I just couldn't connect to this. I had trouble picturing what was happening and I just couldn't get into a groove with the writing style.

n  

How little we know of what there is to know. I wish that I were going to live a long time instead of going to die today because I have learned much about life in these four days; more, I think, than in all the other time.

n
A devastating novel about war (the Spanish Civil War, specifically), death, killing and connection. Hemingway blends a hard-hitting 'action' story of a small group of Republican partisans behind fascist lines on a mission to blow up a bridge with a profound meditation on living and dying.

Told over the tight timescale of just three days and nights, Robert Jordan, an American volunteer from the International Brigade, condenses his life into a miniature epic: he falls in love for the first time, he confronts the brutality of humanity via the terrible stories told by Pilar and Maria (does it matter that they're both women, I wonder?), he is faced with questions of what it means to live a good life and have a good death, he even has to decide the most fundamental of existential questions: like Hamlet, he wonders should he take his own life, when is precisely the right time, or should he hold on to precious life just a little longer - because he can still take action, or because life is beautiful and death is terrifying nothingness?.

Hemingway is unflinching in his portrait of war, something that he experienced as a reporter during the Spanish Civil War: he's especially attentive to the question of killing, of how hard it can be, the effect it has on people even when they have made peace with the necessity to do it. The story recounted by Pilar is telling as an orderly, almost ritualistic, execution of fascists turns into a frightening, brutal mob crowd acting from a kind of blood-lust, a moment which compromises, for her, the Republican struggle.

He's also sensitive to the topic of rape: Maria cannot even speak of her ordeal at the hands of fascists, and displaces it by recounting how they cut off her hair and gagged her with it while she failed to recognise her own face in the mirror. For an author frequently castigated for his inability to write complex female characters, Hemingway is, perhaps surprisingly, acute on the psychology of trauma here - it's maybe no coincidence that the book is dedicated to Martha Gellhorn.

I've seen reviews falter over the 'stilted' style - for me, there's a kind of formality about it as well as a sensitivity to Spanish language that doesn't translate straightforwardly into English, perhaps a comment on the displacement of Robert Jordan whose sobriquet, Inglese, foregrounds his 'foreigness' and rewrites his national identity.

It's striking, too, the moves into something close to stream-of-consciousness, not a style conventionally associated with Hemingway. Towards the end, narrative control is stripped from Robert Jordan as we suddenly follow another character on a journey, before returning to Jordan's inner monologue, one which is both speech and dialogue. And it's significant that the closing line echoes so closely the opening one.

Finally, we shouldn't forget the significance of the carefully chosen title taken from John Donne's Meditation XVII: 'Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee': in Hemingway's hands it speaks to both human connection and an ultimate isolation as death both binds as a common destiny and yet is faced alone.

"I love Ernest Hemingway but there is a line in FOR WHOM THE BELL TOLLS that makes me cringe: 'Did the earth shake for thou too?'".---Mario Vargas Llosa
Well, Mario, what makes me cringe is Hem's use of "thee " and "thou" and have one of his characters speak of "the Tigers of Detroit". Yes, people do use these words in Spanish but us Spanish-speakers do not think that vocabulary remarkable. This sprawling adventure novel perfectly fits Zelda Fitzgerald's description of her husband F. Scott's best friend: "He's one half bullfighting and one half bullshit". Give Hemingway credit for prophecy, seeing the Spanish Civil war as a prelude to world war if the fascists were not stopped in Spain first. Add a dose of credit, while paying your respects to George Orwell, for analyzing the two sides of the Soviet mission in Spain. Stalin sent the republic aid while France and Britain embargoed both sides and American business sold arms to Franco, yet the price to be paid was Soviet infiltration of the republican ranks with spies and assassins. Hemingway depicts these shadowy men at a time when much of the international left thought the Soviet Union could do no wrong. After that, what we get is a portrait of Ernest Hemingway, not Spain. The White Man Savior, Robert Jordan, throws away his academic books and picks up the gun to save democracy. Pilar, the cynical but proud defender of the guerrilla. Her husband Pablo, the supposed macho guy who turns over command of the guerrilla to his loyal wife. And, what Hemingway novel would be complete without the voluptuous foreign woman, in this case Maria, for the American to make love to? The Spaniards in this best-seller are courageous but ultimately children, understanding little about the world and its politics. If you have read any other Hemingway, you know this is not a spoiler: The hero is doomed, love is crushed, and those who fight do so for a cause that is half-corrupt already and probably won't matter twenty years down the road. Jordan's sacrifice is Camus' "acte gratuite" on the half-shelf, included to make the reader feel sad for him and, only secondarily, Spain. A contrarian's note: Andre Malraux's novel on the Spanish Civil War, MAN'S HOPE, is not particularly well-written, yet the author put his arms where his mouth was by helping to organize an air force for the republic. Hemingway sat back in Cuba and collected huge royalties.

