June 2008: Ernest Hemingway: A Farewell To Arms

[Peder]

In democratic communities, each citizen is habitually engaged in the contemplation of a very puny object: namely, himself. If he ever raises his looks higher, he perceives only the immense form of society at large or the still more imposing aspect of mankind. His ideas are all either extremely minute and clear or extremely general and vague; what lies between is a void.

I've resisted, and given it a night, but on rereading, I still have to say that sounds like deTocqueville bloviating in a way that I have heard others from outside our borders run down the concept and practice of democracy that I for one happen to enjoy and admire. Democracy is not a concept that is universally admired elsewhere -- frequently being derided as 'mobocracy' -- and that is an alley of discussion that has proven bruising to walk down on other forums. I'm steering clear here.

 

[pontalba]

The "simplicity" of Hemingway can be considered an American trait. Alexis DeTocqueville made note of it in his masterpiece writing,

William Faulkner. Typical American. Not what one would classify as "simple" in any way, shape, form or manner.

Mr. DeTocqueville sounds a bit biased.

 

[SeoulMan]

Just some comments on matters of form:

In Ch. 27 (p. 169 in my copy), Hemingway wrote: 'I was always embarrassed by the words sacred, glorious, and sacrifice and the expression in vain.'

It threw me a bit because I'd rather see it written with the words and expressions in quotes, as follows: 'I was always embarrassed by the words "sacred," "glorious," and "sacrifice" and the expression "in vain." '

At the end of Ch. 30, Hemingway uses the first person plural pronoun "we" instead of the singular "I" when he described Frederic March drifting in the river current on a piece of timber: 'The water was very cold. We passed the brush of an island above the water.' He continues with this form at the beginning of the next chapter, Ch. 31.

I had to do a double-take because at first, I wondered if there was anyone else floating with him. LOL!

In Ch. 33 (and elsewhere), Hemingway has this annoying (to me) habit of suddenly shifting to a new venue/scene which made me think, "Oh, we're THERE now?!" For example, in Ch. 33 (p. 217 in my copy), after he left the wine shop, he took a cab:

'...and picked up a cab at the edge of the little park. I gave the driver the address of the hospital. At the hospital I went to the porter's lodge."

I admit, this is not the best example, but I remember how I was startled several times throughout the book during my reading at how fast he jump cuts from one venue to another without much warning. Sometimes, he buries the transition within a paragraph, which makes me miss it. Maybe it's just me.

 

[Peder]

No SeoulMan, It's not just you. I noticed some of those jump cuts too. I always tend to think that if that is the way the author wrote it, then that is the way he wants it, for some literary or plot effect or other. But, as you also seem to do, I notice them but have trouble seeing the purpose. So I don't know what to say.

 

[saliotthomas]

One question bother me more than the book itself.
The silence of some of the usual tenors of BOTM around this book.What is it,no opinion,no interest,a bad one you find unworthy of the discussion,other...?

 

[Peder]

One question bother me more than the book itself.
The silence of some of the usual tenors of BOTM around this book.What is it,no opinion,no interest,a bad one you find unworthy of the discussion,other...?

Thomas,
Maybe your question itself is the answer.
Before then, however, I think it is certainly a novel worthy of discussion as BOTM. It is by one of America's most famous authors who also won the Nobel Prize for literature. He is described as having changed the style of writing in the twentieth century, and has been on the list for my own personal project to read works of every American author. So I am very glad to have read Farewell to Arms and especially to have discussed it with other serious readers in BOTM.

Is it average, great, above average or below average, though, sounds like a good single question for each of us to answer that I would prefer to answer when more of us have finished reading. That in itself should be a good discussion and exchange of views.

My answer is in the little sealed envelope.

So how many are still reading?

 

[pontalba]

I'm trying to make progress, not the books fault, interference from Life.

It's becoming more enjoyable though, and I fully intend to finish asap.

 

[saliotthomas]

I like your observations Seoulman,and about

At the end of Ch. 30, Hemingway uses the first person plural pronoun "we" instead of the singular "I" when he described Frederic March drifting in the river current on a piece of timber: 'The water was very cold. We passed the brush of an island above the water.' He continues with this form at the beginning of the next chapter, Ch. 31.

.
I think it just him and the log he is floting on.He must have got attach to it somehow.he says "we move" but "i look" the log not having the gift of sight.

