# Reading > Forum Book Club >  January/Hemingway Book: 'A Farewell to Arms'

## Scheherazade

We are reading _Farewell to Arms_ in January. Please post your thoughts and questions on the book in this thread.



Book Club Procedures

----------


## papayahed

Crap, can we slow the months down I still haven't finished Love in the time of Cholera, The french Leuitenants woman, or Hogfather!!! Now Farewell to Arms?? Alright, anything for Ernie.

----------


## starrwriter

> Crap, can we slow the months down I still haven't finished Love in the time of Cholera, The french Leuitenants woman, or Hogfather!!! Now Farewell to Arms?? Alright, anything for Ernie.


Some things to keep in mind:

The book was based on Hemingway's experience as a 19-year-old ambulance driver on the Italian front of World War I and his love affair with the older British nurse who took care of him after he was wounded. But, unlike Lt. Henry, Ernie never went over the wall as a deserter. And exactly how he was wounded is shrouded in mystery. The "official" version is in the book: he was blown up by an artillery shell while delivering cheese to troops in the field. But another version said he was taking a bath when the hot water heater blew up. Only Ernie knew the truth, but I suspect the second version is what really happened because friends and family back in Oak Park, Illinois, observed that he was very reluctant to discuss details of his wounding after he was declared a war hero upon returning home.

One of the most interesting parts of the novel is a strange aspect of the relationship between Lt. Henry and his nurse-lover. It borders on clinical paranoia as Lt. Henry muses that people who find happiness in love are doomed to be destroyed by "the world" (whatever that means.)

Hemingway re-wrote the last paragraph of the novel over 100 times. Read it as carefully as he wrote it because it's a masterpiece of understated emotion. The obvious things he omits is what makes the ending so powerful. (Hemingway once said what a writer leaves out is just as important as what he puts into a story -- which is a very Zenlike idea.)

The real British nurse dumped Ernie as too young to marry and he carried a torch for her for many years, even after he married another woman. You never forget your first love, etc.

Whatever you do, DON'T watch the two movie versions of this novel. The 30s version starred Gary Cooper, who acted as dumb as a fence post. In the 1957 version Rock Hudson delivered his lines like a shell-shock victim and Jennifer Jones' lipstick was all over her face.

(The link below to an in-depth analysis is no substitute for actually reading the book, but it may help to understand the story if you get stuck:
http://www.bookrags.com/notes/fta/)

----------


## Virgil

I think Star is getting ahead of everyone. Let's start with the first chapter. Why does Hemingway start with this? No introduction of a character; just 2 pages for a whole chapter; 5 paragraphs in all; and all he basically talks about is the weather? Are the themes of the novel carefully imbedded here?

----------


## Virgil

> Crap, can we slow the months down I still haven't finished Love in the time of Cholera, The french Leuitenants woman, or Hogfather!!! Now Farewell to Arms?? Alright, anything for Ernie.


Papaya (I hope you don't mind me droping off the last syllable of your name; it seems so much more elegant), you'll find that _A Farewell to Arms_  is a much faster read.

----------


## papayahed

> Papaya (I hope you don't mind me droping off the last syllable of your name; it seems so much more elegant), you'll find that _A Farewell to Arms_  is a much faster read.



Papaya is just fine, its waaayy better then P-hed which someone else tried to slip by me.

I think I read A farewell to arms previously but have no recollection of the book except the beginning part where he is injured.

----------


## starrwriter

> Papaya is just fine, its waaayy better then P-hed which someone else tried to slip by me.


P-hed!!! Now why didn't I think of that? I must be getting slow.

----------


## Scheherazade

I have just started reading it (couple of chapters yet) but it is developing nicely although I am finding Hemingway's prose hard work... Half a page long sentences and all (This is my second Hemingway book read in English).


> Let's start with the first chapter. Why does Hemingway start with this? No introduction of a character; just 2 pages for a whole chapter; 5 paragraphs in all; and all he basically talks about is the weather? Are the themes of the novel carefully imbedded here?


Because Hemingway was desperate to impress his readers with his descriptive powers right from start???  :Tongue: 

I read the first chapter twice yesterday trying to place things... and I thought that he is talking more how weather affects the war (no more fighting because of snow) rather than talking 'about the weather' and how the small village where they are positioned is affected by all this. The picture drawn is far from being a pretty one and somewhat lacking passion... Detached almost.

I love this sentence:


> I had drunk much wine and afterward coffee and Strega and I explained, winefully, how we did not do the things we wanted to do; we never did such things.


(Chapter 3)

'Winefully' is such a nice way to put it.

----------


## starrwriter

> The picture drawn is far from being a pretty one and somewhat lacking passion... Detached almost.


Dispassionate and detached=understated, which was the essence of Hemingway's writing style. He thought it produced a more powerful impact on the reader than hyperbole.

Descriptive narration was not a strong point at this stage of Hemingway's career. He was still in his 20s when he wrote "Farewell."

----------


## Virgil

> I have just started reading it (couple of chapters yet) but it is developing nicely although I am finding Hemingway's prose hard work... Half a page long sentences and all (This is my second Hemingway book read in English).Because Hemingway was desperate to impress his readers with his descriptive powers right from start???


Let me answer some of my own questions, given that I've read this a couple of times. Here's what I think he's doing in the first chapter:
>He sets up the central mood of the novel, the dreary rain. Hem said he liked to write like Cezanne painted. I think he does this with the first chapter. 
>The rain becomes important later on. It's also nature imposing itself on human events, again forshadowing.
>He also introduces the theme of modern mechanized life (tractors, motor-cars, guns, 6.5mm clip). Again this is important to the story.
>He ends the chapter with disease and death. Another forshadowing.
>And in the last sentence, he introduces irony ("only seven thousand died" "but it was checked"). Irony is a constant as the novel progresses.

To some degree, the first chapter is the novel in a miniature.

----------


## Scheherazade

Since I haven't read the whole book, I cannot comment on how the first chapter relates to the rest of the novel but I find it rather matter of fact... and as I said earlier, quite detached; not one expects from a book about a war. However, I think that is maybe the point Hemingway was trying to make? That once you are caught up in it, even the war becomes an ordinary thing... Numbers are just figures on papers and people still carry on with their usual ways (drinking, dating etc), which seems rather trivial on the face of something as devastating as the war.

