For Whom The Bell Tolls is a war novel by Ernest Hemingway, based on his personal experience of the Spanish Civil War which he participated in as a reporter. I was taken aback by the language used and the counterfeit love story throughout the novel.

Fundamentally, the novel is written like a translation as discussed previously in class. The obscure phrases that Hemingway uses as an attempt to make the novel seem like a translation did not work for me. For example, during a conversation between the gypsy and Robert Jordan the gypsy asks why Pablo wasn’t killed, to which Robert responds, “I thought it might molest you others or the woman” (34). The word molest (molestar) in the Spanish language translates in English as “to bother” as opposed to the English word which generally is understood as sexual abuse. Despite the attempts to bring the “Spanishness” to the novel, I believe it disrupts the flow of the plot and can seem pretentious for the native English speakers who may not have a full grasp of the Spanish language. Also, during the scene where Maria and Robert Jordan is copulating, there is extreme repetition of the word “nowhere” which I did not enjoy.

“For him it was a dark passage which led to nowhere, then to nowhere, then again to nowhere, once again to nowhere, always and forever to nowhere, heavy on the elbows in the earth to nowhere, dark, never any end to nowhere, hung on all time always to unknowing nowhere, this time and again for always to nowhere, now not to be borne once again always and to nowhere, now beyond all bearing up, up, up and into nowhere, suddenly, scaldingly, holdingly all nowhere gone and time absolutely still and they were both there, time having stopped and he felt the earth move out and away from under them” (88).

The novel also attempts to present itself as a romance novel, which I argue it has failed also. Given the circumstances that it was a civil war, there is a dramatic element that paints any form of romance be it an affair or not as a beautiful love story. However, the sudden escalation of the romance between Maria and Robert Jordan and the scene in which they fornicate does not appear to be very logical. I’m no feminist, but the classic scene of a military man and a poor woman is a theme too familiar in literature and looked as if Hemingway was objectifying the woman, projecting his insecurities he faced in his life. The dramatic farewell between Maria and Robert Jordan was also seemed far-fetched.

All in all, I was not too impressed with the novel as it failed to reach its objectives. I also don’t believe it gives a fair assessment of the Spanish Civil War other than the desperate environment Spain was in. It was presented merely as a backdrop to the love story.

Ernest Hemingway’s For Whom the Bell Tolls centers around an American dynamiter with the International Brigades who is sent on a mission to destroy a bridge and prevent the fascist advance.  This book certainly seems to be the most conventional war novel that we have read in this course.  There is a clear protagonist, a stated objective, and a love story; all rather conventional literary tropes that are not as prominent in the other novels we’ve read.  The story only takes place within a few days, which provides a clear timeline for the reader to follow what’s taking place.

I agree with Mauricio’s assessment in class about how Hemingway may have just been trying to write a book that would sell well.  One that reads easily, is relatively uncontroversial, and has a bit of something for everyone.  The romance between Robert Jordan and Maria is probably the most blatant example of this.  I share some of the skepticism towards their relationship; mostly in how they fell absolutely in love with each other after only a couple nights of smiling at each other.  I understand the nature of the war and that they may have only a few days to live, but the romance does seem a little far-fetched.  Similarly, there is little discussion of the politics surrounding the conflict, except for some discussion of how Robert Jordan ultimately takes his orders from the Communist party.  Perhaps Hemingway didn’t think it necessary, as he was ultimately writing a romantic war novel and probably wished not to scare people away with the complexities of the political situation of the time.

The symbolic purpose of the relationship is more clear though, especially considering the epigraph at the beginning of the book.  Maria could represent the Spain that needs to be rescued from the brutality and depravity of fascism, and Robert Jordan feels a responsibility to play his part, for if fascism takes over Spain it could easily spread elsewhere.  “He fought now in this war because it had started in a country that he loved and he believed in the Republic and that if it were destroyed life would be unbearable for all those people who believed in it” (p. 163).  Thus we see a part of Robert Jordan’s rationalization for taking part in the war as going along with John Donne’s quotation: ” . . . any mans death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankinde; . . .”  He feels morally obligated to fight the fascists for if he didn’t he would bear responsibility for not doing enough to prevent their rise.

