand to look at, so I can't comment on the diction. However, I don't remember having any difficulty or concerns with readability. It might be helpful to consider that we cannot expect every book to 'sound' the same, that writers' styles vary widely, and that is one of the things that make reading literature so interesting. Try to adapt to and appreciate his prose style in this novel, and his choice of diction. Perhaps do a little research that might shed light on his use of archiac diction in this novel.
I'm hispanic, and I didn't have a problem with any of it. I've only read it in english. I kind of figured that's how an english speaker would interpret spanish. What I do know is I fell in love with the story and after a while the language wasn't a problem I was so involved in their world.
I read it in Spanish many years ago, and I don't know what the original is like, but I remember it as an enjoyable novel despite too many violent scenes. My advice is, keep on reading :)
I'm currently reading it myself and I think so far that it's absolutely incredible. I can't imagine any one (that speaks English fluently) having trouble with understanding the story. Part of why I love it so much is that it really is very concise at least so far. I read most of it a few years ago but took it back to the library too soon, I got this novel (as well a book of his complete short stories) for Christmas though and so I started from the beginning. Several years ago I read A Farewell To Arms and from what I remember liked it a lot. I don't want to spoil it for some one who hasn't already read it but the chapter where the "fascists" are thrown off a cliff is one of the horrific yet interesting description I've come across.
One of Hemingway's best, if not his most under-rated novel. The only awkward moment in the diction I found was his literal translation of Spanish profanity (obsenity in the milk...), which may have been a bit of a middle finger to the censors of sorts. I found the portrayal, much like Farewell to Arms at times, to be uncompromising. The pulse of Robert Jordan provides a calm to the storm, but he's humanized by love & kept honest.
The most dynamic element of the story had to be the singularity of Pablo's wife- perhaps Hemingway's most 3 dimensional female character. The spilled courage of Pablo strengthened her to a point where she almost had a paternal affect on the surrounding characters.
My favorite book by Hemingway. As far as reading and understanding it - I read it when I was 30 years old or so. I think this can have a profound impact on how one views a novel. I know if I tried to read a book like East of Eden for instance, when I was a teen, I probably would not have liked it
Hemingway's short stories were always clearly written. They are a very basic dialog. There was a short story that I read that offered a conversation between two people, but they did not talk directly about the subject. Instead they talked, and the reader had to guess what it was that they were talking about. What they were talking about was the termination of a pregnancy. Anyway, it was the most difficult form of writing but it has nothing to do with the language, and more to do with his style. I read part of this book "For Whom the Bell Tolls" but I stopped reading at about the point where the guy was climbing underneath the bridge and rigging it with explosives. It didn't interest me to read about that subject. It was too boring.Quote:
Originally Posted by spookymulder93
I bought the book around 2 years ago because I hadn't read a book in about 10 years and wanted to start reading again, and I still haven't finished it. I'm almost to chapter 19 now. Easily the hardest book I've ever tried to read. Not because of the dialog though. Hopefully I'll finish it one day.
We read it in the forum book club a year or two ago. It reminded me of all those 50s, 60s and 70s war films in which a good half is scene setting and lots of talking before it finally gets going in the 2nd half. The book was ok, but I was a little disappointed with it.
Was one of those war films For Whom the Bell Tolls? ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by kev67
I finally read this last year. I quite enjoyed it, although I did find myself saying: "Isn't it time to blow that bridge already?" I also read Mailer's The Naked and the Dead for the first time last year. Compared to that one, For Whom the Bell Tolls gets right down to business.
I read it a long time ago, translated in Greek, so language was not a challenge. As far as I remember I wasn't impressed, definitely not my favorite... Now I'm thinking I might have wronged it and might go for it again...
I've read it, and The Old Man and the Sea in high school... didn't enjoy either.
I don't like Hemingway the man, and I sure don't appreciate his "economical" prose.
So if you weren't impressed with For Whom the Bell Tolls, you aren't alone in that sentiment.
I wasn't impressed by the book, but I''m not impressed by most of Hemingway's novels. Short stories were definitely his milieu. The Sun Also Rises, however is his excellent outlier, where his "minimalist" style actually works in novel form. If FWTBT keeps disappointing you, you might want to give it a try.
