n  There were many words that you could not stand to hear and finally only the names of places had dignity.n

If Voltaire had read Hemingway’s famous war novel, I’d wager that he would pronounce that it is neither about war nor a novel. Compared to All Quiet on the Western Front, for example, the descriptions of war in this book are ludicrously tame. The vast majority of the time the narrator is not even at the front; and when he is, he is far behind the front lines, driving an ambulance. The bulk of the book is taken up, instead, by a love story. The war forms the backdrop—though admittedly a very conspicuous backdrop—and is not the main thread of the book.
tt
What of the novel? Hemingway is a writer of conspicuous strengths and weaknesses; and the longer the book, the more apparent his shortcomings. Though the novel is slim, it still feels padded. Hemingway, for whatever reason, considered it dramatically necessary to narrate every time his characters ate or drank. Aside from telling us that his characters drank a lot (even while pregnant) and appreciated good wines, we learn very little from these frequent repasts, and the ultimate effect is to make the reader hungry.
tt
The conversations, too, are repetitive—especially between the narrator and Catherine Barkley, his wartime sweetheart. While strikingly tender and frank, especially for Hemingway, the relationship between these two never sparkles with the interplay of personality. There is none of the mutual discovery we find in, say, Jane Eyre and Mr. Rochester. Instead, the two of them talk to each other the way people talk to their dogs—asking cutesie rhetorical questions never meant to be answered.
tt
These two examples are just part of a larger fault: Hemingway’s tendency to get carried away into nostalgic, atmospheric descriptions. At his best moments, admittedly, he creates that wistful, bittersweet, melancholic tone that he is known for, and that forms such a beautiful part of his work. But too often the book becomes pointlessly autobiographical. Hemingway is, after all, one of the strongest proponents of the “write what you know” school of fiction. Though wise advice, there is a danger to this method: Since everyone’s life is interesting to themselves, it can be difficult to know which parts may be interesting to other people. This book definitely suffers in this way.
tt
Of course there are many strong bits. Some scenes are unforgettable—the narrator’s injury, the long retreat, rowing across the Swiss Lake, among others. I also really loved the conversations between the narrator and Rinanldi. Unlike the love story, that friendship has true chemistry. Indeed many episodes, taken by themselves, are remarkable. But do they add up to a coherent book?
tt
I ask this specifically in regards to the ending. Since I had just read A.C. Bradley’s book on tragedy, in which he insisted that tragedy requires that a hero create his own downfall, I was struck by how un-tragic was the end of this book. The fatal stroke is not the inevitable result of any personal flaw or a misguided decision, but pure misfortune. The final effect, therefore, is not tragic, but pathetic. In Hemingway’s novel, the universe itself is malevolent, even sadistic, and humans just confused defenseless creatures caught in its maw.
tt
Thus I am a bit perplexed that some people see this as an anti-war novel. The narrator’s crushing blow is not caused by the war; indeed it is something that could have happened to anyone. You can argue that the novel’s bleak atmosphere reflects the fatalism and the pessimism engendered by the war: a nihilistic perspective that is carried over into every phase of life—even love. Yet the narrator himself is not pessimistic—at least not most of the time; if he were, he would not have embarked on his love-affair. It is neither his perspective nor the war, therefore, that dooms the narrator, but some mysterious malevolency of the world itself that makes lasting happiness impossible, in war or in peace.
tt
Thus, aside from a few explicitly anti-war passages in the book, the general tenor has little to do with pacifism or any other political reflection. Instead, to paraphrase the book’s most famous passage, the final message is: Everyone gets broken in the end no matter what. And I don’t think this notion has any truth or value.

Well, that was disappointing.

For several months I've been focused on reading more classic literature, mostly as a way to dig deep and enrich my life during these trying political times. Until now, it has been an incredibly rewarding experience. This Hemingway novel was my first dud.

I wanted to like this book. I've been reading more on World War I this past year and thought A Farewell to Arms would fit both my WWI interest and my goal of appreciating classics. But ol' Hem (as I learned to call him in A Moveable Feast, a book of his I did like) didn't make it easy for me when he wrote the character of Catherine Barkley. Catherine plays the love interest in this novel, and she is so insipid, silly and annoying that I started dreading this book.

The story follows Frederic Henry, an American serving as an ambulance driver in the Italian army during the war. He meets Catherine, who is a British nurse, and they fall in love. Catherine eventually becomes pregnant, and they manage to escape to Switzerland. The ending of this book is depressing, as are most war novels.

But the sad ending isn't why I disliked this book so much. Hemingway is famous for his "terse prose," but I think in this book it does him a disservice. The characters are two-dimensional, the war scenes lacked grit, and the whole novel just felt flat to me. Hem does have a few famous lines that came from Farewell (some noted below), which is what kept this book from a 1 rating for me.

I listened to this on audio, performed by the talented John Slattery (of "Mad Men" fame) but not even he could make me excited to read this Hemingway book. It reminded me of when I listened to Colin Firth read Graham Greene's The End of the Affair, and Firth's marvelousness couldn't salvage that novel, either. Both are good actors doing their best with mediocre texts.