Captures the futility of war and the incompetence of military leaders. For a book about war there is very little actual fighting; it is much more an exploration of the human condition and the complexities of relationships. In my opinion a great book.

Ok, so Ben Harrison inspired me to check out some Hemingway. I hadn’t ready any of Hemingway’s work in close to twenty years. I remember starting A Movable Feast in college, reading five pages, and wondering what they hell was wrong with the author. I couldn’t get past what I perceived as a wooden, hacked-off writing style. I felt kind of guilty, though, because I grew up a couple miles away from Oak Park, Illinois, which styles itself as an integral part of Hemingway’s youth, and some people I respected liked his work. Still, you know how it goes, twenty years can pass with other books besides Hemingway.

After reading Ben’s comments I stopped at the local library and the only Hemingway title on the shelves was For Whom The Bell Tolls. The fates, I assume, were telling me to start with that book. So I did. And on page six I encountered this passage:

“You could not always take it like that,” Golz said and shook his head. “But in this case, you may. It is my attack.”

“I understand it,” Robert Jordan had said. “I do not say I like it very much.”

“Neither do I like it very much. If you do not want to undertake it, say so now. If you think you cannot do it, say so now.”

“I will do it,” Robert Jordan had said. “I will do it all right.”

So…I’m wondering…where have I heard this style before? And then I remember…

Come, Dick.

Come and see.

Come, come.

Come and see.

Come and see Spot.

Look, Spot.

Oh, look.

Look and see.

Oh, see.

And I thought, holy hell, Hemingway writes like a Dick and Jane book! What the hell is Ben Harrison thinking?

And then I kept reading, and you know, Ben Harrison was right. This is a great book, and once you get used to Hemingway’s style, he draws you in, and his groundbreaking, influential voice shines.

You can read the summary of the book on your own so I’m going to skip that part. I want to focus instead on how Hemingway’s style merges perfectly with the sense of relentless fate and meditative reflection of what’s important against hopeless odds. Pilar’s description of the village on the day the fascists are expelled harrowed and haunted me. The tough, determined band of rebels and their sparse interaction mirrored the rough land on which they subsisted. And the relationship between Maria and Robert pulses as real and tragic.

And as much as I mocked the early language I was enamored with passages like:

At either of those places you felt that you were taking part in a crusade. That was the only word for it although it was a word that had been so worn and abused that it no longer gave its true meaning. You felt, in spite of all bureaucracy and inefficiency and party strife something that was like the feeling you expected to have and did not have when you made your first communion. It was a feeling of consecration to a duty toward all of the oppressed of the world which would be difficult and embarrassing to speak about as religious experience and yet it was as authentic as the feeling you had when you heard Bach, or stood in Chartres Cathedral or the Cathedral at Leon and saw the light coming through the great windows.

Wow. And the thread between this book and Cormac McCarthy, one of my favorite authors, couldn’t be clearer.

I’ve also heard people describe Hemingway’s books as over-masculine guy-lit. For Whom The Bells Tolls was not written exclusively for guys with Skoal rings and Nascar numbers on their trucks. The book is deep and challenging. I was happy to finish this book the same way I was happy to finish Paradise Lost. The experience was rewarding and exhausting.

So, thanks, Ben. You were right. For Whom The Bell Tolls is excellent, and if all Hemingway’s work is of the same quality, he deserves a bright spot in the constellation of American literature. I’m a convert.

This is actually the third time I’ve read For Whom the Bell Tolls but it’s the first time I’ve written about it, which is surprising given how long I’ve lived with this book. I remember that after completing it the first time, I found it to be amazing in terms of style and riveting with regards to the story. Hemingway’s writing was phenomenally different and a fresh change from anything that I had read before. For Whom the Bell Tolls was my first Hemingway and it was the first time that writing style asserted itself as a sort of fourth dimension in reading.

