|
Post by Çelís del Þeracour on Apr 8, 2008 22:43:34 GMT -6
You are right, I had intended to add my additional comments in the original thread but hit send too soon. I hope that you have now read them.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Apr 8, 2008 22:44:26 GMT -6
You are right, I had intended to add my additional comments in the original thread but hit send too soon. I hope that you have now read them. I have, thank you.
|
|
|
Post by Róibeard Laira on Apr 8, 2008 22:47:49 GMT -6
What makes you think he's trying to fool himself, rather than actually being disconnected? Can you point to anything specific? So your essential feeling is that his alienation is a front or facade, and that he's trying deliberately to be aloof? What reason can you think of that he might be doing so? I suppose I could have chosen my words differently. The feeling I get is not that he's trying to fool himself or put on a facade, but that he is deluded. He really thinks he is totally detached, but he's not. The ending in particular makes me think this. He tries to express what he thinks is true by saying, "I don't love anybody," but when his mother cries he does what she wants. And he winds up doing what his little sister wants too. He may or may not love them, but he is not unaffected by them. (he doesn't visit his father, though. Probably some meaning there.) And then the line, "Still, none of it had touched him. He had felt sorry for his mother and she made him lie." seems like classic psychological denial and projection. Krebs may think that he's detached while being in a situation he can't escape. But in reality he chooses to do what's expected of him. I could easily imagine the story ending differently. Krebs says, "Mother, I've changed so much I can't even relate to your world any more." And then he swaggers off into the sunset and never sees them again. That would convince me that he really is detached. The fact that Hemmingway goes to great lengths to explicitly describe how detached Krebs is and then winds up with this ending says something about Hemmingway. He thinks he's been trapped by circumstance in his life and he really wants to convince us that's the way things are, but he protests too much.
|
|
|
Post by Çelís del Þeracour on Apr 8, 2008 22:56:56 GMT -6
In looking at all the posts, I think it would be very interesting to have a person who knows nothing about the author - analyze a story written by Hemmingway.
I think and it seems my classmates also agree - that it is hard to separate what we know about the author from his work. Maybe that is a part of the strength of Hemmingways work though.
|
|
Sir X. Pol Briga
Talossan since 11-10-2005 Knight since 12-26-2009
59 is an important number - keep it prime in the thoughts of Talossa
Posts: 1,227
|
Post by Sir X. Pol Briga on Apr 8, 2008 22:57:04 GMT -6
My impression of the end of "A Very Short Story" is the juxtaposition of siezing the moment versus something that is longer term. There is a building of a relationship in the early part of the story, only to have it crumble due to separation. The last part is a brief encounter, yet it also has a poor outcome. Perhaps the Hemingway is saying if your going to get hurt, do it quickly and move on, rather than prolonging the agony. In "Soldier's Home" the name Krebs is interesting as like a crab he seems to have a shell around him and this armor in turn makes his responses to the environment around him awkward. The protection is enhanced by his efforts to not even encourage any possible damage to the buffer around him. Interesting approaches, Xhorxh, and I appreciate you managing to find the time to participate despite your business trip . Can I ask you to point to some passages where you feel Krebs has armour, or is it just a general feeling? EDIT: I can't recall where the name is from, incidentally, so I am looking it up. EDIT: The origin of the name is not clear, so it might be crab-related, after all. That would be unusual for Hemingway, though, who tended not to choose names on that basis. Regarding the name - Krebs can mean crab, cancer, or crayfish in German so perhaps it is all of these the stuck in my mind while I was reading, since he had gone over to the war against the Germans.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Apr 8, 2008 23:01:30 GMT -6
In looking at all the posts, I think it would be very interesting to have a person who knows nothing about the author - to analyze a story written by Hemmingway. I think and it seems my classmates also agree - that it is hard to separate what we know about the author from his work. Maybe that is a part of the strength of Hemmingways work though. Possibly that is true, but for our purposes in this class we are engaging in literary analysis, parsing out stories based on what we know of him and trying to interpret the intent behind individual passages and drawing new meaning from others. But Hemingway did write very simply so that anyone could read him; he took great pride in this, and no special knowledge (of him or anything else) is required to read his stories. What makes you think he's trying to fool himself, rather than actually being disconnected? Can you point to anything specific? So your essential feeling is that his alienation is a front or facade, and that he's trying deliberately to be aloof? What reason can you think of that he might be doing so? I suppose I could have chosen my words differently. The feeling I