In Ernest Hemingway’s book, For Whom the Bell Tolls, we read about Robert Jordan, a person from the US, whom has come to participate in the Spanish Civil war. His main task is to blow up a bridge in-order to hinder the fascist’s military force and to delay their chance at getting reinforcements. To be honest, after reading the book, I thought that some of the language he uses, is awkward, just like what we talked about in class, his attempt to translate, something that isn’t there. Instead, the purpose of those quotes with words like  thou, thy, art, and thee, etc., was to give the reader the idea that the character is using formal Spanish language.

Looking at the book, there are some animal references, comparing humans and animals. One of the main characters Pablo, has several, he calls himself a fox, referring to its cunning nature, “I live here and I operate beyond Segovia. If you make a disturbance here, we will be hunted out of these mountains. It is only by doing nothing here that we are able to live in these mountains. It is the principle of the fox (11).” He then refers to himself as a wolf, “I am more wolf than thee (11).” Perhaps, he found the qualities of a wolf more appealing, due to it’s fearless nature. I don’t exactly remember the pages, but I’m pretty sure Pablo also has a lot of ‘pig’ references. I think I can see why Hemingway used this metaphor because of Pablo’s greedy nature, intelligence, and his unattractive face. Pigs are actually smart animals, even smarter than dogs. Other than Pablo, Maria is also referred to as an animal, “rabbit”. Perhaps it’s due to the rabbit’s cute and cuddly nature, even it’s defenseless nature. The relationship between animals and humans, perhaps can relate to the war? The nature of an animal is based on survival and the task of Robert blowing-up the bridge using whatever means necessary and Pablo killing innocent people for his own gain, can both relate to the idea of what they believe is survival, or for the better, for the cause. The main point I’m trying to make is, the characters in this book are pretty-heavily relying on their instincts of lust, hunger, and killing? The dehumanization of people? The idea of lust reminds me of the talk we had on the superficial and unreal relationship between Robert and Maria. In my opinion, their relationship is based on lust, and they’re just acting as if it is more than that, such as doing the normal regular tasks that couples do.

We talked about the epigraph in class, and I definitely think that in certain aspects, the book contradicts the epigraph, unless if you look even deeper, for example each time Pablo, kills, he dies a little in side? I think someone mentioned this in-class. It is very animalistic to kill people with out batting an eyelash, in the sense that animals don’t have laws or morals, but humans do. Pablo unconsciously, feels bad each time he kills, perhaps he isn’t as animalistic as we thought.

The idea that the characters in the book are fighting due to their duty, despite the risks, fighting for their cause, makes their nature seem more human. Characters such as Pablo and Robert, have an different understanding of what their duties are supposed to be. Pablo saw it as his duty to protect the people of this land, so bombing the bridge would be out of the question. Despite his efforts, he still killed innocent people who have come to help him, in-order for the survival of him and his companions. Robert on the other hand, is motivated by his duty, and even knowing that their resistance is futile, he still continued on, in the end, he even sacrificed himself in-order for his companions to survive. He has come to terms with his end, but I still don’t know if what he did was worth it or not. If he didn’t blow-up the bridge, would the result have been different? Could he have had a later death? Being resolved to die, he sees duty as more important than anything else.

The question I want to ask is to what extent is Hemingway expressing his thoughts through Jordan? Of course, it could also be none because like what Mauricio said, he made it so that it would sell. Which was something I didn’t really see until he mentioned it.

Huérfana España,
raíces y cimientos,
epidemias, cicatrices,
blasfemias y sacramentos,
¿por quién doblan las campanas?
San Fermín en vena,
la de Triana
contra la Macarena.

Releyendo a John Donne, me parece interesante rescatar algo que mencionó Jon ayer en clase. La idea de que el epígrafe que encabeza For Whom the Bell Tolls es una forma de justificación sofisticada que responde a la pregunta: «¿qué vine a hacer yo acá?». Esta guerra no le atañe de forma directa a Robert Jordan. Esta no es su guerra. Al menos no lo es de la misma forma en que lo era para los milicianos europeos —por mucho que le pesara a Cela, como nos hace saber en su epígrafe—. Orwell y Malraux tenían una razón si se quiere al menos egoísta para involucrarse en aquella guerra ajena: el peligro inminente del fascismo (cuya proximidad geográfica amenazaba con propagarse más allá de las fronteras naturales de la Península Ibérica, acechando la estabilidad proverbial de la campiña inglesa o de la tercera república francesa, la más extensa de la historia hasta la fecha) los eximía de justificarse. Hemingway, de quien Jordan es un trasunto más o menos evidente, un norteamericano que a primera vista ni pincha ni corta en el conflicto, recurre con Donne al tópico latino de que nada de lo humano nos es ajeno para explicarse y explicarnos por qué abandonó el tranquilo Midwest norteamericano para venir a meterse en este berenjenal. Si hay inocentes muriendo en alguna parte del mundo, parece decirnos, no puedo quedarme sin hacer nada con los brazos cruzados.