The story was one that focused on duty and responsibility, traits that still impress me. The main character, Robert Jordan, was a hero that faced a virtual one-way mission with dignity, clarity of mind, and respect for his cause. He was the personification of grace under pressure and he predated the likes of Jason Bourne and Ethan Hunt. But Jordan was better. He was just a simple Spanish teacher before his calling. He was both somebody and anybody all at the same time.

Now here we are, after reading dozens of Hemingway novels and stories, and For Whom the Bell Tolls only gets better. During this third reading, the story opened up into a beautiful novel of interesting characters and the war faded into a secondary but influencing happenstance. The novel also takes on a naturalist theme where the scenery and nature of Spain are beautifully captured in almost every scene.

During this third reading of the novel, I became aware that Hemingway was creating something more than just a story. He loved Spain, its people and its culture, just as anyone loves a place that is wholly different but welcoming to the kind-hearted. But the civil war destroyed Hemingway’s Spain and I think Hemingway knew that no matter which side won the war, the Spain that he loved would forever be lost. To this end, I believe that For Whom the Bell Tolls is also a sort of memorial. This book is his attempt to capture in words what every memorial tries to capture in stone for all of the future: this is the breadth of my love and the weight of its loss.

n  There are many who do not know they are fascists but will find out when the time comes.n

Along with millions of Americans, I was assigned to read The Sun Also Rises in high school English class. And along with (I presume) a good percentage of those millions, I did not finish reading it in time for the exam. But I do remember the teacher explaining that, for Hemingway, “the most important thing is grace under pressure.” At the time it struck me as very odd that this would be so important to someone. After all, aren’t there many other important qualities for a person to have? What about intelligence, education, kindness, wit?
tt
My professor’s remark came back to me, with full force, as I read For Whom the Bell Tolls. This is a novel about courage—not just grace under pressure, but grace in the face of mortal peril. This idea is developed almost into a full moral system, where instead of sinners and saints we have the brave and the cowardly. Everyone is measured by this metric. At first glance there is a lot to criticize in this worldview. Can’t you fight bravely for a horrible cause? Can’t you put your life on the line for something truly ugly? Indeed, the sorts of situations that Hemingway fixates on—hunting, bullfighting, war—are ethically dubious, at least in my opinion.
tt
And yet, the more I read, the more I found myself thinking of Albert Camus, of all people. The perspective espoused in The Plague seemed, though obscurely, to be mirrored in For Whom the Bell Tolls. The characters inhabit an absurd universe, where traditional notions of good and evil have broken down, where death is unthinking and meaningless, and can come at any time. Both Robert Jordan and Dr. Bernard Rieux are fighting a battle that they are unlikely to win. But they continue to fight, mostly out of a simple sense of duty.
tt
Of course, Hemingway’s hero is fighting other people, whereas Camus’s had to face a faceless disease. What sets Robert Jordan apart from his enemy—at least in Hemingway’s eyes—is that he kills out of necessity, in order to ultimately save others, whereas the fascists kill because they think they have a right to decide who is worthy to live. Indeed, perhaps you can even say that, for Hemingway, cowardice and fascism come from the same impulse: the denial of death—or, rather, the denial of our powerless in the face of death. Cowards run because they think they can exempt themselves from the basic condition of life. It is a form of inauthentic egotism. And fascists kill for the same reason: they think that they can decide who lives and dies, rather than accepting that who lives and dies is not really up to anyone.
tt
The only authentic way to live, for Hemingway and for Camus, is in the direct face of death, with no illusions. This is why the bullfighter is such a central symbol for Hemingway: it is the most literal image of a man facing his own death. Thus, rather than simply a novel about a mission to destroy a bridge, this book becomes a kind of meditation on how a small band of men and women behave when they know they might have only a few days to live. In some places, Hemingway even sounds downright Buddhistic in his ecstatic embrace of the ‘now’ as the only time we ever truly have.
tt
What is not exactly Buddhistic is the way that loves comes into the story. Love, for Hemingway, is a kind of shorthand for the sweetness of life. Or perhaps it would be better to say that love is the ultimate expression of life’s sweetness. And in an absurd universe, the joys of food, of friendship, and yes, of sex, are the only real values we have. To be truly brave, then, means fully embracing the sweetness of life, since it is only by understanding how precious life is that one can understand how much we have to lose. Likewise, one can only love authentically in the face of death, as it is life’s inevitable end that makes it so sweet.
tt
Clearly, I have managed to read a lot into what is, in truth, a fairly straightforward war novel. Most readers will likely not find it as profound. Even without the philosophy, however, I enjoyed it quite a bit as a story of the Spanish Civil War, especially as I have spent a lot of time in the Madrid sierra myself. (As a side note, I am fairly sure that there aren’t many caves up in those mountains. At least not deep ones.)
tt
But of course, the book isn’t perfect. The love story, for example, is lessened by Hemingway’s tendency to make his women absolutely subordinate to his men. This tendency does not extend to (in his words) “old” and “ugly” women, however, as the character of Pilar is quite compelling. As for the love story itself, I have trouble deciding whether Hemingway is touching or simply sappy. At least the tender emotions form a pleasant contrast with the harsh world of war.
tt
An odd decision was rendering the Spanish dialogue as a kind of literal translation into English. When a character says “menos mal,” for example, it is translated (nonsensically) as “less bad,” when it really means something more like “thank goodness.” I had mixed feelings about this, since sometimes I did feel like I could hear the Spanish, but at other times it just was distracting. I particularly didn’t like his use of “you” and “thou” to convey the difference in the Spanish “usted” and “tú.” Thou and tú just have such vastly different emotional registers. Also, to be pedantic for a moment, I noticed that Hemingway would sometimes incorrectly use “thee” in his dialogue for the subject (as in, “Thee blew up a bridge”), when it is really an object pronoun (as in, “I blew thee up”).
tt
In the end, however, this book, like all of Hemingway’s, is dominated by his distinctive style. If you enjoy that style, you will enjoy the book; and if not, not. And all the absurdist philosophy in the world won’t change that.

