Lecture 7 - May 20th

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Hello, class. The title of this thread is a bit of misnomer... there will be no formal lecture today on Hemingway's history, because after having devoted a couple of weeks solely to that without any real discussion, we are now going to be switching it up to only discussion of the text.

You were to read The Old Man and the Sea for today in its entirety. This 126-page novel is widely considered to be one of his finest works, particularly by myself. It is worthy of every word of discussion we could give it, but because we are but flesh we will just have to try to do our best at giving it some modicum of justice. I would like to see participation from everyone, and indeed I require it. We've lost some people during the run of this course, but I'd like to see the majority of you pass, so let's stick in it for the final run and put forth some effort at discussion, please.

First, it is indeed a novel. It is a very short novel, to be sure, but nonetheless it is one. There is no such thing as a "novella," not really, and so anyone who tells you that something is a "novella," and particularly if they are including OMatS in that category, is wrong. That definition might serve to parse things down for some unimaginably tedious linguistic analysis, but for the purposes of the modern English scholar, this is a novel.

I want to ask second of all if there was anything anyone had any trouble with in this book? It is written with extraordinary simplicity and straightforwardness, even for Hemingway, so I can't imagine the vocabulary gave you too much trouble. But if there was anything else or any points you are unclear on or that you would like to hear the general views of critics on, please let me know.

The background of it is not too terribly interesting... written mostly while in Cuba, it was intended to be part of a three-part series called the Sea Trilogy. As it turned out, the rest of the trilogy's beginnings were the literary equivalent of the mixture of dust and detritus that accumulates beneath the beds of small children, so they went unpublished. But on the recommendations of friends (Fitzgerald, Hotchner) Hemingway finished and published OMatS. It was astoundingly, absurdly successful. It made him financially independent - even wealthy - for the rest of his life. The movie was even a success, despite not being terribly good. Hemingway would later say that he wrote it at the pace of one thousand words a day, and that it received "very little editing"... well, at least, that's what he told a few mythmaking journalists, anyway.

We had some people discuss the language of the book, and that was very interesting. We noted how the style and words that Hemingway used lent themselves to having a Spanish feel (referring to the language, not the country) and how that helped draw you into the story somewhat. That was very good.

Let's talk somewhat about the symbolism. You'll remember how previously I have mentioned that Hemingway disdained to use intentional symbolism. He thought it was artificial. If someone would oblige me by reminding the class, in fact, of what is called the "iceberg" theory, I would be very much happy with them.

But I am sure you will note that there are obvious inconsistencies with this policy and the book we reviewed for today. Specifically and obviously, we have the old fisherman Santiago as a clearly-drawn allegory for Jesus Christ. Hemingway was a highly skilled writer and an on-again off-again Catholic, so there is no chance this was somehow unintentional. Note the wounds on Santiago's palms, traditionally the location where nails passed through Jesus' palms (if not historically accurate). At the conclusion of the novel, Santiago shoulders his mast and walks a long road to rest, dropping to the ground in exhaustion halfway there. Address that, please, class. I would like you to talk about why Hemingway appears to have abandoned one of his primary guidelines for writing, if you agree that he did abandon it in fact, and what his allegory means in the context of the novel. Just to start you off: it has been suggested that Santiago was Hemingway's view of a modern Christ - one whose disciple has been forced by economics away from him, and one who finds no one ready to help him up when he falls on the long walk. Discuss.

There are also a few lines I would like you to address. Please give me your thoughts in a few sentences on each of the following.

"'Pain does not matter to a man.'"

"'Man is made to be destroyed but not defeated.'"

"Never have I seen a greater, or more beautiful, or a calmer or more noble thing than you, brother. Come on and kill me. I do not care who kills who."

That will do for a beginning. Let's see some discussion, and don't be afraid to comment to each other or disagree.

[Sir X. Pol Briga]

First - and this is my own terms rather than a cookie cutter of either Hemingway's quote or standard analysis - the iceberg theory is that in writing it is better to allude to things without explicitly describing them for the purpose of enriching the story, where the reader will assemble their own connections back in understanding (this works well in science fiction where technologies to accomplish certain activities cannot yet be adequately explained anyway or are otherwise indistinguishabe from magic). In this case the experience differs more widely between each person who reads the story as less rigidly defined context is presented.

When I read the terse form of this discussion kickoff, it was if I indeed was steaming along unaware of the dimensions of other people's icebergs. I have never been a religious person, and while I can see now through my limited knowledge of the Christian religion the superficial cues, at no time, either reading the story myself or listening to it being read by Donald Sutherland did I ever make any connection to Christ, church, or any similar concept.

