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.

Intently Enraged

I’m someone who is not quick to anger and often slow to speak. Tom Rachmans novel The Imperfectionists though has infuriated me. In a day and age where woman are still trying to gain rights and are still making advances Rachmans complete dehumanization of them is sickening and infuriating at its most admirable moments. Rachman does this complete dehumanization most evidently with Abby Pinnoa, chief financial officer, or as her colleges call her Accounts Payable. When describing Abby getting out of a airplane row he states “She sucks in her tummy and squeezes out into the aisle”(234). Rachmans use of diction in the use of tummy indirectly characterizes Abby as childish. This word alone side with the word “squeezes” also indirectly characters her as over weight. The diction over all seems to come of as offensive and overly critical. The phrase only gains in offense when Rachman describes her plain partner Dave as “That twang and aw-shucks about him- it’s sort of exotic”(233). Rachmans use of diction in the use of the words “twang” and “aw-shucks” indirectly characterizes Dave as a down home country boy evoking the pathos of affection and admiration. These two phrases are not even placed a page apart. The placement causes a juxtaposition of the two people and the rag tag image of Abby falls short of Dave’s eloquent and impressive résumé. Rachmans image of this woman began to anger me at the begining and towards the end of his chapter just enraged me. In the process of my rage I discovered that Rachman has described ever woman as ether completely vulnerable Hardy, Abby, and Kathleen, or appears a complete and total jerk, Elzburger, Hermns wife, Zeina, Eileen, and Annika. Or the woman appears a complete lunatic as the case with Ruby and Ornella. Rachmans description of woman in ever chapter never lacks a discriminatory or down turned eye toward woman. As I read Abbys story it hit me as if a truck had come from the street with out me looking, Rachman seems to despise woman and can only describe them in hatred and a better then though light. As a woman the view Rachman has of woman infuriates me, and causes me to question him a little. Witch in its self appears slightly ingenious because Rachmans point of his book seems to want to make journalist more human and ask readers of news papers what they are reading? In causing me to question him Richman will later cause me to question other writers credibility and god like status. So maybe Rachman enraged me and causes a slight amount of hatred toward him, but the rage when put in perspective actually accomplishes Richmans goal. In all honesty that’s what makes a brilliant writer.

You Intrigu Me, Would You Like To Meet?

In Tom Rachmans novel the imperfectinist one character stand out to me not only as notable but some one who if I had the opportunity to meat I would. Kathleen or as her ex lover calls her, Kath. I finder intriguing in the regard that she seems to stand completely dominate until one digs deeper. Kathleen states about her husband “’ He feeds me grapes most evenings”(110) Although only meant as a joke Rachman uses this point to indirectly characters Kathleen as some one who emerges as independent and dominant. Her dominance in the situation would not be asserted with out another human being but looking into the action of feeding someone grapes it can only be view as doming and used as an allusion insisting on the person only being of servitude states. The fact that Kathleen uses this demining diction in reference to her husband assorts how she purses dominance and will obtain it in what ever means possible. When talking to her ex though about there former sexual relationship Kathleen “says uncomfortable”(115). Rachmans use of the diction to directly characterizes Kathleen as uncomfortable when being critiqued by her ex lead to in the direct characterization of her being sensitive this leads to the indirect characterization of her as some one dependent on other views of her self. If Kathleen was not dependent upon these views she would not become uncomfortable with Dario’s critics of her instead though She becomes unconformable and defensive. This actions seems to juxtapose it self agents the Kathleen described only a few pages early. The Kathleen though is the same person and Rachman uses this awkward seemingly two faced lady to assort that although humans always strive for independence never can fully reach it, as Kathleen the dominating dependent proves. This internal battle of balance for her own longing for dominance and need to be dependent forces me to wonder how she can easily live in the ever fighting battle. I do believe though that Kathleen would be someone that would be able to answer the difficult question that the struggle ensues. I suppose this complicated internal struggle intrigues me and draws me in to wish to meat this woman only to discus how dominance and submission embody themselves in the same body.

Just throwing it out there but this was posted from Ireland.

Never Pressing Repeat

In Tom Richman’s noval The Imperfectionists. A novel published in 2011 a time in witch each day something changes, whether it be the marriage laws in a state or even how many solders are in a foreign country, life costly changes. Richman exemplifies the ever-changing world during an interview with Gerda Erzberger. Erzberger relays a quote “’No man steps in the same river twice, for it is not the same river and he is not the same man’”(37) In the one short ferias Rachman describes how I want to live. His use of imagery and drawing a parallel between nature and man can only be perceived as brilliant. All humans know nature changes, humans see it. Leaves changed color, wind changes direction, the human body completely regenerates its self every fourteen years, and temperature drops and rises as it pleases, nature changes. By including this parallel Richman proves life changes and with it people, he exemplifies this farther with the death of, the many character of the chapter, Author Gopal daughter, a change. Its strange to think I want to live my life according to change. With change comes knowledge, wisdom, understanding, and the ability to not make the same mistake. Humans try to stay stagnate and resist change, I want my life though to embrace change, so I may grow, in understanding in knowledge and also in the ability to not make the same mistakes. I never want to walk in the same river twice or ever-hit repeat. What will I ever learn if I just keep living the same life?