A classic, of course. First of all it's interesting as a documentary book about the Spanish civil war, especially because Hemingway offers some criticism on the Republican idealism (the left-wing anti-Franco camp he was part of). But the real focus of this novel is the 'Spanish soul', that according to him gives death a central place. That adds to the tragic flavor of the story, albeit - in my view - in a bit of a romanticizing way. Next to that the love theme is rather cheap, the figure of Mary is not credible at all. In general, of course, Hemingway is a man's writer (cultivating his own macho-image). There's only one impressive woman in this novel, and that's Pilar, but she has a typical male stature. The protagonist, Robert Jordan, is the detached anti-hero, painfully aware of his dubious role in the partisan community, but nevertheless taking up his responsibility. The story develops slowly, building to a grand final, with some flaws on the way. This certainly not is Hemingway's best book, but still, I remember, when I first read the book at sixteen, I was devastated by it. Rereading it 30 years later, it was less captivating. I guess I've outgrown Hemingway?

Full Review - BookNest - For Whom the Bell Tolls

‘This is a story of death rather than defeat. The certainty of death is examined’

For Whom the Bell Tolls is a brilliant story inspired from true events during the Spanish Civil War of the 1930s. Of the guerrilla warfare between the fascist leader Franco and the Republican resistance. A story that bluntly accepts the horrors of life and one that sheds light on the sheer obstacles that people can overcome with purpose. It is a book that not only delivers a thrilling read, but also has an intense moral code that one can aspire to follow.

“The world is a fine place and worth fighting for and I hate very much to leave it.”

As the quote above expresses, For Whom the Bells Tolls maintains a tone that delivers simultaneously an inevitability of death, but also hope in the acts of kindness and humanity that is shown throughout.

Told in the wonderfully slick prose that employs both a refreshing authenticity in dialogue and also a realistic depiction of the human mind. Unlike so many other books I have read, For Whom the Bell Tolls projects the actual human beings caught in conflict. The characters face significant challenges and are faced with tribulations I can hardly imagine, yet the daily struggles and moments of joy and laughter are shown as well. It was this incorporation of even the most trivial of things that brought the story to life for me, and somehow made the story more tragic, depicting the continuity and normalisation of living always with the possibility of death lurking beyond.

The range of characters that Hemingway created was incredible. With many authors, you find that they have a specific type of character who stands above anyone else. Silk in The Belgariad, Atticus Finch in To Kill a Mockingbird, and so on. But in this, Robert Jordon is the typical driven military man who won't allow himself to feel emotion, then encounters love. But the exploration of his mental tenacity take this common archetype, and makes him a brilliant protagonist. His willingness to sacrifice anything for what he believes to be a great cause is presented in such a humble manner that is just incredible. He is a character that will go down in my list of favourites perspectives ever. Alongside this, you have Pilar, the ageing woman, wise and fiery, brutal and loving. I expected the female characters to fit into stereotypes because of the context this was written and the little I know about Hemingway himself, but it was radical in that Pilar is one of the strongest female characters I have encountered in fiction in any genre. Again, her motivations and limitations were constructed so realistically, and that is what sets them apart from most other novels. I could go through a long list of the unique characters, but my point is that if you read this, you will come away feeling an intense connection with each and every person. That is Hemingway's quality as a writer.