My perspective as an objectivist is that while Santiago does receive assistance on the land, it is really a trade off for his previous teachings and support for the boy, even as his overall value has dwindled. The boy still sees where he can learn, even as other forces take him away. The boy's insight of the quality of the old man, beyond mere fondness or worship is emphasized by the balance of the story which focuses on the individual struggle.

Even if that effort appears to be futile, the fortitude to engage in the struggle, even with limited resources, is the key - much in the way other stories such as those of a rag tag band in the Spanish Civil War attempt to fight the Facists against all odds, if for no other reason that they must try. (and don't give me the Yoda/Jedi schtick of- "do or do not, there is no try....") Thus "Pain does not matter to a man" or "Man is made to be destroyed not defeated" (but yes, I can see the religious overtones of the latter) focus on mind over matter, principle over circumstance.

I was always taken by the simple use of "Fish" as the way to address the marlin. Somehow I would have called it just "you" like in the line ""Never have I seen a greater, or more beautiful, or a calmer or more noble thing than you, brother. Come on and kill me. I do not care who kills who." I can see the overtones by use of "fish" both when the marlin is alive and when it is dead (versus "it" after demise), but in my mind I just see that as an expansion on the commentary that the old man does not normally talk out loud when fishing with others, only when he is alone - the same thoughs would come unspoken, and the fact that he speaks them in this story just serves the purpose of narrative vs just saying that he thinks this or that.

Santiago went out to sea as his work. Yes, he could have prepared better, he could have had better luck. But he does not seek a trophy - he gives away the only parts left of the marlin - the head to be used for bait, and the sword to the boy - he does not even in passing think of making a display of the only part left of the great catch as some kind of pyrric victory. The boy recognizes his attention to the details of getting ready to go out once again after the weather has passed, and knows the value of learning from the old man. The old ma just chalks up the situation to experience, even though he possesses that in abundance, and rests so that he can go back to work again.

[Aspra Roseta Laira]

Let me first provide an excuse for Roibeard. He won two tickets to tonight's Rocky's game, and he and our Pol drove down to Denver to enjoy a father-son outing. He will participate in the discussion, but it will likely be tomorrow before you hear from him.

The notion of the "the iceberg" to me means that we need not be shown something in its entirety to understand that it has more depth. Hemingway alludes to deeper meanings without using explicit symbolism. X. Pol explained this well.

X. Pol demonstrates great insight, but I found the symbolism of the Old Man as Jesus fairly clear. Especially in how he "shouldered the mast" and fell to the ground bearing its weight. Of course, the symbol isn't explicit. He does not fall three times, but he falls only once and has to sit down five times. His bleeding palms also lead me to view Santiago as Christ. I thought for sure that he would die in the end, and because he didn't, I think I began to question this symbol. Perhaps this is exactly what Hemingway wanted us to do. He wanted us to see something that most writers place as a symbol, but instead he really never did abandon his primary guideline for writing. Maybe he enjoyed others finding symbolism in things that were not intended to be symbols.

I'll discuss my views on the quotes in future posts.

[Aspra Roseta Laira]

May 20, 2008 2:30:02 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

Please give me your thoughts in a few sentences on each of the following.

"'Pain does not matter to a man.'"

I think this means that there is more to man than the physical existence. That a man's mind or spirit can help him overcome the pain that the body experiences. It also implies that a man is not an animal, that men are somehow spiritual beings.

May 20, 2008 2:30:02 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

"'Man is made to be destroyed but not defeated.'"

Hmm ... I think that means a true man, a hero, must win or die fighting, that defeat is unacceptable, valiant death is preferred.

May 20, 2008 2:30:02 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

"Never have I seen a greater, or more beautiful, or a calmer or more noble thing than you, brother. Come on and kill me. I do not care who kills who."

To me, this reflects Hemingway's own self-dialogs with his own personal demons. Interestingly, in the end, he was destroyed by these demons, but not defeated. I think that a person's struggles in life can be seen as an extension of the life itself, a brother. Brothers are not always kind and giving -- siblings have conflict.

Of course, I really think this quote demonstrates that the old man has been beaten down by the fish and finds death welcoming. He is tired and faint and "confused in the head" (as it says in the next paragraph). He's losing his sense of judgment.

[Aspra Roseta Laira]

I want to come back to the discussion of the Old Man as a modern Christ. There are more similarities. Both Jesus and Santiago were fishermen. Santiago was quite lucky, and Jesus, well, was a miraculous fisherman.

I thought of another dissimilarity besides the "happy" ending: Jesus is referred to as a Shepherd, keeping his flock of sheep whom he loves and protects; Santiago dreams of lions whom he loved "as he loved the boy" (25). This is quite a difference!

