Part II: It gets even worse
Do you remember how angry you probably were walking out of the theater when you saw The Last Jedi? Everyone got really freakin’ hyped for the new Star Wars movie, but then found out it was just two and a half hours of two spaceships chasing each other, with some other really weird stuff mixed in. I feel that exact same anger now after finishing the first half of, let me remind you, AWARD WINNING The Old Man and the Sea. Basically the whole book is about an old guy chasing a big fish with some weird other really weird stuff mixed in. That’s it. I’m not exaggerating. I just spent thirty minutes reading about a guy just holding onto a rope and getting dragged out to sea by a fish. What the H.
So how does Ernest manage to write so much about so little? It’s his excruciating style. I know The Old Man and the Sea is not truly about the old man or the sea for that matter. It is really an extended metaphor, similar to journey myths of the ancient world, which bring into question principles of pride, honor, or man’s place in the natural world. You could not write a complex story about a man fishing that also addresses these themes without some trickery. In Hemingway’s case, he uses some unique stylistic techniques to turn a boring story about a man fishing into a boring story about a man fishing that means something.
Take for pride, for example. If the old man is a tragic hero, then his fatal flaw is his pride. The old man’s pride is revealed through the narratives stream of consciousness. The old man recounts the story of the “great negro from Cienfuegos,” whom he beat in a twenty-four-hour arm wrestling competition. After being named “The Champion,” the old man retired from arm wrestling, as he knew “he could beat anyone if he wanted to badly enough.” and besides, it was “bad for his right hand for fishing.” This confidence in his own determination is the same trait that keeps him holding onto the line as the fish pulls him further out to sea. The old man’s stream of consciousness, bouncing from memory to memory, reveals these aspects of his character (something vital to understand considering he is really the only character in the book).
The old man also has a warrior-like sense of honor which also motivates him to catch the fish. Like his stream of consciousness, Hemingway also has the old man speak to himself. Because of this, we see that the old man addresses the fish as his equal. He describes both himself and the fish as “strange” because of their mutual unwillingness to concede. During this battle between the man and the animal the man tells the it “Fish, I love and respect you very much. But I will kill you dead before the day ends.” Having the old man talk to the fish serves the purpose of both animating the story, revealing the old man’s character, and suggest that he is maybe losing it during his struggle on the sea. For all the crap I give this book, I think those kinds of devices are clever. There are few authors who can write so economically yet pack so much meaning into what they say.
Anyway, I was gonna write about the whole man vs. nature thing but I think I’ll save it. It’s a little late and writing about this book on a Friday night is the last thing I want to be doing. Oh yeah there was also some more Jesus stuff but I’ll write about that next week. I think that’s it for now.
Brilliant Henry. Simply brilliant.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading your post, I sat for more than few minutes pondering the similarities between The Last Jedi and this book. At first a battle between a fisherman and a fish seems a lot like the First Order against the Resistance. These are both examples of a struggle for power, but one side always seems unfairly stronger than the other. General Hux once said “We have them tied on the end of a string.” when referencing the fact that the First Order were tracking the dwindling resistance fleet.
Hmm… How does this seem familiar?
The man has the fish on the end of his own string, waiting for the fish to lose all the fight it has. The fish is beautiful and magnificent, a true gem of the sea. The resistance is a light in the dark, something to route for. What sets the stories apart is the other end of the string. The First Order serves as a cliche villain, uncreative and predictable. The old man is complex and completely original. While The Last Jedi under-performed at the box office, The Old Man and the Sea won the Pulitzer Prize for Literature.
I agree that Santiago’s battle with the fish is the most boring thing in the book. I do not need half of the book to show me that the man is a passionate guy, I learned that in the first page. Hemingway creates this battle to not prove the man’s most apparent quality but to show his appreciation for nature. He calls the fish his brother but wants to kill him, he thinks the dolphins are beautiful, yet he kills them. He does what he wants and doesn't mind what others think. I’ve been looking for the villain for like eighty pages now, and I think the only one I am seeing is society. Most humans avoid the subject of death and conform in every way. The old man accepts that death is a part of life and he lives the way he wants to. He appreciates and understands all aspects of nature.
You said his flaw is determination, which I never thought of. I always perceived it as a desirable quality, but it does make a lot of sense how that could be bad. He acknowledges the beauty of the fish, yet still has a strong desire to kill it.
This guy is going to kill this fish and is going to realize the error of his ways. Macbeth’s ambition is Santiago’s determination. I know one these of characters die (Thanks for the spoiler Mrs. LaClair!), but will the other? What do you think?
I really do not know why I wrote this much, I really should be doing my civics homework.
Thank you for your thorough comment, Ben. It's always wonderful to see your incites.
DeleteI drew the parallel between the book and the Last Jedi to describe how the first half of the Old Man and the Sea made me feel. The similarities between the two stories' plots was not something I considered, however. I think it highlights how conventional story structure is omnipresent throughout all forms of western media.
I look forward to further discussion/debate in the future.
First off, I'm pretty amazed at how your writing in this post sounds identical to how you talk in real life. I'm not kidding, it's the exact same. In that way, you're really showing your ability to use voice in your writing. I also think it's quite impressive that you're willing to analyze a book to this degree that you so passionately hate.
ReplyDeleteI like the connections you're making to the things we learn in class, such as the fatal flaw piece. Though you have not finished the book yet, are there other aspects that follow this Shakespearean tragedy story line? It sounds like the fisherman has already reached his reversal of fortune over his pride in that he was pulled out to sea, but do you think he will reach an increased self-awareness by the end of the novel? If so, what "moment of enlightenment" could spark it?
I'll end it here--I can't compete with Ben, and I, too, have civics homework. Nice job, Henry!
I don't know if anyone could compete with Ben after that marathon post, but I appreciate the response! I hadn't thought to much about the entirety of the tragic hero's arc in the context of OMatS, but it would be an interesting way to examine the book. It will be in the back of my mind from now on though!
Delete