Henry James's grandfather immigrated to the United States in 1789 and was a successful venture capitalist, who owned a canal and made a fortune. The grandfather had 3 wives and 16 children.
Henry's father inherited wealth and was a philosopher. There were five children in the family. Henry was the second child. His sister was an invalid, who only lived to her early 40s. Henry traveled extensively with his family.
Henry was not the only famous James from that family. His brother William was the very famous psychologist. It is said that William wrote psychology as if it were fiction, and Henry wrote fiction as if it were psychology. Both William and Henry were Calvinists, but we didn't see evidence of a religious point of view in this novel.
Portrait of a Lady is considered to be the best of the novels of Henry James. Henry's insight into the lives and emotions of his characters is stunning. His use of language is lyrical. Susan cited where Isabel sees a private conversation taking place between Ms. Merle and Mr. Osmond as the peak psychological scene of hidden meaning where the reader is left in suspense to figure out what the two villains were plotting.
That observation launched us into a discussion of Ms. Merle. We all had mixed feelings about her. Yes, she was evil, but since James didn't really explain all the steps that led her to be that way, we wondered if she were driven to her malevolent choices by her lot in life. Some thought she was a sad character. In fact, we noted that James leaves us with many, many questions. One person pointed out that James used an ellipsis plot device of skipping over steps in the plot, leaving them unaddressed intentionally. One of the plot points we wanted to know more about was Isabel’s relationship with Goodwood before she moved to Europe. Also, why did she reject him before the book even started? What happened to Ms. Merle’s husband? Was he alive or dead? How did Pansy end up in Osmond’s care? What were the circumstances of Osmond’s and Ms. Merle’s affair? How did the death of Isabelle’s child affect Isabelle and Osmond? After hundreds of pages of delicious writing and detailed description, we wanted to know more!
One person mentioned that Ms. Merle's name meant black bird. That observation led us to Ms. Gemini, who was described as a bird with a beaklike nose, which led us to the deliberate and descriptive choices of names. Mr. Goodwood, who we all liked, seemed the most masculine of Isabel's suitors and his name gave rise to chuckles. Another example of a name that has a meaning is Isabel, who "is a belle."
We found Ms. Gemini very interesting. Though she seemed like a dimwit at times with her scattered conversations, she knew the dirt and had lived through difficult times with her philandering husband. She eventually laid out the truth to Isabelle regarding Ms. Merle and Osmond.
The character of Ms. Stackpole was interesting to us. She truly was an independent woman, self-supporting and free to travel, yet her character, though perhaps less flawed in some ways than Isabel’s, seemed somewhat superficial. She provided some comic relief and insights that were ignored by Isabel.
The history and politics of the world at the time did not intrude on the insulated world of the wealthy and near wealthy expatriates. The Civil War in the United States was taking place during James’ life, yet there is never a reference to that upheaval and carnage. That surprised us.
We also wondered why James chose a female to be a protagonist for his novel. One member of our group thought that James identified with the lot of the female world. For men at that time, the typical choices in life were business, military or religious life. James, a writer, was in the world of the arts, often perceived as more feminine choice.
We wondered about Osmond’s courtship of Isabel. Did he really find her desirable for anything more than her money? Though we get to know Osmond as a miserly, controlling and an emotionally abusive husband and father, we noted that he had charm when he needed it. In fact Isabel thought he was “poor, noble and lonely.” He thought that Isabel would settle into a submissive role after marriage. Though Isabel certainly tried to be a submissive dutiful wife, ultimately, we thought she would break with Osmond in a stark and final way.
We discussed how the major characters were introduced to us through descriptions of their homes. The description that felt the most unsettling was Osmond’s house. It was dark and filled with his collection of art work and left one with the feeling that once inside, there was no escape. Isabelle became a piece of property of Osmond's, the same as his valuable pieces of art.
We noted that Pansy’s true love, Rosier, was also a collector of fine art. In order to prove to Osmond that he had enough wealth to marry Pansy, he sold his entire collection. Instead of being impressed by the wealth, Osmond was pleased that those pieces of art were now available for purchase! Pansy was also part of Osmond’s collection.
