‘A Farewell To Arms’, Hemingway’s most unsung work?

‘A Farewell to Arms’ has established Ernest Hemingway’s stature as one of America’s most prominent writers,yet it is often disregarded whenever Hemingway is being lionized; people would rather talk about ‘The Old Man and the Sea’ or ‘The Sun Also Rises’,for ‘A Farewell To Arms’ revolves around a gloomy subject and consequently,tends to be dull at times.In fact it is all the more so because Hemingway’s writing style is of a baffling simplicity.

However ‘A Farewell To Arms’ remains a work of compelling beauty,although it should be read with an astute mind.Indeed,if you want to grasp its real beauty, you’ll have to see through the veil of simplicity that shrouds the storyline.That being said,let us get into the heart of things.

To begin with, the protagonist,Frederic Henry, is a lieutenant who fares better than his inferior counterparts,for he doesn’t often risk his life on the battlefield,is never subject to starvation and enjoys fine wine and ‘fine’ women. In other words, Hemingway wants to break the stereotypes of war whilst still moving his story around the detrimental effects of warfare. In fact, Henry’s military life is a far cry from that of our typical soldier,who we often see carrying guns and risking his life on land mines, yet Henry’s story is more poignant for it is more realistic: his pain and woes are new and unexpected,hence touching us deeply in the core of our heart. Herein lies the beauty of ‘A Farewell To Arms’.

At times,war seems to be a monster that kills the ill-fated,while tormenting the fortunate.At times, you wonder if soldiers are not better off dead than tormented. In ‘A Farewell To Arms’, the men are tough and seem to have lost part of their souls. Henry,for example, initially, only thought about having sex with Catherine. Likewise,Rinaldi engages in numerous sexual intercourses in brothels and in the end,fears he has caught syphilis.Although their urges for sex and their view of  women as mere sexual satisfiers logically emanate from sexual starvation, it is sad that these men’s morals are obliterated for the sake of mental fitness,which war hawks believe, will only result if the men’s sexuality is regulated.

Already simplistic throughout the novel, Hemingway is even more taciturn on the subject of death. Indeed, the protagonist is indifferent to death:after doing his best to save Passini’s life, he sees that the man has died and surprisingly, doesn’t feel anything. As a result of seeing a great number of comrades falling on the battlefield,soldiers,we may infer, have come to a crude conclusion about death: only the living counts,and mourning the dead is utterly futile.Shortly after the death of Passini, Hemingway makes sure that we get an insight of how death is viewed on the battlefield through the conversation between Henry and Maneira: ”There are three others.One is dead.”, ”Passini is dead.”, ”Yes,he’s dead.” Similarly, the death of Aymo in the latter part of the novel is dealt with the same coldness,despite the fact that Henry liked him very much: ”He looked very dead.It was raining.I had liked him as well as anyone I ever knew. I had his papers in my pocket and would write to his family.” Ultimately, it is highly probable that it is such a crude perception of death that prevents Henry from mourning the death of Catherine. Though he knows that Catherine is about to die, he is completely dejected,but after her death, he is unable to mourn or to harbour any funereal feeling. His inability to mourn is made clear in the final lines of the book,when he bids farewell to the dead Catherine: ”It was like saying goodbye to a statue.After a while I went out and left the hospital and walked back to the hotel in the rain.” With the unexpected death of Catherine, to whom we have become increasingly attached,and Henry’s inability to express his feelings, Hemingway has managed to evoke an unbelievable amount of pathos,for we would have so loved to see things being otherwise. Besides, I personally think that the book wouldn’t be as great as it is now,had Hemingway altered his ending.