If I were going to recommend a World War I novel to someone, I would tell them to read All Quiet on the Western Front, and to skip Farewell. I'll circle back around to some other Hem novels in the future, but for now I'm going to enjoy a break from his terseness.*

*Note: My first instinct when writing this review was to imitate Hem's signature style, lots of "fine and true and good and courage" and whatnot, but frankly, Warwick wrote his review so well that I abandoned the idea and encourage you to check out his grand version.

Good Quotes
"All thinking men are atheists."

"If people bring so much courage to this world the world has to kill them to break them, so of course it kills them. The world breaks every one and afterward many are strong at the broken places. But those that will not break it kills. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially. If you are none of these you can be sure it will kill you too but there will be no special hurry."

"I know the night is not the same as the day: that all things are different, that the things of the night cannot be explained in the day, because they do not then exist, and the night can be a dreadful time for lonely people once their loneliness has started."

Final Thought
One addendum is that I had a print copy of A Farewell to Arms that included Hemingway's introduction to the 1948 edition, and I liked those 3 1/2 pages better than I liked the entire novel. If you do give this book a chance, try to find a copy with that author intro.

"The fact that the book was a tragic one did not make me unhappy since I believed that life was a tragedy and knew it could have only one end. But finding you were able to make something up; to create truly enough so that it made you happy to read it; and to do this every day you worked was something that gave me a greater pleasure than any I had ever known. Beside it nothing else mattered."

(Book 663 From 1001 books) - A Farewell to Arms, Ernest Hemingway

A Farewell to Arms is a novel by Ernest Hemingway set during the Italian campaign of World War I. The book, published in 1929, The title is taken from a poem by 16th-century English dramatist George Peele.

A Farewell to Arms is about a love affair between the expatriate American Frederic Henry and Catherine Barkley against the backdrop of the First World War, cynical soldiers, fighting and the displacement of populations.

The publication of A Farewell to Arms cemented Hemingway's stature as a modern American writer, became his first best-seller, and is described by biographer Michael Reynolds as "the premier American war novel from that debacle World War I."

تاریخ نخستین خوانش: ماه اکتبر سال 1972میلادی

عنوان: وداع با اسلحه؛ نویسنده: ارنست همینگوی؛ مترجم: نجف دریابندری؛ تهران، سازمان کتابهای جیبی؛ 1340؛ در 276ص؛ چاپ 1344 در 346ص؛ چاپ 1362 در 410ص؛ چاپ هفتم در 410ص؛ چاپ نیلوفر، 1376، در 423ص؛ چاپ دوازدهم 1382؛ چهاردهم 1387؛ شانزدهم 1392؛ شابک 9789644480591؛ موضوع: داستانهای جنگ جهانگیر نخست - از سال 1914م تا سال 1918میلادی - سده 20م

عنوان: وداع با اسلحه؛ نویسنده: ارنست همینگوی؛ مترجم: ر مرعشی؛ تهران، پروین؛ 1354؛ در 224ص؛

مترجمین دیگر خانمها و آقایان: «نازی عظیما؛ نشر افق»؛ «هانیه چوپانی، نشر آسو و نشر کوله پشتی»؛ «هاجر زینی وند»؛ «دنیا گودرزی»؛ «راضیه فتاح الجنان»؛ «کیومرث پارسای، نشر ناژ»؛ «مهدی افشار»؛ «مجید امینی»؛ و ...؛

رمانی نوشته «ارنست همینگوی» نویسنده «ایالات متحده آمریکا»، و برنده ی جایزه «نوبل ادبیات» است، که در سال 1929میلادی منتشر شد؛ داستان آن درباره ی جوانی «آمریکایی»، با نام «فردریک هنری» است، که با درجه ستوان، در جنگ جهانی اول، در بخش آمبولانس‌ها، در ارتش «ایتالیا» خدمت می‌کند؛ عنوان رمان از شعری برگرفته شده که «جرج پیل» در سده ی شانزدهم میلادی سروده‌ بودند؛ ...؛

نقل از متن برگردان خانم «هانیه چوپانی»: (آخرهای تابستان آن سال، ما در خانه‌ ای در یک دهکده زندگی میکردیم که در برابرش رودخانه، ریگ‌ها و پاره سنگ‌ها، زیر آفتاب، خشک و سفید بود؛ آب زلال بود و نرم حرکت میکرد و در جاهایی که مجرا عمیق بود، رنگ آبی داشت؛ نظامی‌ها از کنار رودخانه در جاده می‌گذشتند و گرد و خاکی که بلند می‌کردند روی برگهای درختان مینشست؛ تنه درخت‌ها هم گرد و خاکی بود؛ آن سال برگ‌ها زود شروع به ریختن کرد و ما میدیدیم که قشون در طول جاده حرکت میکرد و گرد و خاک برمی‌خاست و برگها با وزش نسیم میریخت و سربازها میرفتند و پشت سرشان جاده لخت و سفید به جا میماند و فقط برگ روی جاده به چشم می خورد...؛

