BOOK AS A WHOLE - FINAL THOUGHTS -ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

This is a spoiler thread meaning that anything about the book can be discussed here, etc.

If you do not like spoilers while you are reading a book, then stick to the weekly non spoiler threads.

This thread is a place where anybody can discuss this book as a whole who may have previously read the book; this thread is also for folks who may have read ahead of the schedule and do not know where to post because their posts would contain spoilers. Further this thread can be used to discuss information and topics which could spoil the story for somebody else.

Erich Maria Remarque

[Elizabeth S]

Everyone,

Quite a few of our members have already read the book, so I asked for a Book As A Whole thread to be opened right from the beginning. If you haven't read to the end yet, it is up to you if you want to read more, but I wouldn't recommend it. Experience the book for the first time by reading all the way through and then come read here.

For those who have read before, feel free to discuss any portions of the book here. This is also a good place to check if you aren't sure if something is a spoiler or not before you post on the weekly threads.

[Elizabeth S]

The biggest thing I am itching to discuss early is the very end. What did you think of it?

[abclaret]

I managed to prattle through the book and there are some quite vivid scenes and poignant messages from the narrative. I particularly think Kemmerich's death, the fighting in the cemetery, the killing of Gerard Duval and the unease while on leave stick out. There also some memorable characters like Kantorek, Himmelstoss and Katcinzsky.

Have to say though that I thought the narrative and a lack of character development for some of the minor characters was the weak point of the book. For example we're told late in the book that Haie dies, and Leer also, but this seems to happen without much a fuss and without really getting a feel for who they are. Also was not a big fan of the ending.

In terms of themes, to cherry pick a few, the book deals with; nationalism/jingoism (or the lack of), the relationship and camaraderie between the soldiers, death and loss, youth and home.

The book is almost completely devoid of crude depictions of the enemy combatants, (Paul is even nice to the Russians POWS!) and the book makes mincemeat of Kantorek and Himmelstoss who I guess are a caricatures of Germanys arrogance. And the killing of Gerard Duval really sort of epitomises the whole conflict in many respects.

[Misty]

I love spoilers, can't stand to wait! Kantorek is being discussed in the Chapter 1 thread, however, we're really not given much info about him:

- he was their teacher
- he writes them letters
- he inspired them to sign up and fight
- they don't hold him in too high of a regard because their lives are on the line. my first impression (based on ignorance due to not having read the book before) is that they feel like they've been conned by his romanticism.

On the last point, is my impression correct?

What can you tell me about this character? How much play does he have later in the book? Do we meet him, or is it only via correspondence mentions? Remember, I don't mind "spoilers" at all.

[abclaret]

Kantorek reappears as part of the home-guard, when Paul goes on leave and he's drafted under the command of one of the school youths called Mittelstaedt. I think Kantorek in many respects is the fall guy, because he symbolises Germanys imperialist aspirations, and Paul does not gel with the reality of this. Many of the themes of 'loss of youth' directly relate back to his conscription.

[Elizabeth S]

You guys have a nice little discussion started here. Way to go!

Mary, I'm one who generally goes out of my way to avoid spoilers, 'cause I figure I can only read a book for the first time once. (Until I get Alzheimer's or amnesia, I guess.) Reading you say that you like spoilers sends chills up my spine. :) Everyone is so different.

[Elizabeth S]

abclaret wrote: "Kantorek reappears as part of the home-guard, when Paul goes on leave and he's drafted under the command of one of the school youths called Mittelstaedt. I think Kantorek in many respects is the fa..."

Well put. There are quite a number of "loss of youth" discussions, and Kantorek embodies the home-guard attitude in many of them. Baumer's attitude is rather unusual, I think. It's kinda like he acknowledges that a lot of what has happened to him is because of Kantorek, and so is somewhat Kantorek's fault. But at the same time he doesn't really blame Kantorek because there isn't anyone at home that can understand.

[Elizabeth S]

Misty wrote: "...Kantorek is being discussed in the Chapter 1 thread, ...they don't hold him in too high of a regard because their lives are on the line. my first impression (based on ignorance due to not having read the book before) is that they feel like they've been conned by his romanticism.... "

I think at times Baumer and his buddies are mad at Kantorek, but at other times they kinda shrug him off with a, "but that's life" kind of attitude. I think they do feel "conned by his romanticism" (you put it so well), but at least Baumer seems to sometimes think that Kantorek is also conned by his own romanticism, and so deserves some degree of respect for at least being well intentioned.