As stated above, “A Farewell to Arms” is not your typical war novel filled with clichés and stereotypes. Thus, unsurprisingly, there is no loyalty or acts of comradeship in the book. Far from being selfless heroes, the characters seem only to care for themselves,and rightly so,given they are sure to get killed if they look to save their comrades at all costs. By the end of the novel, Bonello decides to abandon Henry and Piani for fear of being killed whilst trying to cross the border. Even when Henry is  later separated from Piani, he does not bother thinking about his friend.As for Rinaldi, Henry’s best friend, he does come to the mind of Henry,for the latter cannot help remembering him.However, he is quick to dispel the thoughts of his best friend,who sadly is representative of his life at war, a period which he strives to forget: ”Well, I would never see him now.I would never see any of them now, That life was over.”  Having himself served on the battlefield, Hemingway conveys a clear message here: brothers of war exist but in movies.

It is right to see ‘A Farewell to Arms’ as a ”semi-war” and semi-romantic novel. The first half of the novel deals with Henry’s disgust with war and his desire to flee from the desolate setting of  Italy,in order to reach Catherine. Eventually, after getting involved in dire situations,he succeeds in doing so,and we,readers, are satisfied with the ending.In the second half of the novel, Hemingway takes much time to depict the idyllic relationship between Henry and Catherine. It seems to us that our protagonist has finally obtained the life he has been wishing for,and war is seldom mentioned in this part of the novel.However, the deaths of Catherine and the baby are both sudden and unexpected, and deep pathos is evoked. For all our dissatisfaction with the ending, there couldn’t be a better way to end the novel. Had Hemingway let Catherine and the baby live,the novel would have been plain,and at no time would he have touched us. In fact, the contrast between the two parts is baffling: at the end of the first part, Henry experiences the paroxysms of hope, yet at the end of the second part, he experiences the paroxysms of sadness and despair.Such dichotomy ultimately drives us to the title of the novel which is itself ambivalent. As ‘A Farewell to Arms’ suggests, Henry bids farewell to the arms of war as well as to the arms of Catherine.Despite the ambivalence of the title, the novel is more bitter than sweet,for Catherine’s untimely death overshadows Henry’s successful escape from war: he was supposed to leave the battlefield for Catherine’s love,not for the sight of her corpse.

One may conclude that the subliminal messages that fill ‘A Farewell to Arms’ make it an exceptional piece of art,especially because they are so hard to unveil,given Hemingway’s simplistic style. In so little a book, he has managed to convey the immoralities that war spawns, subtly divide his novel in two parts, ensure the omnipresence of various dichotomies, and evoke deep satisfaction as well as deep pathos. No wonder this succinct style of Hemingway’s has yet to be equalled to-day.

Haruki Murakami

If you only read the books that everyone else is reading, you can only think what everyone else is thinking.

Dostoevsky’s motives behind ‘Crime and Punishment’

I read Crime and Punishment in 2013 and liked it,although not so much as most people.The truth is that I found the plot too simple for a writer of Dostoevsky’s standard and was sure that there was something more complex lying behind Raskolnikov’s mental and ultimately physical punishment as a result of committing a crime.Having read much about Dostoevsky’s life and influences,I think I have acquired enough knowledge to write a post about this book.

Born in a pious family and having reconciled with Christ during his time in prison,Fyodor Dostoevsky did not view in a favorable light the rise of such movements as atheism,nihilism and utilitarianism during the 19th century.Crime and Punishment was an opportunity for him to address the contradictory nature of these doctrines.

During his time in Siberia,Dostoevsky also became acquainted with Hegel’s idea of the Extraordinary Man.Hegel opined that there are two categories of men: the mundane  individuals who are bound by morality,and the ‘Heroes’ whose actions determine an era and who are above any law- Hegel was particularly fond of Napoleon,having said of the latter : ” I saw the Emperor -this soul of the world- go out from the city to survey his reign; it is a truly wonderful sensation to see such an individual, who, concentrating on one point while seated on a horse, stretches over the world and dominates it.”  Although not a ‘Hero’,Raskolnikov does embody Hegel’s idea of the Extraordinary Man.Indeed,in his book Philosophy of History, Hegel argued that only our conscience can determine whether an action is right or wrong.For instance,murdering for one’s own gain or for one’s sadistic pleasure is wrong as the conscience is well aware that the motive behind such an act is to cause pain.On the other hand,the conscience regards murder to prevent suffering or to save an innocent’s life – thus utilitarian in nature – as a laudable act,for the motive behind it is well-intended.If you have read Crime and Punishment,you will note that Raskolnikov shares the same ideas as Hegel,hence strengthening the idea that Dostoevsky wrote this book as a response to Hegelian philosophy.