میفهمیدم مغزشان چگونه کار می ند، اگر مغزی داشتند و اگر کار میکرد! همه آن‌ها مردان جوانی بودند و داشتند کشورشان را نجات میدانند...؛ از سرگرد به بالا، افسرانی را که از نفراتشان جدا شده بودند، اعدام می‌کردند...؛ زیر باران ایستاده بودیم و یک به یک ما را میبردند، بازپرسی می‌کردند و گلوله می‌زدند؛ بازپرس‌ها دارای آن انصاف و عدالت و بی‌نظری زیبای کسانی بودند که با مرگ سر و کار داشته باشند، بی آنکه خطرش آن‌ها را تهدید کند؛ داشتند از یک سرهنگ تمام فوج جبهه، بازپرسی میکردند...؛)؛ پایان نقل

تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 02/07/1399هجری خو��شیدی؛ 28/05/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی

***
توجه: ریویوی زیر کمی اسپول دارد، اگرچه پایانِ داستان را لو نمی‌دهد.
***
کمتر نویسنده‌ای پیدا می‌شود که به اندازه‌ی همینگوی تجربه‌ی مستقیم از جنگ داشته باشد.
در جنگ جهانی اول به عنوان راننده آمبولانس شرکت کرد (که منجر شد به نوشتن همین کتاب) بعد به عنوان خبرنگار درگیر جنگ داخلی اسپانیا شد (که باعث شد «ناقوسِ مرگِ کیست» را بنویسد)، و به عنوان حُسنِ ختام باز هم به عنوان خبرنگار به سراغ جنگ جهانی دوم رفت (بخشی از کتاب «در امتداد رودخانه به سمت درخت‌ها» راجع به خاطراتِ این جنگ است)
انگار همینگوی به دنبال جنگ می‌رفت و جنگ به دنبال همینگوی.
به هرحال، «وداع با اسلحه» بازتابی از خاطرات و زندگی‌نامه‌ی شخصیِ همینگوی است از جنگ‌جهانی اول، البته با تغییر و دستکاری.
او هم مثل شخصیت اصلیِ این کتاب از آمریکا به ایتالیا رفت تا در برابر ارتش اتریش بایستد، او هم در جنگ از ناحیه‌ی پا مجروح و بستری شد، و حتی او هم در جریان جنگ عاشق یک خانم پرستار شد، عشقی که به دلایل نامعلوم نافرجام ماند، اما باعث شکل‌گیری شخصیت «کاترین» در این کتاب شد.
اجازه بدهید همین ابتدا سنگ‌هایم را با همینگوی وابکَنم و از نقاط ضعف «وداع با اسلحه» بنویسم و بعد بروم سراغ قربان صدقه‌ها!

نقاط ضعف
• کیفیتِ داستان یک‌دست نیست، داستان از نظر من شروع و پایانی درخشان دارد (حدود ۷۰ صفحه‌ی اول و ۷۰ صفحه‌ی آخر) ولی در میانه افت می‌کند، تمام نقاط قوت همینگوی که در ادامه خواهم نوشت، در میانه‌ی داستان کمرنگ می‌شوند.

• شخصیت‌پردازی داستان خوب نیست، ما در این کتاب با راوی اول شخص مواجهیم که همان شخصیت  اصلی یعنی فردریک هِنری است و می‌شود گفت شخصیت‌پردازی قابل قبولی دارد، بقیه‌ی شخصیت‌ها بسیار کم‌عمق‌اند و من ترجیح می‌دادم لااقل برای «کاترین» و «رینالدی» شخصیت‌پردازیِ بهتری داشتیم.

• کاش داستان عاشقانه‌ی کتاب، عمق و ظرافتِ عاشقانه‌‌ی بیشتری داشت. (این چه وضع اولین بوسه‌ی عشق است، آقای همینگوی؟ خب، شاید هم انتظار من از نویسنده‌ای که بخش قابل توجهی از عمرش را در جنگ سپری کرده، انتظار بی‌جایی است!) به نظرم ایده‌ی این داستانِ عاشقانه، ایده‌ی بسیار خوبی بوده و می‌توانسته خیلی بهتر استفاده شود. شخصیت کاترین به طور کلی خیلی کم‌عمق و منفعل است، بنابراین تعجبی ندارد که رابطه‌ی داستان هم به قدرِ کافی عمق پیدا نمی‌کند.

اما برویم به سراغ نکات مثبت داستان:

در ستایش نثر همینگوی
هنگام خواندن آثار همینگوی نباید زیاد به دنبال یک داستان پر کشش یا خیال‌انگیز یا تکان‌دهنده و احساسی باشید، آنچه که بیش از همه‌چیز همینگوی را در میان نویسندگان متمایز می‌کند، نثر اوست.
بگذارید اعتراف کنم، من از شیفتگان نثر همینگوی، و شیوه‌ی نویسندگی‌اش هستم.
همانطور که در یادداشتم درباره‌ی «پیرمرد و دریا» نوشتم (چقدر از آن یادداشت گذشته! به کجا چنین شتابان ای عمر؟) نثر همینگوی سهل و ممتنع است (مطمئن نیستم استفاده از اصطلاح سهل و ممتنع برای نثر همینگوی بهترین توصیف باشد، یا تاکنون کسی آن را در فارسی برای شیوه‌ی نوشتنِ همینگوی استفاده کرده باشد، ولی نزدیکترین توصیفی است که به ذهن من می‌رسد) نثری عریان و جسور، ولی همزمان ظریف و پیراسته.
نثری با جملات کوتاه و ساده که می‌کوشد پیام کوبنده‌اش را با فشردگیِ زیاد به خواننده برساند. همینگوی خودش شیوه‌ی نوشتنش را به کوه یخ تشبیه می‌کرد. نوک قله‌ی کوه یخ را می‌خوانی ولی پیام و ساختار و نمادها پیدا نیستند.
نثری که وقتی آن را می‌خوانی، با خود می‌گویی: «چه ساده! نوشتن این که کاری ندارد!» کم نبوده‌اند نویسندگانی که به تقلید از سبکِ نوشته‌های همینگوی پرداخته‌اند، و کم نبوده‌اند مقلدانِ شکست خورده از سادگیِ فریبنده‌ی نثر همینگوی.
فقط تعداد کمی از نویسندگان توانسته‌اند با موفقیت از سادگی، شفافیت و عمقِ نثر همینگوی تقلید کنند (مثل ریموند کارور یا کورمک مکارتی)
نثر همینگوی درختی است که بارها هَرَس شده تا سادگی و پیراستگی را به چشم خواننده بنمایاند، و طلایی است که بارها چکش‌کاری شده تا شکل جواهری باارزش به خود بگیرد.
برای فهم بهتر، من چند نمونه‌ی از نظر من جالب از نثر همینگوی در این کتاب را اینجا می‌آورم، با این توضیح که از این نمونه‌ها در کتاب بسیار است (حتی نمونه‌های جالبتر) و این برداشتِ من از این مثال‌هاست و ممکن است برداشت شما متفاوت یا زیباتر باشد. (برداشت‌های مختلف از نثر همینگوی طبیعی است)
در نمونه‌ی زیر، همینگوی می‌خواهد کم‌ارزش بودنِ جان انسان‌ها را در شرایط جنگ نمایش دهد، انسان‌هایی که به راحتی می‌میرند و جنگ‌سالاران کمتر به جانِ از دست رفته‌ی آن‌ها توجه می‌کنند، این موضوعی است که خودش می‌تواند موضوع یک داستان کوتاه جداگانه یا یک رمان باشد، حالا همینگوی چطور آن را بیان می‌کند:
n  

در آغاز زمستان باران دائمی شروع شد و همراه با باران وبا آمد، ولی جلوش گرفته شد و سرانجام فقط هفت‌هزار تن نظامی از وبا مردند.

n
همانطور که می‌بینید همینگوی برای نشان‌دادن همین بی‌اهمیت بودن جان سربازان، خودش هم سوار بر این پیام می‌شود. انگار مردن هفت‌هزار تن نظامی بر اثر وبا وسط جنگ یک اتفاق خیلی معمولی است. خواننده وقتی با این عبارتِ کوتاه در میان داستان مواجه می‌شود، شوکه می‌شود و اثر عبارت بر خواننده در اثر کوتاهی، خشونت، صراحت و کوبندگی، چند برابر می‌شود.
در عبارت زیر همینگوی می‌خواهد نشان دهد که بین  شرایط سربازان ساده و شرایط افسران مافوق، عدالتی در کار نیست، این را می‌شود به شیوه‌های گوناگون بیان کرد ولی همینگوی با یک جمله‌ی ساده، ضربه‌اش را کوتاه، اما کاری به خواننده می‌زند:
n  

در شهر بیمارستان و کافه بود و سر خیابان‌ها توپ کار گذاشته بودند و دو فاحشه‌خانه هم بود: یکی برای سربازها و یکی برای افسرها.

n
دیالوگ‌های نوشته‌شده توسط همینگوی، مانند نثر عادیِ داستان بسیار فکر شده نوشته شده‌اند، دیالوگ‌هایی که در متن داستان طبیعی و باورپذیر می‌نمایند، و همزمان، فکر و نکته‌ی نهفته‌ای پشت آن‌هاست (حتی دیالوگ‌هایی که در حالت مستی گفته شده‌اند) همینگوی بر لبه‌ی باریکی راه می‌رود، از یک طرف باورپذیری و سادگیِ دیالوگی که از زبان یک شخصیت عادی گفته می‌شود، و از طرف دیگر پیام عمیق پشت آن:
n  

پاسینی با لحن جدی گفت: «دیگه از این بدتر نمی‌شه. هیچ چیزی بدتر از جنگ نیست.»
- شکست بدتره.
پاسینی باز هم جدی گفت: «من باور نمی‌کنم. مگه شکست چیه؟ آدم می‌ره خونه‌ش.»

n
حتی به سخره گرفتن آداب و افتخارات جنگ، برای همینگوی کاری عادی است:
n  

- می‌گن اگه بتونی ثابت کنی که یه کار قهرمانی کردی، می‌تونن برات مدال نقره بگیرن. حالا دقیقاً برام تعریف کن ببینم چی شد، هیچ کار قهرمانی کردی؟
گفتم: «نه، داشتیم پنیر می‌خوردیم که به هوا پرت شدم»

n
از خوبی‌های دیگر کتاب، می‌توانم به تضادهایی که همینگوی در داستان ایجاد کرده اشاره کنم. تضادهایی که به زیباییِ بیشترِ داستان کمک کرده، تضاد بین لطافت عشق و خشونت جنگ (که در  بسیاری از کتاب‌ها و فیلم‌های دیگر نیز از این تضاد استفاده شده) و ��ضاد بین زیبایی‌های طبیعت و زشتی‌ها و ویرانه‌های جنگ.
به طور کلی «وداع با اسلحه» تأثیرگذارترین یا تکان‌دهنده‌ترین اثر ضدجنگ نیست، ولی به واسطه‌ی تجربه‌های مستقیم همینگوی و کیفیت نثرش، یکی از واقعی‌ترین‌ها و باورپذیرترین‌هاست.