Isabelle changed considerably from the beginning to the end of the novel, a span of around five years. She was self-centered, independent and naïve. Over time she learned to distrust Merle, upon whom she relied to show her the way of the European world and society. She came to understand that she was used by Merle and her husband. She was strong enough at the beginning to reject suitors who did not appeal to her, but was naïve enough to not understand the malevolent nature of Osmond and Merle, even after being warned about them. Ultimately she understood that Osmond truly hated her. We thought that Isabel needed the betrayal in order to grow. By the end of the novel Isabel defied Osmond by seeing the dying Touchett. She was her strongest there.
It was interesting to us how James resolved the lives of the suitors. Goodwood, who never stopped loving Isabel, ultimately married someone else, much to the chagrin of our heroine. Warburton, who was probably 40 years older than Pansy, courted her. We thought he did this to be near Isabel, perhaps putting a subtly incestuous vibe on the possible union.
Ralph Touchett and the narrator seemed to understand the most about all aspects of the story. Ralph loved his cousin Isabel and perhaps was in love with her, but he seemed to be asexual, perhaps because of his illness. He set into motion all the possibilities in Isabel's life by seeing that she became wealthy through inheritance. He lived long enough to see Isabel marry Osmond and to provide Osmond with the funds he needed to continue collecting art and to support the lovely Pansy. In other words, ironically, Isabel helped Osmond the same way Ralph helped her.
This novel was serialized in The Atlantic Monthly. Every chapter ended in suspense and anticipation for the reader. The novel ended the same way, frustrating all of us. In spite of two different endings in different editions, we will, alas, never find out if Isabelle regains her independence, rescues her stepdaughter and at long last finds true love. Perhaps James’ unresolved endings are more realistic than our desire for closure and happy endings. After all, we are all flawed. Fate intrudes. We make poor decisions. We reap the consequences of those decisions and move on. None of us ever really knows what comes next. Do we really want to know?
Obviously this novel struck a harmonic chord with us all. Many We were all moved and caught up in this gripping story. Henry James’ Portrait of a Lady confirms why a classic earns that name.
I’m only slightly ashamed to say that I am a librarian with little time to read these days. I read some wonderful books with my young children, and there are the informative journal articles I read for work, but my “spare” time is used for sleep, if I’m lucky enough to get some. It could be a good while before I revisit those long lazy days curled up with the perfect novel, I’m afraid. Worse, I don’t even think I have the capacity for sustained concentration anymore, having not had an uninterrupted moment for several years. I suspect my predicament is relatable by many. And so I bring you the 'Reading Minute'.
When I do pick up something to read for leisure I tend to look for the following qualities: Light and easy to digest, but still smart; discreet sections I am able to finish in one sitting without totally losing the thread when inevitably interrupted; finally, if it’s not too much to ask, just make me laugh and feel like I am connecting with a witty, insightful friend.
Lately I have been finding what I am looking for in these sort of autobiographical short essay-type books written by brilliant female comedians and comic writers. Most recently, I listened to the e-audiobook Seriously... I'm kidding by Ellen DeGeneres, which came out in 2011. I enjoyed listening to Ellen read her own book, with plenty of asides especially for audiobook listeners. Her quirky inflections made this series of silly stream-of consciousness musings (Some chapters are between 1-5 lines long, others are 20 pages.) delightful to take in while walking around Lake Merritt, laughing out loud and distractedly wandering into joggers. What I like about Ellen is that, besides being a naturally funny person and a writer with years of experience as a stand-up comic, she also has a profoundly kind take on everything and everyone. She wants us to feel great about ourselves, and to get along with each other, and to take care of the earth. And to laugh all the while, which I did.
