Like Nick and George in the story, I went skiing over spring break. I really enjoyed myself - skiing is wonderful. I'm not sure that I'd call it "too swell to talk about," the way George does in the story, but I suppose that Hemingway's men don't ever really talk about their feelings. They make references to their feelings, but they rarely come right out and talk about them. Everything is implied and understood.
As I was reading the story, I was remembering how it felt to go rushing down the slopes, picking up as much speed as possible. Skiing really fast downhill is sort of addicting - you never want it to stop. George and Nick never want to stop, either - they never want to grow up. Nick really doesn't want to go back to the United States, because the skiing is no good there - though I have to ask, where was he skiing? Because it sure wasn't Colorado, as the skiing there is awesome. I digress - Nick doesn't want to go back the the United States because his wife is having a baby, and he's not ready for the responsibility yet. He just wants to stay and have fun.
Also, I have to ask, why did George keep calling Nick Mike? Was it some sort of nickname? Really weird nickname if you ask me. . . Or was there something else going on? Why would Nick lie about his name, though? That whole thing made no sense to me whatsoever.
I also felt really bad for the poor waitress. The two men had absolutely no sympathy for her, and judged her immediately - "No girls get married around here till they're knocked up." I really hate double standards, and the stigma that goes with being an unwed mother or pregnant woman is one of the worst there is. The fact that there is such a stigma attached to that situation, and little or no stigma attached to an unwed father, strikes me as extremely unfair.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
The Indian Camp
Comparing Hemingway's style to an iceberg makes an awful lot of sense. He states only the bare bones of what's happening, which leaves the imagining of the details to the reader. "The Indian Camp" is an excellent example of what I'm talking about.
I had to read through this story twice. The first time, I looked at the facts that Hemingway had stated, figuring out what had happened and when. The second time I read it, I tried to picture what had happened as it was happening. It made a lot of difference.
In his typical, understated way, Hemingway describes what was probably a profoundly scarring experience for Nick. I can't imagine a circumstance where watching childbirth would be pleasant for a child, especially not a difficult childbirth. I know that it would horrify me, at pretty much any age - blood and guts are not my strong point. And then his father, the doctor begins to perform a C-section on the woman - an unanaethetized C-section - and I honestly don't know how he was still standing there. The father of the unborn child apparently couldn't take it, because he slit his own throat, and he wasn't even watching, just listening. . . I guess I assume that Nick was watching, because it's never really stated. Brrr.
When you sit there and think about it, it must have been a horrifying experience. First the childbirth - never a pretty sight, even now with powerful painkillers - and then the operation, done pretty much on the fly, with whatever the doctor had at hand, and then discovering that the new father was dead. I don't blame Nick for thinking he was never going to die, because dying in his experience was linked with pain and blood and screaming.
Like I said, blood and guts are not my thing - I get sick whenever I watch Monty Python and the Holy Grail during the duel with the Black Knight, when his "flesh wounds" are spouting the most ridiculous fake blood anyone has ever seen. So I'm a little relieved that Hemingway left out the descriptions of the blood and pain. But they are still there - not explicitly stated, but understood, the other 7/8 of the iceberg that the captain of the Titanic forgot about.
I had to read through this story twice. The first time, I looked at the facts that Hemingway had stated, figuring out what had happened and when. The second time I read it, I tried to picture what had happened as it was happening. It made a lot of difference.
In his typical, understated way, Hemingway describes what was probably a profoundly scarring experience for Nick. I can't imagine a circumstance where watching childbirth would be pleasant for a child, especially not a difficult childbirth. I know that it would horrify me, at pretty much any age - blood and guts are not my strong point. And then his father, the doctor begins to perform a C-section on the woman - an unanaethetized C-section - and I honestly don't know how he was still standing there. The father of the unborn child apparently couldn't take it, because he slit his own throat, and he wasn't even watching, just listening. . . I guess I assume that Nick was watching, because it's never really stated. Brrr.
When you sit there and think about it, it must have been a horrifying experience. First the childbirth - never a pretty sight, even now with powerful painkillers - and then the operation, done pretty much on the fly, with whatever the doctor had at hand, and then discovering that the new father was dead. I don't blame Nick for thinking he was never going to die, because dying in his experience was linked with pain and blood and screaming.