درباره‌ی ترجمه
همانطور که در بررسی کتاب «پیرمرد و دریا» نوشتم، زند‌ه‌یاد دریابندری با مقدمه‌ی مفصلش در آن کتاب، به شناخت درستی از همینگوی و شیوه‌ی نوشتنِ او رسیده بود. از طرفی نثر خود دریابندری در کتاب‌های تألیفی‌اش، از لحاظ سادگی و پاکیزگی، بی‌شباهت به همینگوی نبود. به این ترتیب باید دریابندری را بهترین گزینه برای ترجمه‌ی آثار همینگوی به شمار آوریم.
اما ترجمه‌ی این کتاب بسیار قدیمی شده است (چاپ اول: ۱۳۴۰ و به نظر می‌رسد تازه این نسخه‌ی بازنویسی شده باشد)
عبارات و کلمات از فارسیِ امروزی فاصله گرفته‌اند و حتی اگر کتاب را با متن اصلی مقایسه کنید، متوجهِ اشتباهات ریزی در ترجمه خواهید شد.
فکر می‌کنم دریابندری اگر زنده بود، شاید دست به بازترجمه‌ی کتاب می‌زد تا درست‌تر و به زبان امروز نزدیک‌تر شود.
با این حال مشکلی که من با ترجمه‌های جدیدترِ سایر مترجمان از آثار همینگوی دارم، این است که هیچ‌کدام از مترجمینِ جدید به اندازه‌ی دریابندری به درک درستی از نثر همینگوی نرسیده‌اند.
به همین دلیل همچنان به نظرم ترجمه‌های دریابندری از آثار همینگوی از بهترین ترجمه‌ها باشند.
یکی از دوستان خوبم در ریویویش نوشته که ترجمه‌ی این کتاب بسیار ایرانیزه شده که نظر نادرستی هم نیست، ولی دریابندری در «پیرمرد و دریا» چنان به افراط ترجمه را ایرانیزه (یا بهتر است بگویم بوشهریزه و محلیزه!) کرده است که ایرانیزه بودنِ این ترجمه در مقابل آن به چشم نمی‌آید.

پی‌نوشت ۱: گاهی متوجه نیستیم که دنیا چقدر در یک دو قرن اخیر در بعضی چیزها پیشرفت کرده، صحنه‌ی زایمان را که در این کتاب می‌خواندم، با خود فکر می‌کردم که پیشرفت‌های علمی چطور همه‌چیز را، مثل بارداری و زایمان متحول کرده است. پیشرفت در مراقبت‌های پیش و پس از زایمان آنقدر زیاد بوده که وضعیت زایمان در این کتاب که کمتر از صد سال پیش نوشته شده، ممکن است برای خواننده‌ی امروزی بسیار عجیب به نظر برسد.
پی‌نوشت ۲: خواندن کتاب را که آغاز کردم، چند بار ناخودآگاه یاد شوخی سریال family guy با این کتاب و نامش افتادم و پوزخند زدم. (اگر سریال را دیده باشید شاید این قسمت را به یاد آورید) داشتم فکر می‌کردم این هم از شوخی‌هایی در سطح زبان است که فقط در زبان اصلی (به واسطه‌ی معنای دوگانه‌ arm) خنده‌دار است و در اثر ترجمه بامزگی‌اش از بین می‌رود، همانطور که اگر خوشمزگی‌های فارسی مثلا در نثر عبید یا شعر ایرج را به انگلیسی ترجمه کنیم، بسیاری از آن‌ها بی‌مزه می‌شوند.

”Would you like to live after death?” I asked and instantly felt a fool to mention death. But he did not mind the word.
“It would depend on the life. This life is very pleasant. I would like to live forever,” he smiled. “I very nearly have.”

I am glad I did a reread of this, I got more out of it than I did when I was younger. Poignant and beautifully written, deceptively simplistic, there is a lot of insight into life, love and mortality.

I feel like awarding the great Hemingway only two stars has officially consigned me to the seventh circle of literary hell. But I must be honest. By this website's criteria two stars indicates that a book is "okay" - and to me that describes this work perfectly.