What are some of your thoughts on what the lions are supposed to mean if they are, in fact, a symbol? My only thought is that they symbolize struggle. Lions are creatures of strife. The Old Man clearly loves the struggle more than the trophy, as X. Pol pointed out. Just a thought.

[Aspra Roseta Laira]

Prof,

Can I request that we continue the discussion tomorrow? I really want to see some replies, but I'm tired and I have to get up early tomorrow. Roibeard's on the road back from the Rocky's defeat :-( -- but not their destruction. I hope you give him some points for attending a baseball game since our Santiago would surely approve.

[Nic Casálmac'h]

Some people read stories looking for allegory and some people don't see it even when it is very clearly there. I wonder whether he meant it that way or not...

The only purpose in calling something a novella instead of a novel (at least as far as I know) is as it is related to publishing, because a novella is a story shorter than a novel, short enough that they don't publish many because the price can't be enough less to make the shortness worth it.

As for the matter of allegory... The question really is whether or not he meant it that way. You say there is no chance this was unintentional, but I disagree. It is possible he may not have realized it. Or perhaps he realized it only after he had written it. What one believes really is central to who he is, and it surfaces, whether he knows it or not, because of that. As a Catholic and a writer myself, I find that if I write a story something in some way allegorical tends to slip in. Really that is what story is: a vehicle for truth expressed in some other way.

With that supposition—him not having realized it until later—he really only had a couple of choices: leave it in or take it out. Aspra presents an interesting suggestion, especially because the story really isn’t an allegory, though it may be allegorical.

The idea of Santiago as a modern Christ is certainly an interesting one. There are certainly several symbols there—which now that you point them out—I can see lead to thinking it allegory. If we were to continue with that assumption, then I must wonder about the marlin. After all that time he finally succeeds in capturing the fish only to lose most of it and then give the rest up. I can think of nothing this might symbolize. Perhaps someone else can? Or perhaps it is not strictly an allegory and I should ignore this.

Actually, though, I had my own thoughts about another way it could be taken allegorically… Santiago tried his hardest to get that fish alone and in the end he did succeed in capturing it, only to have it taken away from him by the sharks because he couldn’t defend it by himself. Throughout the story we see how he is failing of his own powers, how he needs help, how he cannot do it alone. What was he trying to do by capturing the fish? Was he doing it just because he was a fisherman? Or was he somehow trying to justify himself? Yet he could not gain this on his own, could not gain his own salvation.

Then I started wondering about his name. Names really tell one a lot about a person. Perhaps the fact that the old man’s name is Santiago—the Spanish for James—is no mere coincidence. Saint James the greater is known as the patron saint of Spain. Now in the book, Santiago was clinging to the old ways, perhaps fighting to preserve what was left of old Spain. Unfortunately I don’t have the book anymore, so I can’t look back at it and see whether my speculation is reasonable or not… I didn’t get a chance to read it again, as I was hoping to.

"'Pain does not matter to a man.'"

As I see it, there are a couple of different ways this could be taken. For one, there is the saying “mind over matter”, meaning that it is one’s state of mind that matters and that all else is of consequence only in how one regards it, even pain. Then of course there is the more spiritual way to look at it, as Aspra said: that pain does not matter because it is only for a brief time and then he will be free from this mortal coil.

"'Man is made to be destroyed but not defeated.'"

To me the simplest explanation is a reference to the soul: that man is made to be destroyed (death) but not defeated (because there is life beyond the grave). Another similar way to look at it would be that all must die, but if one fights for what he believes in, if he never allows himself to do what he knows is wrong, then he cannot be defeated, even if all the forces that have conspired against him have destroyed him.

"Never have I seen a greater, or more beautiful, or a calmer or more noble thing than you, brother. Come on and kill me. I do not care who kills who."

This quote I found puzzling when I read it. I figured it had to mean merely that he was tired and weary and ready for death, mostly because I thought of no other explanation. Yet another way to look at it that occurs to me now is that the marlin is doing exactly what he was intended to do, and perhaps Santiago feels he is not.

That’s about all I have to say. I hope it's all coherent.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

May 20, 2008 13:49:41 GMT -6 Sir X. Pol Briga said:

First - and this is my own terms rather than a cookie cutter of either Hemingway's quote or standard analysis - the iceberg theory is that in writing it is better to allude to things without explicitly describing them for the purpose of enriching the story, where the reader will assemble their own connections back in understanding (this works well in science fiction where technologies to accomplish certain activities cannot yet be adequately explained anyway or are otherwise indistinguishabe from magic). In this case the experience differs more widely between each person who reads the story as less rigidly defined context is presented.