It sure get more lively as it goes but,in my view, not better.I was particularly choked by the shooting of the Italian officer,plain stupid,evil,and without the slightest remorse.I have read more sensitive dersciption of shooting a rabid dog than this poor italian sob.
The guy give a weak order in retreat(not in combat mind you,just a slow running away)and as a spoiled brat he is,uppset not to be obeyed on spot,shoot point blank the Italian.Not a first shoot warning,oh no,he is just sorry he missed the segond one.Damnit.

Surprisingly,there isn't a paragraph about the Italian having soul or not.I just might read the Africain books he wrote,just to seen if he dealt as swiftly with stubborned porters.

I can't wait to read the end,it so nice to hear this blood thirsty "Baby" feelings about his beloved Catherine after such vailant war deeds.
Go on Freddy show them who 's got the biggest...

 

[Robert]

Is it average, great, above average or below average, though, sounds like a good single question for each of us to answer that I would prefer to answer when more of us have finished reading. That in itself should be a good discussion and exchange of views.

My answer is in the little sealed envelope.

So how many are still reading?

I'm done, Peder. I shall be preparing a sealed envelope tomorrow.

 

[SFG75]

Just finished chapters 22-32 tonight. I have to say that the return to the front, retreat, and near execution was something else. That kind of confusion could happen during wartime, but it just read like an improbable adventure movie.

Interesting comments saliotthomas. The officer's death was probably done as a means of scapegoating a junior officer to save the hides of senior officers in the face of defeat. The shooting of the man who wouldn't help dig the ambulance out of the ditch could equally be seen as being absurd. At the same time, execution is the punishment for desertion in war time. There was a film about a WWII American soldier who turned tail and ran. The Execution of Private Slovik is an old black and white film that is the only I can think of that deals with desertion and punishment. Here is an interesting read on the subject within the British ranks.

Here is some interesting information in regards to Italian desertion rates in WWI.

WWI Italy had so many draft dodgers and deserters that it became a national scandal. The total number of deserters and draft dodgers were estimated to number at least 450,000, which equals the number of war dead Italy suffered in WWI. Two factors caused this; the war did not have popular support and a number of large Italian cities were close to the battlefront. During the disastrous Battle of Caporetto, very large numbers of Italians fled the battle. The Carabinieri (the Italian national police that become MPs during wartime) shot large numbers of deserters and stragglers to get control of the situation.

Military executions in WWI & WWII

 

[saliotthomas]

Well,there is plenty fo material about desertion,the best movie for me is the Kubric excellent Pass of glory(not sure of the title)forbiden in France till the 80's!!!I also read a lot of book's about war,in different time and places,and understand desertion is a serious.

It's just the matter of factness of the act in the book that bothers me,Frederic is an easy going guy(a bit of a tourist in this war)and suddenly,out of a temper,shoot a guy he was riding with.It's unsualy the vilain in a book who does it,the heartless officer.We actualy see very little of the war,we mostly hear about it.It's not an caught in the action kill.

Then we slide back in the romance with Catherine,and his sweet feelings for her.I feel something amiss here.

I would have rated this book much higher if it was not considered a literary masterpiece,and having ignore the name of the author would have help me being more open minded.
I apologize in advance to the Hemingway admirers but i must admit never having been one of them.

 

[jadedsoul]

i was reading 'catcher in the rye' a year ago. there's a part in it where holden caulfield , the main character describes 'a farewell to arms' as being a "phoney"
book.
well that maybe being a bit too harsh on mr. hemingway especially since 'catcher in the rye' itself wasnt a very profound work of art itself, despite all the hype surrounding it. nevertheless if you havent read a farewell to arms you certainly havent missed a lot. most of us (including me) read such books only to know what all the fuss is about and invariably end up getting disappointed as the book seldom lives upto its reputation. can such works then be labelled as being great or classics?

 

[Peder]

I can't repress a curiosity about the "us" who is speaking.
Care to provide any enlightenment?

 

[jadedsoul]

Is it average, great, above average or below average, though, sounds like a good single question for each of us to answer that I would prefer to answer when more of us have finished reading. That in itself should be a good discussion and exchange of views.

 

[Peder]

Oh, well then please count me out of your opinion and your reason for reading such books.

 

[jadedsoul]

dont worry. you were never in anyway.

 

[SFG75]

Saliotthomas:

It's just the matter of factness of the act in the book that bothers me,Frederic is an easy going guy(a bit of a tourist in this war)and suddenly,out of a temper,shoot a guy he was riding with. It's unsualy the vilain in a book who does it,the heartless officer.We actualy see very little of the war,we mostly hear about it.It's not an caught in the action kill.