Before that I read Bossypants by Tina Fey, also out in 2011. I have heard that this audiobook is worth a listen, too, as she is the reader, and you can’t beat a comic actress performing her own material. Tina, who was a longtime writer on the set of Saturday Night Live, knows how to punch you in the gut with funny. I came dangerously close to wetting my pants reading some of her thorny responses to ugly criticism of her found on the Internet. Bossypants is mostly about her time as the producer/writer/star of the popular sitcom 30 Rock, with hilarious yet affecting flashbacks to SNL, The Second City improv group and her awkward younger years. She goes deep, getting into what it is like being a woman in comedy and not following the lifelong conditioning of trying to please everybody. I think that, in large part, her success comes from giving an authentic voice to the way many talented women today still feel insecure and undervalued. Then she makes fun of the whole thing.
Here are a couple of books on the horizon on which I have already placed my holds with high hopes:
Not That Kind of Girl by Lena Dunham (just out this month), the twentysomething fresh-voiced dynamo behind the hit HBO series Girls, is called "really out-there honest" by The Library Journal. Says Lena of her book: "No, I am not a sexpert, a psychologist or a dietician. I am not a mother of three or the owner of a successful hosiery franchise. But I am a girl with a keen interest in having it all, and what follows are hopeful dispatches from the frontlines of that struggle."
Yes Please by Amy Poehler (out in late October), Tina Fey's BFF and castmate on SNL, as well as The Second City, is described by the publisher as a "big juicy stew of personal stories, funny bits on sex and love and friendship and parenthood and real life advice". Amy is a veteran comic known most recently for her work on Parks & Recreation and, earlier in her career, for several seasons on the Upright Citizens Brigade.
Gotta run, now!
Our discussion leader did an outstanding job in presenting the background story on Zealot.
Dr. Reza Aslan is a non-religious American whose family emigrated from Iran to the United States when he was a child. His family was Muslim. He was invited to go to a Christian summer camp and became a Christian, because it attracted him emotionally and helped him feel he belonged. He was a practicing Evangelical Christian for some years. He was later educated by Jesuits and investigated the historical Jesus, finding that he could no longer be Christian. He studied Islam and found that he was attracted to it intellectually.
In his book about Jesus, he pulled from the few historical records of the time and from the social history of the era. In his research he discovered that much we have all been taught about the life of Jesus does not correspond to the real history of the times. He points out that three fourths of the New Testament was written by Paul, who did not know Jesus and had a perspective different than the Apostles. Aslan defined the concept of Messiah in terms of Judaism. No Jew at that time or in the present would define Jesus as a messiah. Messiah was a royal title, NOT a religious title.
The difference between Jesus and other preachers of the era was that although many performed miracles, Jesus never charged money for the service. Jesus focused on the disenfranchised, the poverty stricken and the exploited Jews of Palestine.
The first gospels were written in 72-75 AD over 40 years after Jesus died. James, the brother of Jesus, took over the management of the followers and focused on the laws of Moses, since at that time all the followers were Jews. (We noted that Catholics are taught that Jesus had no brother, whereas the Gospels mention James as his brother.)
Later when Paul became involved, there was a split between Paul and James. Paul was a product of Rome, spoke Greek and was literate, three qualities that James did not have. Since Paul wrote, his interpretation of the life of Jesus is the one that has had the most influence and has been more lasting.
Paul claims he was the 1st Apostle and he geared his message to the Jews in the Roman Empire.
A little background: Judaism was temple centered before Jesus. The first temple was destroyed in 586 B.C. The second temple was destroyed in 70 A.D by the Romans. The Romans destroyed it, because of the constant rebellious acts against the power of Rome. Tens of thousands of Jews were killed in 70 A.D. and others dispersed. Those Jews were no longer in Israel and in a temple centered life. Eventually many of them were less culturally affiliated with the Judaism of Israel and more drawn to other beliefs, some of those being Christianity.
Aslan points out that Jesus never said he was the Son of God. Jesus, however, was a revolutionary, as in preaching in a way that ultimately would undermine the power of Rome. He was crucified and crucifixion was the execution reserved for sedition. The sign on his cross labeled his crime as Jesus' claiming that he was the King of the Jews. The leaders of the temple were making a lot of money and Jesus' teachings were a direct threat to the temple leader's ways of supporting themselves in the style they liked.