That's pretty good. But it's important to remember that it is believed by proponents such as Hemingway that it is the experiences of the reader, not just the author, that will be latent within the text if it is in the author's mind when he writes.

May 20, 2008 13:49:41 GMT -6 Sir X. Pol Briga said:

When I read the terse form of this discussion kickoff, it was if I indeed was steaming along unaware of the dimensions of other people's icebergs. I have never been a religious person, and while I can see now through my limited knowledge of the Christian religion the superficial cues, at no time, either reading the story myself or listening to it being read by Donald Sutherland did I ever make any connection to Christ, church, or any similar concept.

That's fine. Did you notice any other allegories?

May 20, 2008 13:49:41 GMT -6 Sir X. Pol Briga said:

My perspective as an objectivist is that while Santiago does receive assistance on the land, it is really a trade off for his previous teachings and support for the boy, even as his overall value has dwindled. The boy still sees where he can learn, even as other forces take him away. The boy's insight of the quality of the old man, beyond mere fondness or worship is emphasized by the balance of the story which focuses on the individual struggle.

Even if that effort appears to be futile, the fortitude to engage in the struggle, even with limited resources, is the key - much in the way other stories such as those of a rag tag band in the Spanish Civil War attempt to fight the Facists against all odds, if for no other reason that they must try. (and don't give me the Yoda/Jedi schtick of- "do or do not, there is no try....") Thus "Pain does not matter to a man" or "Man is made to be destroyed not defeated" (but yes, I can see the religious overtones of the latter) focus on mind over matter, principle over circumstance.

Interesting. You say you can see the religious overtones of the latter; to what are you referring, specifically, in case other people missed it?

May 20, 2008 13:49:41 GMT -6 Sir X. Pol Briga said:

I was always taken by the simple use of "Fish" as the way to address the marlin. Somehow I would have called it just "you" like in the line ""Never have I seen a greater, or more beautiful, or a calmer or more noble thing than you, brother. Come on and kill me. I do not care who kills who." I can see the overtones by use of "fish" both when the marlin is alive and when it is dead (versus "it" after demise), but in my mind I just see that as an expansion on the commentary that the old man does not normally talk out loud when fishing with others, only when he is alone - the same thoughs would come unspoken, and the fact that he speaks them in this story just serves the purpose of narrative vs just saying that he thinks this or that.

Do you see it then as purely a technique by Hemingway so that Santiago can speak to us? I should point out that elsewhere Santiago thinks things instead, so unlike a movie it is not strictly necessary for him to speak aloud to enlighten us as to his thoughts. What do you think might be the reason for Santiago speaking certain thoughts aloud, if there is any other reason?

May 20, 2008 13:49:41 GMT -6 Sir X. Pol Briga said:

Santiago went out to sea as his work. Yes, he could have prepared better, he could have had better luck. But he does not seek a trophy - he gives away the only parts left of the marlin - the head to be used for bait, and the sword to the boy - he does not even in passing think of making a display of the only part left of the great catch as some kind of pyrric victory. The boy recognizes his attention to the details of getting ready to go out once again after the weather has passed, and knows the value of learning from the old man. The old ma just chalks up the situation to experience, even though he possesses that in abundance, and rests so that he can go back to work again.

He does not seek a trophy... what does he seek, in your view? Is it his job alone? Remember the concept of dignity, and think of it in that light, please. Otherwise, overall excellent participation.

May 20, 2008 21:44:04 GMT -6 Aspra Roseta Laira said:

Let me first provide an excuse for Roibeard. He won two tickets to tonight's Rocky's game, and he and our Pol drove down to Denver to enjoy a father-son outing. He will participate in the discussion, but it will likely be tomorrow before you hear from him.

That is unfortunate. He will have to respond very significantly tomorrow if he would like credit, rather than his usual brevity.

May 20, 2008 21:44:04 GMT -6 Aspra Roseta Laira said:

The notion of the "the iceberg" to me means that we need not be shown something in its entirety to understand that it has more depth. Hemingway alludes to deeper meanings without using explicit symbolism. X. Pol explained this well.

X. Pol demonstrates great insight, but I found the symbolism of the Old Man as Jesus fairly clear. Especially in how he "shouldered the mast" and fell to the ground bearing its weight. Of course, the symbol isn't explicit. He does not fall three times, but he falls only once and has to sit down five times. His bleeding palms also lead me to view Santiago as Christ. I thought for sure that he would die in the end, and because he didn't, I think I began to question this symbol. Perhaps this is exactly what Hemingway wanted us to do. He wanted us to see something that most writers place as a symbol, but instead he really never did abandon his primary guideline for writing. Maybe he enjoyed others finding symbolism in things that were not intended to be symbols.

