Summary+Pages+Da+Bin

First 101/10 -- It is interesting that the author can be convincing, yet have such obvious stretches in the argument. Second 10/10 Third 10/10 -- Carrying forth your argument that Henry bears some guilt for Catherine and the unreliable narrator portion, what does the dead baby and his inability to look symbolize?

Da Bin Lee ** First Article Summary **
 * 10 pages**
 * Pratt, John. “My Pilgrimage: Fishing for Religion with Hemingway.” //The Hemingway Review//. Volume 21. 1. (2001): 78-88. Print.**

“Politics and religion are two things I never discuss,” said Hemingway during his interview with Leonard Lyons of the New York Post. Even though Ernest Hemingway himself had denied religious implications in his literary works, John Clark Pratt speaks of the opposite.

Written in mid-twentieth century, the essay makes efforts to define and explain Hemingway’s use of religious allusion in his fictions. The author argues that __The Old Man and the Sea__ begins with obvious religious elements: the names (Santiago, Pedrico, Manolin); the allusions (the old man staggering up the hill carrying the mast as Christ did the cross, as well as the wounds on his hands); and the careful phraseology such as the marlin coming “alive with his death in him” (94). He also notes that the priest in __A Farewell to Arms__ is a very important figure in the book, who represents a fictional version of a real priest who had encouraged Hemingway to be baptized. In the end, the author concludes that “it is safe to say that not one priest in all [Hemingway’s] work is presented in an unfavorable light,” indicating Hemingway’s favorable stance towards the church and Christianity. The author also includes the personal backgrounds of Hemingway and his religious stance. He mentions some facts such as that Hemingway’s second wife Pauline was a devout Catholic or that Hemingway incidentally always liked priests throughout his life. He provides such information to insist that there lies an unbreakable and undeniable tie between Hemingway’s work and Christianity.

While reading the __Old Man and the Sea__, I had failed to notice such parallelisms. I had characterized Santiago as the symbol of masculinity rather than the representation of a Christ figure. In the book, Santiago is described as “a man can be destroyed but not defeated” (130). When I first read that sentence, I thought such a description was only to emphasize the strength and machismo of the old yet determined man who refuses to yield to threats and old age. Yet, after reading this article, I now can see the potential argument: “a man [who] can be destroyed but not defeated” represents the Christ, demonstrating the undefeatable nature of the mighty Jesus.

Despite certain parallelisms between the Bible and the __Old Man and the Sea__, I have to disagree with some of the extreme arguments the author of the essay makes. Ernest Hemingway had directly said that he did not purposely discuss religion in his fictions, but the author claims for too much. The author contends that Santiago’s act of giving the fish head to Pedrico symbolizes Jesus giving Peter the grand mission; however, it seems too much of a stretch to conclude so. Although Pedrico may remind us of the biblical namesake, there is neither enough implication nor notable significance on the sentence itself for it to convey such a deep meaning. If it really were to carry such allusion (and if Hemingway wanted the audience to notice the connection), Hemingway would have added more constructive indication for the grand mission.

**Second Article Summary ** 21 pages (I read only certain chapters of the document) where I can find the document: [] Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. //The Communist Manifesto // . Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1969. Print.  Communism is an ideology first articulated by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in //The Communist Manifesto // , published in 1848. Marx and Engels believed that capitalism would engender everlasting dissonance between workers and employers--between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. In their work, Marx and Engels called for the elimination of all private property. Communal ownership of all the resources and means of production evolved as the ultimate goal of the Communist economy. “From each, according to his abilities, to each, according to his needs” became one of the many slogans associated with communism, aiming for a classless society that ensures the essentials needed to live for every member. Marx also believed that one of the reasons members the proletariat failed to revolt against their oppressors was because institutionalized religion conspired to keep workers from realizing the full misery of their oppression.

I’ve decided that //The Communist Manifesto //  is an adequate outside document that will enhance my essay, as I am planning to discuss about Hemingway’s unfavorable attitude toward capitalism and how he uses his fictions to accuse the detrimental flaws of capitalistic community. Most of Hemingway’s literary work was produced between the mid 1920’s and 1950’s, during which red scare and fear of communist revolution daunted the United States.