get is not that he's trying to fool himself or put on a facade, but that he is deluded. He really thinks he is totally detached, but he's not. The ending in particular makes me think this. He tries to express what he thinks is true by saying, "I don't love anybody," but when his mother cries he does what she wants. And he winds up doing what his little sister wants too. He may or may not love them, but he is not unaffected by them. (he doesn't visit his father, though. Probably some meaning there.) And then the line, "Still, none of it had touched him. He had felt sorry for his mother and she made him lie." seems like classic psychological denial and projection. Krebs may think that he's detached while being in a situation he can't escape. But in reality he chooses to do what's expected of him. I could easily imagine the story ending differently. Krebs says, "Mother, I've changed so much I can't even relate to your world any more." And then he swaggers off into the sunset and never sees them again. That would convince me that he really is detached. The fact that Hemmingway goes to great lengths to explicitly describe how detached Krebs is and then winds up with this ending says something about Hemmingway. He thinks he's been trapped by circumstance in his life and he really wants to convince us that's the way things are, but he protests too much. Ah, that makes sense. Thank you for explicating a little further. And very good textual support for your argument. It may well be that Krebs wants to be aloof and detached now that he has returned, to protect himself from having to re-engage in life in this bitter world. And so he tries to isolate himself and pretend he is wholly untouched and simple. Is that something like what you were thinking? Interesting approaches, Xhorxh, and I appreciate you managing to find the time to participate despite your business trip . Can I ask you to point to some passages where you feel Krebs has armour, or is it just a general feeling? EDIT: I can't recall where the name is from, incidentally, so I am looking it up. EDIT: The origin of the name is not clear, so it might be crab-related, after all. That would be unusual for Hemingway, though, who tended not to choose names on that basis. Regarding the name - Krebs can mean crab, cancer, or crayfish in German so perhaps it is all of these the stuck in my mind while I was reading, since he had gone over to the war against the Germans. It's possible, so I'm not saying you might not be right, but it would just be unusual.
|
|
|
Post by Çelís del Þeracour on Apr 8, 2008 23:10:32 GMT -6
Agreed and understood, but is it possible that the well publicised and extravagant life of Hemmingway and our knowledge of these things could actually cloud our understanding of his intent?
I like to think that no matter how many Biographies are written on a person, that person is even more complex than what is written. It makes me curious about an interpretation beyond the walls of what we think we know about him.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Apr 8, 2008 23:17:34 GMT -6
Agreed and understood, but is it possible that the well publicised and extravagant life of Hemmingway and our knowledge of these things could actually cloud our understanding of his intent? I like to think that no matter how many Biographies are written on a person, that person is even more complex than what is written. It makes me curious about an interpretation beyond the walls of what we think we know about him. Oh, of course it's very possible. It has often happened with Hemingway, in fact, since his carefully-groomed legend can tend to seduce some individuals. A.E Hotchner's biography about Hemingway, Papa Hemingway examines some stories, and his interpretations are heavily flawed and influenced by his hero-worship. The first biography about Hemingway, by Carlos Baker, was carefully vetted in its early form by Hemingway to make sure that it didn't draw conclusions Hemingway didn't like; while some of the resulting bias is gone, some remains. I think and hope, though, that overall we will be able to separate out our knowledge of Hemingway and our analysis of his writing as we approach his stories. I did choose to have you read the stories before hearing about that section of his life each week, though, so hopefully that will help you approach them with a blanker slate than you might otherwise possess.
|
|
|
Post by Çelís del Þeracour on Apr 8, 2008 23:18:13 GMT -6
My intention, by the way - is not to miss the point . But to try to think outside of the box.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Apr 8, 2008 23:19:17 GMT -6
My intention, by the way - is not to miss the point . But to try to think outside of the box. The ideal intention.
|
|
|
Post by Çelís del Þeracour on Apr 8, 2008 23:20:58 GMT -6
I do appreciate that because I do think it helps us as students be more honest with our interpretations of the stories.
|
|
|
Post by Çelís del Þeracour on Apr 8, 2008 23:23:20 GMT -6
Good night Professor Davis. I am enjoying this course and look forward to next weeks discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Apr 8, 2008 23:26:12 GMT -6
Thank you very much for your discussion tonight. Your example of back-and-forth interaction and interpretation was also ideal.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Apr 9, 2008 11:42:19 GMT -6
I apologise for my tardiness, but I wasn't able to get online yesterday evening.