Pero como comentábamos en clase, Hemingway, a diferencia de Donne, sí se pregunta por quién doblan las campanas. Sí hace distinciones. Parafraseando a Orwell, podríamos decir que para esta novela nada de lo humano nos es ajeno pero algunos humanos nos son menos ajenos que otros. En este sentido, tal vez uno de los componentes que más me gustó de la novela es que habla desde el bando republicano sin por ello convertirse en una hagiografía de los vencidos, vicio en el que suelen incurrir muchos textos sobre la Guerra Civil española. Los republicanos de Hemingway, diametralmente opuestos a los de Sender, no son mártires cándidos. Pablo, a diferencia de Paco del Molino, es retratado desde la violencia, la brutalidad y la crueldad, particularmente en el capítulo 10 que narra la matanza liderada por él contra los fascistas del pueblo. Se nos dice que mató más gente que el cólera, el tifus y la peste negra juntos. El bueno de Paco del Molino, en cambio, es ejecutado sin haber matado nunca a nadie. Esto, como decía, es tal vez lo que más me gustó de la novela: estos republicanos no son santos, son humanos con agencia.

Por último, también querría destacar otra idea que mencionaba Jon ayer en clase: la de una traducción sin un original. Me hizo pensar en otra novela que aspiraba al mismo universalismo que observamos en Hemingway: la de Miguel de Cervantes, que presentó su Quijote como una traducción castellana de la prosa árabe de un historiador musulmán ficticio, Cide Hamete Benengeli. Hemingway, en este sentido, lleva este tópico de la falsa traducción a su raíz más drástica, modulando el lenguaje con los giros literales que enumeramos en clase, a mi entender, con el objetivo de desfamiliarizar la lectura para recordarnos todo el tiempo que no estamos a salvo en casa ni en otra novela sobre una guerra de un país remoto y exótico. Mañana cuando conversemos sobre la parte final de la novela me gustaría preguntarles si creen que su estrategia funciona.

In Hemingway’s For Whom the Bell Tolls, we acquaint ourselves with the protagonist Robert Jordan, an expert dynamiter from the US who has given up his life at home to participate in the Spanish Civil War. By orders of a General Golz, he is to strategically blow up a bridge at the precise time of a Republican offensive in order to hinder the mobilization of Fascist reinforcements. In order to do this, he enlists the help of mountain guerillas of the area; he is led to guerillas’ hideout by his guide, the elderly Anselmo.

What is notable about this book specifically is its strange diction in which it goes about telling the story. Indeed it really incorporates an almost Spanish type of grammar, yet it is largely executed in English, with light Spanish punctuations here and there. The sentences are not incorrect, but they feel like direct translations of sentences first written in Spanish. This is particularly true for inter-character dialogue, but less so for the narration.

What I particularly enjoyed about this book is that it portrays very real experiences, human experiences, and with that, clear and substantial emotions. Hemingway deliberately takes the more palpable parts of the war and the human condition to his audiences, depicting the more basic, primordial side of people: hunger, lust, killing, and death. There is much that goes on behind the lines and in between battles; people get hungry, and food must be prepared (as in the first chapter). As well, Robert Jordan and Maria make love in the woods. There is constant talk of killing and death among the guerillas of the camp, and later in the book, the actual killing commences. As discussed in class, there is indeed a certain universality to this book and its characters, where such experiences could have been lived by anyone and at any time; war, killing, and love are forever.

Hemingway moves on to create more complex emotions as well, putting the reader in difficult situations just as the characters face. As an example, there is a very real uneasiness as the people of the cave plot to kill Pablo, and we later find out from Pilar that almost certainly has Pablo overheard the conversation.

In the same vein, he neglects to substantially explain the political motivations and underpinnings of the war. Perhaps Hemingway did not want to bog down his book with overly complicated and hardly relatable struggles of ideal (and the inevitable battle of acronyms) that plagued the earlier books we have read. We learn very little about the situation in Spain of that epoch, and as a novel of historical fiction, it serves more as fiction than historical.

Nonetheless, I enjoy its simple prose and I look forward to reading the rest of this book.

