Since virtually everything that can be said Ernest Hemingway
has been said, any further exercise in the analysis of his work really ought to
offer some self, justification. However, we can go further, it seems to me. Can
also examine that impact of an author’s specific sense of life upon the
boundaries of artistic achievement open him. For in my view Hemingway’s work
constitutes a particularly graphic demonstration of the consequences, in this
case detrimental, of an author’s fundamental view of himself and of existence.
The dominant tone of Hemingway’s work was undoubtedly a
sense of the bankruptcy of values, a quasi-nihilistic despair of finding any
meaning or value in a “universe of chance”. It reflected in part the widespread
disillusionment affecting so many intellectuals after World War I. This
disillusionment was perhaps summed up best, however, by the statement of the protagonist
of A Farewell to Arms, Frederic Henry:
“I was always embarrassed by the words sacred, glorious, and
sacrifice and the expression in vain…. There were many words that you could not
stand to hear and finally only the names of places had dignity. Abstract words
such as glory, honour, courage or hallow were obscene beside the concrete names
of villages, the numbers of regiments and the dates.”
The sense of a meaningless, uncaring- if not positively
malevolent – universe was likewise conveyed in Frederic’s musings on how he had
once burnt a log full of ants and observed, like and unmoved God, their frantic
efforts to escape. Man too, we are supposed to think, is ultimately doomed to
the same sort of meaningless death as the ants. “You always feel trapped
biologically”. Says Frederic to his lover Catherine. And to underline the point
Catherine herself dies in an equally gratuitous manner. Another biological
accident- the result of childbirth and the fact of her narrow hips. “If people
bring so much courage to this world,” reflects Frederic, “the world has to kill
them to break them, so of course it kills them. The world breaks everyone and
afterward many are strong at the broken places. But those that will not break
it kill. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave
impartially. If you are none of these you can be sure that it will kill you too
but there will be no special hurry”.
I termed Hemingway’s sense of life quasi-nihilistic, for
there is some vague concept of metaphysical value present. Sometimes values is
attributed to the realm of Nature- the wind rippling the corn field appears in
almost everything he wrote as an image
of life, of harmony, peace, and permanence. The existence of the peasantry,
living in harmony with their surroundings also appears to have some
metaphysical value attributed to it. And, of course, there is the famous
Hemingway “code”, the ethos of the “Stiff upper lip” as exemplified most
notably in the protagonists of the sun Also Rises, those psychically or physically
scarred individuals such as Jake Barnes, Bill Gorton, Count Mippipopolous, and
Lady Brett. If the world is unmistakably one of meaningless suffering and death,
then one can- in the Hemingway worldview – at least maintain in the face of it
a certain self- control and detachment. Like the matador’s consummate skill and
grace while confronting painful death it is, in Hemingway’s view, this
maintenance of dignity and self- control which constitutes the most and the
best, men can hope for.
Hemingway and the Hemingway code, manifest one of the worst
forms of anttiintellectualism – that of the intellectual. “I was not made to
think, “Declared Frederic Henry in A Farewell to Arms, “I was made to eat. My
God, yes. Eat and drink and sleep with Catherine,” It was hardly insignificant
that Helen Gordon- off To have And Have Hot – in her outburst against her
husband, accuses him of having got his “dirty little tricks” out of books, or
that she ends with the most abusive them she could think of – “You writer!” it was
Hemingway’s anti- intellectualism, his distrust of the very role and
responsibilities of the intellectual, that makes his work so fundamentally
unsatisfying and which prevented him from creating a truly great art.
Our basic question then must be, how far can nihilism
provide an adequate foundation for sustained artistic Endeavour? The answer is
surely that it cannot. Nihilism precludes the possibility of organic and
interesting development. The Hemingway world is one of mechanical repetition,
and in the series of Hemingway’s nine or ten books there is no inward
continuity to keep pace with the chronological sequence.
To put it crudely- to have read one Hemingway novel is
virtually to have read them all! Hemingway created a distinctive protagonist
and taciturn style which embodied his sensibility undeniably well. In this lay
an undoubted literary achievement. But it was an extremely limited one. Unable
or unwilling to explore the issues with which he was concerned he also failed
to develop a broader, more fertile vision of life which alone could lead to
sustained literary creativity. He thus said all he had to say, and did very
much all he could do, in his first few stories and novels. The rest are
repetitive in theme, derivative in style, and all thoroughly superfluous.
Hemingway’s’ work must be judged in my, view as a failure.
The failure was undoubtedly an intellectual one. But more fundamental, surely,
was the “Question philosophique”. Hemingway’s failure to create truly great art
can ultimately be traced to his sense of life. It was a failure of nihilism.
For as Nietzsche once observed:
“What does all art do?
Does it not praise? Does it not glorify? Does it not select? Does it not
bring things into prominence? In all this it strengthens or weakens certain
valuations. Is this only a secondary matter? An accident? Something in which
the artist’s instinct has no share? Or is this not rather the very prerequisite
which enables the artist to accomplish something?”
22.
Which of the following would the author be most
likely to agree with?
A.
Nihilism is conducive towards the perpetuation
of artistic evolution.
B.
Nihilism is anti- intellectual in its
orientation.
C.
Hemingway’s literary style generates doubts
about his literary achievement.
D.
Hemingway’s writings exemplify the causation
between a literary work and its progenitor.
23.
As used in the passage, the word “ gratuitous”
would most nearly mean
A.
Free
B.
Unnecessary
C.
Cruel
D.
Nihilistic
24.
What, according to the author, is “the very
prerequisite which enables the artist to accomplish something”?
A.
The role of art in strengthening and weakening
certain valuations
B.
The ability to overcome the failure of Nihilism
C.
Art
D.
The strengthening and weakening of certain
valuations
25.
What would be an appropriate title for this
passage?
A.
The Hemingway code
B.
The Question Philosophique
C.
Hemingway and the failure of Nihilism
D.
Nihilism in art
26.
Why does the author consider Helen’s calling her
husband “you Writer!” abusive?
A.
Because she was in an agitated state when she
said it
B.
Because Hemingway created a distinctive
protagonist and taciturn style
C.
Because it
reflects Hemingway’s anti-intellectualism
D.
Because he got his “dirty little tricks” out of
books
Answer:
22.
D Refer
to the last line of the first paragraph.
23.
B She
died in as meaningless a manner as the ants, a reflection of the purposeless
existence that the universe condemns us all to.
24.
A Refer
to the last paragraph. It is only when an artist can use art to order certain
valuations that he can accomplish anything.
25.
C The
only title that encompasses the two dominant themes. A and B are too narrow
while D is too general.
26.
C Refer
to the 7th paragraph. It is an illustration of Hemingway’s
anti-intellectualism manifesting in Helen’s outburst.
No comments:
Post a Comment