Re. Hemingway's descriptive powers... Even though I loved it in _Old Man and The Sea_, I am not so keen on it in this book. Maybe Starr has a point that his style was somewhat immature in this book. His dialogues are, on the other hand, very strong. They contrast wonderfully with his long and detailed narrative. They are short, sharp and snappy. I loved reading Chapter 5, which offers plenty of these. People don't even speak in full proper sentences but so plainly express themselves.

And could someone please tell me about the stick Catherine was carrying? Is it something like a whip? 'a thin rattan stick like a toy riding-crop, bound in leather'?

I was a little worried about her in Chapter 6 initially but I think I can understand her better now.

----------


## papayahed

> And could someone please tell me about the stick Catherine was carrying? Is it something like a whip? 'a thin rattan stick like a toy riding-crop, bound in leather'?


Looking to get one?

----------


## Scheherazade

> Looking to get one?


Not unless you recommend it!

 :Wink:

----------


## Virgil

Actually, I never thought about that riding crop until you pointed it out. Catherine had it as a remembrance of her previous boy friend who was killed. It does fit with one of the themes Hemmingway is after: War is no longer the Romantic endeavor for young men, that the mechanized modern war has changed everything and has no sense of romance. The riding crop suggests the calvary or chivalry of a past age.

Let's discuss the chapters before Henry meets Catherine, for a moment. Hem is setting up two characters that are diametrically opposite: Rinaldi and the priest. With henry almost caught in between. What's that all about?

----------


## papayahed

> Actually, I never thought about that riding crop until you pointed it out. Catherine had it as a remembrance of her previous boy friend who was killed. It does fit with one of the themes Hemmingway is after: War is no longer the Romantic endeavor for young men, that the mechanized modern war has changed everything and has no sense of romance. The riding crop suggests the calvary or chivalry of a past age.
> 
> Let's discuss the chapters before Henry meets Catherine, for a moment. Hem is setting up two characters that are diametrically opposite: Rinaldi and the priest. With henry almost caught in between. What's that all about?


The riding crop did seem oddly out of place when it was first mentioned.

I was wondering about the priest myself, was he an actual person or was he made up to be the "opposite". It doesn't seem to me that the priest and Rinaldi are opposites, just Different priorities....maybe.

----------


## Virgil

> The riding crop did seem oddly out of place when it was first mentioned.
> 
> I was wondering about the priest myself, was he an actual person or was he made up to be the "opposite". It doesn't seem to me that the priest and Rinaldi are opposites, just Different priorities....maybe.


The riding crop as a symbol seems heavy handed. What is she doing carrying it around? She doesn't have a horse. It does seem odd too; not one of the finer points of the novel.

I think they are a kind of opposites:

Rinaldi: experienced; surgeon, dealing with grim biological matters; from the city, I believe; visits prostitutes; thinks of women for biological needs, to put it in a nice way; atheist.

Priest: innocence; deals with metaphysical things; from the country; celibate; thinks the best of people; obviously not an atheist.

So that brings us to Frederic Henry and his relationship with Catherine. At first he's no different than Rinaldi and could be seen as following in his footsteps. Here's a quick scene from the end of chapter 5:

...Rinaldi was lying on his bed. He looked at me.
"So you make progress with Miss Barkley?"
"We are friends."
"You have that pleasant air of a dog in heat."
I did not understand the word.
"Of a what?"
He explained.
"You," I said "have that pleasant air of a dog who--"
"Stop it," he said. "In a little while we would say insulting things." He laughed.
"Good-night," I said.
"Good-night, little puppy."

----------


## papayahed

> Rinaldi: experienced; surgeon, dealing with grim biological matters; from the city, I believe; visits prostitutes; thinks of women for biological needs, to put it in a nice way; atheist.
> 
> Priest: innocence; deals with metaphysical things; from the country; celibate; thinks the best of people; obviously not an atheist.



Last night I was thinking that these 2 were perhaps examples of the different parts of Henry. He did claim to be an athiest yet took the St. Anthony medal.

Or maybe, how Henry was vs. how he will be, this is the one where his injuries left him "altered" correct?

----------


## Virgil

> Last night I was thinking that these 2 were perhaps examples of the different parts of Henry. He did claim to be an athiest yet took the St. Anthony medal.
> 
> Or maybe, how Henry was vs. how he will be, this is the one where his injuries left him "altered" correct?


I'm not sure of the answer. Perhaps you're right. Is Henry more like Rinaldi at the beginning? Probably closer to Rinaldi than the priest. I don't think Rinaldi is capable of love. Typically when an author does presents two characters like this he's presenting alternative paths for the central character. But what happens is he chooses neither. His relationship becomes more than hormonal. He falls in love with her. Some key sections:

The end of chapter 7:
"I went to the door and suddenly I felt lonely and empty. I had treated seeing Catherine very lightly, I had gotten somewhat drunk and had nearly forgotten to come but when I could not see her there I was feeling lonely and hollow."

And then toward the end of chapter 11, the priest says:
"Yes," he[the priest] said. You do. What you tell me about in the nights. That is not love. That is only passion and lust. When you love you wish to do things for. You wish to sacrifice for. You wish to serve."

And then at the end (why are all his key moments at the end of chapters?) of chapter 14:
"She went out. God knows I had not wanted to fall in love with her. I had not wanted to fall in love with any one. But God knows I had and I lay on the bed in the room of the hospital in Milan and all sorts of things went through my head but I felt wonderful..."

Has he been pursuaded by the priest? It seems to me he didn't have much of a choice. Love overtook him rather than choosing.

----------


## Scheherazade

I found the riding crop absurd in that scene and somewhat in the book; especially because it was sent to Catherine by her dead fiance's family... It is not something you would like to have of your dead ex, is it? And it is surely not something you would like to carry with you during the war when you are a nurse working in a hospital. I am not sure that it symbolizes chivalry but I thought it might be suggestive about Catherine nature maybe but I don't think I have read enough to make any comments on that yet (Chapter 12). 

