A Farewell to Arms
discussion
Ernest Hemingway- why?
date
newest »
newest »
Noah wrote: "Why is EH heralded by so many as a literary genius?"Because he almost single-handedly dragged the Western literary world out of their obsession with gaudy, florid prose into the twentieth century, making literature accessible to a much broader readership. He was daringly (or perhaps desperately) innovative, applying the artistic concepts of Impressionism to literature. You could say he democratized literature, making it accessible to more people, particularly the less educated.
Read Dickens and compare it with Hemingway and you'll get the idea.
The movement toward simpler prose was happening in Europe before Hemingway appeared on the scene, but he more or less perfected the technique of understatement, trusting the reader's imagination to supply details and thereby engaging them. Hem called it the "iceberg principle." Knowing what to leave unsaid was an important part of the author's expression.
There are lots of posts here that go into this in detail. Read some of them.
I understand knowing what should be left unsaid, but the problem I have is that he doesn't really say anything.
Noah wrote: "I understand knowing what should be left unsaid, but the problem I have is that he doesn't really say anything."The information is in the reviews.
If you won't read them, then I guess there's not much we can do for you.
I'm feeling ya, Noah. He never did anything for me.
The Sun Also Rises is better (Hemingway's best, I would say), although A Farewell to Arms has much excellent, heart-felt stuff, some fine dialogue among soldiers (but not between hero and his girl), and a masterful many-page description of the Italian army's retreat (about two-thirds into the book, if I remember correctly).
Not everyone will like this style. It even frustrates me after a while (especially if it's an audiobook). He forces me to contribute with my mind what he's decided not to write, and it's tough keeping up.But saying "he doesn't really say anything"? I'm not sure what's driving you to say that. The point of the style is to not say anything that doesn't say anything. Ya dig?
I hated Hemingway when I was in high school too. But I have come to rediscover him in my post, post-graduate world and I read all of his major works and all of his short stories and came away with an appreciation for his literature that I couldn't have seen as a high school junior or senior. I think he, and Fitzgerald for that matter, relate better to more mature readers perhaps. At least that seems to be the case for me. Read "Hemingway on Writing" and I think you may get where he was coming from a little better - that is if you even care enough to learn. Or wait a few more years and give him another shot like I did. Bet your perspective will change.
I'm a fan. But I have to admit that he was inconsistent. I'm sorry Noah didn't like A Farewell to Arms, which thought was great. But For Whom the Bell Tolls isn't actually that good, and Across the River and Into the Trees was a let-down too. It is also true that he can be a bit obscure sometimes; you sometimes wonder, what's below the clean, simple prose - is this leading somewhere? But it usually is. Sometimes you have to think about a book now and then for a few weeks after you've put it down.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
It didn't help that my teacher thought Hemingway was a genius.
I personally hated everything. The plot, the characters, the theme. The writing style seemed to me- not ground-breaking like my teacher insisted it was, but blah, disconnected, confusing, and forgetful.
Why is EH heralded by so many as a literary genius??