Characterization is central to Hemingway’s A Farewell to Arms, as it provide a degree of realism, while still maintaining a sense of poetic dissonance, to the world of Hemingway’s tale. This authenticity attempts garner the respect and trust of the audience. However, the use of a believable cast do not reduce the novel to a gory rant about the horrors of war, as seen in many war narratives, but instead approaches it from a more conceptual and philosophical level. The character of Frederic Henry differs from the protagonists of the stereotypical war novels due in large part to his position as not only an ambulance driver but also and “American in the Italian Army,” where he often sees but does not take part in the direct confrontation, as opposed to a soldier or battlefield commanding officer whose duty is to take the lives of the enemy (Hemingway, 34). While this is, in large part, the result of Hemingway’s tour in Italy as a driver, it does open many odd facets to the character, such as a degree of social motivation (as opposed to nationalistic, superiority or blood-thirst) and national otherness. However, his otherness is not only displayed by his nationality but by his treatment of the priest in the end of chapter two, which is uncharacteristically kind for an officer. In essence, his distinctive role in the service melds fluently with the idea of the isolated chronicler or a person who is given a more objective view by not being quite like those around them, which is often present within existential texts. Frederic Henry is a believable and should be a fair representation of a man within those circumstances (like Hemingway), while also oddly out of place from the actions of those Hemingway seeks to critique while still being able to both observe but not become them.
Though I agree with your overall analysis, I disagree with the assertion that Hemingway ignores/undermines the national aspect of the setting. First, as the tale is set within the first world war (which would have been in the recent memory of his intended audience), there are inherent restrictions in setting. Furthermore, Hemingway specifies certain locales in Italy, such as "Gorizia," "Udine" and "Carso," which would lead the reader to assume that the tale takes place in Italy (Hemingway, 43-45). Finally, as in chapter two, Hemingway details that the narrator was in the Italian army (which mainly fought in Italy), The reader could reasonably assume the tale takes place there too. The diminishing of the nation-state is not a factor of Hemingway not directly saying Italy, but rather by displaying the varied motivations of characters and disregard for the sanctity of nationalistic/cultural ideals.
Interestingly enough, the repetition does not just pertain to the Hemingway's setting but also to the characters. For example, when the captain begins to mock the priest for not being "with girls" the major and other soldiers chime in dragging the conversation on for an unusually long time (for a seeming insignificant event)(Hemingway, 46). This can be used to display the mob like, irrational mentality of soldiers driven by patriotism,as they continue the war for it, despite it being an abstract (and perhaps overvalued) ideal.
A common word (and theme) throughout the novel is broken[ness]. Its first appearance is in chapter 2 when he refers to a war torn environment, more specifically, “the broken stumps” (Hemingway, 44). While it may seem as a simple description of the destruction or “submission” of nature to war, the term evolves as the piece goes on. Twenty-two Chapters later, the term is used to describe submission to society and its beliefs as “those who will not break [the world] kills” (Hemingway 255). This time, it is used as more of a survivalist and strangely necessary term. The breaking down of one's conscious in order to substitute it with the collective’s. It touches on a more advanced and philosophical idea. However, the term changes one last time five chapters later when, it again, reverts to a more natural concern for humans, loss. Catherine claims she's “all broken” from a tragedy and later expresses a lack of concern for her own safety (Hemingway, 314). Brokenness now displays human submission to the pitfalls of mortality. Though interesting and worthwhile discussions can be had for the term at each point in the novel, I found its evolution more intriguing. It begins with a battle between humanity’s original environment, nature, which used to completely dictate human development and its new one, society, which also has great influence on human development and actions. However, as the piece goes on, the concepts of individuality, freedom and love begin to overshadow this tangible conflict allowing the actions of many characters to be dictated by ideals as opposed to pragmatism. Brokenness follows that trend. However, the world punishes those who had strayed from the tangible by invoking not only their mortality, but also their empathy. Again, brokenness changes its contextual meaning to suit this conflict. The word broken is cleverly evolved by Hemingway to claim that despite the hardships one may endure, the attempt to glorify existence in the face of tangible threat will most likely lead to destruction.
The tragic ending to Hemingway’s work causes one to question many of the ideals presented within the tale. This gives the novel a circular nature, suggesting that the resistance of man cannot break him away from, both the idea and the reality of, his mortality. For example, Henry throughout the novel has displayed a certain distrust of God, however he asks God to “[not] let [Catherine] die” before visiting her in the hospital (Hemingway 483). The natural reaction for a man to turn to faith when confronted with the idea of death, is put on display, questioning the purity of faith found within many people, as it is, perhaps, based upon the evolutionary need for survival as opposed to true belief. Therefore, as man naturally turns to faith for preservation, Hemingway may present that humanity has a natural drive for the comfort of the divine, a drive which cannot be ignored. Another theme which is re-approached in the novel’s conclusion is that one cannot truly escape death, as displayed by the use of rain as a symbol for death/loss after its absence in the last 3 chapters. Though Henry and Catherine may have thought they had escaped the “rain,” and for a time had, it, like their mortality, eventually found them.
