Wednesday, February 9, 2011

For Whom the Bell Tolls

by Ernest Hemingway

10 comments:

  1. Since we just started reading the book I think it would be acceptable to talk about first impressions. So far this book is not what I expected, which isn’t a bad thing. From what I had read of the book and even from the summary in the back I expected a serious story. Instead what I’ve found so far is a lot of humor which is nice and refreshing. There’s plenty of humor in the descriptions of characters such as Pablo’s “mujer” who is described as “something very barbarous. If you think Pablo is ugly you should see his woman” (Hemingway 26). The humor in the book as well as the dialogue in general and the fact that it’s set during war also reminds me a lot of Catch-22 . In terms of Hemingway’s style, the humor makes it easier to cope with the very thorough and long descriptions he gives of the people and the surroundings. These descriptions can be so long and dense that they become tedious to read through. I prefer the dialogue that serves as much to have the characters talk as it does to also provide descriptions of people and surrounding. The difference is that the descriptions in the dialogue are much more interesting. A particular characteristic about the dialogue is the contrast between old and modern English. The old English appears when the Spanish men are speaking amongst each other. The first time it appears it is a translation of what Anselmo and Pablo are saying to each other in Spanish (11). Therefore, I would assume that every time old English is being used it is to signify that someone is talking in old Castilian and hence old English is used in the translation.

    ReplyDelete
  2. My first impression of the book is a good one. Hemingway writes with a very descriptive tone, and he has a very macho and straightforward tone at times. We learn that the main character is something of a bad boy too. When he firsts meets Maria, he describes to her how he's robbed "Three trains" (23). He also writes with a style that makes you anticipate whats coming up next, such as an attack on a bridge and a huge battle. The old man Jordan is with tells him that, he "can bring as many men" as Jordan needed(2). This makes us anticipate the massive attack on the bridge that is approaching, and makes us want to read on to get to the action that Hemingway is famous for. I feel like i'm going to like this book a lot.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Like you, Sergio, I'm also surprised by this book's style. I've never read Hemingway before, but for such a serious setting (during the brutal Spanish Civil War) the consistent dialogue seems to stir up the same sort of entertained feeling as a movie. In terms of the “Spanish” language used, as we get to know Robert Jordan, I think these details of how he uses the Spanish language in interaction with the locals is only one manifestation of his tolerant character. In fact, Hemingway consistently throws in little lessons about etiquette as a Spaniard or a revolutionary, including the scene where Robert realizes he has violated standards by talking openly with Maria, but he continues to flirt with her because "he did not care" (32). However, Robert, when challenged, makes it very clear that he has been embedded and embraces the cause he is fighting for, even arguing "that I am a foreigner is not my fault. I would rather have been born here" (24). As Robert's history becomes less and less ambiguous, I am very interested to see how exactly he has come to align his morals with the cause of anti-fascism and revolution. When with Anselmo, Robert is particularly honest and it is here that we discover some of the depth to Hemingway's writing, mentioning death penalty vs. lifelong punishment (50), and the morality of killing (51). I think we're setting the stage for the intensity and pain of battle with these morale-building, good-humored relations.