[Elizabeth S]

abclaret wrote: "...Have to say though that I thought the narrative and a lack of character development for some of the minor characters was the weak point of the book. For example we're told late in the book that Haie dies, and Leer also, but this seems to happen without much a fuss and without really getting a feel for who they are. Also was not a big fan of the ending...."

Interesting perspective. I'm going to think about it more as I re-read the book. Here's my thoughts at the moment.

I think some of the lack of character development for various characters is intentional. At least I've read other places that when people die so frequently, people adopt something of a casual attitude about friendship--they avoid becoming emotionally attached to too many people. I think Remarque helps us feel some of that avoidance by giving us characters that we don't get to know well. Whether or not it was intentional, it did have that effect on me.

In a lot of ways I agree with you about the ending. It was a quick, hard punch in the stomach and then the book is over. On the one hand, annoying, painful, weird. On the other hand, I am again impressed with Remarque's ability to give his readers some of the feel (however faint) of being at war.

[abclaret]

Elizabeth S wrote: "In a lot of ways I agree with you about the ending. It was a quick, hard punch in the stomach and then the book is over. On the one hand, annoying, painful, weird. On the other hand, I am again impressed with Remarque's ability to give his readers some of the feel (however faint) of being at war."
The change in narration from first to third at the end is strange to say the least, and completely threw me. I am not sure if the change in style was supposed to add to the events, because I don't think it heightened the ending, but I can see possibly the author would think that.

[Elizabeth S]

abclaret wrote: "The change in narration from first to third at the end is strange to say the least, and completely threw me. I am not sure if the change in style was supposed to add to the events, because I don't think it heightened the ending, but I can see possibly the author would think that. "

I guess I don't see how else it could have been done. I think we're pretending that Baumer is really writing this. No one can really write their own death. I guess the only other thing would have been to have some friend observe the death and write about it. But I think that would have felt just as disjointed. Plus, you notice that all of Baumer's friends die one by one and there aren't any left at the end to pick up the narrative. I think that, at least, is deliberate.

[abclaret]

There was nothing stopping his death happening in the first person. Its the first to the third narrative form that I find a little unusual. I can see that dying out of the conflict zone had an irony to it, but I can't understand the switch in narrative or why it was necessary.

[Elizabeth S]

I guess I'm confused as to how someone can write about their own death.

[Sera]

Overall, I enjoyed this book. The ending was different, and I agree with Elizabeth S. in not knowing how one can write about her own death.

My favorite part of the book was when Baumer went on leave and the dread that he had in knowing that it would be over and he would soon be back in the war.

[Elizabeth S]

I'm glad you liked the book, Sera. I liked it too, but it isn't in any way a comfortable book. I think I'm liking it best this time through because there are people to discuss it with. The other times I've just read it on my own.

Are you saying that it was fun to read about Baumer on leave, or that it was the most thought-provoking? I guess I'm asking why you liked it best.

[Paul]

I just finished All Quiet… the other day. I wanted to share some of the notes I made. First, let me state that I too was a soldier (in Vietnam). This review or commentary reflects that. It has to. I apologize for it if anyone thinks I’m putting too much of my own experience in here, but I have to comment on those things that resonated with me. As Hemmingway would say (I think it was him), they had ‘the ring of truth.’ One of them was gulf between the enlisted man and his officers. This was lessened on the front (or in our case, ‘out in the boonies.’) But, when the soldiers went a few miles or more back, then they were again subject to the hated regimens of ‘discipline’ - saluting and parade. In our case it was those things too, not too much parading, but saluting, and also what we called ‘policing the area’ which amounted to scouring the ground for gum wrappers or cigarette butts.