I think the Priest and Rinaldi are reflecting different sides of Henry. It doesn't seem like he becomes more like the Priest later on to me. From the very beginning, he seems to be the only one who is 'in touch' with the priest and this is emphasised over and over again during the idle banters in the mess. He communicates with him in a way others do/cannot. And he is also able to talk and share things with Rinaldi too who seems to be interested in... lighter things in life. 

I think by offering these two different characters as Henry's friends, Hemingway is trying to show what he is capable of; that there is more to him than mere womanising.

----------


## papayahed

> I'm not sure of the answer. Perhaps you're right.


+

that's why math is sooo much better.  :Nod:

----------


## Virgil

> +
> 
> that's why math is sooo much better.


Only if it doesn't include differential equations! Calculus and below was good. Beyond calc, I lost it.

----------


## starrwriter

> I think by offering these two different characters as Henry's friends, Hemingway is trying to show what he is capable of; that there is more to him than mere womanising.


Let's not read too much into this (as I'm sure Hemingway would advise.) It's likely Hemingway was merely describing different real people he knew during the war in Italy. In military life the troops tend to practice one-upmanship and belittle each other for becoming too serious with one woman.

----------


## Nightshade

Just got the book youve certinaly charged ahead wiuth this one I guess that means I'd better get cracking if I want to keep up

 :Biggrin:

----------


## Virgil

> Let's not read too much into this (as I'm sure Hemingway would advise.) It's likely Hemingway was merely describing different real people he knew during the war in Italy. In military life the troops tend to practice one-upmanship and belittle each other for becoming too serious with one woman.


Star - The characters are very carefully selected and drawn out in a particular way. There are themes Hem is after. These are not just randomly selected characters. Hem would not have built the reputation as a great writer if he didn't. If it seems realistic, that's a credit to Hemmingway's writing. Although their are elements of autobiagraphy here, it is not an autobiagraphy.

----------


## Scheherazade

> Let's not read too much into this (as I'm sure Hemingway would advise.) It's likely Hemingway was merely describing different real people he knew during the war in Italy. In military life the troops tend to practice one-upmanship and belittle each other for becoming too serious with one woman.


I don't think trying to understand the main character in a novel is 'reading too much into' things. Like Virgil pointed out, there is a reason why Henry is presented in a certain way and the people around him help establish certain things about him and/or the background to the story. 

I mean if we had suggested that _the sole reason_  Hemingway wrote this book was that his heart was broken by an English nurse and that he killed the female lead in the book because of he could not handle this rejection, then maybe we would be reading too much into things!  :Wink:   :Tongue:

----------


## starrwriter

> I mean if we had suggested that _the sole reason_  Hemingway wrote this book was that his heart was broken by an English nurse and that he killed the female lead in the book because of he could not handle this rejection, then maybe we would be reading too much into things!


Although it wasn't his sole reason, he was heart-broken and he didn't handle the rejection well at all. (He thought he kept seeing the nurse in crowds for years afterward.) 

Killing off an old girlfriend in fiction can be quite therapeutic. I've done it more than once myself.

----------


## Scheherazade

> Killing off an old girlfriend in fiction can be quite therapeutic. I've done it more than once myself.


I am sure... In fiction, in real life... We _all_ know the line gets blurred at times, Starr...

 :Tongue:

----------


## starrwriter

> I am sure... In fiction, in real life... We _all_ know the line gets blurred at times, Starr...


What have you heard?

I admit nothing. I deny everything.

----------


## Virgil

At this point, I'd like to ask what the women especially on forum reading the novel think of Catherine. Feminist have criticized Hemingway for his portrayal of her. They find her submissive and simple. I tend to agree. As to submissive, well, that's Hemingway's perogative as the author, but I do think she's got no depth to her charcater. She strikes me as two dimensional, a stock figure. And for a major character to be so two dimensional I think it takes away from the novel. What do others think?

----------


## emily655321

I agree with you, Virgil. Not that I'm too crazy about Rinaldi (those "baby's" are wearing on my nerves!), but Catherine has been driving me up a wall. I find her to be a chattery airhead with nothing to say. Not just that, though. She doesn't seem like the sort of person who's seen war. She's like an airy little debutante, instead of an experienced war nurse (V.A.D., more accurately). She deals with the victims of WWI artillerynotoriously gruesome injuries,and it hasn't sobered her or made her think more deeply. Perhaps, in an era where everyone was sobered by war, that would have seemed attractive; innocence and vitality despite the horrors of war. But, really, come on now...



> "How many have youhow do you say it?stayed with?"
> "None."
> "You're lying to me."
> "Yes."
> "It's all right. Keep right on lying to me. That's what I want you to do. Were they pretty?"
> "I never stayed with anyone."
> "That's right. Were they very attractive?"
> "I don't know anything about it."
> 
> ...


*What the ***** kind of twisted nonsense is that? I can see someone wanting to spend the night with that, but who could fall in love with it? Hemingway's ideal woman is a life-size Chatty Cathy doll. A Chatty-Cathy blow-up doll. I wonder if this is where they got the name for the doll?  :Tongue: 

Miss Gage seems slightly more sane. I wish we'd gotten to know her better. I like Miss Gage and I like the priest. They seem quiet and level-headed.

----------


## Shea

grrr... I've got to put the book club on hold for this one. I'm preparing for teacher certification exams and this one's not on the reading list.

----------


## papayahed

I've only gotten to Chapter 16 and Miss Barkley is annoying. Especially in the beginning, the second or third time Henry and Catherine met she begged him to say "I love you". Who does that????




> *What the ***** kind of twisted nonsense is that? I can see someone wanting to spend the night with that, but who could fall in love with it? Hemingway's ideal woman is a life-size Chatty Cathy doll. A Chatty-Cathy blow-up doll. I wonder if this is where they got the name for the doll?


Do you think Hemingway's Miss Barkley was anything like the one he described in the book? Your right Em, I can't see a battlefield nurse acting like that.




