Hating What I Love and Loving What I Hate

Ernest Hemingway’s 1929 novel A Farwell to Arms has a bitter sweet ending. I personal love Hemingway’s ending, but find conflict because I hate my self for loving it. In the last chapter Hemingway starts a conversation between Lieutenant Henry and his wife, Catherine with “’Hello darling’….. ‘Hello, you sweet’”(326). Hemingway use of the diction “darling” and “sweet” portrays a hole complete love, true love. The true love draws a parallel back to when Henry knew he loved Catherine the kind of love “God knows..[he]…had”(93). Hemingway’s use of the word God draws the parallels between the unstoppable nature of God and the unstoppable nature of Henry love. Henry’s love though was not the only unstoppable love Catherine’s love never stopped ether. Even when she saw death coming she said to Henry “’I want you to have girls”(331) Hemingway indirectly characters Catherine’s love as sacrificial. Hemingway creates an undeniable true love to the point that its sacrificial, and can change what Henry wants. In the end what does Hemingway do with this pure love? He kills it, no literally “Catherine…. died”(331). The book ends with her dyeing, and I love it.
Now before I am burned at the stack I have to say I hate my self for loving it, but I do. Hemingway shows something that happens ever single day. Earler he portrays how humans have no control and he drives the point home with his ending. Henry never wanted to fall in love, he never wanted to fall in love with Catherine, but he did. Henry didn’t want Catherine to die, Catherine didn’t want to die, and I didn’t want her to die. Short of me not reading the end of the book I can’t prevent it. Hemingway takes a stab at me and it’s a hard one by making me fall in love with his characters relationship and then killing it he shows me in 332 a life lesion, we don’t have control. I hate Hemingway for killing her for putting an end to there love, but I can’t dine how much I love it. I can’t dine that Hemingway complete genius in it. I also can’t dine I admire him for it. Hemmingway doesn’t paint a beautiful picture of life, but the truth of it and I cant help but love that.

Choosing Love or Love Choosing?

In Ernest Hemingway’s novel A Farewell to Arms he discusses numerous timeless and universal conflicts. Hemingway’s semi- autobiographical novel set it’s self during World War I, the most timeless and universal of all conflicts. The conflict there though does not catch my attention as much as the conflict between what Lieutenant Henry wants, and what he feels. Human beings ability to love seems to me the strongest emotion and also the headrest to deny. Lieutenant Henry exhibits that perfectly when he states “God knows I had not wanted to fall in love with her”(93). The use of the diction God implies an un able to stop motion something unseen and unstoppable. This word choice coupled with the past tens in the sentences shows Lieutenant Henry inability to control all emotions to the point that “God knows..[he]..had”(93). In both sentences Hemingway uses God, a proper noun and in this case due to the capitalization not used as a swear word but rather the Christian God, to draw parallel along with a juxtaposition. He draws the parallel between the unstoppable nature of God and emotions. Then Hemingway shows the juxtaposition of something so natural in humans what humans want and what there emotions do. Henry never wanted to fall in love with Catherine, but was unable to stop it. The amazing aspect of it though he “felt wonderful”(93). Hemingway shows that emotions can change what humans want.
Through the portrayal of this Hemingway shows so much of what I’ve seen humans have no control over there emotions. I can’t choose to truly and deeply love someone and I can’t choose to not love someone. I’ve heard so many couples say we never thought we would be together or it was an instant connection. Humans don’t choose what there emotions do. If we had control over our emotions would they truly be emotions? Hemingway shows something that we can see ever single day when it all comes down to it non of us have a choice in where we fall or who we fall for it’s all a game of chance and if the dice role on the right side then our emotions show us the right way. Whether we believe its pre destination from a God or just by chance Hemingway’s choice to include this human conflict shows how he created a novel that all can relate to on some level. We have all felt the conflict, or seen it, and I see Hemingway as ingénues to include it.

The To Quiet For Me Priest

In Ernest Hemingway’s semi autobiographical 1929 novel A Farewell to Arms, Hemingway depicts the world that so many American solders had know just ten years earlier. Hemingway’s novel fallows the life of Lieutenant Henry, wall giving an intimate look into a solders life. What I don’t quiet understand why the Priest takes so much abuse from the solders. The men constantly ridicule and make offensive comments towards the priest. One man in front of the priest says “’All thinking man are atheist”’(8). By directly charactering intelligent man as atheist Hemingway allows the lieutenant to indirectly characterize the priest as unintelligent. The Priest though does not retaliate, witch I don’t quiet understand. If hemming way allows the priest not to retaliate he ether indirectly characterizes him as weak, or incredible patent and loving. Why cant the priest still live as a solder and defend him self wall still being a good priest. Can true Christen character allow some one to just sit and allow other to deprave them of all there moral stand points? I don’t think the ignoring of others truly portrays a religious leader. Would it have been so wrong fro him to stand up for him self and defend his beliefs? I think Hemmingway did a grate disserves by allowing the priest a quiet role.