Hemingway is my favorite author. For Whom the Bell Tolls is his best novel, but I'll agree that his short stories are better. FWTBT is a very romantic novel, both literally and in the nineteenth century sense. It's full of long passages about the beauty of nature, young people in love, and men dying tragically for a good cause. Hemingway's style in this book might not translate well, since it isn't really "minimalist" or "economical" the way the above posters describe it. It's very poetic prose, full of rhythms and repetitions. If you are stalling out in one of the earlier sections, I wouldn't recommend The Sun Also Rises to you. I'd recommend his autobiography A Moveable Feast. It is light and fast paced in comparison to the more lyrical FWTBT. The Old Man and The Sea is the real good condensed purified uncut Hemingway. It's novella length and contains most of the themes he worked on throughout his career. Or you could just try his best short story The Snows of Kilimanjaro.
I agree. I can't stand Hemingway the man/myth. I mean the awful macho posturing, the tedious 'world-weary', 'man-of-the-world', 'I've-seen-it-all' pose. Ugghh:ack2: If you want to know about the Spanish Civil war, read Orwell's Homage to Catalonia. For some reason Hemingway has a reputation as the great novelist of 20th century warfare. But Hemingway was no soldier. He just flitted around the edge of war zones, desperate for a light wound and a few anecdotes he could bore everyone with while he drank. He was a braggart, bully and show off. If you want to know what war is really like, read Robert Graves' Goodbye to all that, a work by a man who'd taken part in bayonet charges, fought hand to hand and yet hasn't a fraction of the posturing of Hemingway. Or read the poetry of Siegfried Sassoon and Wilfred Owen, real soldiers who really experienced the horror of war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Sparrow
There is no doubt that Hemingway was a very talented novelist, but he is overrated. You soon grow sick of that stripped down prose. Saying it all by saying nothing, or very little, is fine and clever in a few short stories or a single novel, but it quickly becomes irritating.
Hemingway wasn't an actual soldier, but he did have more experience of war than your average war correspondent. He was an ambulance driver in WW1 who took shrapnel in his leg carrying a wounded soldier to safety. Then he covered the war in Greece, the Spanish Civil War, and WW2 for newspapers. He even violated his journalistic oath when he blew up some Nazis with a grenade. Along with his expert knowledge of hunting and guns, I'd say that he knew enough to write about the subject convincingly. There are even parts of For Whom the Bell Tolls that are so vivid and realistic that they strike me as authentic occurrences which he's weaved into his narrative. I speak of the massacre in the village, the siege of the hill, and the betrayal at the bridge.Quote:
Originally Posted by WICKES
The Canadian writer Morley Callaghan outboxed Hemingway, but that doesn't mean he wrote better boxing stories. In fact, most boxers like most soldiers can't write literature very well at all. I get that you have a bias against Hemingway for being macho, but try to put your feelings about the man aside when you read his books. I loved Orwell's Homage to Catalonia even though I didn't agree with his anarchist sympathies. Siegfried Sassoon is good, but a tad flowery in his prose. Wilfred Owen, there isn't that much of and he has a touch of that "world weary" "I've seen it all" pose you claim to dislike about Hemingway. I'll add that James Jones' Thin Red Line and From Here to Eternity aren't as well written as Hemingway's novels even though he'd seen combat. Ditto Norman Mailer's The Naked and the Dead. General Patton comes off as a whiny little poser in his writing. General Rommel makes his account of winning an iron cross blasé. Although, Remarque's All Quiet on the Western Front is excellent. With the Old Breed by Eugene Sledge is good. Tim O'Brien's short story The Things They Carried is another good one. But you are just as likely, perhaps more likely, to get a good war book by a journalist as by a soldier. Michael Herr's Dispatches is fantastic. And I liked what I read of Marguerite Higgins and Keith Douglas in The Norton Book of Modern War. I've only seen the movie adaptation but Mark Bowden's Black Hawk Down is very popular with fans of this genre. The historian Stephen Ambrose never fired a shot in anger before penning Band of Brothers. Considering that so many good books about war have been written by non-soldiers, taking Hemingway to task is like complaining that Robert Graves wasn't really a Roman.