I'll discuss my views on the quotes in future posts.

Could you explain your last thoughts here a little further? I am not quite sure I understand what you are getting at. Is it that you think Hemingway was playing with the reader by deliberately inserting symbolism without it actually being symbolic? Please explicate a little further.

May 20, 2008 22:03:23 GMT -6 Aspra Roseta Laira said:

May 20, 2008 2:30:02 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

Please give me your thoughts in a few sentences on each of the following.

"'Pain does not matter to a man.'"

I think this means that there is more to man than the physical existence. That a man's mind or spirit can help him overcome the pain that the body experiences. It also implies that a man is not an animal, that men are somehow spiritual beings.


Hmm ... I think that means a true man, a hero, must win or die fighting, that defeat is unacceptable, valiant death is preferred.

May 20, 2008 2:30:02 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

"Never have I seen a greater, or more beautiful, or a calmer or more noble thing than you, brother. Come on and kill me. I do not care who kills who."

To me, this reflects Hemingway's own self-dialogs with his own personal demons. Interestingly, in the end, he was destroyed by these demons, but not defeated. I think that a person's struggles in life can be seen as an extension of the life itself, a brother. Brothers are not always kind and giving -- siblings have conflict.

Of course, I really think this quote demonstrates that the old man has been beaten down by the fish and finds death welcoming. He is tired and faint and "confused in the head" (as it says in the next paragraph). He's losing his sense of judgment.

Excellent. But in this last, note that Santiago never loses his sense of himself or his dignity. An old man, he nonetheless endures unimaginable suffering to equal the might of the marlin. Santiago was the best man that Hemingway could conceive... what are some qualities he evidences, and what are some qualities that he lacks? This is an excellent topic, so if others could also chime in on this, it would be appreciated.

May 20, 2008 22:13:04 GMT -6 Aspra Roseta Laira said:

I want to come back to the discussion of the Old Man as a modern Christ. There are more similarities. Both Jesus and Santiago were fishermen. Santiago was quite lucky, and Jesus, well, was a miraculous fisherman.

I thought of another dissimilarity besides the "happy" ending: Jesus is referred to as a Shepherd, keeping his flock of sheep whom he loves and protects; Santiago dreams of lions whom he loved "as he loved the boy" (25). This is quite a difference!

What are some of your thoughts on what the lions are supposed to mean if they are, in fact, a symbol? My only thought is that they symbolize struggle. Lions are creatures of strife. The Old Man clearly loves the struggle more than the trophy, as X. Pol pointed out. Just a thought.

Lions symbolize the wild beauty of nature, perhaps. Recall that we do not seem them hunting or feeding, but rather exclusively from afar, idyllic, on a white beach. They are the images of that strife, but long-passed and fondly-remembered. Perhaps they are analogous to the memories of old battles held by aging war heroes... burnished and stripped of horror, and now beheld glittering at a distance. What do you think?

May 20, 2008 22:33:20 GMT -6 Aspra Roseta Laira said:

Prof,

Can I request that we continue the discussion tomorrow? I really want to see some replies, but I'm tired and I have to get up early tomorrow. Roibeard's on the road back from the Rocky's defeat :-( -- but not their destruction. I hope you give him some points for attending a baseball game since our Santiago would surely approve.

Yes. You have contributed very well, and thank you. I hope Roibeard contributes, as well.

May 20, 2008 23:09:18 GMT -6 Nic Casálmac'h said:

Some people read stories looking for allegory and some people don't see it even when it is very clearly there. I wonder whether he meant it that way or not...

The only purpose in calling something a novella instead of a novel (at least as far as I know) is as it is related to publishing, because a novella is a story shorter than a novel, short enough that they don't publish many because the price can't be enough less to make the shortness worth it.

That's fine, but many people have crept into considering it a new genre, like the short story or the novel. I just wanted to let you guys know that it is not.

May 20, 2008 23:09:18 GMT -6 Nic Casálmac'h said:

As for the matter of allegory... The question really is whether or not he meant it that way. You say there is no chance this was unintentional, but I disagree. It is possible he may not have realized it. Or perhaps he realized it only after he had written it. What one believes really is central to who he is, and it surfaces, whether he knows it or not, because of that. As a Catholic and a writer myself, I find that if I write a story something in some way allegorical tends to slip in. Really that is what story is: a vehicle for truth expressed in some other way.

It seems rather unlikely to me that the symbolism was unintentional, but of course you can disagree. What does everyone else think?