Cigarette butts! This brings me to another area where my senses were heightened. When Paul and his buds are back in the rear, just before Paul goes on leave, they are in the canteen… Over us hangs a dense cloud of smoke. Where would a soldier be without tobacco? I can still recall getting our ‘CP’ bag, a large plastic bag of cigarettes, candy, etc, everything you couldn’t get in the boonies (or on the front). And not only that, but every C-ration box had a little pack of four cigarettes, and a wad of toilet paper, along with the food, of course. Smoking was one of only two or three, maybe four, pleasures we had out there. When I hear that they want to take cigarettes away from our troops, I could cry, or scream. Here they are, in danger of a sniper’s bullet or a road bomb, whatever, and some goodie goodie fool wants to ensure that they don’t smoke. I’m sure Paul would agree with me that such folks should be issued packs and rifles and sent to the front for punishment.

I enjoyed and could relate to Paul’s alienation when he goes home on leave. This is very real and I’m sure that every soldier sent ‘to the front’ feels it. When they want to know what it was like, and tell him to, ‘buck up,’ or whatever nonsense it was, that just amazes still. Like Paul, we went from the front to our family living rooms with no decompression chamber, no transition. I would hope that that’s changing now, but I don’t know.

The camaraderie ‘nearer than lovers’ and the love of food, real food, when they get it during their layover guarding the supply in the town-- that resonated with me a lot. Unlike Paul and his fellows, we had lots of food. But it was crap. And we talked about past meals like past love affairs. Paul’s stay in the hospital was very real for me, and moving. The one thing that I could not relate to was Paul’s and his buddies’ realization that they had no ‘life’ to go back to, that they had never established one. Even though this is true, it is something that I never really contemplated till I was full in it.

Rumors of the Armistice and peace are in the air! Wow, could I ever relate to that. For I remember the Paris Peace talks in 1968, and my hope that maybe it would be all wrapped up and settled before I had to go. Never happened, of course.

Let me close by saying how much I enjoyed the novel. Yes, enjoyed. It’s a great book and true. In one way the vets of Vietnam were very lucky compared to Paul and his comrades and today’s troops in Iraq or Afghanistan. We had 365 days to do in country. Then it was somebody else’s turn. Not so Paul Baumer.

I can’t imagine being in it for the duration, but that was the reality for some many soldiers. All Quiet… captures this awful reality very well and that’s why it’s still read today.

A few points. I did have a hard time differentiating between the characters. Perhaps if the writer had opened with their school days, maybe spent some pages on his best friend, and who he was wary of, etc. But that’s okay. This is a book about war, big, long, meat grinder types of wars. By the way, are there any truly great books by men who were there and ‘love’ war?

[Elizabeth S]

Thank you so much for sharing your experiences, Paul, and how they relate to All Quiet.... I'm thinking about what you said, and I may respond to some more later. Here's my top 2-3 thoughts:

I agree about having a hard time differentiating between characters. Earlier in this thread, abclaret commented on the lack of character development, and I'm realizing now that that is the same kind of thing. This time through the book I made myself a chart with the names and brief descriptions of the buddies as mentioned in Chapter 1. That is helping me a lot. Of course I've also read the book a couple of times before, so that is probably helping too.

As far as "truly great books by men who were there and 'love' war", I can't think of any off the top of my head. I was just checking about "The Red Badge of Courage". I wouldn't say that Stephen Crane really 'loved' war, but I think he did do a good job writing about how to find courage and personal growth despite the awfulness of war, which is about all anyone can honestly find as positive. I checked, and according to wikipedia, Stephen Crane didn't have any battle experience. Anyone else have any suggestions?

by Stephen Crane

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Winston Churchill comes to mind Paul.

Winston S. Churchill

[Bryan]

Great post, Paul, thanks for sharing.

Another answer is Theodore Roosevelt, he loved the romance of war:

Theodore Roosevelt

[Elizabeth S]

Good picks, Bentley and Bryan. Those are both great men who loved at least some aspect of war. I guess I was looking at it from the literary side, looking for books of great literature (fiction, historical fiction types).

[Paul]

Actually, to attempt to answer my own question, I read somewhere, concerning All Quiet, that the German nationalists did not like Remarque's book, which makes sense, and that there was another German writer, a veteran of the trenches, that wrote something glorifying the experience. I think he was perhaps more popular in Germany, but Remarque more in the world at large.

I know Teddy Roosevelt was quite an adventurer and a brave man, I'm sure. Churchill was a qreat man and writer. And could see the coming of Hitler's Reich, but I dont' know if he was in the trenches. I'll have to research that.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Of course Paul. Churchill was in the line of fire quite a few times.