> Miss Gage seems slightly more sane. I wish we'd gotten to know her better. I like Miss Gage and I like the priest. They seem quiet and level-headed


I was hoping Miss Gage stuck around....darn it.

----------


## emily655321

Well, I've only gotten to Chapter 22, so she may make a revival. But at the moment it isn't looking hopeful to me.

----------


## Scheherazade

Finished the book two days ago and have been thinking about it since then (yeah, it is a slow and painful process for some of us so we thank you for your patience and... Please watch this space!  :Tongue: )

Couple of points:

-I agree with most of the sentiments expressed regarding Cat... She seems so very out of place in the war but should we blame Hemingway for it? We usually assume that the lead character in a book = writer but that is not necessarily true, is it? It is possible that Hemingway is critical of men like Henry who fall simply for looks. We hardly ever see him think or say anything about Cat other than how 'beautiful' and 'wonderful' she is. That speaks more about Henry's character than Cat's, I believe, for falling for her.

-Another thing which I wonder is that... These characters seem very un-war-like in the midst of a terrible war when we take their words at their face value. However, is it possible that this is just a way of escape for them? The WWI is, after all, the first of its kind... For the first time, people start to question the validity of wars; patriotism seemed like an empty idea because they did not know mostly what they were fighting for (the Italian soldiers question this many times in the book). Also, the devastation it caused was at an unseen scale as well so it was only natural for people to be shocked by it. In the middle of this confusion, I wonder, if people, like Henry and Cat, seeked for a refuge. The constant repetition of how 'wonderful' and 'grand' things are along with how 'good' and 'darling' they are made me think that they might be simply trying to persuade themselves that it was so despite the raging war.

So is it possible that Henry and Cat are nothing but two scared, lost souls trying not to lose their sanity in the midst of a meaningless war by playing some kind of a pretending game (like children playing 'Mommies and Daddies')?

I found the exchange between the Swiss guards most absurd and funny!  :Biggrin:

----------


## papayahed

Catherine is starting to remind me of Gollum:

I'm scared of the rain
I'm not scared of the rain
Oh I wish I wasn't scared of the rain...

sheesh...

If she lived in today you know she'd be one of those chick on the talk show.... My man cheated on me with my sister, but I love him with all my heart and want him back...

----------


## emily655321

Scher, you make a good point. It does seem to me that the mood of the book attempts the "We're just a couple of kids caught in this crazy war" angle.



> "You're a fine simple girl," I said.
> "I am a simple girl. No one ever understood it except you."


When I read this my first thought was, "You can say that again!"  :Tongue:  But I also considered whether that was the whole point. I realized that Hemingway wrote Catherine as such a silly thing deliberately, not through some oversight or sexist bias (well, he may still have had that, but not necessarily let it cloud the writing process). When he writes, "No one ever understood it except you," could Hemingway be alluding to the thrusting of responsibilty by "powers that be" onto the shoulders of those not capable of enduring it? No one cared that Catherine was just a "simple girl" when they began the war; no one thought of the people who would really be fighting it, all the children and peasants sucked into the storm and expected to carry such a burden. Do you think Catherine is supposed to inspire pity? I think it's a likely case, but I don't think Hemingway quite hit the mark. Whether he meant to or not... he created Catherine Barkley.  :FRlol:   :Rolleyes:

----------


## Virgil

Excellent points here about Catherine. Let me open this up a little wider. Does anyone think that Hemingway's male characters are realistic? I don't mean Fredrick Henry, all the others. All the male characters other than the central character that is essential a stand in for Hemingway himself? Rinaldi? The Priest? Count Greffi?

----------


## Scheherazade

> Fire razes Hemingway island haunt 
> 
> Hemingway killed himself in 1961 
> A hotel known as a haunt of US novelist Ernest Hemingway has been destroyed in a fire in the Bahamas. 
> The blaze broke out on Friday morning at the Compleat Angler on the island of Bimini, 50 miles (80km) off Florida. 
> 
> Owner Julian Brown was presumed dead. There were no immediate reports of other casualties in the incident. 
> 
> The flames also consumed memorabilia housed in the hotel's museum on the famous writer, who worked there on to Have and Have Not in the 1930s. 
> ...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4611956.stm

----------


## emily655321

Oh, that's a shame.  :Frown:  But I'm a little relieved, too; when I read the first line I thought it might be the home with all the cats.

----------


## Virgil

> Excellent points here about Catherine. Let me open this up a little wider. Does anyone think that Hemingway's male characters are realistic? I don't mean Fredrick Henry, all the others. All the male characters other than the central character that is essential a stand in for Hemingway himself? Rinaldi? The Priest? Count Greffi?


Since no one is responding to me, I'll just repond to myself. I feel that Hemingway has problems fleshing out characters, other than the stand in for himself. Rinaldi is just a little too cynical and the priest is a little too idealistic and the Count is a little too romantic. For minor characters, I think he gets away with it. But Catherine is not a minor charcter.

----------


## emily655321

It's too early in the morning for me to be attempting coherent sentences, but here I go.

I think all the characters are somewhat roughly sketched, but I attribute it to Hemingway's inexperience as an author at the time. Fred Henry does stand out as the only truly thought-through character, much the same way as an inexperienced art student's sketches will show a varying amount of detail throughout a drawing, because they only pay close enough attention to the parts with which they have trouble, or in which they hold the most interest. Hemingway strikes me as not yet having refined the craft of character development; he spends the most time on Henry, because he's the most important to him. At this point, he still needs to learn the discipline of creating a whole world and history and personality for each of his characters, even the minor ones. Instead, he's written caricatures; the characters play their specified roles, and feel duely fake. There are exceptions to this, though; I felt that the character of Aymo must have been based on someone Hemingway knew well. There is more behind the character than a person-shaped line-deliverer, so to speak; he has a history that Hemingway does not devulge, but which I felt, even in the sparse lines he delivered.

Another thing Hemingway still struggles with is constistency of character. Henry is the only character we get to know well, as Virgil points out, but what he benefits from in depth, he suffers from in breadth. Ernest writes bad romantic sequences, which is perhaps the reason Catherine is written so poorly as a whole; all of her lines are melodramatic love-talk. When Henry attempts such language, he is equally fakey. Hemingway seems to have drawn his inspiration primarily from the Hollywood films and literary conventions of his day, which tended toward hokey over-exuberance and lots of "darling, darling, darling's." This is perhaps the most glaring inconsistency that I've noticed in the book.