I also find the motif of snow to be interesting, as it represents a temporary break in conflict, before it melts and becomes “rain again.” This echos events and tactics that were used in the great war. For example, as motorized vehicles would have trouble moving in snow, armies would often delay attacks during heavy snowfall, giving the snow time to melt. However, this snowfall would inevitably lead to an attack by the superior force, as the enemy would have trouble repairing their trench, giving the larger force a chance to exploit their numerical advantage. The snow would delay, the rain would prompt conflict. Also, events such as the informal Christmas ceasefire took place in the midst of snow, furthering the historical connection of snow and peace. Yet, like the snow, the peace did not last forever and eventually melted away.
One reason I find Hemingway’s writing style not only enthralling but true genius is that the emphasis of his key sentences tends to be placed, with great weight, on the descriptors as, opposed to the possessive noun or action verb. This tricks the reader into ignoring much of the statement’s background so that they may focus on the true feelings of the characters and their present states. For example, the passage “I’m not brave any more darling. I’m all broken. They’ve broken me” on page 324, empathizes the words brave and broken. The noun and the verb of each sentence are easily overlooked due to their conjugated nature, directing attention to the phrases: “not brave any more darling,” “all broken,” and “broken me.” Phrase two already enforces the speaker’s feelings of hopelessness and despair, but the first and third phases go through more distillation. Phrase one’s “darling” can be removed due to its location in the sentence separating it from the idea as a whole (no comma was used likely to empathize the speed at which the speaker said the line, as opposed to a structural decision). “Any more” gets to remain within the distilled sentence to reinforce the idea of loss, though the harsh sounding “ot” into”bra” is likely to get more attention, cementing descriptors as the focus of the sentence. Finally, the relatively short “me” in the third phrase is overshadowed by the previous broken, due to only being shorter but having a softer sound, distilling the main idea of that sentence to the word, broken. Another good example of this is on page 242, though I won’t bore you (or Griner with my analysis of this one). “No, that is the great fallacy: the wisdom of old men. They do not grow wise. They grow careful.” Hemingway’s genius lies in his ability to direct the reader to the words he wants them to, while diminishing their attention to the rest. When using this method, more complex sentences become clunkier and will give the reader more time to become “distracted.” Of course, there are other reasons why this style works and has been revered, but this is just one I’ve noticed.
Characterization is central to Hemingway’s A Farewell to Arms, as it provide a degree of realism, while still maintaining a sense of poetic dissonance, to the world of Hemingway’s tale. This authenticity attempts garner the respect and trust of the audience. However, the use of a believable cast do not reduce the novel to a gory rant about the horrors of war, as seen in many war narratives, but instead approaches it from a more conceptual and philosophical level.
ReplyDeleteThe character of Frederic Henry differs from the protagonists of the stereotypical war novels due in large part to his position as not only an ambulance driver but also and “American in the Italian Army,” where he often sees but does not take part in the direct confrontation, as opposed to a soldier or battlefield commanding officer whose duty is to take the lives of the enemy (Hemingway, 34). While this is, in large part, the result of Hemingway’s tour in Italy as a driver, it does open many odd facets to the character, such as a degree of social motivation (as opposed to nationalistic, superiority or blood-thirst) and national otherness. However, his otherness is not only displayed by his nationality but by his treatment of the priest in the end of chapter two, which is uncharacteristically kind for an officer. In essence, his distinctive role in the service melds fluently with the idea of the isolated chronicler or a person who is given a more objective view by not being quite like those around them, which is often present within existential texts. Frederic Henry is a believable and should be a fair representation of a man within those circumstances (like Hemingway), while also oddly out of place from the actions of those Hemingway seeks to critique while still being able to both observe but not become them.
Indent before "The character of Frederic Henry." Formatting was distorted.
ReplyDeleteThough I agree with your overall analysis, I disagree with the assertion that Hemingway ignores/undermines the national aspect of the setting. First, as the tale is set within the first world war (which would have been in the recent memory of his intended audience), there are inherent restrictions in setting. Furthermore, Hemingway specifies certain locales in Italy, such as "Gorizia," "Udine" and "Carso," which would lead the reader to assume that the tale takes place in Italy (Hemingway, 43-45). Finally, as in chapter two, Hemingway details that the narrator was in the Italian army (which mainly fought in Italy), The reader could reasonably assume the tale takes place there too. The diminishing of the nation-state is not a factor of Hemingway not directly saying Italy, but rather by displaying the varied motivations of characters and disregard for the sanctity of nationalistic/cultural ideals.
ReplyDeleteInterestingly enough, the repetition does not just pertain to the Hemingway's setting but also to the characters. For example, when the captain begins to mock the priest for not being "with girls" the major and other soldiers chime in dragging the conversation on for an unusually long time (for a seeming insignificant event)(Hemingway, 46). This can be used to display the mob like, irrational mentality of soldiers driven by patriotism,as they continue the war for it, despite it being an abstract (and perhaps overvalued) ideal.