I live in Florida and vacationed once in Key West, where Hemingway is legend... wish the tour guide told the real story of Mr.Hemingway; the heavy drinking, the bullying of men he knew he could better in a fight, the loss of talent, his pathetic womanizing, his self-mythologizing. One thing we know for certain, the one fair fight he took part in; a boxing match with a minor Canadian writer named Morley Callaghan at the American Club in Paris in the Summer of 1929, hosted by F Scott Fitzgerald, ended badly for him. Morley easily knocked him to the canvas. Hemingway never got over it, even decades later making endless excuses over Fitzgerald's timekeeping.Quote:
Originally Posted by WICKES
There is something to be said about Hemingway's style, it was counter to writers like Fitzgerald who often painted a picture with too many colors... but as you said, Hemingway was better suited for the short form. I put Ernest Hemingway in the same camp with Truman Capote (I know, it would seem the two were as different as can be):); they gave the literary world a much needed shot in the arm with a different approach to storytelling, were overtaken by fame, and then succumbed to their own bull****.
You conveniently skipped the part about Hemingway not shipping out to Europe in what would seem a heroic, or even timely manner... in fact he was in Havana for months after America declared war, drinking-fishing-whatnot... eventually he devoted himself to the cause by hunting for Nazi submarines in a wooden fishing boat. Which is either a grandiose display of manliness, or insanity... take your choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
And rightfully so. He's one of the best writers America has ever produced. I put him right up there with Twain who's a legend in Hannibal, MO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Sparrow
If sack and sugar be a fault,Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Sparrow
God help the wicked! if to be old and merry be a
sin, then many an old host that I know is damned:
Besides Fitzgerald or maybe Ezra Pound, whom he sparred with from time to time, who might you be referring to?Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Sparrow
As far as I can tell, he was only getting better. His best short story The Snows of Kilimanjaro comes out when he's 37. He writes his best novel For Whom the Bell Tolls when he's 41. He writes his masterpiece The Old Man and the Sea when he's 53. A Moveable Feast published just after he dies ( is phenomenal, better than his early novels, and the unfinished Islands in the Stream contains passages of genius. No doubt it could have been shaped into a much better book had he lived.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Sparrow
Is womanizing really pathetic? Maybe, from a woman's point of view.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Sparrow
It's hard to fault a man for knowing just how good he is. Humility may be a virtue, but I can't think of many really good writers who possessed it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Sparrow
Speaking as a fan of boxing, a four minute round makes a very big difference. Men often pace themselves for three minutes. It can be pretty grueling without the mandatory rest period between rounds which often saves a fighter. Fighters usually empty their gas tank in the last minute and then expect to recharge in their corner, so depending how tired you are, at what pace you set, or how the fight is going the length of the round is very important. When time keepers make mistakes in professional boxing the losing boxer has grounds for appeal to the commission sanctioning the fight to have the result overturned and to schedule a rematch. Honestly, I'd be upset too if I lost at any competition due to someone tinkering with the rules. In this situation, it seems clear that Hemingway was getting the worst of it, and Fitzgerald who couldn't best Hemingway himself decided to not call time and let Callaghan do it for him. I don't know if that's passive aggressive, or actual aggressive, but it does seem underhanded, sneaky, and not the sort of thing a friend would do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Sparrow
People get hurt in the ring all the time like that. Currently, Floyd Mayweather Jr. is being sued by members of his gym for a thirty minute long grueling sparring session without rounds, which he encouraged the boxers to engage in for an episode of Showtime's All Access. In addition to civil damages, Mayweather could have his gym license revoked for encouraging unsafe training conditions. A tough guy like you might be able to take punches all day, but as you can see, in the boxing world, having a full grown man hit you for sixty seconds longer than you agreed to is kind of a big deal.
I don't see it that way at all. I see a very sensitive talented man who's family has a history of severe mental illness, struggling with his demons for much of his adult life before tragically succumbing to crippling depression.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Sparrow
He was 46 and 4F with all of his medical problems. It was pretty heroic of him to try to hunt for submarines in the coastal waters but ultimately it is a bit quixotic, and I think he realized that. Which is why he joined a newspaper to cover the war as a correspondent and be closer to the action.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Sparrow