----------


## Virgil

> I think all the characters are somewhat roughly sketched, but I attribute it to Hemingway's inexperience as an author at the time.


There are only two really good Hemingway novels, this one and _The Sun Also Rises_, which he wrote before AFTA. He wasn't inexperienced. This was his third novel. He was only a good novelist, in my humble opimion. But I think he was a great short story writer.

----------


## Scheherazade

I would like to respond to some of the points have been made so far but before that I would like to ask you:

What do you think this novel is about? If you were to put it onto a shelf according to its theme, which one would that be?

----------


## Virgil

The loss of innocence. A farewell to arms: the arms of war and arms of love.

----------


## papayahed

I'm up to book 4, I don't have a problem with the male characters. To me they just seem like "buddies" we don't need to know anything indepth about them, unlike Catherine. 

Is it bad that I'm really enjoying the parts without Catherine?

----------


## Scheherazade

> The loss of innocence. A farewell to arms: the arms of war and arms of love.


Have you ever thought about the difficulty of translating this title? Like Virgil pointed out, it could mean two things but it is almost impossible to find the same convenient words which would mean the same things in other languages... I know one translation which made use of 'farewell to arms=weapons'... not 'arms of a beloved'

Just a side note.  :Smile: 

As I spend more time thinking about this book, the more I am inclined to believe that Hemingway must have had an agenda portraying these characters and 'love' as he did.

We all agree that there is some kind of supercificiality about the whole thing but maybe that is how it is supposed to be? Maybe the book did not aim to analyse characters and the theme of love but show the absurdity of it all. People fall in love and call each other 'darling' or simply lust and try to 'score' or pretend to be Italian even though they are American to build a career in music or win medals while trying to have pasta with cheese!

I am wondering if this book is actually about absurdity of life rather than merely war or love or whatever else.

----------


## emily655321

That's a good point, Scher. Hmm... entirely possible.

----------


## Virgil

> Have you ever thought about the difficulty of translating this title? Like Virgil pointed out, it could mean two things but it is almost impossible to find the same convenient words which would mean the same things in other languages... I know one translation which made use of 'farewell to arms=weapons'... not 'arms of a beloved'
> 
> Just a side note. 
> 
> As I spend more time thinking about this book, the more I am inclined to believe that Hemingway must have had an agenda portraying these characters and 'love' as he did.
> 
> We all agree that there is some kind of supercificiality about the whole thing but maybe that is how it is supposed to be? Maybe the book did not aim to analyse characters and the theme of love but show the absurdity of it all. People fall in love and call each other 'darling' or simply lust and try to 'score' or pretend to be Italian even though they are American to build a career in music or win medals while trying to have pasta with cheese!
> 
> I am wondering if this book is actually about absurdity of life rather than merely war or love or whatever else.


Some of the things that were probably going through hemingway's mind as he constructed the novel: 
Tolstoy's _War and Peace_ where Tolstoy alternates sections of his novel between love and war.
Virgil's, _The Aneaid_ where themes of war and love, while they don't alternate like Tolstoy, recurr. I think the first line of it goes something like, "Of arms and the man I sing."
And someone, somewhere I can't recall who said that the great, universal themes in literature are love and death. And I would add also loss of innocence. Hem does all three here.

----------


## papayahed

> We all agree that there is some kind of supercificiality about the whole thing but maybe that is how it is supposed to be? Maybe the book did not aim to analyse characters and the theme of love but show the absurdity of it all. People fall in love and call each other 'darling' or simply lust and try to 'score' or pretend to be Italian even though they are American to build a career in music or win medals while trying to have pasta with cheese!


I just finished the book and that's the impression I get. Life during war is different, it's as if Cat and Henry are trying hard, perhaps too hard, to act as if life is normal when it is not. It almost seems to me that, they talk about life being grand and that they love each other as if they're trying to convince themselves. It leads me to wonder if Cat and Henry would have stayed together if it hadn't been war time.

----------


## Scheherazade

> It leads me to wonder if Cat and Henry would have stayed together if it hadn't been war time.


I wondered the same thing too, Papaya along with if they would have kept in touch if Cat hadn't appointed to the hospital where Henry was staying...

----------


## emily655321

... or gotten knocked up ...

----------


## Darlin

Well, I'm apt to agree with the general consensus, Cat was an awful character, the romance was forced, not very realistic for whatever reason, war, Hemmingway's intent who knows? The story really couldn't be put in any particular category on my bookshelf other than war perhaps. The romance was peculiar, more like a 1940's movie, lukewarm and unrealistic. 

I felt the two main characters were annoying. I actually liked Frederic well enough up until the part where he called Othello the N word. Very racist. Very stupid and selfish man in my opinion. Good grief, he knew she'd get pregnant if he didn't take responsibility, which he didn't. How selfish was that, leaving it all up to her? Annoying pointless book with a bad ending. I had to wonder if Hemmingway was racist after reading this and I hope I never have to read another Hemmingway book again.

----------


## emily655321

Darlin, I know what you mean about the racism. I get very uncomfortable when I encounter racism in old books. Even in not-as-old books, like _The Bell Jar_; I just read it, and at one point Plath introduces a kind of Stepin Fetchit character, who I can only assume was added for comic relief, but it made me very unhappy. I just try to tell myself that people were more ignorant of such things back then, and that it was more accepted by society, so they probably didn't even notice they were doing it. But I know what you mean; nothing spoils the mood of a book for me quite so much as negative attitudes toward race.

----------


## The Unnamable

> I had to wonder if Hemmingway was racist after reading this and I hope I never have to read another Hemmingway book again.


May I ask _why_ you had to wonder? Is Hemingway to be universally condemned for using a word which at the time had very little of the power to offend it has now? Is Joseph Conrad to be considered a poor writer and a worse human being for having written _The Nigger of the Narcissus_? Should we simply not read that book any more? Is it right to judge past attitudes by todays standards?