    ReplyDelete
  4. As I keep reading I’ve come to notice something peculiar about the way the book is written. At the beginning of each chapter there is always an overwhelming amount of description and the remaining chapter consists nearly entirely of dialogue. This has the effect of giving this novel the feel of reading a play. I find myself reading this book as if it were a play; the scene is set up in the beginning and then the dialogue between the characters commences. I wonder if this was done deliberately by Hemingway because it makes For Whom the Bell Tolls an easier read since we’re mostly reading dialogue.
    As for the plot so far and other elements of Hemingway’s writing, as Elias mentioned, blowing up the bridge seems to be a pretty big focus of the story. The bridge is constantly mentioned throughout what we have read so far and it seems to be a pretty controversial issue amongst the characters. Robert Jordan as we learned from last week’s reading has an almost deranged, fanatical conviction to blow up the bridge as he claims nothing is more important than blowing it up, not even his life or the life of anyone else. At the same time, this week we learn that Pablo and his band don’t care for the bridge at all, they are much more preoccupied with their own survival than the survival of humanity as Robert Jordan justifies the blowing up of the bridge. It would be interesting to see what the bridge represents and if it even is the real focus of the novel. Is the bridge truly that important or is it a mere plot device to move along the plot and bring out the natures of the characters to reveal Hemingway’s true message? What messages is Hemingway trying to convey?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree with Sergio that the diction and structuring (of chapters) are distinct and have become more and more noticeable as Hemingway establishes a rhythm. Interestingly, Hemingway’s descriptive mood (whether setting the scene or embedded in the dialogue of someone’s storytelling) is most favorable and least awkward, even though dialogue is indeed easy to read. I understand that Hemingway is trying to form a unique dialect that reflects the cadence of Spanish, and yet translated into English; however, the product is writing filled with odd sentence structure (mirroring Spanish and not following the conventional flow of English), filled with “thou” and “thee,” which I find to be imitating the dialect of real classics of older English. Such language use adds another layer of similarity to a play (drama). Basically, I react negatively to this style because the application of such an older English style feels forced and makes the speech of the characters too lofty for being guerrillas embedded in the wilderness. I understand that Hemingway wants to make his prose beautiful, but I don’t see why his language can’t be more down-to-Earth and rugged like the men that fight these battles. Perhaps, the language barrier makes it so that Hemingway’s “translated” Spanish is meant to give the effect of being an American reading into the ideas of foreigners. Some of the themes of passionate yet inconvenient love, killing and war, and the value of life are universal, yet the slightly unfamiliar language makes this a sort of “exotic” war story for us readers. And what a vivid war story it already is.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I concur with Elias. Hemingway speaks in a very classical tone, mixed with a small bit of spanish. Given that Hemingway is consorting with spanish rebels. Hemingways writing is also full of flashbacks, such as a story that Pablo's woman told of glorious Valencia when she and her lover, "made love and then sent for another pitcher of beer" (Hemingway 86). The battle scenes are also vivid and descriptive. Jordan described the bombers as, "shaped like sharks" (Hemingway 87). He goes on to describe their movement as unlike sharks, but its still an interesting description. I am so far very intrigued by this book, and its lively descriptions of battle, love and beer.

    ReplyDelete
  7. As the day of the attack continues to approach, we see a developing web of clashing personalities in the camp of the revolutionaries. Pablo, in his drunken state, is seriously divisive with his increasing laziness and dying determination. Hemingway seems to be using Pablo as a sort of foil for Robert Jordan, even though the two military minds apparently get along. What reveals itself with Pablo's drunkenness is the very tasteless nature of a man, a murderer, who still isn't able to leave the traumatic experiences behind despite his apparent toughness and blood-lust. Anselmo deeply addresses this issue of past murder and reconciliation, saying, killing "is a great sin and that afterwards we must do something very strong atone for it" (213). Through this wise and objective view, Hemingway's message about war's effect on human beings shines through, and through their jumble of war stories the characters reveal numerous complexities about human nature, such as their need to lie and deceive in war (247).
    I agree with Ned's observation that Hemingway's style is becoming more and more diverse, as he shows off his ability to profile an intimate love between two people, as well tragic war stories of past revolutionary accomplishments. By alternating between dense dialogue (which represents the dominance of oral tradition and storytelling in war camp with no writing men) and vivid description. Some of his metaphors continue to impress me as well, such as Pilar's description and powerful tale of death's "odor" and being able to predict its approach (271-273), an idea that is eerily similar to "Beloved"'s haunting scenes.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think it's interesting to look at the way Hemingway is portraying love but more in general women, and their relationship to men. The only two women we've really gotten to know are Pilar and Maria who are very different from each other. Pilar, as we had established, is rather manly and big while Maria is fragile, small, and beautiful. While Pilar has even assumed full control of Pablo's band of rebels and thus asserting herself as a woman of power and character, Maria is quite the opposite. Whereas Pilar even jokes about how she would be a man instead of a woman and is not afraid to control and defy her husband, Maria tells Robert Jordan that she will do anything for him from oiling his pistol to rolling his cigarettes (171). The presence of these two women would agree with a third-wave feminist perspective because Hemingway doesn't say women should be one type or the other; both women are very important to the story. Second-wave feminists would admire Pilars character but criticize Maria for her weakness. Perhaps they would also agree with the way Pilar treats Maria. Although there is affection between the two women, Pilar treats Maria like a rag, which second-wave feminists would justify by saying that Maria needs to be more assertive. At the same time Pilar puts Maria up on a pedestal and is envious of her beauty and longs for men to desire her as they desire Maria (156). This behavior would be looked down upon by second-wave feminists because Pilar, in essence, wishes she could be an object of mens' desire and turning herself into an object for men would not agree with their ideals of women being equal to men.