As Paul gained a following of Gentiles (non-Jews) after the death of Jesus, Gentile men could join and not have to be circumcised. There was also no need of a temple and its priests to absolve people of their sins, because "Jesus died for our sins."
In the oral culture of the time there were two elements, "Fact" and "Truth." Fact was not as important as Truth. Truth was the tradition. For example, there was no massacre of first born sons during the early childhood of Jesus. Another example is that Pontius Pilate didn't have the exchange with the crowd of Jews, where the Jews took responsibility for killing Jesus. Paul had to absolve the Romans of guilt for Jesus' death, since he was preaching in a Roman world. After 70 A.D., the generation of non-Jewish followers of Christianity outnumbered the Jewish Christians. It made more sense for Paul to blame the Jews for Jesus's death.
There are other sources that point to other possible historical interpretations of Jesus's life. In the book, How Jesus Became God there is a reference to a papyrus document that mentions that Jesus had a wife.
Before Paul, Judaism and Christianity was only for Jews. The Jews held that they were chosen by God and that infuriated the non-Jews around them.
Another non-truth shows that Jesus was not truly from the House of David. His father Joseph was from the House of David. Jesus was considered at the time to be the illegitimate son of Mary, which would make him a person of ridicule, so his lineage was marked from Joseph's family.
We discussed how some of the issues over which people are currently fighting in the Middle East sound very similar to the issues in Jesus's time, such as power and religious zealotry.
Aslan pointed out that Jesus was in fact a zealot. His Palm Sunday ride into town on a donkey was actually provoking the establishment to retribution. It was a revolutionary act of rebellion, because at that time only Kings rode donkey's in processions. He rode into town with the trappings of a King! It was, therefore, an overt threat to the system.
It was pointed out that if you take all the writings from the Bible attributed to James, Jesus's brother, it amounts to the total of three pages and those pages show the Jesus we would most likely want to know.
One member of our group, who is Hindu, described the evolution of Hindu stories and how they have also changed over time to reflect what people needed to hear to understand reality in the light of belief. She said there are 400 basic Hindu stories that have all changed over time. We can see that the stories about Jesus also changed.
The writer, Alan Dundee, says there are 22 things that make a hero and Jesus has 19 of them, virgin birth, miracles, etc.
We all thought this book was thought provoking and certainly had a new take on the story of Jesus, that he was a Zealot and a candidate to be the King of Jews.
It was Jesus' followers who witnessed his resurrection and the believers of that event, which in turn made the religion expand. Paul's letters all over the new Christian world unified those beliefs among the new followers with gentile origins.
St. Stephan declared that Jesus was the Son of Man while Stephan was being martyred, in effect saying that Jesus of the actual Son of God, equal to God!
That belief was made official when Emperor Constantine, a few hundred years later, called for the Bishops of Rome to make a unified decision on the beliefs of Christianity, hence the creation of the Nician Creed and throwing out of the Bible books which were controversial or did not mesh with what the group at that time believed. This paved the way for the persecutions of heresy and for future rules about what to believe.
We discussed a very popular book that came out in the 1970s that a few of us read at that time, called The Passover Plot, which is by a Jewish Rabbi explaining what he thought of Jesus. There were some correlations Zealot. I recommend trying that one, also, if you liked Zealot.
What a ride! We had a hard time leaving after our discussion. It was truly exciting to share with others how this book affected us.
Our discussion leader emailed an addendum of points she forgot to make that night. She said that Aslan made these points during some fascinating interviews she found online on YouTube. She said:
"I remember some questions that were asked about what Reza Aslan's wish was for the people who read his book. Aslan stated that "faith" and "history" are two separate ways of knowing something. Faith concerns what is *possible* and History concerns what is *likely.* The Jesus of history became more relatable to Aslan than the Christ of faith, so he stopped "believing in the creed." He said that people have a choice of how they can view Jesus.
Aslan also said that his book attempts to reveal the historical Jesus to provide a sense of who Jesus was and why he was perhaps the most important man who ever lived. Aslan tried to peel back the layers of myth, interpretation, legend, dogma, theology and doctrine that have been placed upon Jesus for millennia. He said that Biblical scholars already know the information he presents in his book.