ReplyDeleteA common word (and theme) throughout the novel is broken[ness]. Its first appearance is in chapter 2 when he refers to a war torn environment, more specifically, “the broken stumps” (Hemingway, 44). While it may seem as a simple description of the destruction or “submission” of nature to war, the term evolves as the piece goes on. Twenty-two Chapters later, the term is used to describe submission to society and its beliefs as “those who will not break [the world] kills” (Hemingway 255). This time, it is used as more of a survivalist and strangely necessary term. The breaking down of one's conscious in order to substitute it with the collective’s. It touches on a more advanced and philosophical idea. However, the term changes one last time five chapters later when, it again, reverts to a more natural concern for humans, loss. Catherine claims she's “all broken” from a tragedy and later expresses a lack of concern for her own safety (Hemingway, 314). Brokenness now displays human submission to the pitfalls of mortality.
ReplyDeleteThough interesting and worthwhile discussions can be had for the term at each point in the novel, I found its evolution more intriguing. It begins with a battle between humanity’s original environment, nature, which used to completely dictate human development and its new one, society, which also has great influence on human development and actions. However, as the piece goes on, the concepts of individuality, freedom and love begin to overshadow this tangible conflict allowing the actions of many characters to be dictated by ideals as opposed to pragmatism. Brokenness follows that trend. However, the world punishes those who had strayed from the tangible by invoking not only their mortality, but also their empathy. Again, brokenness changes its contextual meaning to suit this conflict. The word broken is cleverly evolved by Hemingway to claim that despite the hardships one may endure, the attempt to glorify existence in the face of tangible threat will most likely lead to destruction.
The tragic ending to Hemingway’s work causes one to question many of the ideals presented within the tale. This gives the novel a circular nature, suggesting that the resistance of man cannot break him away from, both the idea and the reality of, his mortality. For example, Henry throughout the novel has displayed a certain distrust of God, however he asks God to “[not] let [Catherine] die” before visiting her in the hospital (Hemingway 483). The natural reaction for a man to turn to faith when confronted with the idea of death, is put on display, questioning the purity of faith found within many people, as it is, perhaps, based upon the evolutionary need for survival as opposed to true belief. Therefore, as man naturally turns to faith for preservation, Hemingway may present that humanity has a natural drive for the comfort of the divine, a drive which cannot be ignored. Another theme which is re-approached in the novel’s conclusion is that one cannot truly escape death, as displayed by the use of rain as a symbol for death/loss after its absence in the last 3 chapters. Though Henry and Catherine may have thought they had escaped the “rain,” and for a time had, it, like their mortality, eventually found them.
ReplyDeleteI also find the motif of snow to be interesting, as it represents a temporary break in conflict, before it melts and becomes “rain again.” This echos events and tactics that were used in the great war. For example, as motorized vehicles would have trouble moving in snow, armies would often delay attacks during heavy snowfall, giving the snow time to melt. However, this snowfall would inevitably lead to an attack by the superior force, as the enemy would have trouble repairing their trench, giving the larger force a chance to exploit their numerical advantage. The snow would delay, the rain would prompt conflict. Also, events such as the informal Christmas ceasefire took place in the midst of snow, furthering the historical connection of snow and peace. Yet, like the snow, the peace did not last forever and eventually melted away.
ReplyDeleteOne reason I find Hemingway’s writing style not only enthralling but true genius is that the emphasis of his key sentences tends to be placed, with great weight, on the descriptors as, opposed to the possessive noun or action verb. This tricks the reader into ignoring much of the statement’s background so that they may focus on the true feelings of the characters and their present states. For example, the passage “I’m not brave any more darling. I’m all broken. They’ve broken me” on page 324, empathizes the words brave and broken. The noun and the verb of each sentence are easily overlooked due to their conjugated nature, directing attention to the phrases: “not brave any more darling,” “all broken,” and “broken me.” Phrase two already enforces the speaker’s feelings of hopelessness and despair, but the first and third phases go through more distillation. Phrase one’s “darling” can be removed due to its location in the sentence separating it from the idea as a whole (no comma was used likely to empathize the speed at which the speaker said the line, as opposed to a structural decision). “Any more” gets to remain within the distilled sentence to reinforce the idea of loss, though the harsh sounding “ot” into”bra” is likely to get more attention, cementing descriptors as the focus of the sentence. Finally, the relatively short “me” in the third phrase is overshadowed by the previous broken, due to only being shorter but having a softer sound, distilling the main idea of that sentence to the word, broken. Another good example of this is on page 242, though I won’t bore you (or Griner with my analysis of this one). “No, that is the great fallacy: the wisdom of old men. They do not grow wise. They grow careful.” Hemingway’s genius lies in his ability to direct the reader to the words he wants them to, while diminishing their attention to the rest. When using this method, more complex sentences become clunkier and will give the reader more time to become “distracted.” Of course, there are other reasons why this style works and has been revered, but this is just one I’ve noticed.
ReplyDelete