Also, when mentioning any authors aside from the book that is being discussed and its author; we need to cite them as Bryan and I did.

So Teddy Roosevelt and Churchill need to be cited. Both photos and links are available for both.

Theodore Roosevelt

Winston S. Churchill

[Paul]

Okay.

[Elizabeth S]

Paul wrote: "Actually, to attempt to answer my own question, I read somewhere, concerning All Quiet, that the German nationalists did not like Remarque's book, which makes sense, and that there was another Germ..."

I think I've read that that All Quiet wasn't as well accepted in Germany. I've done a little searching online and I haven't found, so far, what I remember reading. I did find several sites that say that All Quiet was well accepted in the US and Britain and one of the books banned by Hitler. In 1933, the Nazis held a bonfire to burn copies of Remarque's books. (See http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/allquie... and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Quie...) I can see why Hitler would feel threatened by what Remarque wrote.

If you can think who that other German writer was, the one who glorified the trenches more, it would be fun to look-up stuff about that book.

[Paul]

Okay, I'll see if I can find that.

[Sera]

Elizabeth S wrote: "I'm glad you liked the book, Sera. I liked it too, but it isn't in any way a comfortable book. I think I'm liking it best this time through because there are people to discuss it with. The other..."

I found Baumer's leave most interesting in the book, because of the feelings that he was able to express between being away from the war and knowing that he had to go back. I felt that the author did a fantastic job describing Baumer's feelings, in particular how his life would never be the same and the anticipation of when the leave would be over. It reminded me of the feelings that I have when I'm on vacation, either at home or away, counting away the days, knowing the brief respite from the day to day routine was soon to be over. My life is nothing like going back to war, of course, but I could relate to Baumer's feelings, and as someone who has never fought in a war, it gave me a way in which to connect with Baumer. This opportunity made that part of the story more relevant to me, if that makes sense.

[Sera]

Paul wrote: "I just finished All Quiet… the other day. I wanted to share some of the notes I made. First, let me state that I too was a soldier (in Vietnam). This review or commentary reflects that. It has ..."

Paul, thank you for sharing your experiences. I always enjoy a first-hand perspective so I appreciate your telling of your memories. I can't imagine how frustrating you might have felt at times to know that the the Vietnam War would never have an outcome similar to the wars of the past.

['Aussie Rick']

The book that you may be thinking of that was better received in Germany covering soldiers experiences in the Trenches could be; "Storm of Steel" by Ernst Jünger.

by Ernst Jünger
Description:
As though walking through a deep dream, I saw steel helmets approaching through the craters. They seemed to sprout from the fire-harrowed soil like some iron harvest.’Storm of Steel is one of the greatest works to emerge from the catastrophe of the First World War. A memoir of astonishing power, savagery and ashen lyricism, it illuminates like no other book the horrors but also the fascination of total war, presenting the conflict through the eyes of an ordinary German soldier. As an account of the terrors of the Western Front and of the sickening allure that made men keep fighting on for four long years, Storm of Steel has no equal.

About the Author:
Ernst Jünger, the son of a wealthy chemist, ran away from home to join the Foreign Legion. His father dragged him back, but he returned to military service when he joined the German army on the outbreak of the First World War. STORM OF STEEL was Jünger's first book, published in 1920. Jünger died in 1998.

Reviews:
"This is unquestionably one of the most striking accounts of the First World War..." - Richard Holmes (Evening Standard)

"What raises Jünger to the level of epic is the grandeur of the prose, which is sublime but never sentimental." - Daniel Johnson (Telegraph)

"Ernst Jünger is unarguably an original…" - Tibor Fischer

[Elizabeth S]

Sera wrote: "I found Baumer's leave most interesting in the book, because of the feelings that he was able to express between being away from the war and knowing that he had to go back. I felt that the author did a fantastic job describing Baumer's feelings, in particular how his life would never be the same and the anticipation of when the leave would be over. It reminded me of the feelings that I have when I'm on vacation, either at home or away, counting away the days, knowing the brief respite from the day to day routine was soon to be over. My life is nothing like going back to war, of course, but I could relate to Baumer's feelings, and as someone who has never fought in a war, it gave me a way in which to connect with Baumer. This opportunity made that part of the story more relevant to me, if that makes sense. "

That makes a lot of sense. You wrote it up well. I like how you relate being on leave to going on vacation. Yes, there is a huge difference between the front and what we call "regular life", but because you can relate on even that level, you can become more a part of the book. (I think you said it better!)

