This is the sixth in the series of considerations about works of those authors who won the Nobel Prize in Literature. Ernest Hemingway won the prize in 1954. For this post, I have read The Old Man and the Sea (Scribner, 2003, pp. 127), The Sun Also Rises (Scribner, 1954, pp. 222) and Across the River And into the Trees (Scribner, 1998, pp. 269).
What can be said about Ernest Hemingway that has not been said before? Everyone knows that he popularized the quick, adjective-less sentences with few dependent clauses, that he wrote about the two world wars, and loved fishing, hunting and reading. But I believe that there is a hidden attitude, at least in the three books I have read, which is disconcerting. It is discussed below.
There is no doubt that The Old Man and the Sea is a masterpiece, not so much for the style (whose acceptance is in the eyes of the reader, so to speak), or for what is narrates, but in what the author does not reveal. There are only three characters: the old man (Santiago), the boy, and the fish. Two deep relationships are expressed by this triangle: the old man and the fish, and the boy and Santiago. The boy has a deep respect for Santiago and he is the only one who actually cares what happens to him, buys him drink and food, and brings a human presence into his life. This relationship, though, is based on the necessity of work – without it, there would be no connection between the two. As for the old man and the fish, catching a big fish is the old man’s dream, for various reasons: to demonstrate to himself that he can get the biggest fish of his life, to feed many people, to be admired by the other fishermen, etc. This struggle to catch the fish and the defeat of the fisherman can be made into countless possible metaphorical explanations: human life is a struggle (suffering) which we ourselves create by desires and all of this comes to nothing at the end (of course, this explanation has a Buddhist flavor). Furthermore, our dreams can come true, but with a price. In this book, there are deep echoes of Hemingway’s love of fishing, in the way he makes the readers understand every movement Santiago makes in order to catch and keep the fish. The reader sympathizes with the old man, and with the fish: there is no doubt about this; the style allows for this type of reaction. What is hidden from the readers, however, is Hemingway’s own feelings about the old man and about the fish: the narration, despite creating deep feelings on the part of the reader, does not allow for those of the author to shine through. Is he pitying the old man? Is he worried about him? Is he pitying the fish? Is he worried about it? There are no indications whatsoever about these matters, as there are no indications of Hemingway’s stance about the poverty in which the old man lives, about the cultural hegemony of baseball, or about the way in which the outside world treats the old man. Whose side is he on? Could it be that he himself is unsure?
Commentaries on The Sun Also Rises give pre-eminence to the manner in which the bull-fight is presented. But there is much more going on there: the lives of the members of the “lost generation” are analyzed in their pettiness, resort to alcohol, lack of any horizon, superficial relationships, and absence of willingness, on the part of the ex-pats, to consider the inhabitants of France or Spain. This is all good, and it smacks of a newspaper article. There is no evidence that the author, by taking a few steps back and observing this group of characters, no matter how scientific his observations are, has any ideological commitment. Perhaps this could be the main point of his writing: not to commit to any idea, not to allow himself the luxury and the curse of an allegiance to anything whatsoever. If it is true that he himself preferred to live in Europe because it gave him what the USA could not, he does not mention it in the narration, and he does not give any reasons. Could depression be the cause (or the result) of this sitting on the fence and not deciding one way or another about anything?
Across the River and into the Trees is a most telling example of a novel the protagonist of which has been so affected by the war he participated in that he cannot think of anything else, clearly especially because while fighting, he lost the use of his right hand. Hemingway has the Colonel almost revel in the descriptions of the actions of which he was a possible protagonist. Even though “[the Colonel] knew how boring any man’s war is to any other man”, the novel is full of descriptions of WWI actions. His attitude towards the enemy? “But he never hated them; nor could have any feeling about them.” The war for him is therefore a series of tactics and strategies, which may prove a “stupid butchery”, but remains as “technically…something to learn from” (p. 57). The protagonist, a 50 year old man, has a girlfriend who is 20 (isn’t this every man’s dream?), and he visits her in Venice, where she was born into a wealthy and important family. This novel expresses a clinical view, without giving the reader the way to participate psychologically in an active way. It is not an anti-war statement, because Hemingway does not open up and communicate his innermost ideology or at least an idea of some type of psychological, political, or cultural responsibility. It is as if he were loath to express allegiance to anything, or, maybe, as if he had not any allegiance to express.
There is no doubt that Hemingway is a great author. His narrative points to a very different affective engagement on the part of the readers, partly due to the clinical description of the characters’ actions and relationships. The truly troublesome result is that we really have no idea what allegiance (if any) Hemingway had towards any aspect of his novels. They resemble newspaper articles, and in fact these three novels do not energize the reader to anything. If that was his purpose, then he truly achieved it.
Addendum: After having read Farewell to Arms (Scribner 2003) my opinion as expounded above does not change much. The usual activities as in the other books are harped on (drinking, whoring, detached attitude). Even though the protagonist is in love, it is a disengaged love – he simply exists with the woman who basically makes all the decisions and he follows them. Even his job as an ambulance driver on the Italian Front during WWI is not really truly felt – obviously it must be numbing to see all the violence and the results of this violence – but his numbness to everything around him is unfathomable. The lost generation’s attitude of “is this all there is?” makes for an empty receptacle. There is a hint of the Cristian sense of retribution at the end of the book when his lover/to be wife is dying from miscarriage. He says that after having fun, that is what happens. Later on, as he muses on her dying, he concludes ” You never have time to learn. They threw you in and told you the rules and the first time they caught you off base they killed you. Or they killed you gratuitously like Aymo. Or gave you the syphilis like Rinaldi. But they killed you in the end. You could count on that.” It is not really clear who the “they” are in general. Maybe his uncertainty leads him to be so detached. Is this disengagement making the protagonist and the author fall apart?
The title is intriguing: Farewell to Arms may mean “goodbye weapons” and also “goodbye to the arms of the beloved”.
Reading rascal 
I wonder how Hemingway would interpret his own work, if he had to be open and honest with himself about his writing. Would he realize how readers would be able to understand what he was trying to say to them, if he really had something to say? Something else to consider is that writing as a means to generate financial gain would may very likely weigh on the written material, so as to also appeal to as wide an audience as possible, to generate a large number of book/essay sales. However, there’s no doubt that Hemingway was a successful author, and apparently good enough that academia honored him with the Nobel for literature. Hollywood made wide use of his work in films.
Perhaps his work can be eyed through what he states, and is quoted as saying. “I always try to write on the principle of the iceberg. There is seven-eighths of it underwater for every part that shows.” He apparently wants the reader to dive well below the surface lines to get what he is really wanting to say, deep down inside. Personally, I have been convinced that all true artists are inspired by the Muses, and without that higher inspiration, there is no art to speak of or write about.
On the little I know about Hemingway, mostly through films, he apparently looked to gain experience to write about, which would look appealing and inspiring to himself. I say this based on another of his supposed quotes: “Live it up so you can write it down.”
Based on my semi-illiterate abilities, and little knowledge on Hemingway’s work, you have made a very decent assessment, considering the brevity of the assessments for each work covered. KUDOS!