“Religion is the opium of the people,” notes Marx; and using critic #1 as supporting views, I will utilize Hemingway’s portrayal of priests who act as the opium for the general population. Moreover, in both novels-- //The Old Man and the Sea //  and //<span style="font-family: 'Courier New',Courier,monospace; letter-spacing: 0px;">A Farewell to Arms // <span style="font-family: 'Courier New',Courier,monospace; letter-spacing: 0px;">--the proletariats (represented by the fisherman Santiago and the lieutenant Frederic Henry) do not hold anything in the end. They lose all: Santiago loses the flesh of the fish due to shark attacks, and Henry loses his wife and son due to haemorrhage. In my essay, I will argue that Hemingway intended to show his audience that the poor fisherman and the helpless soldier are apparent victims of the capitalistic society, and by showing miserable situations of the two main characters, Hemingway flashes unfavorable light to the system.

I see the connection between the loss of trust for the contemporary system and the disillusionment of the Lost Generation (to which Ernest Hemingway belongs). The writers considered themselves lost as their inherited values (such as the capitalistic economic system) failed to operate in the postwar world, eventually feeling alienated from the community. Hemingway’s barren descriptions of his characters’ emotions also contribute to this idea.

<span style="font-family: 'Courier New',Courier,monospace; font-size: 12pt;">** Third Article Summary ** 16 pages Donaldson, Scott. "Frederic Henry's Escape and the Pose of Passivity." In Bloom, Harold, ed. //Ernest Hemingway's A Farewell to Arms.// New York: Chelsea House, 1987: 97-113. <span style="font-family: 'Courier New',Courier,monospace;">We often remember Frederic Henry as a pitiful man who has nothing left in his arms as the merciless reality and the destructive war take away all. However, the article “Frederic Henry’s Escape and the Pose of Passivity” reveals the author’s bold skepticism towards Henry. Is Henry after all that innocent? Is he really a man who is free from blame?

<span style="font-family: 'Courier New',Courier,monospace;">According to Donaldson, //A Farewell to Arms// revolves around the main character’s guilt. He claims that Fredric Henry feels guilty because he survives the war and the struggling days with Catherine. As the author of the article points out, Henry continuously attempts to justify his escape and his continued survival; he repeatedly mentions how soldiers of the war either made a separate peace (meaning death) or suffered so much from war weariness that they wish to die. Only sex and liquor can help assuage those soldiers, although rarely they depend on religion and priest to heal their wounded minds. The author underscores that even though Henry feels guilty about his escape from the camp and war, he does not take any active action about it. He avoids the war news, simply closing his eyes despite the harsh reality that forces him to open them. Donaldson concludes that Henry is not so innocent in the end. Henry kills a truck driver who holds no particular threat against him and his unit, and this is when Henry’s hand gets truly dirtied by blood. Donaldson argues that Henry (who appears to be the victim of the tragic situation) is actually a sly character whose guilt cannot be shield by Catherine’s love. “Hemingway’s untrustworthy narrator remains a principal agent of both his farewells—to wars as to love” (112).

<span style="font-family: 'Courier New',Courier,monospace;">This article surprises me in that Donaldson (the author) analyzes the main character Henry from an unconventional standpoint. Usually critics of the novel describes Henry as a helpless victim of the brutal war; I also thought of Henry as a poor man who lost everything—his love and place to go back—because of the war’s absurdity. On the other hand, Donaldson makes his stance very clear: he calls Henry an “untrustworthy narrator” who holds responsibility of his loss.

<span style="font-family: 'Courier New',Courier,monospace;">I agree with the author as I also believe that Henry is not an innocent victim in terms of his relationship with Catherine. In the first place, Henry doesn’t take Catherine seriously. She is a mere sex partner who enables Henry to forget about the war. Henry and Catherine’s relationship is not out of pure love but of extrinsic motivation and escape from reality. Catherine’s pregnancy was not something they’ve planned; the baby was not fruit of sincere love, but rather an unpleasant side effect of casual sex. In fact, Henry refuses to even look at the dead baby, as he feels no strong affection towards it. Although there was nothing Henry could do about Catherine’s death (which was caused by hemorrhaging), he is not free from guilt. Her death was direct result of Henry’s escape: he had casual sex to escape the reality, and he used Catherine as an excuse to escape from the war front. Frederic Henry tries to portray himself as a scapegoat of the era, yet it was Henry who leads himself to collapse.