[Elizabeth S]

'Aussie Rick' wrote: "The book that you may be thinking of that was better received in Germany covering soldiers experiences in the Trenches could be; "Storm of Steel" by Ernst Jünger."

by Ernst Jünger

Whether or not that is the book Paul was thinking of, it is certainly relevant to this discussion. Reading through some of the goodreads reviews, it sounds like a gut-wrenching description of life in the trenches, but without the depth of feeling in All Quiet.

[Paul]

Yes, thank you Aussie Rick, that is indeed the book. I would be interesting to make that a group read, and then compare it to All Quiet... Why is one so well known and the other a 'quiet' classic.

And Sera, I never thought much about the end of the war in Vietnam. All I thought about was when my DEROS would come up (Date of Estimated Return from Overseas). That was the thing that made the war in Vietnam unique. Unlike WWI, or II or the Civil War, or the war on terror that our armed forces are currently engaged in, American soldiers in Vietnam had a 'tour' of 365 days to do, and at that time you could have asked every GI over there and they could tell you pretty much how many days they had left.

[Elizabeth S]

Thanks, AR, for finding that book for Paul.

Have you read it, Paul? What do you remember about it? From the descriptions, it sounds like it would be too tense for me. But it would be interesting to compare with All Quiet.

[Paul]

Elizabeth, no, I haven't read it. I'll have to put that one in the queue (for after I retire). But then again, if you all make it one of the discussions, perhaps I'll jump on it :)

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Hi Paul, all of our books are voted for in polls. If you would like to join another group member in a buddy read; just send me a note and I will set up the dates etc. Elizabeth S really doesn't have the ability to just make it one of the current discussions. But you can contact me about a buddy read and we can make that happen.

[Paul]

That's okay, Bentley. My queue runneth over anyway. Thanks.

[Elizabeth S]

Paul wrote: "That's okay, Bentley. My queue runneth over anyway. Thanks."

I know what you mean. (grin) That is one of the nice things about goodreads. When I find a book that I know I'd like to read some day, but not now, I can just stick it on my to-read shelf. It is nice to know I can find it again whenever I'm ready.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

No problem Paul...just wanted to make sure you knew about the process as well as the ability to read something right away if you wanted to with any member of the group.

[Katy]

Great read.
My father served in WWII and brother in Vietnam.
Neither of them ever spoke of what happened while they were in the midst of things.
This helps to understand why.

[Elizabeth S]

Kathy wrote: "Great read.
My father served in WWII and brother in Vietnam.
Neither of them ever spoke of what happened while they were in the midst of things.
This helps to understand why."

Thanks for your comments, Kathy. This book really does help us understand a little of what it is like to be in war. Kinda humbling, isn't it.

Feel free to add comments on the weekly threads as well. (Of course if spoilers might be a problem, post any other thoughts on this thread.)

[Autumn]

Elizabeth S wrote: "The biggest thing I am itching to discuss early is the very end. What did you think of it?"

Just finished it...and :( ....that's my thought...so I grew to love all the characters and most of them don't make it. I do think it ends way too abruptly in that last paragraph but I find the rest of it very sad and moving, especially the bit about Kat (who as you know was my favorite).
Also the other time I cried was when Baumer visits his mother on leave the first time. The night before he has to leave his home he sits with his mother to have a conversation with her... so many things to say but how do you say them? It felt like I was there. All I could think about is my own sons--and how sometimes that is what it is like--you don't say things out of love even if you probably should say them--sometimes you love too much at the cost of yourself ( thinking about Baumer comforting his mother) That chapter is amazing. Remarque is incredible.
One of my favorite things about this book is how it empowers the individual, gives a face to everyone, commands one to have empathy for the plight of others.It is very humbling. Even Himmeltoss gets that eventually :). I can see why Hitler would not like this book and that is why I think I liked it so much.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Autumn,

That was such a moving segment. Not saying things out of love sometimes leads to regrets for both parties and that part of the book was unbelievably moving and extremely sad at the same time. Your post was excellent and I think sums up how so many folks feel when reading this book.