Aslan said that religion is far more a matter of identity than a matter of beliefs and practices. Living in revolutionary Iran showed him the power of religion and how it can transform a society for good or bad. He stated that after studying the religions of the world it is hard to take any one religion seriously. He said that it's not that Islam is true and correct and other religions are not true, but the language of Islam feels more comfortable to him."
We liked this history, which often read like a novel. We recommend it to anyone interested in a new view of the life of Jesus.
First A Little About Annie Proulx:
She was born August 22, 1935 in Connecticut, Educated in history in Vermont and currently lives in Wyoming.
She won the Pulitzer Prize and the National Book Award for The Shipping News. She won PEN/Faulkner Award for her first novel, Postcards. She is the first woman to win the PEN/Faulkner Award!
A free spirit, she has divorced three times and has raised alone her three sons and one daughter. She lived many years in small towns in Vermont.
Most of her writing has been nonfiction. She has written both short and long nonfiction. Her controversial and critically acclaimed novella Brokeback Mountain was both a book and a film.
What we thought:
Like The Return of the Native, The Shipping News has “Nature” as a major character. Annie Proulx did a great amount of research, living many times in Newfoundland for months at a time. This showed in the exquisite details of the beauty of that stark, lonely, bleak and transcendent world. From the sparkling water shining as with diamonds at a glowing rainbow sunset, to slate gray, storm-tossed seas hiding its victims! Her knowledge of the details of boats, shipping, fishing and everything related to the ocean community enriched every part of her work.
Our group seemed to universally like or LOVE this book. Some had read it more than once and still really liked it the second time. The only negative comments were about the writing style, which sometimes had sentence fragments or long, run-on sentences. Others disagreed, thinking that these style “rule-breakers” enhanced the rhythm and texture of the narrative. Others didn’t even notice the unconventional style.
A few of us commented that, at first, the main character, Quoyle, his abused early life, his willingness to take abuse, his lack of confidence, made him very unsympathetic. A few wondered about reading on, but kept at it, then, it all changed!
Petal's violent death, his kidnapped very young daughters' close encounter with possible sex slavery, the joint suicide of his parents, the hostile rejection of his brother, and job loss, suddenly thrust our kind, loving, sweet-natured anti-hero into chaos with no future......that is, until his Aunt showed up for the funeral.
His Aunt's down-to-earth sense of reality and belief in redemption from adversity, led them to Newfoundland to try a new life in the harsh sea town, in the ancestral home which was filled with specters of Quoyle ancestors’ century long secrets.
What transpired there was amazing. While still afflicted with hardship, gradually all the characters transformed! The readers could barely see the changes as they occurred. We loved how Annie Proulx pitted each character's weakness, including the peripheral characters, against what that character hated or feared most. Quoyle wrote The Shipping News and he was afraid of water and hated boats. One man, abused as a child, wrote of the local sex crimes. An old bachelor wrote about home decorating and cleaning tips.
We loved the chapter headings from The Ashley Book of Knots. They were symbolic clues of the developments in the coming chapter. We loved the names! Each was such a unique Dickensian invention. Humor was evident throughout, but subtle. We would find ourselves chuckling over made-up newspaper headlines, then immediately pulled back into the plot.
One theme was sexual identity and sexual deviance. Our homegrown newspaper contained all the stories of incest and other sexual abuse they could find. The Aunt, a major character, whose actions saved them all, kept her same-sex relationships secret.
In fact, we loved all the characters, except maybe Petal, the evil wife of Quoyle, who was dispatched by the author early in the book. Without Petal, Quoyle would never have grown. This proves that all adversity, at least adversity in novels, is there for a reason. :>
All the characters were quirky, strong in their own way, honorable, likeable, solid and interesting. We tried to see if we could think of any other novel where all the characters were so engaging and strangely weird and wonderful! One member of our group mentioned Kent Haruf's Plainsong. We all agreed.
