In a recent podcast, Andrew Kern mentioned he read this book when he was young for different reasons as the ones he read it again later in life. As a more mature reader, he could see more in the text which in part it’s a reaction to the previous more elaborated style literature. I know we can learn much, as Andrew Kern said too, from books that have become the chosen ones to represent a decade, a century, an era. That’s why I felt I wanted to read some Hemingway. And truthfully, one cannot escape the worth of the book, separated from our like or dislike of it.
I thought about that totally by myself! (I’m elated, I found this, where I read that Hemingway and Melville were favorites of Camus.) Last year I read half of Moby Dick, but I find Melville’s writing different. That an author is a favorite of another author, I guess doesn’t translate into copying the style, but the similarities in the way Frederic Henry (Hemingway’s main character in this novel), and Meursault (Camus’ main character in The Stranger) expressed similar thoughts like, “I don’t believe in God”, “I wanted to eat and sleep”, “I did not feel love”, etc., told me that both authors probably shared or overlapped some of their view of life, and chose to convey them in that similar cadence and language. (Maybe it’s just that the book had, I believe, the same reader. Yes, I think it was the same narrator, who, by the way, did an excellent job in my opinion. It was a young male voice that to me, since both The Stranger and A Farewell to Arms are written in the first person, sounded like the main character was talking to me.
Has the book taught me anything?
I believe it has taught me something about the first war, about men and women, about what it is to live without hope.
There’s a conversation between Frederick Henry and an old millionaire friend he has, an Italian Comte. The old man says that the older he gets, the easier for him it is to speak in his mother tongue, Italian. Frederick asks him if he is scared to die. The old man says he is not afraid, but he loves his life (although old age comes with a sort of bodily inconveniences he suffers). He says he doesn’t aspire to life after death, but that he’d love to live forever.
It’s so different for me. I do love life, I live a very good life, but I would not like for a second to be offered to live eternally. Not in this temporal world. The word existentialism it’s becoming clearer after reading these two novels. The burden it’s not the cross, but to have the weight of the whole world, your life, other people’s suffering, on your shoulders. There’s no happiness in living to make another person happy, or making your own happiness dependent on someone. His Law gives us peace and freedom. Nothing, no other man or woman can make us complete. Only Him can make us whole.