----------


## Scheherazade

If you would like to join us for the _Arms_ live chat, please contact me asap.

Thanks!  :Smile:

----------


## Virgil

> Darlin, I know what you mean about the racism. I get very uncomfortable when I encounter racism in old books. Even in not-as-old books, like _The Bell Jar_; I just read it, and at one point Plath introduces a kind of Stepin Fetchit character, who I can only assume was added for comic relief, but it made me very unhappy. I just try to tell myself that people were more ignorant of such things back then, and that it was more accepted by society, so they probably didn't even notice they were doing it. But I know what you mean; nothing spoils the mood of a book for me quite so much as negative attitudes toward race.


I don't know if Hemingway was a racist. But he was inconsiderate in the way he threw epithets around. This is not the only place he uses the N-word. Hemingway was such a big admirer of Twains _Huck Finn_ that sometimes when he uses the N word I get the feeling he's trying to emulate Twain. I don't know. But Twain's Nigger Jim was an endearing character, I don't get the feeling that hemingway is using it endearingly, if that's possible. Worst then the N-word, hemingway really slanders Jews in _The Sun Also Rises_. I wouldn't go as far as say he's anti-semitic, but he just spits these words out callusly. I've said somewhere in a different post that I ususally ignore (unless they are advocating slavery or genicide) these things if the writer was writing before WWII. After the halocaust there is no excuse for a writer to disparage ethnicity.

As to the _Nigger of the Narcissus_: Again I don't feel that Conrad is disparging. From what I remember, the black character that the novel refers to was noble or intended to be noble. I don't think Hemingway was being positive in any way.

----------


## Darlin

Emily, thank you. Im glad its not just me. I thought maybe I over reacted but it was truly offensive to me and gave me a poor impression of the author in general. However, youre probably right in that it was the accepted norm of that day and they probably thought nothing of it and possibly Hemmingway wasnt racist. One never knows I suppose and as Im disinclined to read a biography on the man I suppose I shall never know. But thanks for your thoughts, I rather felt I might be alone in this.  :Smile: 





> Darlin, I know what you mean about the racism. I get very uncomfortable when I encounter racism in old books. Even in not-as-old books, like _The Bell Jar_; I just read it, and at one point Plath introduces a kind of Stepin Fetchit character, who I can only assume was added for comic relief, but it made me very unhappy. I just try to tell myself that people were more ignorant of such things back then, and that it was more accepted by society, so they probably didn't even notice they were doing it. But I know what you mean; nothing spoils the mood of a book for me quite so much as negative attitudes toward race.

----------


## Darlin

> May I ask _why_ you had to wonder? Is Hemingway to be universally condemned for using a word which at the time had very little of the power to offend it has now? Is Joseph Conrad to be considered a poor writer and a worse human being for having written _The Nigger of the Narcissus_? Should we simply not read that book any more? Is it right to judge past attitudes by todays standards?


Unnamable, I wondered because I hate that word. I hate being called that and dislike those who use it regardless of why they choose to use it. And for you or anyone to say the word had little power to offend at the time he used it is absolutely uninformed and completely wrong. Those who used it may have felt it had no power but those that the word was inflicted upon felt the pain of the word quite intently. 

I may have not been around during that time for I was born in the sixtys but I have grandparents, family members and acquaintances even to this day that remember those times, the racist attitudes, the fear they felt, the degradation and helplessness. Twice I have been called that and each time by a White male and once when I was with my bi-racial daughter who was probably about eight at the time. I will not go into how humiliating and painful that was. Suffice it to say unless you have experienced being called that you really have no right to judge. 

It is a hurtful and disgraceful word. It wasnt acceptable or any nicer when he was using it in his day than it is now. People may want to use the word today to try to lessen the impact of the hate and pain they feel when called such a thing but it still hurts many and most especially older people from Hemmingways day. Whether he was a racist or not he used a hurtful ignorant word that has offended me and discouraged any further interest in reading any of his other books but that is a purely personal decision on my part.

And speaking of Conrads _The Nigger of the Narcissus_  I was just looking at that at the library last week wondering what it was about and why anyone would write something with a title like that. Having not read the book I certainly cant say he was a racist, a poor writer or a worse human being for writing it. For all I know it may be an incredibly enlightening book however the title alone has done nothing to entice me into reading it and it is unlikely I ever will. If its the greatest novel ever written then that might be my loss but that again is a purely personal decision on my part.

As I mentioned before, perhaps if you were a person of color who has been called the N word you might also find things like this unacceptable, pathetic and frustrating. And as *Virgil* mentioned, Hemmingways use of the word is nothing like Twains in _Huckleberry Finn_  which I actually enjoyed. There is no equivalent word that people of color could call a White person, nothing so humiliating or disgusting, but thankfully Ive no desire to have a word that would compare. I hope this has satisfied your curiosity.

----------


## Virgil

Darlin 
I sympathize. While I've been called names, I can't quite know how you feel, since there is no one word such as the n word that could be thrown at me. On another thread I was criticized for rebuking someone who (while I don't think in his heart he is racist) came close in a poem. Here's how someone else replied to me:



> The important thing is, it's well written and holds the interest. When will people read the poem as a poem first, rather than looking for non-PC references?


I won't mention any names, but your post above here indicates why decency and manners are more important than how great a work of literature something is. Literature could go to hell if it's going to hurt someone. And besides, works of literature that intend to tear somebody down can never be great works.

----------


## The Unnamable

> And for you or anyone to say the word had little power to offend at the time he used it is absolutely uninformed and completely wrong.


Heres what I _actually_ wrote:
a word which at the time had very little of the power to offend _it has now_?

If you cant even read what I wrote with any degree of accuracy, I guess there is no point in my wasting any more time.

Virgil, the idea that Hemingway or anyone else has to be inoffensive by your standards to be worthy of being called great is simply ludicrous.

----------


## Virgil

> Virgil, the idea that Hemingway or anyone else has to be inoffensive by your standards to be worthy of being called great is simply ludicrous.