Then we slide back in the romance with Catherine,and his sweet feelings for her.I feel something amiss here.

The "matter of factness" is something that has an interesting purpose according to critics. There are two interesting lenses through which the event can be seen through.

View #1:

When Henry drops one sergeant and empties his clip shooting at the other, he is acting within a military code that he tries to preserve order and ensure that mutual interdependencies are properly maintained. After all, German/Austrian planes have been seen moving to bomb the retreat; the sergeants may be endangering the lives of the others by failing to help them move toward Udine. In spite of Henry's apparent shock after the shootings, he has done what Krebs claimed to do in In Our Time: the one thing, the only thing for a man to do.

View #2 from the link given above:

In reading two, Henry's shooting is justified by military law, but otherwise seen as an extreme measure under the circumstances. Phelan views Henry as act within what he sees as an authorial rejection of war's destructiveness: Given Hemingway's attitudes about the war's destruction, we can infer that shooting to kill under these circumstances is clearly overdoing it (64). Phelan's connection between Henry's shooting and war as destructiveness is unconvincing. If Henry can be said to be overdoing it, it is because of the questionable military purpose in keeping the sergeants stranded with the others. It is true that the sergeants are disobeying sound orders and abandoning decent people, including two defenseless girls.

The written scene isn't an endorsement of the shooting. Heck, Henry is on the run himself after he is taken in front of the brass shortly after it!

Jadedsoul:

nevertheless if you havent read a farewell to arms you certainly havent missed a lot. most of us (including me) read such books only to know what all the fuss is about and invariably end up getting disappointed as the book seldom lives upto its reputation. can such works then be labelled as being great or classics?

As for me, the jury is still out-I'm reserving judgment until I've finished the novel. Feel free to contribute as to what specific parts and what elements of his writing style are deficient. I'm one who does like to read what the critics say and see if I can also find the same sentiment. I'm of the persuasion that it's his writing style that has created such a "block" in regards to understanding his writing and how simple scenes play into subtexts that can be easily overlooked.

 

[SeoulMan]

I just finished reading the book last night.

There are several perplexing scenes near the end of the novel, which make them even more perplexing because they came near the end, when Hemingway should be winding down and laying down his exit strategy instead of bandying about:

1. The scene in Ch. 34 where Fergy lambasts Frederic in front of Catherine for getting Catherine in the family way. It seemed nonsensical and went on and on and on and I just wanted to smother Fergy with a pillow.

2. The various domestic scenes between Frederic and Catherine at the hotel. I never quite got their chemistry and the purpose of these passages. They seemed all pointless to me.

3. When Frederic and Catherine were being interrogated by the Swiss officials in Locarno, I thought they inexplicably found themselves lost in a sitcom as they discussed the merits of winter sports (luge-ing vs. tobaggoning...?!?!) in Locarno and Montreux. Verging on hilarity and ridiculousness.

4. The domestic scenes at the Guttingen's leading up to the labor and delivery. What a bizarre ending.

The only scene that worked for me was when they were rowing their boat out of Italy and into Switzerland. I almost wished the book ended there when they crossed the border.

If my writing group ever got hold of this novel, they'd tear it to pieces. Well, I guess that's why we're working on publication while Hemingway is a literary demi-god. LOL!

I'll have my full review in a couple days when everyone finished reading the novel.

 

[silverseason]

I'm coming late to the party. I couldn't start the book until a couple of days ago, then had to go out of town.

I liked The First Circle a lot was and very impressed by the author's skill. Now, two-thirds of the way through the Hemingway, I find myself unsure how to judge it. So I'm waffling until I finish.

 

[SFG75]

A few observations about chapters 34-38.

I love Catherine's minimizing Frederic's desertion of the Italian army. He whines about how he left the army and she says...

Darling, please be sensible. It's not deserting from the army. It's only the Italian army.

On a more serious note, the pool game with Count Greffi was one just chock full of meaning. Hemingway was an atheist and believed in a "live hard and fast in the moment" which was apparent in his active lifestyle. Frederic appears to be a stoic of sorts and the Count as well.

The count on age and faith:

I had expected to become more devout as I grow older but somehow I havent,. . . .It is a great pity.

The count upon being asked about if he would want to live in the afterlife:

It would depend on the life. This life is very pleasnt. I would like to live forever,. . . I very nearly have."

Perhaps unwittingly, this dialogue reflected Hemingway's own beliefs, or the lack thereof.