Like Nic, I found it interesting that the protagonist (if we can call “him” that) of the "Very Short Story" is completely anonymous. “He” is the only character referred to by nothing but a bare personal pronoun. Even “the major” is at least referred to by his rank and position.
I thought the contrast between the treatment of the earlier letters from Luz and the final letter was revealing. With the earlier letters the story talks about what he did with the letters and how he reacted to them (he “got” them after the armistice, he “sorted them by the dates,” he “read them all straight through.”) With the final letter, he is completely divorced from the letter itself. The contents of the letter discuss Luz’s views of their relationship, but contrast “wrote him many letters” with “wrote to the States.” It’s very impersonal, which perhaps belies the personal content of the letter. The story doesn’t even say that he received the letter or that decided not to write back, just that Luz never got an answer. That and the abruptness of the ending result in maximum passivity and depersonalisation for him upon the termination of his relationship with Luz. Except for the very personal fact revealed in the final sentence. Which maybe is just as dehumanising for the bluntness with which it is revealed.
The final sentence seems to me to have faintly misogynistic undertones. With Luz he has a romantic, noble, high-minded kind of relationship, and is betrayed with seemingly loving and noble words. Then he settles for a much more carnal relationship with the sales girl and is “betrayed” in an equally carnal way. In the end, it seems, both women are pretty much the same – no matter how low his expectations are, he just gets hurt.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Apr 10, 2008 13:18:42 GMT -6
I apologise for my tardiness, but I wasn't able to get online yesterday evening. Like Nic, I found it interesting that the protagonist (if we can call “him” that) of the "Very Short Story" is completely anonymous. “He” is the only character referred to by nothing but a bare personal pronoun. Even “the major” is at least referred to by his rank and position. I thought the contrast between the treatment of the earlier letters from Luz and the final letter was revealing. With the earlier letters the story talks about what he did with the letters and how he reacted to them (he “got” them after the armistice, he “sorted them by the dates,” he “read them all straight through.”) With the final letter, he is completely divorced from the letter itself. The contents of the letter discuss Luz’s views of their relationship, but contrast “wrote him many letters” with “wrote to the States.” It’s very impersonal, which perhaps belies the personal content of the letter. The story doesn’t even say that he received the letter or that decided not to write back, just that Luz never got an answer. That and the abruptness of the ending result in maximum passivity and depersonalisation for him upon the termination of his relationship with Luz. Except for the very personal fact revealed in the final sentence. Which maybe is just as dehumanising for the bluntness with which it is revealed. The final sentence seems to me to have faintly misogynistic undertones. With Luz he has a romantic, noble, high-minded kind of relationship, and is betrayed with seemingly loving and noble words. Then he settles for a much more carnal relationship with the sales girl and is “betrayed” in an equally carnal way. In the end, it seems, both women are pretty much the same – no matter how low his expectations are, he just gets hurt. I like your thoughts about the distancing that occurs. I would suggest that this might be a way of trying to universalize the entire story, and reduce it to essential elements (the boy, the letter) to make it more applicable and able to be felt by the reader. The inclusion of only Luz's name might well be read as the most bitter part of the story; only she is specifically identified, and perhaps that is because of the keen hurt he suffers, leaving him unable to distance himself from her alone. Hemingway is often accused of misogyny, and justly. Although in current thought he is actually believed to be far more progressive than he seemed, with a fascination with female-on-male sodomy and androgyny, his self-aware machismo forced him to hide this behind a high front wherein he treated women mostly as objects unless they were the direct focus of a story. If you are interested in an analysis of his progressivism, then you may want to check out the paper labeled "fantina.pdf" in the scholarly paper folder I link to from the handouts thread. This paper, entitled "Hemingway's Masochism, Sodomy, and the Dominant Woman" is a very interesting treatment of the subject. This is entirely voluntary and actually only tangential to your point, of course, so don't worry about it if you don't have time on top of your homework.
|
|