May 20, 2008 23:09:18 GMT -6 Nic Casálmac'h said:

With that supposition—him not having realized it until later—he really only had a couple of choices: leave it in or take it out. Aspra presents an interesting suggestion, especially because the story really isn’t an allegory, though it may be allegorical.

The idea of Santiago as a modern Christ is certainly an interesting one. There are certainly several symbols there—which now that you point them out—I can see lead to thinking it allegory. If we were to continue with that assumption, then I must wonder about the marlin. After all that time he finally succeeds in capturing the fish only to lose most of it and then give the rest up. I can think of nothing this might symbolize. Perhaps someone else can? Or perhaps it is not strictly an allegory and I should ignore this.

Santiago is widely recognized as a Christ-allegory, but the marlin is less obviously symbolic. Many critics have seen in it the brute power and majesty of nature. This is rather an obvious interpretation, but nonetheless accurate, I think. The fish is by nature a noble and perfect being, a standard which Santiago meets but few others can.

May 20, 2008 23:09:18 GMT -6 Nic Casálmac'h said:

Actually, though, I had my own thoughts about another way it could be taken allegorically… Santiago tried his hardest to get that fish alone and in the end he did succeed in capturing it, only to have it taken away from him by the sharks because he couldn’t defend it by himself. Throughout the story we see how he is failing of his own powers, how he needs help, how he cannot do it alone. What was he trying to do by capturing the fish? Was he doing it just because he was a fisherman? Or was he somehow trying to justify himself? Yet he could not gain this on his own, could not gain his own salvation.

Then I started wondering about his name. Names really tell one a lot about a person. Perhaps the fact that the old man’s name is Santiago—the Spanish for James—is no mere coincidence. Saint James the greater is known as the patron saint of Spain. Now in the book, Santiago was clinging to the old ways, perhaps fighting to preserve what was left of old Spain. Unfortunately I don’t have the book anymore, so I can’t look back at it and see whether my speculation is reasonable or not… I didn’t get a chance to read it again, as I was hoping to.

An interesting interpretation, and not one I had heard before. However, the story is based around a story once told to Hemingway when he was in Cuba, and one of the individuals involved was named Santiago. Your symbolism is possible, however.

May 20, 2008 23:09:18 GMT -6 Nic Casálmac'h said:

"'Pain does not matter to a man.'"

As I see it, there are a couple of different ways this could be taken. For one, there is the saying “mind over matter”, meaning that it is one’s state of mind that matters and that all else is of consequence only in how one regards it, even pain. Then of course there is the more spiritual way to look at it, as Aspra said: that pain does not matter because it is only for a brief time and then he will be free from this mortal coil.

To me the simplest explanation is a reference to the soul: that man is made to be destroyed (death) but not defeated (because there is life beyond the grave). Another similar way to look at it would be that all must die, but if one fights for what he believes in, if he never allows himself to do what he knows is wrong, then he cannot be defeated, even if all the forces that have conspired against him have destroyed him.

"Never have I seen a greater, or more beautiful, or a calmer or more noble thing than you, brother. Come on and kill me. I do not care who kills who."

This quote I found puzzling when I read it. I figured it had to mean merely that he was tired and weary and ready for death, mostly because I thought of no other explanation. Yet another way to look at it that occurs to me now is that the marlin is doing exactly what he was intended to do, and perhaps Santiago feels he is not.

That’s about all I have to say. I hope it's all coherent.

It is indeed coherent. You did very well, and thank you for your thought-provoking contributions.

[Sir X. Pol Briga]

May 21, 2008 0:23:16 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

1. Did you notice any other allegories?

2. You say you can see the religious overtones of the latter; to what are you referring, specifically, in case other people missed it?

3. Do you see it then as purely a technique by Hemingway so that Santiago can speak to us? I should point out that elsewhere Santiago thinks things instead, so unlike a movie it is not strictly necessary for him to speak aloud to enlighten us as to his thoughts. What do you think might be the reason for Santiago speaking certain thoughts aloud, if there is any other reason?

4. He does not seek a trophy... what does he seek, in your view? Is it his job alone? Remember the concept of dignity, and think of it in that light, please.

1. The main allegory that I see is that of individual fortitude, man against nature, and in a more specific sense the common man as the hunter / gatherer for sustenance rather than the sportsman who pursues game as recreation.

2. The religious overtone for the destoyed/not defeated is for those who belive that the soul lives on after death, in some kind of heaven or as reincarnation, etc. --- I am not familiar how to consider things in this manner, but I do recognize the concept.

3. By specifically talking to the fish Santiago is elevating the beast to the equal of man, a worthy adversary, and also showing respect.