Hemingway himself is undeniably gifted. I love his succinct style (though at times it degenerates to downright caveman-speak), his honest diction and his wonderful sense of humor. That being said, he gets away with utterly ignoring most rules of writing - which I admire at times, but let's face it, some of those rules are there for a REASON. This book is overflowing with extreme run-on sentences, constant use of qualifiers (I think "very" might actually be his VERY favorite word), adjectives (even NOUNS!) used four or five times in the same paragraph, and long stretches of dialogue involving more than two speakers with absolutely no indication of who is saying what (if I hadn't been reading a library book, I would have color-coded the darn thing!) And besides style, the story itself just didn't grab me. I didn't give two farts about the self-absorbed, unthinking, unfeeling protagonist or his codependent, psychologically damaged doormat of a girlfriend. This is NOT a love story. In fact, I feel sorry for anyone who thinks it is. Men who hate women are incapable of writing love stories. And for the life of me, I can't derive a theme - or even a general POINT - to this book... unless mayhap it is "stupid, senseless tragedy happens sometimes to people you don't care about." I did feel like crying several times while reading, though... but only because of the mention of alcohol on almost every page of text... I could literally HEAR Hemingway drinking himself to death. It broke my heart.

CRAP WE LET HIM GET AWAY WITH BECAUSE HE'S HEMINGWAY:

"We walked to the door and I saw her go in and down the hall. I liked to watch her move. She went on down the hall. I went on home. It was a hot night and there was a good deal going on up in the mountains. I watched the flashes on San Gabriele. I stopped in front of the Villa Rossa. The shutters were up but it was still going on inside. Somebody was singing. I went on home." (FOR THE LOVE WILL SOMEBODY HELP THIS GUY GET HOME????)

"I came up onto a road. Ahead I saw some troops coming down the road. I limped along the side of the road and they passed me and paid no attention to me. They were a machine-gun detachment going up toward the river. I went on down the road." (FOR THE LOVE WILL SOMEBODY HELP THIS GUY GO ON DOWN THE ROAD???)


And now that I've slammed him so hard, here is a glimpse at the genius that allows him to get away with it all.

FAVORITE QUOTES:

"If people bring so much courage to this world the world has to kill them to break them, so of course it kills them. The world breaks every one and afterward many are strong at the broken places. But those that will not break it kills. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially. If you are none of these you can be sure it will kill you too but there will be no special hurry."

"They were beaten to start with. They were beaten when they took them from their farms and put them in the army. That is why the peasant has wisdom, because he is defeated from the start. Put him in power and see how wise he is."

"The coward dies a thousand deaths, the brave but one... Who said it?... He was probably a coward. He knew a great deal about cowards but nothing about the brave. The brave dies perhaps two thousand deaths if he's intelligent. He simply doesn't mention them."

"Life isn't hard to manage when you've nothing to lose."

"I was blown up while we were eating cheese."

AND MY FAVORITE SCENE: (His friend Rinaldi begins the dialogue)

"Loan me fifty lire."

I dried my hands and took out my pocket-book from the inside of my tunic hanging on the wall. Rinaldi took the note, folded it without rising from the bed and slid it in his breeches pocket. He smiled, "I must make on Miss Barkley the impression of a man of sufficient wealth. You are my great and good friend and financial protector."

"Go to hell," I said.

کتاب را حدودا دو سال پیش خواندم. من اوج هنر همینگوی رو با این کتاب شناختم. ولی هیچ وقت فرصت یا جرات نکردم نظرم را در موردش بنویسم.
وداع با اسلحه آنطور که شاید همه انتظار داریم سریع و گرم نیست. سرد است چون شخصیت اصلی تحت تاثیر جنگ انگار سنگ شده است. انگار جنگ سلبش کرده. کلا شخصیتها درونی نیستند. همینگوی مثل داستایوفسکی و دولت آبادی جد و آباد افکار شخصیت را روی پته نمی ریزد. خواننده احساس دوربینی دارد که در جای جای فضای فیزیکی داستان نصب شده و تنها تصویر میبینیم. کنش و واکنش و البته گفتگو هایی که آنها هم چندان فیلسوفانه و بزرگتر از دهان شخصیتها نیست. خواننده در به در دنبال این است که حرف دل شخصیت را رک و پوست کنده بشنود. اما در انتها میبینیم پسِ هر سکوت یا حرف بی ربطی احساس و حرف دلی نهفته است. بی نیاز میشویم از شنیدن.
این بر میگردد به شغل همینگوی که گزارشگر جنگ بوده. بخشهایی از داستان این رمان هم گویا نمونه برداری از زندگی خود همینگوی است.
اما. فرای این سبک گزارش گونه، رفتارها و گفتگوهای بیرونی چنان احساسی منتقل میشود که گاهی آدم بغض میکند. از آن بغضهای سنگین.
ابراز احساسات در سرتاسر کتاب سرد است اما تصمیمات و رفتارها چنان عمیق است که میتوان هزاران حرف نگفته را از لابه لای آن بیرون کشید.
اعتراف میکنم فضای داستان کمی مردانه است و رفتار شخصیتها هم همینطور. شاید سلیقه ی برخی از کتابخوان ها خواندن یا شنیدن هر آنچه باشد که در ذهن شخصیت اتفاق می افتد. اما من به شخصه سنگ محک کتاب خوانی ام همین وداع با اسلحه همینگوی است.
صحنه ی پایانی کتاب (سه چهار صفحه ی آخر) یکی از تراژیک ترین صحنه هایی بوده و هست که من در خاطر دارم. رفتارهایی چنین عمیق و تاثیر گذار را هیچ جای دیگری نمیتوان یافت الا دنیای کلمات همینگوی.
.
پ.ن: ترجمه ی زیبا و وفادار نجف دریابندری هم شایان توجه است.