“For what are we born if not to aid one another?”

Alongside the wonderful prose and characterisation, the plot was also brilliant. A series of twists and turns, of big and small events that expertly drove the pace forward at what I felt to be almost perfection. There were scenes that slow the pace down and really make you think as a reader, and then heart pounding moments that immersed me into the chaos taking place on page, from the skirmishes to moments of clarity and the times when all seems to have descended into failure.

Overall, I think you can tell, I loved this book. As with so much I have been reading recently, it is a completely new style and subject to what I am comfortable with. Yet it was easy to adapt to and something I will searching for far more of in the future. Hemingway presents ideas of love, anger, hatred, discrimination and determination in such nuanced ways that was genuinely moving. It inspired both heartwarming moments and those of anger from myself. As a reader, there isn't much more you can ask for.

“How little we know of what there is to know. I wish that I were going to live a long time instead of going to die today because I have learned much about life in these four days; more, I think than in all other time. I'd like to be an old man to really know. I wonder if you keep on learning or if there is only a certain amount each man can understand. I thought I knew so many things that I know nothing of. I wish there was more time.”

5/5 STARS

There is nothing else than now. There is neither yesterday, certainly, nor is there any tomorrow. How old must you be before you know that? There is only now, and if now is only two days, then two days is your life and everything in it will be in proportion. This is how you live a life in two days. And if you stop complaining and asking for what you never will get, you will have a good life. A good life is not measured by any biblical span.
***
Dying was nothing and he had no picture of it nor fear of it in his mind. But living was a field of grain blowing in the wind on the side of a hill. Living was a hawk in the sky. Living was an earthen jar of water in the dust of the threshing with the grain flailed out and the chaff blowing. Living was a horse between your legs and a carbine under one leg and a hill and a valley and a stream with trees along it and the far side of the valley and the hills beyond.

The Spanish are very emotional, passionate people. Hemingway wanted English readers to feel the passion of their language so he employed a few stylistic devices in his prose to convey that emotion. Hence, alot of 'thee and thou' and alot of implied literal translations. It's a sore point with many critics, but I thought it worked very well. It comes off sounding a bit Shakespearean in tone, which is suitable, I think, considering 'For Whom The Bell Tolls' is a tragic story of war and its collateral damage.

Robert Jordan, the main protoganist, is a cool, young, level-headed American in the International Brigades fighting in the Spanish Civil War. The republican guerilla unit he is attached to is a motley crew of undisciplined local peasants, all highly emotional. It's Jordan's job as the dynamiter, to blow up a strategically important bridge in the middle of a major republican offensive strike against the fascists. With his volatile crew's help.

There is a love story (very passionate) which is perhaps a bit hard to swallow, considering the entire novel takes place in the span of 3 days, but hey, the Spanish are passionate right? I'm ok with it though, because the story is a microcosm of the larger picture of the Spanish people and the fallout of war. We also learn of the complexity of the political environment leading up to the war, which, if you research, is hard to unravel, but fascinating nonetheless.

Enough.
It's Hemingway man. I dig Hemingway.
4 and a half stars from me.

Whew! I'm done! It took me 'forever' to get through this book (tons of notes & quotes --for my local book club discussion to boot). Homework is over!

Basically --I didn't enjoy this book.

--The development of the characters was SLOW.
--It seemed take the longest time to BLOW up a bridge. (much more editing was needed during this repetitive section of the story).

--Pilar was an interesting character --but WHY did care if Maria slept with Robert Jordon or not? Why did she practically throw Maria into Robert Jordon's sleeping bag? (note: they only 'SLEPT' that first night, anyway: so no juicy scene to read).

--Maria was a completely un-interesting character -

Robert Jordon --'The Hero': "Taking Part of the Crusade" spent most of these 400+ pages drinking, and drinking, and drinking (and sometimes eating) --

--The writing was formal -flat-and dull. (choppy dialogue)

--"For Whom The Bell Tolls" (with its silly ending) -- took more energy from me than it was worth. I'm not dying to read another Hemingway book in the near future.
If I want to read more about the Spanish War --I'll go looking elsewhere.