Now,you may wonder how Dostoevsky’s portrayal of Raskolnikov shows the loophole in  Hegel’s concept of the Extraordinary Man.According to Hegel,in order for a crime to be deemed righteous,it has to be utilitarian in nature,that is,it must benefit a good deal of people.Raskolnikov had to resort to his sense of morality to determine whether the murder he would commit was ‘righteous’; he saw that the miserly pawnbroker was a vermin to the world and deemed it good to get rid of her.The irony is,how can one who holds a sense of morality remain indifferent after committing such an act as murder? In depicting Raskolnikov’s state after the crime – the character goes through a psychological turmoil as he endlessly needs to justify his crime to his conscience – Dostoevsky shows that Hegel’s concept of the Extraordinary Man is merely idealistic in nature,as it is too self-contradictory to be actualized.Moreover,in the book,when Raskolnikov comes across of Svidrigailov,the author drops a heavy hint that the latter might have committed several murders in the past,for which surprisingly he doesn’t bear any remorse; he is the opposite of Raskolnikov.In short,Dostoevsky’s response to Hegel is that a crime can never be righteous;this is why the ‘moral’ murderer will always suffer mentally while the immoral murderer won’t.

Fyodor Dostoevsky also attacks another emerging doctrine of the 19th century: nihilism.Although holding some typical atheistic traits,Raskolnikov is not an atheist; as he informs Porfiry Petrovich,he does believe in God,heaven and the story of Lazarus.However,Raskolnikov is a nihilist,that is,he rejects societal,familial and emotional bonds and believes that there is no ‘soul’ or ‘mind’ beyond the physical world.Yet he suffers from an inner turmoil as a result of his soul’s being stained by the murders while his bond with Sonya gives him comfort as he sees all his ideals crumbling before his eyes.Once again,there is a subtle irony from Dostoevsky’s part:Raskolnikov experiences the manifestation of the soul,whose existence he has always denied,and is saved by the emotional bond – he has always rejected attachment with anyone – between Sonya and him; Sonya’s Christianity saves him from a meaningless life by giving him the chance to redeem himself and to start life anew.

All in all,Crime and Punishment is way more complex than it looks.It is an ode to God and a rebuttal to movements that place man ahead of Him.Even though I am an atheist myself, I was charmed by the way through which Dostoevsky subtly and convincingly achieved his goals in this novel.This is why,I opine, Crime and Punishment is regarded by many as one of literature’s masterpieces.

Jeanette Winterson on the Value of Art to the Human Spirit

This quote from Jeanette Winterson was shared by the Folio Society on its social networks,and I found it so beautiful that I had to share it here:

 ”What art does is to coax us away from the mechanical and towards the miraculous. The so-called uselessness of art is a clue to its transforming power. Art is not part of the machine. Art asks us to think differently, see differently, hear differently, and ultimately to act differently, which is why art has moral force. Ruskin was right, though for the wrong reasons, when he talked about art as a moral force. Art is not about good behaviour, when did you last see a miracle behave well? Art makes us better people because it asks for our full humanity, and humanity is, or should be, the polar opposite of the merely mechanical. We are not part of the machine either, but we have forgotten that. Art is memory — which is quite different [from] history. Art asks that we remember who we are, and usually that asking has to come as provocation — which is why art breaks the rules and the taboos, and at the same time is a moral force.”

Jeanette Winterson

 

Why you should read ‘Of Human Bondage’ (S.Maugham)

One of the many illustrations by Michael Kirkham for the Folio Society edition of ‘Of Human Bondage’.This one is my favorite.