Bentley

[Autumn]

Bentley wrote: "Autumn,

That was such a moving segment. Not saying things out of love sometimes leads to regrets for both parties and that part of the book was unbelievably moving and extremely sad at the same t..."

Thanks for the kind comment Bentley :).
Yes, that segment really got to me. Maybe this is the way between sons and mothers. My almost fourteen year old does that, sometimes harboring his feelings, keeping silent not to worry me, or afraid he'll hurt mine etc...although I am unto him and squeeze most things out of him eventually hahaha ;)But I do believe Remarque has a gift for insight:).
And yes so sad and moving!:)

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Yes, I think what you say is true. Remarque seems to be able to understand human frailties and familial interactions very well.

[Elizabeth S]

Autumn wrote: "Just finished it...and :( ....that's my thought...so I grew to love all the characters and most of them don't make it. I do think it ends way too abruptly in that last paragraph but I find the rest of it very sad and moving, especially the bit about Kat (who as you know was my favorite)...."

The end is very abrupt, and very sad. And yet it seems weird to be sad about such an impersonal death announcement. And yet that is how so many death announcements were...

For me, at least, it leaves my emotions in limbo. What comes to my mind when I think about the ending, is Shakespeare's famous Macbeth speech that ends, "It is a tale... full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." To some extent, I think Remarque wants it this way. He gives us this story of war, gets us emotionally engaged, then leaves us with nothing.

by William Shakespeare

[[deleted user]]

I just finished reading it for the first time, and I have to say I had a different reaction then many of the posts here so far...I'm planning on going back through chapter by chapter with the chapter threads tho and see what things I missed out on in my quick read. My initial reaction was that although there was an emotional impact (especially, in my opinion, the effective use of the third person narration in the final paragraphs), overall the book read like a period piece and seemed to almost like an anti-war track rather than a serious novel. Certainly, the tone and style were drastically different than
byErnest Hemingway
or even a German authored book based more on the "common soldier" such as
Georg von der Vring. My initial reaction was to find that All's Quiet...in length, scope (I was surprised how little of the book was actually spent on the front line and the vagueness when it was), symbolism, language, structure, and character development did not live up to my usual expectation of serious literature. Honestly, I was very surprised that it has survived the period and become a world sensation. I also question the ethical character of the book, it seems to be a sweeping indictment of the older generation and leave us with the egocentric immature view of a very limited outlook. (Or am I just one of the civilians and just didn't get it?)

Now most of this however can actually work in Remarque's favor where it could be argued he crafted an unexpected book where the reality of war was not embellished, giving that harsh reality a faithful account. And if the construction of his book was indeed intentionally simple there may be much more that I have missed. For example, by chapter 11 I wondered if some of Paul's numbness has worn off on me and if that was intentionally set up by Remarque...did he want me to ALMOST be past feeling by the death announcement at the end?

The most compelling theme to me was the animal instinct that Remarque used to reduce the characters to their basic natures. He not only strips the main characters down to basic bodily functions, but there are also several passages that reflect on the difference between the soldier and an animal. For example ch 4 as they enter the "zone where the front begins and become on the the instant human animals". The impact of the horses' screams. The reaction of Paul toward "the suffering of the creature, the awful melancholy of life and the pitilessness of men" in chapter 8 as he reflects on the Russians. This was particularly interesting to me as WWI began the increased use of machinery in warfare, as alluded to when the characters push into enemy lines and are confronted with more airplanes and tanks.
Overall not what I was expecting, yet still more to think about.

[Elizabeth S]

You have lots of good points and perspectives, Genevieve. I think All Quiet was meant to be a long anti-war tract, as well as a novel. Whether or not it is serious literature depends, I guess, on how serious literature is defined. Personally, I have a pretty loose definition, so it doesn't bother me. At the same time, I agree that it has a very different feel from Hemingway--it is a very different type of book.

I've read All Quiet a number of times, now, and I have come to the conclusion that the simpleness is intentional. And even with the simpleness, there are moments of poetical descriptions and moments with sharp insight. The first time I read the book, the awfulness of war was the big thing that struck me. With each re-read, I see more that I think was intentional on Remarque's part. I'll be interested to hear what you think as you re-read with the weekly threads. (Just be careful to avoid spoilers for each week's thread, of course.)