4. Santiago is a fisherman for sustenance and he approaches every day in a similar manner - just because he did not make a catch for many days beforehand did not stop his methodical approach, and just because he had a big fight that sapped both his strength and resources does not stop him from starting the plans to go out again. Against this backdrop the achievement that he finds is in the continuance his normal work, not in icons of the past which trouble him. A trophy of the great fish might trouble him just as the photograph of his departed wife does.

[Aspra Roseta Laira]

May 20, 2008 23:09:18 GMT -6 Nic Casálmac'h said:

the old man’s name is Santiago—the Spanish for James—is no mere coincidence. Saint James the greater is known as the patron saint of Spain.

Interesting. I didn't realize this. Did you know that James was also the son of Mary, Mother of Jesus. That is, Mary and Joseph's son, Jesus' 1/2 brother? (I'm sure a theologian or well-read Christian might correct me if I'm wrong.) Anyway, if you read the story thinking that the marlin is actually a symbol of Christ -- and Santiago does refer to him as his brother -- then would that make Santiago the killer of Christ? I know this is stretching a bit -- quite a bit, but interesting nonetheless.

I'm going to address some of Alexander's questions in a future post.

[Hooligan]

Although I am not a student in this class, I wanted to poke my head into the classroom rudely and point out that St. James (San Diego, or in its Sinter Klas/Santa Claus form, Santiago) -- in addition to being the patron saint of a very Berber area (including the setting of that famed Talossan opera El Taloçait d'Isiviglha) -- has a Talossan connection.

The Cross of St. James the Greater, son of Zebedee and patron saint of Spain, was specifically chosen to appear on a certain Talossan's coat of arms, one associated (much to Mick's eternal delight) with the motto Prima capiam pocula:

In Talossan: El crutz da Sant Txec

Hooligan

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

I apologise for my tardiness — things have been a little overwhelming lately — but figured I may as well try to make a contribution, late or not.

May 20, 2008 2:30:02 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

But I am sure you will note that there are obvious inconsistencies with this policy and the book we reviewed for today. Specifically and obviously, we have the old fisherman Santiago as a clearly-drawn allegory for Jesus Christ. Hemingway was a highly skilled writer and an on-again off-again Catholic, so there is no chance this was somehow unintentional. Note the wounds on Santiago's palms, traditionally the location where nails passed through Jesus' palms (if not historically accurate). At the conclusion of the novel, Santiago shoulders his mast and walks a long road to rest, dropping to the ground in exhaustion halfway there. Address that, please, class. I would like you to talk about why Hemingway appears to have abandoned one of his primary guidelines for writing, if you agree that he did abandon it in fact, and what his allegory means in the context of the novel. Just to start you off: it has been suggested that Santiago was Hemingway's view of a modern Christ - one whose disciple has been forced by economics away from him, and one who finds no one ready to help him up when he falls on the long walk. Discuss.

This is a difficult question. It seems pretty obvious to me that the Christ connection was intentional. Aside from the injured palms, shouldering the mast, Manolin as Santiago's "disciple," etc., there's the line when Santiago sees a pair of sharks approaching after killing the first one:

"Ay," he said aloud. There is no translation for this word and perhaps it is just a noise such as a man might make, involuntarily, feeling the nail go through his hands and into the wood.

How could he write that without consciously associating Santiago with Christ? But he said there isn't any symbolism in the book. Part of the explanation is probably that, as you have described before, he wasn't always completely forthright about himself. Perhaps another part is that he was just connecting Santiago's suffering and ordeal to another classic story of suffering, without intending to give it any deeper meaning. So maybe we can read the story and acknowledge the similarity without trying to discover, for example, what in OMatS is supposed to symbolise the same kind of redemptive sacrifice that Christ's death represents for Christianity.

May 20, 2008 2:30:02 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

There are also a few lines I would like you to address. Please give me your thoughts in a few sentences on each of the following.

"'Pain does not matter to a man.'"

"'Man is made to be destroyed but not defeated.'"

"Never have I seen a greater, or more beautiful, or a calmer or more noble thing than you, brother. Come on and kill me. I do not care who kills who."

That will do for a beginning. Let's see some discussion, and don't be afraid to comment to each other or disagree.

The first two lines seem to get at the same point: that the essence of a man is his will, and will cannot truly be overcome by any external factors. You can kill a man, but you can't overcome his will unless he lets you. So in effect, there is no such thing as defeat — only surrender.