Synopsis: We follow Philip Carey from the age of nine: through his unhappy, orphaned childhood; his abortive attempt to be an artist in Paris; a tormented affair with a woman he loves but cannot respect; to working as a doctor and deciding ‘the simplest pattern, that in which a man was born, worked, married, had children and died, was likewise the most perfect’.

Why you will like Of Human Bondage :

1.A Book About Life
What is the meaning of life?Such is the question that keeps coming back and forth in Philip Carey’s mind as he paves his way through life’s joys and woes.Philip’s own experiences along with those of all his acquaintances will gradually lead him to solve one of life’s most elusive enigmas.Its storyline might be about the bondage between people,but Of Human Bondage essentially causes us to put our lives in doubt.In this book,Philip’s gain will be your gain.

2.The Language
Prior to reading this book,I only knew Somerset Maugham as a successful and celebrated playwright.I thus harbored the fear that the book might have been written in a grand and pompous language as often were the plays of the early 20th century.To my surprise,the English in Of Human Bondage is so simple that one can easily devour at least 20 pages at once.

3.The Sincerity of Words
One cannot but notice the sincerity pervading through Maugham’s words in this book.Philips’s feelings in regard to his club-foot or to life’s intricacies as a whole,for example,are conveyed with such purity that it becomes easy to relate oneself to him;he is more than a mere fictional character.Of Human Bondage is a honest and therefore,perfect rendition of Somerset Maugham’s life.

4.The Cast
As I said previously,it is in meeting a vast array of characters that the meaning of life gradually unfolds itself to Philip.Strikingly these characters belong to a different scenery and each has a unique story.Additionally,some characters tend to disappear from Philip’s life only to reappear wholly changed at a latter stage.Such diversity of experience ensures that the book never gets boring.It is also worth mentioning that once the role of a character comes to an end,another one will emerge into Philip’s life and and play an active part.

5.The Sustained Emotional Power
Philip Carey is a goodhearted individual and the fact that we get an insight of his feelings all long the story makes it easy for us to sympathize with him.Naturally thus,we are deeply moved when he is distressed.But Philip is not the only one character who evokes pathos in this book: among those who also do are Cronshaw,Mildred,Hayward and Fanny Price.As a result,you can barely go through 20 pages in this book without being moved.There are also flashes of humor which emanate from Philip’s wittiness and which are intelligently used by Maugham as ‘comic reliefs’.In this light,we recognize Maugham’s personal touch as a playwright.

6.The Pace
In Somerset Maugham’s own words,Of Human Bondage ‘is a very long novel’.Given the many career changes which Philip decides upon and the wide range of characters he crosses path with,it could not be otherwise.Yet the pace at which events follow is not in the least boring.Each episode in Philip’s life is made of at most 10 very short chapters.This queer structure is such that you will go on reading without taking notice of the book’s mammoth size.

Why you might not like Of Human Bondage:

1.The Size
The book is as big as or bigger than Moby Dick.The size is not a drawback per se,but if you are used to reading short or mid-sized books like The Great Gatsby,To Kill a Mockingbird or Lord of the Flies,you might want to read a bigger book before having a go at the ‘mammoth’ Of Human Bondage.

2.No Thrill.
Of Human Bondage is hugely emotive but not at all thrilling.I think I would let you know about that lest you pick this book with the wrong expectations.In essence,the book only follows the life of a man from his childhood to his adulthood and thus has one of the dullest storylines in all literature.

Verdict: I’ve read many exceptional novels,but none has taught me about life as much as Of Human Bondage did.It is a beautifully-written book and I opine that it is not enough recognized as a great classic.It might look dull at first – I remember that after reading the first 10 pages,I was wondering how I would ever finish that book – but once you get into the story,everything will be fine.As for the size,you shouldn’t see it as a drawback,for Of Human Bondage is so big a book that it will be your companion for many weeks and you will find yourself growing attached to it.All in all,this book is a must read if you are young and seeking personal growth!