I’ve brought up the idea in class before that there comes a time when a cause is no longer worth fighting for. I mean this in the practical, life saving sense if not the idealistic sense. I believe there exists such a time in every conflict, and it is not only not cowardly but it is the right thing to do to stop fighting at such a time.

In the beginning of  this novel, I believe Pablo has at least answered this question for himself. Whether or not we have reached this point where there is no point in keeping fighting is obviously a matter of perspective and opinion, but no other character shows signs of even having this question in mind, and Pablo is labeled a coward for having posed this question to himself.

I contend Pablo is the sanest of all the characters for having done this (though ironically the answer to this question is probably what led to his alcoholism), though I can see why idealists might disagree with me. Pablo was clearly brave, patriotic and committed to the conflict based on the information we’re given about how many people he killed when the conflict started. We’re further told of how disorganized and outgunned this group was when the conflict started so we can, I believe, safely assume that Pablo hasn’t stopped fighting now because they don’t have a logical superiority or lack of conviction.

Ergo, the only explanation that I can see that remains for Pablo’s behavior is that he’s done the math and realized that not only is this war unwinnable, and he’s doing his fellow countrymen a disservice if he keeps fighting by inflicting more death and destruction for no actual strategic gain. War, in particular its brutality, is often justified as the ends justifying the means; but here it has become clear to Pablo at least that the end is unreachable and hence there is no way to justify the means.

All other characters appear to be rationalizing keeping the fight up. In particular, I believe they’ve set up a kind of straw man for themselves with this bridge. They’ve deluded themselves into believing that if this bridge can be blown up, then the whole war can be won, whereas in reality it is a tiny and insignificant part of the larger conflict that can easily be rebuilt given Franco’s resources. We furthermore see their inability to recognize the true extent of how unmatched they are and facing reality by how they just assume planes passing by are their own, when most likely that was not the case or they just couldn’t face it not being the case.

Sebastian Lee and Annie Lu

Annie and I both thought that the class discussion went well. We initially created a surplus of slides on our PowerPoint presentation, with various questions that we had about the book and the war, as well as passages and quotes we found interesting. In particular, we had many questions centered on the politics of the civil war.

Ultimately, the slides were sufficient in provoking discussion for most of the class period, and there were very interesting points brought up by our classmates throughout.

Topics that frequently came up in discussion included Orwell’s motivations for writing the book (as a form of “propaganda”), Anarchist, Communist and Socialist policies, and what made foreigners want to participate in the war.

I felt that we presented some decent ideas, but to improve for next time, we could phrase the questions differently in order to make it easier for our classmates to respond. For a book discussion, I would make the questions more answerable by (and more specific to) the contents of the book itself, rather than more general questions about the civil war.

Also, the digressions from the planned topics of interest were quite entertaining and informative (e.g. the Cricket test matches), but as regulators we could keep the discussions a little more focused.

Overall, we felt that we asked significant questions, questions that went deeper than the superficial layers, and that the class generated good dialogue about the book.

Sebastian Lee and Annie Lu

We created a PowerPoint presentation with our personal questions regarding Homage to Catalonia to facilitate the class discussion.

We divided the questions/quotes into general categories, sharing and discussing the topics with the class in approximately the following order:

-The purpose, style and tone of the book (How was the book written? Why so?)

Point Of View

What was Orwell trying to achieve?

-The setting of the book (What kind of atmosphere did it create?)

Also: “Spanish” qualities, and their take on the war (“Mañana”)

-Politics

Subtopics:

War vs Revolution (What’s the difference?) – simplifying to “Fascism vs Democracy”

Motivations of the War (foreign interests, interparty skirmishes etc…)

The USSR’s effect on Spain

Anarchist and Egalitarian societies: how would they work?

Motivations of international fighters in Spain (e.g. Bob Smillie)

Skirmish of the Telephone Exchange: could it have been avoided?

The POUM microcosm: why was the class system unable to be abolished?

What happened to Georges Kopp?

–Miscellaneous: events of the book (Orwell getting shot in the neck, Rats, rats, rats! Weapons distribution to the public…)

-Religion: changing roles of the church

Fundada con motivo del sesenta aniversario de la Guerra Civil en 1996, la Plaça George Orwell, ubicada en el corazón del Barrio Gótico del centro de Barcelona, fue la primera plaza catalana en disponer de cámaras de videovigilancia desde el año 2001, (un homenaje un tanto irónico al creador del «Gran Hermano»).