The statement about destruction versus defeat is the ultimate expression of that idea. The statement about pain is a less extreme example. A true man is in control of his own will. Pain must not be allowed to control one's actions. Pain just gives information about circumstances one should probably be aware of (e.g. "my hands are injured and may not be able to grip the line very tightly") in exercising will. The pain itself is just a messenger.

In the last quote, I think Santiago is saying two things. First, the struggle between man and fish has reached the point where the only natural and proper resolution is for one of them to be destroyed. It would be anticlimactic and somehow unfitting for such a battle to end with the line breaking or the fish throwing the hook and just slipping away. Second, Santiago recognises that the fish has proven itself to be his equal through the struggle, and he knows he does not deserve to win. He realises that it will require luck for him to prevail, and if he comes out on the losing side he will not feel cheated because his opponent is worthy. Besides, he knows he has comported himself well, so it may even be better to die well while struggling well than to win and die less nobly later. (After all, Hemingway seems to have come to a similar conclusion himself.)

How do these all fit together? It's not the outcome that matters, but the struggle, and how you carry yourself through the struggle.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

May 21, 2008 0:23:16 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

Excellent. But in this last, note that Santiago never loses his sense of himself or his dignity. An old man, he nonetheless endures unimaginable suffering to equal the might of the marlin. Santiago was the best man that Hemingway could conceive... what are some qualities he evidences, and what are some qualities that he lacks? This is an excellent topic, so if others could also chime in on this, it would be appreciated.

He displays qualities like tenacity, determination, self-control, self-reliance, and resourcefulness. He is confident and self-assured. He shows an admirable balance of pride and humility. The one quality I see him lacking is foresight. Ultimately, he reproaches himself for spending so much time complaining about the things he should have thought of in advance:

"I wish I had a stone for the knife," the old man said after he had checked the lashing on the oar butt. "I should have brought a stone." You should have brought many things, he thought. But you did not bring them, old man. Now is no time to think of what you do not have. Think of what you can do with what there is.

May 21, 2008 0:23:16 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

Lions symbolize the wild beauty of nature, perhaps. Recall that we do not seem them hunting or feeding, but rather exclusively from afar, idyllic, on a white beach. They are the images of that strife, but long-passed and fondly-remembered. Perhaps they are analogous to the memories of old battles held by aging war heroes... burnished and stripped of horror, and now beheld glittering at a distance. What do you think?

I agree. Each time the lions were mentioned I thought the image of lions lounging around on the beach was a strange one. The memory he had of lions doesn't seem very typical of the beasts.

May 21, 2008 0:23:16 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

It seems rather unlikely to me that the symbolism was unintentional, but of course you can disagree. What does everyone else think?

Like I said in my own reply to the lecture questions, I think the symbolism must have been intentional to some degree, but he may not have intended for it to be carried very far.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

May 21, 2008 17:10:59 GMT -6 Aspra Roseta Laira said:

Interesting. I didn't realize this. Did you know that James was also the son of Mary, Mother of Jesus. That is, Mary and Joseph's son, Jesus' 1/2 brother? (I'm sure a theologian or well-read Christian might correct me if I'm wrong.) Anyway, if you read the story thinking that the marlin is actually a symbol of Christ -- and Santiago does refer to him as his brother -- then would that make Santiago the killer of Christ? I know this is stretching a bit -- quite a bit, but interesting nonetheless.

Catholics (as Hemingway and Santiago both were) generally believe that James (along with Jude, Simon, and Joses) was either a stepbrother (from a prior marriage of Joseph) or cousin of Jesus. The Greek word adelphos, which has the primary meaning of "brother," is also sometimes used with a broader meaning of "kinsman" or "relative," which could encompass cousins. Also, if James were Jesus' half-brother, that would contradict the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. Protestants, who do not necessarily hold that Mary was ever-virgin, are more likely to believe that Jesus had half-siblings who were children of Mary and Joseph.

The idea of the marlin as symbol of Christ is interesting. It flashed through my mind as well when I read the part where Santiago harpoons the marlin in the side, and its blood discolours the sea. That reminded me of the Roman soldier spearing Christ in the side, and how a mixture of blood and water flowed out when the spear was withdrawn. That could easily be a mere coincidental resemblance. But the fish has been used as a symbol of Christ from the late 1st century through today's bumper stickers. Originally, it was noted that the Greek word for fish (ichthys) could be used as an acronym for "Jesus Christ, God's Son, Saviour."

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

I would like to thank the Seneschal for popping his head in and tossing a cross into our virtual classroom. Very good contributions from Cresti, as well; thank you for your exemplary analysis, and I think we can overlook the belatedness in view of its quality. I strongly suggest the rest of the class carefully review his words on the subject, particularly his welcome point as to the symbolism of Santiago.