By the way, part of the reason I think the book is so carefully crafted is because it is so easy to forget that there is anything positive in war, i.e. honor and character growth and empowerment for the individual. Please note that I do not think that that means war is positive. War is more of a "no great loss without some small gain" thing. I think Remarque writes as if the "small gain" is just unreal smoke, which leaves the reader with hopelessness and futility. Which is, I think, what Remarque intended.

Ernest Hemingway

[[deleted user]]

Elizabeth S wrote: "I guess I'm confused as to how someone can write about their own death."

I agree, although to me the practical aspect of it is secondary. My experience was that the book's last two paragraphs were the sublime culmination of all that came before. Yes, it is sudden – jarring, even – and necessarily so. Pardon my flowery language, but I'll go so far as to say that the ending crashed over me like a wave of emotion. Tragedy and redemption, all in three sentences. Very possibly the most devastating final lines of any book I've ever read.

We are naturally affected to learn the fate of the protagonist whom we have come to know so intimately via the first-person narrative. But consider, too, the impersonal context of history: at start of the final chapter, he tells us,

Everyone talks of peace and armistice. All wait. If it again proves an illusion, then they will break up; hope is high, it cannot be taken away again without an upheaval. If there is not peace, then there will be revolution.

Shortly thereafter, the third-person coda begins, "He fell in October, 1918." Revolution broke out in Germany beginning on the night of October 29-30, and a republic was declared on November 9. The armistice was signed and final cease-fire effected on November 11, 1918. It had been a long time coming: the German high command had concluded that Germany could not win the war and begun angling for a peace agreement as early as the preceding August.

So after four long years in battle, during which all his close comrades had been killed, our protagonist came within (at most) mere weeks of surviving the war. He knew at the moment he died that peace was not far off, but he didn't care. Because as his narrative so amply conveyed, the only way to survive any length of time on the front lines without going insane is to stop giving a damn whether you'll live or die.

As evidenced in this discussion, many others don't share my admiration for the book's final coda. I can completely understand this, at least in theory – different strokes for different folks. The ending seems to me a significant gamble on Remarque's part, so it follows that it would please some and leave others cold. Suffice it to say, your mileage may vary – but I appreciate writers who are willing to take that kind of risk.

[Elizabeth S]

Wow, Derek, some great thoughts. Here are some responses.

I wish abclaret had returned to explain what was meant in Message 13: abclaret wrote: "There was nothing stopping his death happening in the first person. Its the first to the third narrative form that I find a little unusual. I can see that dying out of the conflict zone had an iron..."

Maybe I misunderstood, but it seemed that abclaret was saying that Baumer's death wasn't troublesome, just the switch to third person. Personally, I don't see how the death announcement could have been done in first person, and I think the switch to third helps emphasize the bleakness and futility that I think Remarque was trying to convey. It was jarring to my emotions, like the pounding of the final nail in the coffin. But as you say, it was also "the sublime culmination of all that came before." Really, there was no other way the book could effectively end. And Remarque did it so well.

The first time I read All Quiet, it was a book that described what war at the front was really like. As I read and re-read it, I see other things that Remarque was writing about, like the Russian prisoners and people at home not understanding. And I'm also more and more impressed with how carefully Remarque crafted his story.

[Mary Ellen]

Wonderful discussions.

Paul, your perspective on providing cigarettes to soldiers is quite interesting! I guess I would be one of those goodie goodie fools. It has always struck me as quite evil that our military powers that be were complicit with the tobacco companies in getting these young men addicted to their poison. And the death of a friend's dad, WWII vet, of lung cancer enforces my opinion... but your perspective is one I must attend to!

RE: the ending. I agree with the "punch in the gut" comparison. I was hurt that we didn't even learn how Paul died; this made his death seem wholly meaningless. But death also "solved" Paul's problem: he didn't think that he'd be able to return to civilian life, to create a life for himself away from the trenches. And he never had to.

The ending certainly is powerful, and underlines all that Remarque had to say about war. But I also felt it was a bit of a nasty trick; we seemed to be reading Paul's memoirs all along and then suddenly, we learn he would not have been around to write them.