We loved the intensity of the dangerous and suspenseful scenes, such as the cheap speedboat capsizing and Guy Quoyle almost drowning, and also, the wind-storm blowing away the ancestral home. We even really liked the historical description of the pirate, inbred family of Quoyles pulling their enormous house across the frozen bay with the angry jeering villagers pursuing! What an image!
We loved the drunken "good-bye" party that destroyed one newspaperman’s trailer home and sank his hand crafted solid boat, which prevented him (temporarily) from leaving. He was loved THAT much!
We noted the themes of the changing economy and even global warming! This book was written long before global warming was widely discussed. Proulx talked of government changes that directly put people out of work, then started companies to rescue those out of work. Those new companies then immediately failed due to poor planning. In contrast the locals found ways to continue in smaller ways, helping each other and still satisfying their deep love of the sea. This was how the newspaper was started!
Bunny, Quoyle’s older daughter, was understandably emotionally disturbed after her trials. She was also "sensitive" to the strangeness of the past and the current mysterious events around her, (the white dog, the dream of the house flying away) yet she slowly and quietly evolved into a normal child. We loved that.
Quoyle's and Wave's transformation from passive, ungainly people into leaders in the community and into confident lovers was so gratifying to the reader. They both clung to loving memories of their deceased spouses only to reveal to each other later that both spouses were cheaters and abusers!
We talked about the scene at the end of the book where Quoyle, after achieving success in his community and acquiring the true love of his life, examines himself in a mirror after a shower. Approaching middle age, his stomach protruding, a loaf of a man, tall, heavy, with tree trunk legs, facial features grouped in the center of his face, thick red hair all over, Quoyle realized he was probably at his prime and he liked what he saw! It was a redemptive moment making the reader smile and almost bringing out happy tears.
We liked the end, which affirmed that winds called by magic knots can blow evil away, the dead can rise again and most importantly, true love can come gradually without obsession and pain.
Annie Proulx deserved her prizes for The Shipping News!
Wow, what a Meeting! I think I counted nine of us there to discuss A Farewell to Arms by Ernest Hemingway.
Where to begin? Our discussion leader sent out an email asking us to think before the meeting about:
- The body of literary ciriticism characteriizes this book as an enduring American classic. Why?
- Prose style. Can you describe, find examples, and compare to other genres or writers?
- Are there character traits of this author that are brought to the fore in the writing?
As usual there were reports on the life of our author. Several members took extensive notes of passages that were memorable in their ideas or in the writing style...either in a positive or negative way.
Most of the group read the entire book. A few didn't finish it and one did not read it and did not plan to read it after we had discussed it.
Regarding liking it or not, a few didn't like it at all. (I had some reports through email by people who thought they couldn't make the meeting). Some really liked it, and most had ambivalent feelings about it. Most throught that the writing was dated...and not in a good way. Some examples included the way women were represented. Henry's love seemed to be a fantasy of what a man of the time wanted in a woman. In fact the women seemed unrealistic. Drinking seemed to be a major character in the novel. We commented that there are other classics from other eras and even that era whose writing style reflects the times and is still outstanding.
We learned that Hemingway was 19 when he lived some of this story and not much older when he wrote about it. In the biography update, we reviewed his many loves and marriages and noted that his first love, who dated from this time in WWI, dumped him for someone else. What revenge! He gets to kill her off in this novel after making her the perfect love interest. The dialog between the lovers seemed insipid, yet we all liked his Italian male friend and the conversations he had with the priest. Several members agreed that they could not identity with Katherine, that her conversation sounded pedantic, inane, obsessive, childish and immature. On the contrary, others pointed out that we may be judging by our standards and not the standards of the time, or by the view of such young love. How many of us are still with the person we loved at 19. Did our converstations sound silly back then? Did we ever say as Henry or Katherine said, "I would like to BE you." One member thought Hemingway liked women who were never around. One thought he liked a "Stepford wife" type of woman. We commented that Hemingway never showed sex and we thought that was probably due to the expectations of writing in that era. One comment was that we felt like we were in an old black and white movie.