"British ambulance drivers were killed sometimes. Well, I knew I would not be killed. Not in this war. It did not have anything to do with me. It seemed no more dangerous to me myself than war in the movies. I wished to God it was over though."

Frederic Henry (who, for all intents and purposes is Ernest Hemingway) is a volunteer in the Italian Army in World War I. He's wounded in battle and has to spend time recuperating in a hospital after his leg is operated on, and while there he falls in love with British nurse Catherine Barkley. The novel follows them as they try to escape the war and start a life together. On the surface, this isn't really a book about war; it's a book about two people just trying to live a normal, happy life while the whole world goes to hell around them.

I was lukewarm on this one. For Whom the Bell Tolls is much better, first because it's about something bigger than just two people trying to get married (Robert Jordan struggled with the concept of heroism and how war changes people; Frederick Henry just wants to get laid), and also because the characters in A Farewell to Arms are significantly less complex and interesting than the ones in For Whom the Bell Tolls. Also, Catherine Barkley is just an absolute nightmare of a character - she has no discernible personality and exists just to gratify and worship Henry, to the extent that she makes Bella Swan look like an independent strong woman overflowing with self-esteem. Think I'm exaggerating? Here, have some lines of actual dialogue that Catherine says to Henry: "I'll say just what you wish and I'll do what you wish and then you will never want any other girls, will you?" "I want what you want. There isn't any more. Just what you want." "I'm good. Aren't I good?" "You see? I'm good. I do what you want."

Christ on a bike. That all happens in one single scene, by the way. Catherine isn't a person, she's a horrible Frankenstein's monster stitched together from desperation and male wish fulfillment. To Hemingway's credit, Henry really does love Catherine, so at least we can take comfort in the fact that her senseless devotion was reciprocated a little bit (not that Henry ever talks about his feelings with the same intensity that Catherine does, because that'd be gay).

The reason this gets three stars instead of two is because Hemingway is still Hemingway, and amidst all the bad characterization and plodding pace he manages to create these little bits of gorgeous writing that make everything okay, at least for a little while:

"Often a man wishes to be alone and a girl wishes to be alone too and if they love each other they are jealous of that in each other, but I can truly say we never felt that. We could feel alone when we were together, alone against the others. It has only happened to me like that once. I have been alone while I was with many girls and that is the way you can be most lonely. But we were never lonely and never afraid when we were together. I know that night is not the same as the day: that all things different, that the things of the night cannot be explained in the day, because they do not then exist, and the night can be a dreadful time for lonely people once their loneliness has started. But with Catherine there was almost no difference in the night except that it was an even better time."

There is something hopeless in love in the time of war...
A Farewell to Arms was the first novel I have read in English and it was the book that has made the very strong impression on me so I can’t recall it without an attack of nostalgia ever since.

And you’ll always love me won’t you? Yes. And the rain won’t make any difference? No.

…till war do us part.

(Reprinted from the Chicago Center for Literature and Photography [cclapcenter.com:]. I am the original author of this essay, as well as the owner of CCLaP; it is not being reprinted here illegally.)

The CCLaP 100: In which I read a hundred so-called "classics" for the first time, then write reports on whether or not they deserve the label

Book #17: A Farewell to Arms, by Ernest Hemingway (1929)

The story in a nutshell:
Published in the late 1920s, right when Modernism was first starting to become a commercially successful form of the arts, A Farewell to Arms is Ernest Hemingway's wry and cynical look at World War I, the event that most defined not only his generation but also the beginning of the Modernist movement. Semi-autobiographical in nature, the book tells the story of Frederic Henry, known to most as "Tenente" (Italian slang for "Lieutenant"), a young and gung-ho American who couldn't get accepted by the American military during the war, so volunteered to be an ambulance driver for the Italian army instead. One of the first of Hemingway's tales to define the stoic "man's man" he would eventually become known for, the novel basically follows Tenente through a series of thrilling escapades, made even more interesting because of the main character not seeing them as thrilling at all -- nearly having his leg torn off while at the front, saving a man's life, escaping execution by diving off a bridge, a rowboat ride to Switzerland in the middle of the night while fleeing a group of pursuers, and a whole lot more.

Like I said, though, Hemingway's point here is not to glamorize war, but rather to highlight the mundane aspects of it all; the endless red tape, the weasely things people do to get out of actual work, the BS conversations that are always taking place among soldiers, all of them arguing over how the war is going but none of them actually possessing any factual information. At the same time, though, A Farewell to Arms is about the monstrous developments of World War I in particular, the very first large war to be fought during the Industrial Age, and therefore capable of inflicting so much more carnage than anyone thought possible. (For example, the brand-new European railway system is heavily featured throughout the book, and especially the fact that in a half-day's ride, you could go literally from the battlefront to a five-star luxury hotel, something that had never been possible before WWI.) Oh, and if all this wasn't enough, Hemingway throws in a love story too, a complicated one featuring a complicated woman, one that has been a source of heated interpretation since the book first came out 79 years ago.

