The Sun Also Rises

Printable View

08-09-2011, 04:40 PM
HSstudent

The Sun Also Rises

First let me say that I am a high school student who has to read this book as part of my summer work for my AP literature class. I'm not excellent at reading comprehension, but i would describe myself as decent. On my AP language exam i scored a 4 (5 is the highest). Anyways, I am 100 pages through this book and I find it extremely boring and tough to read. After each chapter I go on sparknotes and find that I missed key parts in each chapter. There does not seem to be a conflict or anything to drive the story. The dialogue is sometimes confusing and hard to follow who is even speaking. Plus, the dialogue seems so childish and pointless. Each page seems to be filled with useless babble and Jake drinking or eating with someone at a bar. Sorry for the rant but is there something that I am missing?
08-09-2011, 04:46 PM
Intuition

It is a Roman à clef. It is written in order to express the notions of what Stein coined as "The Lost Generation."

Also, his literary style.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceberg_Theory
08-09-2011, 04:57 PM
Mutatis-Mutandis

I doubt a high school student will know what "Roman à clef" means. Hell, I don't know what it means either. Would it have been hard to say "novel with a key" in this case?

Anyways, Hemingway is definitely one of those love/hate authors. I wouldn't say you're missing something--you just don't like him, obviously. I say bring it up in class, air your grievances. You obviously have the ability to articulate why you don't like the book beyond the usual student response of, "I don't know, it's boring." It can help get conversation going. Unless you're in one of those no-discussion classes, in which case, I'm sorry.
08-09-2011, 05:01 PM
Intuition

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi

I doubt a high school student will know what "Roman à clef" means. Hell, I don't know what it means either. Would it have been hard to say "novel with a key" in this case?

It wouldn't of been hard, but "a novel with a key," sounds horrible in English. Besides, I'm sure that it will be a healthy addition to his vocabulary when he concocts his project of Hemingway.
08-09-2011, 06:50 PM
HSstudent

I am now on page 150 and I'm starting to appreciate his style with dialogue. The scene where Mike and Robert argued was quite entertaining but I found the descriptions of the river and their fishing experience over the top. He writes the same thing over and over again about the mountains, the hills, etc :flare:

To mutatis: I'm not sure if my class next year will be discussion based but the strange thing is I actually really liked old man and the sea once I learned the deeper meanings within the book

And to intuition: I didn't know what that term meant..lol, but thanks for the link. Sparknotes is always a good source to find the hidden meanings in a work. Going to look at the themes though when I'm finished completely.
08-09-2011, 07:53 PM
dfloyd

This is one of Hemingway's greatest novels.

I have read it at least five times, and it gets better each time I read it. Hemingway's writing wont get any better, but remember you're only a high school student, so your comprehension of great literature is sure to improve.
08-09-2011, 11:00 PM
Mutatis-Mutandis

Quote:

Originally Posted by dfloyd

I have read it at least five times, and it gets better each time I read it. Hemingway's writing wont get any better, but remember you're only a high school student, so your comprehension of great literature is sure to improve.

Many people with a wonderful comprehension of "great" literature absolutely loathe Hemingway, so what's your point?
08-10-2011, 06:03 AM
wessexgirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi

Many people with a wonderful comprehension of "great" literature absolutely loathe Hemingway, so what's your point?

:yesnod: Runs in to put up hand to say I'm one of those people, and quickly runs away again before I'm caught in the crossfire. I don't like Fitzgerald either........runs for cover :).
08-10-2011, 07:13 AM
kelby_lake

In theory, I really like Hemingway's work, but it only really works in short bursts. I find it hard to really get into his novels. It's certainly a style you have to get used to, but it can be quite enjoyable, such as in The Sun Also Rises or A Moveable Feast.
08-10-2011, 01:39 PM
Buh4Bee

That's funny, because I agree. There are times when I wonder why Hemingway is so well loved. The Sun Also Rises is a great drama. I appreciate A Movable Feast after I was able to "get" why it is so influential. I had a hard time finishing For Whom the Bell Tolls.
08-10-2011, 02:09 PM
Patrick_Bateman

His depiction of the bull fight is magical.
08-10-2011, 02:41 PM
Rores28

Liking literature or any sort of art isn't as simple as "I'm smart therefore I should like the stuff that other smart people said was good."

Much of what makes Hemingway enjoyable is what the characters aren't saying, and I believe it is intentional that one loses track of who is talking when. Hemingway is a style that grows on you... or perhaps it doesn't but I've rarely seen a novel so often loathed and questioned as "The Sun Also Rises" with the exact same complaints, only to have the reader read more deeply and gather some info from some outside sources and voila they are a fan. Happened to me, my buddy, I think my girlfriend, and probably like 1 person per month on this website.
08-10-2011, 03:49 PM
HSstudent

Just finished reading and I guess the book was OK. Was I the only one that felt bad for Cohn? He was always being provoked by Mike and he (Mike) got what he deserved. On the other hand, it was sad to see Cohn lose it and attack Romero as well.