Like I said, blood and guts are not my thing - I get sick whenever I watch Monty Python and the Holy Grail during the duel with the Black Knight, when his "flesh wounds" are spouting the most ridiculous fake blood anyone has ever seen. So I'm a little relieved that Hemingway left out the descriptions of the blood and pain. But they are still there - not explicitly stated, but understood, the other 7/8 of the iceberg that the captain of the Titanic forgot about.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
1929 TIME
TIME magazine is one of the magazines that I respect the most. The stories are interesting, the pictures are great, and most importantly it's not one of those gossipy rags that usually don't bother checking the facts or stating their sources before running around and spouting off all sorts of rumors. Do we really need to know that Brad and Angelina are fighting (not to mention that the story actually differs from magazine to magazine - which one is telling the truth?) or that Britney Spears is pregnant and Ryan Reynolds is getting a divorce? So I was slightly dismayed when I opened the copy of the July 22, 1929 - my birthday's on the 19 - edition of TIME magazine, and discovered that a lot of the stories had a distinctly gossipy flair.
I was slightly assuaged by the fact that even though the magazine has a gossipy tone, the stories are still factual - I base that assumption on the fact that they are willing to name names and quote sources, which they wouldn't if the stories weren't true (no one wants to be sued for libel) - and most of them seem to be relevent. 1929 was in the middle of the Prohibition, so there are stories of powerful people caught with alcohol, and of powerful people caught in drug busts. I was very entertained by the first article, which was just a sort of hodge-podge of a bunch of different random stories about President Hoover. A bill that people want to discuss with him, his hat size, reports on his reactions to the country's reactions to a recent tariff, and the fact that he doesn't like talking pictures because they require one to pay more attention than the silent ones (perhaps I'm just more used to the talking pictures, but I think they require less attention, since you can usually hear and understand what's going on pretty well - you have to actually watch the silent ones to be sure of what's going on).
The advertisements are a little strange - they tend to be very wordy, but then again the whole magazine (the entire era, this is the Roaring Twenties, after all) seems to live by the maxim "The more, the better!" I can't help but think of F. Scott Fitzgerald's "The Great Gatsby" as I read this, because honestly Jay Gatsby is exactly the sort of man that would find himself featured in these pages. Our advertisements nowadays tend to be less wordy, but I don't know if I would call them more sophisticated - I might be a cynic, but the focus on sex appeal EVERYWHERE and the implied or not so implied instant gratification that accompanies every ad (has anyone seen the most recent Verizon ads? I rest my case) frightens me a little. It was nice not to have to worry about that, for once.
I was slightly assuaged by the fact that even though the magazine has a gossipy tone, the stories are still factual - I base that assumption on the fact that they are willing to name names and quote sources, which they wouldn't if the stories weren't true (no one wants to be sued for libel) - and most of them seem to be relevent. 1929 was in the middle of the Prohibition, so there are stories of powerful people caught with alcohol, and of powerful people caught in drug busts. I was very entertained by the first article, which was just a sort of hodge-podge of a bunch of different random stories about President Hoover. A bill that people want to discuss with him, his hat size, reports on his reactions to the country's reactions to a recent tariff, and the fact that he doesn't like talking pictures because they require one to pay more attention than the silent ones (perhaps I'm just more used to the talking pictures, but I think they require less attention, since you can usually hear and understand what's going on pretty well - you have to actually watch the silent ones to be sure of what's going on).
The advertisements are a little strange - they tend to be very wordy, but then again the whole magazine (the entire era, this is the Roaring Twenties, after all) seems to live by the maxim "The more, the better!" I can't help but think of F. Scott Fitzgerald's "The Great Gatsby" as I read this, because honestly Jay Gatsby is exactly the sort of man that would find himself featured in these pages. Our advertisements nowadays tend to be less wordy, but I don't know if I would call them more sophisticated - I might be a cynic, but the focus on sex appeal EVERYWHERE and the implied or not so implied instant gratification that accompanies every ad (has anyone seen the most recent Verizon ads? I rest my case) frightens me a little. It was nice not to have to worry about that, for once.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)