The argument for it being a classic:
There seems to be two main arguments for this being a classic, one based on the author and one on the book itself. Because the fact is that Hemingway is considered by many to be one of the most important novelists in the history of that format, a fabled "High Priest of Modernism" who taught all of us to think in a punchier, shorter way, and with this mostly being for the better for the arts in general. Because let's not forget, a mere twenty or thirty years before this book was first published, it was actually the flowery and overwritten Victorian style of literature that dominated the publishing industry; and as we've all learned throughout the course of this "CCLaP 100" essay series, although Victorian literature certainly has its charms and inherent strengths, it's also a whole lot of talking to say not much at all, a situation that was starting to drive artists crazy by the time the 20th century got into swing. Hemingway, fans claim, was the first Modernist to really bring all the details together in a profoundly great way -- the first to combine the exciting rat-a-tat style of pulp-fiction writers with the weighty subjects of the academic community, producing work that owes as much to Raymond Chandler as it does to Virginia Woolf but is ultimately much better than simply reading those two authors back-to-back. And by making its subject World War I, fans say, Hemingway here turns in yet another great document of those times that the early Modernists were known for -- from The Great Gatsby to All Quiet Among the Western Front, it's hard for us to even think of the artists from the "Jazz Age" or "Lost Generation" or whatever you want to call it, without thinking of this globe-changing event that was so in the middle of it. There's a good reason, after all, that many consider A Farewell to Arms one of the greatest war novels of all time.

The argument against:
Of course, there are others who can't even hear the words "Ernest Hemingway" without automatically shuddering, again for a variety of reasons that even most of his fans admit hold at least some weight -- because he is overrated by the academic community, because his personal style is a hackneyed, easily parodied one, because his "man's man" shtick got real old real fast, because it's now inspired three generations of a--holes (and counting) to want to be bull-fleeing, cigar-smoking woman-haters too. At its heart, its critics say, A Farewell to Arms is an interesting-enough little ditty, mostly because Hemingway himself had some interesting little experiences during the war that he basically cribbed wholesale for the book; but then this story is covered with layer after layer of bad prose, macho posturing, and aimless meanderings that get you about as far away from a traditional three-act novel as you can possibly get. With Hemingway and his critics, it's never a case of "it's a good enough book but shouldn't be labeled a classic;" those who dislike him really dislike him, and wish to see his work removed from academic reading lists altogether. "classic" label or not.

My verdict:
So let me embarrassingly admit that this is actually the very first book by Hemingway I've ever read, and that I was hesitant going into it because of just the overwhelming amount of bad stuff that's been said about him over the decades; to be truthful, I was half-expecting a parody of Hemingway at this point, all little words and nonsensical sentences and dudes treating girls kinda like crap most of the time. And yes, the book does for sure contain a certain amount of all this; but I was surprised, to tell you the truth, by how how tight, illuminating, fascinating and just plain funny A Farewell to Arms turned out to actually be. Wait, funny, you say? Sure; I dare you not to laugh, for example, during the scene when a huge argument breaks out between two Swiss border guards over which of their two hometowns boasts better winter sports. ("Ah, you see? He does not even know what a luge is!") This is what makes it such an intriguing novel about war, after all, because Hemingway expertly shows just how many surreal moments there are during times of war as well, that "war" doesn't just mean the two lines of soldiers facing each other at the front but also an entire region, an entire industry, an entire population. Hemingway's World War I is not just seen from the smeared windshield of a battlefront ambulance, but from bored soldiers getting drunk in a quiet bunker, from weary villagers hoping there will be at least something left of their homes after the war is over, from armchair pundits recovering in crumbling veteran hospitals, arguing over which complicated international treaty sunk them all and which is going to save them. It's an expansive, multi-facted, sometimes highly unique look at a wartime environment, one that at least here in his early career (he published this when he was 30) belies all the complaints that have ever been made about his hackneyed personal style.

And as far as that love story in the middle of it all, and the repeated complaints about Hemingway's characters all being misogynists...well, maybe it was just me, but I found his Catherine Barkley to be the very model of a modern independent woman (or at least modern and independent in 1920s terms), a fiercely intelligent and cynical creature who expects the same from her lovers, even while realizing that such a man is destined to either die in the environment they're currently in, or survive just to become a bitter, angry a--hole later in life. The way I see it, Catherine is simply trying to make the best of a bad situation; she needs love and intimacy in her life as much as anyone else, and especially in her role as a risk-taking, thick-skinned nurse just a few miles from the battle's front, but also understands that Tenente is destined to befall one of the two fates just mentioned, thus explaining the curious push/pull emotions she has towards him and the way she treats him throughout the novel. It's a surprisingly sophisticated relationship at work, the same thing that can be said of the novel in general; I don't know about the rest of Hemingway's work (yet, anyway), but at least A Farewell to Arms turned out to be a surprisingly cracking read, not only a definite classic but just an all-around amazing book in general. It comes highly recommended today.

Is it a classic? Yes

چیزی نبود که من خوشم بیاد.
متنش خیلی رو اعصاب بود.

Again, I was forced to read Hemingway in high school. Sheer torture: he and I would have hated each other on sight. And this is strange because I am a pacifist and believe in trying to get along with everyone, in giving everyone the benefit of the doubt first before I passed judgment. Not sure what it was about him anymore but his female characters were pathetic caricatures.