The comment about being in an old black and white movie, brought out our memories of seeing Gary Cooper in the movie made in the early 30s, which brought us to tears by the great love. How did they make such a compelling movie from a book that left many of us cold.
We liked philosophical discussions which showed wisdom and depth. We liked his exposure of the insanity of war. We liked his descriptions of the lands of Italy. One member pointed out that the first chapter sets the whole tone for the book, pointing out that at the start of the winter came the rain and only 7,000 died in the army. The writing was lyrical and precise. Hemingway made the foreign view of war come alive for the reader. There were 3,500 Americans in the Italian army in WWI. Most of them were fighter pilots. We also mentioned the Spanish Civil War of the 1930s where many American men seeking glory and wanting to fight for a cause joined up.
The quote, "Nobody can leave everything behind and follow Christ," raised an interesting conversation about other cultures where wealthy older men become beggars or in the past Northwest Indians had Potlatches where a family gave all thier possession away (a little digression).
Some really liked the time in Switzerland as idyllic. One noted that Henry never paid the man who gave him the boat to escape to Switzerland.
There were quotes people found from Hemingway in his written interviews and television interviews in the later years. He comments on the influcence of the career of a journalist on a writer, helping the novelist master the "simple declarative sentence." The interviewer, George Plimpton, talked about Hemingway's creating the "one true sentence," making it "newer and truer," "making it alive."
We agreed that Hemingway was probably clinically depressed. "You die. They killed you. They gave you syphilis." True...that is the way it was in his reality. He drowned his sorrows in alcohol and also drank as male bonding. He is full of disillusionment and subtle with cynicism.
Hemingway is a minimalist. At times he forgets about punctuation and has stream of consciousness paragraphs. At the end he emphasizes the intensity, by simple repetition of, "Don't let her die, don't let her die, don't let her die," on and on. We thought it was interesting that Hemingway appears not to be religious, but here he was calling out to a god in whom he has no belief.
There was a lot of rain throught this novel...emplasizing the depressing world of WWI in Italy.
So, is it still a classic? We disagreed. Some thought, "Yes," because of the lyrical language, the realistic descriptions of the insanity of war and the strong philosophical conversations. Some thought that the people who like this as still a classic, were not separating the novel from what whe know about Hemingway...as in..."View this novel alone on its own merits." Some commented on the beauty of some of his later works, which indeed seemed works of genious, while this novel left the members bewildered. One literary reviewer has said that this novel is an "enduring American Classic," "layered with emotion."
If this novel was layered with emotion, then Hemingway and his character Henry seemed to "have a lid" on emotions. We thought, however, that men are trained to keep a lid on emotions and even more in past generations. Hemingway was a "man's man." Men looked up to him and women wanted him. We wondered if he had post-traumatic stress disorder. He had obviously seen and lived through horrors. We talked about the execution of retreating officers, who were following their orders to retreat, while the civil police, thought any officer retreating was a deserter. Henry narrowly escaped. Those were gripping scenes.
We talked more of writers who influenced him, quite a stellar group, members of The Lost Generation: Gerturde STein, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Ezra Pound, James Joyce and Sherwood Anderson.
There was not a strong consensus about this novel. Many like parts of it. Some thought it was still a classic. others thought it was too dated to merit recommending as a great classic...or at all.
As you can see, the converstion wandered, but was very enthusiastic and full of interesting observations. I would think this is a good book to recomment to someone investigating the writing style of Hemingway during his career. It was a memorable first book.
As an addendum to this update: After I emailed this to our group, a member who has not been able to attend lately, emailed that after receiving this report on our meeting, he wanted to let us know how much he disagreed with our less than enthusiastic comments. He thought this was an outstanding book on WWI and the senselessness of war. He comparted it to other foreign language classics on the war, which also had a stream of consciousness style. He thought our negative comments about the love interest and its ups and downs were less than important compared to the other messges of the novel. He even stated that Hemingway was a very important writer, unlike John Steinbeck. (As a Steinbeck fan, I thought those were fighting words.) :>
Branch Manager, Lakeview Branch Library