Now I got to do this assignment and then read Pride and Prejudice :smash:
08-10-2011, 06:09 PM
Emil Miller

Quote:

Originally Posted by HSstudent

Now I got to do this assignment and then read Pride and Prejudice :smash:

You are indeed to be pitied.
08-10-2011, 10:47 PM
Mutatis-Mutandis

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emil Miller

You are indeed to be pitied.

:iagree: :lol:
08-11-2011, 06:39 AM
kelby_lake

What's wrong with Pride and Prejudice? I think it's a witty persepective on 19th century social mores. Perhaps it's not as appealing to men though.
08-11-2011, 07:31 AM
wessexgirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

What's wrong with Pride and Prejudice? I think it's a witty persepective on 19th century social mores. Perhaps it's not as appealing to men though.

Exactly. I feel more pity for HSS having to read Hemingway!
08-11-2011, 09:37 AM
Emil Miller

Quote:

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

What's wrong with Pride and Prejudice? I think it's a witty persepective on 19th century social mores. Perhaps it's not as appealing to men though.

There is nothing wrong with Pride and Prejudice but I was thinking that it's going to be a bit disorienting as a study subject after The Sun Also Rises.

Rather like having to study Samuel Beckett after Terence Rattigan.
08-11-2011, 10:17 AM
Alexander III

Quote:

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

What's wrong with Pride and Prejudice? I think it's a witty persepective on 19th century social mores. Perhaps it's not as appealing to men though.

This may sound cliche, but people who enjoy Hemingway usually don't highly appreciate Austen - and vice versa. They are very different writers who oddly enough are rather similar, in that with both of them, what is of importance is not what is said, but rather what is unsaid.

As for Hemingways prose, I am not a huge fan of minimalism, I much prefer writers like Fitzgerald and Conrad and Proust - but Hemingway has such craft that he takes a style which I don't like and makes it beautiful.

I think that TSAR and Gatsby are the two novels which best capture the new age, the new century if you will. They are the two novels which understood best what was to come and what was for the 20th century.

Much like Werther and Renne and Childe Harold were the 3 books which best captured the new age coming with the 19th century.
08-11-2011, 02:30 PM
Rores28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alexander III

This may sound cliche, but people who enjoy Hemingway usually don't highly appreciate Austen - and vice versa. They are very different writers who oddly enough are rather similar, in that with both of them, what is of importance is not what is said, but rather what is unsaid.

:thumbs_up
08-11-2011, 03:11 PM
Intuition

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emil Miller

There is nothing wrong with Pride and Prejudice but I was thinking that it's going to be a bit disorienting as a study subject after The Sun Also Rises.

Rather like having to study Samuel Beckett after Terence Rattigan.

There is truth in that statement, although Rattigan and Beckett were contemporaries. It would be more accurate to say: it would be like reading Beckett, and then reading Tolstoy.

Although the subject matter may be disliked by males, it is impossible to dislike one of the first few novels that employed free indirect speech. Of course that would only compel critics to read it.
08-11-2011, 05:11 PM
Mutatis-Mutandis

Quote:

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

What's wrong with Pride and Prejudice? I think it's a witty persepective on 19th century social mores. Perhaps it's not as appealing to men though.

It's not that there's something wrong with Austen, it's just that they're going from one "boring" classic to another. It would have been nice to mix things up a bit with something more contemporary or exciting, even just a short story.
08-13-2011, 06:02 AM
Tournesol

Hello HS!

I wish I had seen your thread sooner [would that I were on Litnet more frequently!]

I have taught 'The Sun Also Rises' to my high school students, and they all expressed similar sentiments as you. You must remember the times in which the novel is set. Once you have this historical time-set, which is post world war, coupled with the loss of belief in love and faith, you will understand that the characters are basically waiting to die.

The novel doesn't tell a story, rather it portrays a static situation. It's almost as if you are looking at a still picture - you have to interpret what the characters are thinking and feeling. All this is portrayed by the relationship between Bret and Jake: it's a stagnant relationship: she's a nymphomaniac, but he's impotent, in other words, she needs sex - a lot, and he will never be able to 'rise' to the occasion. They love eachother, but they can never truly satisfy one another.

Sad to say, the characters' lives - the nothingness, the hopelessness, the loss - are a reflection of the modern western society. Due to the loss felt by millions of people around the world after the world wars, people can no longer believe in god, or in love. And this is what the novel seeks to tell us: that love is as satiating as the drinks they have [it's never enough], and that faith is given as much regard as Jake's acknowledgement of the church in pamploma - which isn't much!

If there is anything to really call a plot, one can claim that the characters are perhaps unconsciously trying to find that love and faith that they had lost. However, they are afraid to find it, because they know that it will only lead to disappointment once more. This is why we feel so sorry for Cohn at the end of the novel - he's the only one who didn't get the memo - that love and faith are old news - he still believed in both, and what did it get him? Disappointment. Loss.

I know it may be too late, but I hope this little interpretation was of interest and of assistance.