Ok, upon reflection they (being offensive & good literature) are not mutually exclusive. But why should I have any respect for an author who's blatently racist? Is literature that important? Is there a dearth of good literature? I'm not advocating banning anything. Decent people ought to shine the light of day on such crap, and let the author's character be stained for history. Such a stain would mean something to my honor. I wouldn't want to be remembered that way. I've put forth a great Ezra Pound poem in the Poem of the Week thread. Pound was a great poet, but I won't touch anywhere he expresses his racism, and certainly in my eyes he was a low-life.

----------


## Darlin

> Heres what I _actually_ wrote:
> a word which at the time had very little of the power to offend _it has now_?
> 
> If you cant even read what I wrote with any degree of accuracy, I guess there is no point in my wasting any more time.
> 
> Virgil, the idea that Hemingway or anyone else has to be inoffensive by your standards to be worthy of being called great is simply ludicrous.


I read what you said and understood it. Apparently you didn't read through my post or didn't comprehend what I wrote. The word hurt then it hurts now, it wasn't less potent or less offensive then than it is now. Racists were racist then as they are now it's just that people are more politically correct now. And if anything with the Klan and Jim Crow it had the power to offend worse then not less. Nowadays young Black people use it as flippantly as you seem to view Hemmingway's use back then. That's ignorant.

In fact, your posts have led me to believe you're ignorant of what racism is and how it affects those who're abused by racists. As such you're right there's no need to waste time attempting to discuss this further. You apparently wish to remain ignorant. You asked what I thought, I told you and you replied with a childish comment completely dismissing my comments - so be it. You go ahead thinking what you like, they say ignorance is bliss.

----------


## Scheherazade

> If you can’t even read what I wrote with any degree of accuracy, I guess there is no point in my wasting any more time.


The Unnamable, once I asked you: 


> Since on more than one occassion people have interpreted what you said in a different way than you intended, could it be possible that you are not as clear as you think you are? You should maybe consider the possibility that it is not only 'them' but also the way you express yourself?


And here I am still wondering the same thing. If you are not happy with the responses you receive, please feel free to ignore them.


*Darlin, The Unnamable and everyone,

The Book Club is a very special part of the Forum, where those of us who would like to read books together meet. Please keep the discussions free of personal attacks and unnecessary frictions. If you don't like the discussions, feel free to ignore them but please do not  ruin it for others who enjoy them.

Thank you.*

----------


## Darlin

> Darlin 
> I sympathize. While I've been called names, I can't quite know how you feel, since there is no one word such as the n word that could be thrown at me. On another thread I was criticized for rebuking someone who (while I don't think in his heart he is racist) came close in a poem. Here's how someone else replied to me:
> 
> I won't mention any names, but your post above here indicates why decency and manners are more important than how great a work of literature something is. Literature could go to hell if it's going to hurt someone. And besides, works of literature that intend to tear somebody down can never be great works.


Virgil, I wanted to thank you for sharing your opinions and stating them so well. After reading your thoughts I've decided Hemingway just isn't for some people, me in particular. 




> The Unnamable, once I asked you: And here I am still wondering the same thing. If you are not happy with the responses you receive, please feel free to ignore them.
> 
> 
> *Darlin, The Unnamable and everyone,
> 
> The Book Club is a very special part of the Forum, where those of us who would like to read books together meet. Please keep the discussions free of personal attacks and unnecessary frictions. If you don't like the discussions, feel free to ignore them but please do not  ruin it for others who enjoy them.
> 
> Thank you.*


He asked a question I responded. It just happened to be about a particularly touchy subject and since there are few people of color on this forum I certainly don't expect everyone to understand that his question, which I'm assuming was asked in ignorance, was offensive to me and begged a response. 

But sure, in the future you bet I won't respond to people who seem to alienate people whether intentionally or not, a sad quality in a person. And I won't ruin the book club by stating any opinion in the future that might rise someone's ire or curiosity thus enciting an response from me that others may not care for. 

I apologize for upsetting and ruining the enjoyment of those who participated in the January book read, please accept my most sincere apologies. I had no intention of continuing the discussion as I mentioned before and you may rest assure it will never happen again.

----------


## Scheherazade

Darlin,

I sincerely hope you understand that my reminder (which was addressed not only to you but to all) was not because you shared opinions and feelings on a subject which you feel very strongly about (which I respect and cannot claim to know how it feels). Those posts were made couple of days ago. However, the recent turn that the verbal exchanges have taken hardly seems like to prove fruitful or desirable for any of us.

As in the other parts of the Forum, in the Book Club we are all happy and eager to hear about others' interpretations and thoughts on the books we read. We all have so much to gain from each other's experiences and insights. However, once the posts begin to be laced with personal attacks and insinuations, they hardly achieve anything other than upsetting the parties involved. By ignoring such provocations, we can prevent unnecessary headaches for ourselves.

You may rest assured that the Forum Moderators are and will be doing their best to deal with those in the most appropriate manner.

----------


## Scheherazade

> I don't know if Hemingway was a racist. But he was inconsiderate in the way he threw epithets around. This is not the only place he uses the N-word. Hemingway was such a big admirer of Twains _Huck Finn_ that sometimes when he uses the N word I get the feeling he's trying to emulate Twain. I don't know. But Twain's Nigger Jim was an endearing character, I don't get the feeling that hemingway is using it endearingly, if that's possible. Worst then the N-word, hemingway really slanders Jews in _The Sun Also Rises_. I wouldn't go as far as say he's anti-semitic, but he just spits these words out callusly. I've said somewhere in a different post that I ususally ignore (unless they are advocating slavery or genicide) these things if the writer was writing before WWII. After the halocaust there is no excuse for a writer to disparage ethnicity.


Thank you for bringing Mark Twain and _Finn_ up, Virgil!  :Smile: 

Not so long ago, we had a discussion on the Forum regarding this very issue; ie, whether Twain was racist. I am not sure if we can label an author as racist because he is reflecting the conditions of his time. Of course, glorifying and advocating racism would be a racist attempt but I am not sure if Hemingway actually does that in this particular book. 