    ReplyDelete
  9. “The world is a fine place and worth the fighting for and I hate very much to leave it. And you had a lot of luck, he told himself, to have had such a good life. You’ve had as good a life as grandfather’s though not as long. You’ve had as good a life as any one because of these last days. You do not want to complain when you have been so lucky. I wish there was some way to pass on what I’ve learned, though. Christ, I was learning fast there at the end.” (Hemingway 467)

    When you look past what’s on the surface of Hemingway’s novel, I think this paragraph is the best representation of the core of the book, of its purpose and Hemingway’s message. Throughout the book Hemingway presents a story with many layers: war, death, romance, brutality, suspense and at face value it’s an exciting and tragic story. But beneath it, Hemingway has this idea that a good life is not measured in time, but rather the content of the life; in essence he brings up the issue of quantity versus quality. This is a recurring message throughout the novel and it is the one thought that brings comfort to Robert Jordan in his final moments of life and allows him to accept his fate. How Hemingway delivers this message at the end of the novel is key: he is very blunt and direct in saying that a life can be made worthwhile in the course of a few days. It’s interesting to look at this delivery method versus the delivery methods of other writers like Toni Morrison. Morrison employs a lot of ambiguity in presenting her messages and leaves a lot of what she has to say up the interpretation of the reader whereas Hemingway doesn’t leave much for debate and states his messages clearly. There are advantages and disadvantages to both: Morrison’s style requires more time for the reader to consider what the message is while Hemingway’s leaves more time for contemplating the message itself. However, Morrison’s style is much more engaging and draws attention to the text because the reader has to observe the text carefully and put a lot of thought into figuring out the message while Hemingway’s style leaves more possibility for disengagement as the reader leaves to ponder the nature of the message and not necessarily in the context of the book but in the context of the reader’s own life. While I enjoyed the book a lot I found myself not engaging with the text so much as I was entertaining the ideas presented in it and applying them to my life. This book certainly made me think in that regard and it really changed the way I thought about life. I was certainly a person that thought a life was worth something if it lasted a long time, if it endured. After reading this book and the final chapters I began to sympathize with Hemingway’s view that people should live in the present instead of the future and that time means nothing. You have to be satisfied with what you have and what time you are given because a person that lives forever has a meaningless life if it is dull throughout. Robert Jordan’s story unfolds over the course of three days but it feels more like a lifetime with all that Robert Jordan experiences showing that a short period of time can define a life and make it worthwhile. A person’s life can drag on and on and not once would they have done something exciting or meaningful, perhaps always waiting for tomorrow to bring that excitement, but a person can’t keep waiting for tomorrow because tomorrow may never come.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Sergio has made some tremendously strong points, and I wholeheartedly agree with his last post because I was consistently feeling the building sense of urgency in Robert Jordan’s perspective and Hemingway’s messages. I’m sure that for us, as seniors in high school and teenagers on the brink of adulthood, these ideas especially hit home because we are seemingly facing the end of one life (at home) and the beginning of another (of in the world, in college); and so, “living life to the fullest” and “living in moment” are extremely powerful ideas. However, referring back to the novel, I see that Hemingway is able to construct a four-day span of Robert’s life so powerfully and deeply because of his ability to rule the story. We, on the other hand, can hardly narrate or direct our lives with such intense self-reflection and purposeful & desperate autonomy since we have hardly lived a life so profound (yet). I agree with Sergio that Hemingway’s style and approach to storytelling is distinctly different from Morrison’s, and what consistently impressed me was the versatility and variation of Hemingway’s style, tone, and pace. If we imagine the four-day span to be a lifetime, Hemingway effectively creates the up’s and down’s, the reflection and fearful anticipation, that characterize a human’s experience. In doing so he truly makes the short time feel like a roller coaster ride through days and weeks of experience, even though the density of the events and the sharing of nostalgic memories is what creates this deception. At first Hemingway’s imitation of Old English annoyed me, but now I’ve come to see the incredible range of his ability, from poetic thought while love-making (400) or vivid prose full of memories of home and family (387).

    ReplyDelete