The authors create characters (some good, some bad) and then they have to fulfill the requirements of that particular character to make them look realistic but because the characters act in certain ways/say certain things, does that mean that the author himself is actually advocating those? Not every character is a replica of the author him/herself surely? For example, if there is a rapist or serial murderer in a book, does that mean that author is actually advocating those? (At this point, I am reminded of _The French Lieutenant's Woman_ by John Fowles, in which Fowles suggests that once created, the characters are on their own and the writer has little say on their actions (because for them to be realistic the writer needs to let them grow and develop freely).

I think a lot depends on how the matter is handled and what the author is aiming to express by these things. It is also possible to argue that if we turn certain terms into taboos, we will never be able to educate the next generations.

----------


## Virgil

> I think a lot depends on how the matter is handled and what the author is aiming to express by these things. It is also possible to argue that if we turn certain terms into taboos, we will never be able to educate the next generations.


Yes I would absolutely agree. I can think of two types of situations where it might be appropriate. (1) If the author puts it into the mouth of a bad character to show what's in that character's heart. (2) if the author is creating the realism (verisimilitude, for those who are into the teechnical jargon of writing) of the time and place, like the American south in a William Faulkner or James Wright novel. Perhaps others might consider additional situations; if so, I would be interested. What it shouldn't be is gratuitous. The way Hemingway used it was gratuitous. I look at that passage and I don't see a reason for it. 

As to _Huck Finn_, I had a black english professor way back in undergrad (Prof. Brown) who I had great respect for, consider this topic in class. He didn't have a problem with the use of the N- word in Twain's novel. But he still had a problem with the novel. He felt that Jim was too simple a person, being afraid of ghosts and superstitions. He felt it questioned black people's intelligence. At the time I felt that how much intelligence could a person raised as slave and without education have, and so I disagreed with Prof Brown on the basis of realism. Since then, I've thought about it further, and I still disagree with Prof Brown, but for a different reason. Jim, is what I call the moral center of the novel, that is right and wrong eminates from his character. Twain's point is that such a simple fellow is more moral than all the other sophisticated characters. Morality in _Huck Finn_ is linked to the natural man, he who has not been distorted by society. Is the fact that the natural man, Jim, is black racist? I don't know; Huck himself is almost as natural, and yet he's not black. Frankly, except for that subtle implication I I think Twain's heart is in the right place.

----------


## godhelpme2

The most amazing thing still grasped my inquisity is the meaning of the word "arms" , as it can both refers to weapon and the part of human body which was clasped when the two lovers departed.

----------


## Tasartir

I loved this book as well. I thought the way it was written is the most powerful of all the statements made. The prose is stream-of-consciousness-like so we get a real insight on what the character is thinking, the bad part is that the character is a typical Hemingway character: a Stoic. So he doesn't think much about his love or his troubles, just keeps calm; nothing compared with a Faulkner or Woolf character. But it is, nevertheless, an amazing book and the incredible juxtaposition of death (war) and life (nature) in the first paragraph of the book is still one of my favorite passages in any book I've read.

----------


## ennison

Hemingway went out of his way often to appear uncultured. Probably felt that might undermine his nihilistic manliness. The title is actually taken from an Elizabethan poem.

----------


## Virgil

Nihilistic? What makes ou say he was nihilistic? And I disagree. He went out of his way to appear super cultured.

----------


## ennison

Booze, bullfighting, brawling and eventually suicide. Yup. Nihilism. And it's all there in his novels and stories disguised as manly stoicism. Of course he was educated and cultured and travelled but he deliberately wrote from the persona of a tough guy. Maybe it was an alter ego. Anyway he's MY favourite nihilist!

----------


## Tasartir

I think it's pretty obvious from A Farewell to Arms that Hemingway saw humankind as a self-destructing species and that there are only those that are saved by love that can flee this self-destruction. This might be some of the nihilism that Ennison sees in Hemingway, but I think the nihilism is not complete in Hemingway since LOVE always gives hope and a true nihilist would not even believe that this LOVE can save the earth. That's my opinion, at least for now...

----------


## Virgil

from Merriam-Webster:




> nihilism
> One entry found for nihilism.
> Main Entry: ni&#183;hil&#183;ism 
> Pronunciation: 'nI-(h)&-"li-z&m, 'nE-
> Function: noun
> Etymology: German Nihilismus, from Latin nihil nothing -- more at NIL
> 1 a : a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless b : a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths
> 2 a : a doctrine or belief that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake independent of any constructive program or possibility b capitalized : the program of a 19th century Russian party advocating revolutionary reform and using terrorism and assassination


I think Hemmingway finds comfort in traditional values and rituals. His searching through Spain in The Sun Also Rises is a attempt to find moral truths in the traditions that have past. His moral code is hardly nihilistic. He finds the modern world troubling and his solution, perhpas implied, is to return to an earlier time. That is why Frederick Henry in A Farewell To Arms (as well as other heros in other works) is constantly assessing and the quality of wine wine and bullfighting and other cultural rituals. And so too, fishing and hunting. No where is he advocating a revolution of any sort. In fact he fights for noble efforts. His disillusion in A Farewell To Arms is not a nihilistic thought, but from the realization of the lack of nobility of WWI. In future novels, Hemmingway has heros fight in the Spanish Civil War and WWII, and there is no disillusionment there.

By the way, Hemmingway committed suicide because he was dying and didn't want to face the pain, not from any nihilistic idea.

----------


## Logos

I haven't read _Farewell to Arms_ but just wanted to add... I've recently had the pleasure of watching part of this made-for-tv series: Michael Palin's (of Monty Python fame) "Hemingway Adventure". 

If you have a chance to rent it from your local (public or school?) library or video store I highly recommend it if you want to get a humorous but thorough background of Hemingway. Also, this site below has some video clips from the series!  :Biggrin: 

http://www.palinstravels.co.uk/static-132
.
.

----------


## ennison

He's still my favourite nihilist.

----------


## brainstrain

I still can't believe everyone here knows what "nihilist" means. I have a very large vocabulary for my age, and that word totally escapes me...

No latin roots i'm guessing haha.

Honestly, you people teach me almost two new words every time I'm on...

----------