Debo confesar que Homage to Catalonia rompió con varias de mis expectativas. En primer lugar, porque Orwell fue el primer escritor que empecé a leer en inglés cuando tenía quince años y yo sentía, por eso, que lo conocía bien. En este sentido, mi horizonte de expectativas estaba muy condicionado por dos recuerdos: mi lectura adolescente de Animal Farm y 1984 (que juzgué entonces como novelas profundamente políticas, o debería más bien decir ideologizadas) y la insistente recomendación de parte de varios amigos y profesores catalanes, para quien Orwell es prácticamente un prócer nacional.

Mi lectura postergada de este libro chocó de frente con estos recuerdos al leer una de las frases que inaugura el extenso capítulo V: «At the beginning I had ignored the political side of the war». ¿Cómo? ¿Orwell, el gran novelista y periodista comprometido de la primera mitad del siglo XX, se había ido hasta España para poner su vida en riesgo sin tener la menor idea de qué estaba pasando a nivel político? ¿Entonces resulta que hay otro lado de la guerra que no es político?

Desde la semana pasada cuando leímos L’Espoir, me quedé pensando mucho en la noción de afecto que Jon mencionó como explicación posible a por qué los milicianos extranjeros registrados por Malraux en su novela exponían sus cuerpos para ir a pelear a una guerra que a simple vista parecía serles ajena. Me quedé cuestionando mi previsible interpretación de que esa decisión sistemática de miles de personas se debía exclusivamente a ideales, a principios ideológicos. Creo que todo el capítulo V de Homage to Catalonia (hablo de aquel que comentábamos que algunos editores decidieron publicarlo en forma de apéndice por su notorio cambio de registro) puede leerse a partir de este concepto filosófico y me quedé con la impresión de que me gustaría ampliar esta lectura tal vez para el trabajo final.

Otro de los elementos que me llamaron la atención del libro fue la combinación de géneros que mencionamos a principios de la última clase. Me pareció interesante sobre todo teniendo en cuenta que Orwell presenta también una multitud de personajes pero a diferencia de Cela o de Malraux lo hace desde una voz narrativa más dominante, que no abunda tanto en cambios de voz abruptos ni en diálogos introducidos por un narrador que parece mantenerse al margen. La polifonía en Homage to Catalonia, entonces, estaría no sólo en los personajes sino en las múltiples elecciones formales: una suerte de mezcla entre proto-Non-Fiction Novel y periodismo gonzo (unas décadas antes de que ambos géneros se institucionalizaran, por cierto) yuxtapuesta con la crónica literaria y la novela histórica. Esta multiplicidad de géneros, para mí, no hace otra cosa que evidenciar las grandísimas dificultades que implica abordar desde la literatura un evento histórico sin la ventaja que ostenta el discurso historiográfico: narrar la Historia cuando ya se ha escrito sobre ella.

George Orwell’s book, Homage to Catalonia, as discussed in class, could be of many genres, specifically historical, political, and autobiographical. This memoir, is a personal account of his time during the Spanish civil war. In the beginning of the novel, Orwell describes the atmosphere and the feelings of camaraderie felt at the start of this ‘revolution’. He talks about the atmosphere in the town of Barcelona,

“Practically every building of any size had been seized by the workers and was draped with red flags or with the red and black flag of the Anarchists; every wall was scrawled with the hammer and sickle and with the initial of the revolutionary parties…Every shop and cafe had an inscription saying it had been collectivized” (3).

This gives the reader a sense of the feelings of how the people felt, plus the extent of control the Anarchists had over the city. The condition of the town can only be described as ‘shabby,’ ‘untidy,’ kind of sombre, which is evidently a sign of the coming war. The fact that formal speech for addressing others, was not to be used, ‘Señor’, ‘Don’, and ‘Usted,’ gives me the idea that language is also a significant part of a country and that by changing certain parts of it, is a part of the ‘revolutionary’ movement. The people have all joined the ‘workers’ side,’ which says a lot about the fear people may have of not being a part of the norm, such as the people of the bourgeoisie class. The attitudes of the people part of the revolutionary army, were obviously layed-back because of how much the Spanish people have a habit of being late. What they share in addition to that, is their goal of going against the fascists. The idea of pushing things off, delaying, being unprepared with the equipment, contributed significantly to their continuous loss. Much like in Days of Hope, feelings aren’t enough.

In Chapter V of the novel, I find it interesting how Orwell describes rats, being almost nearly as big as the size of cats, making the reference through an old army song “There are rats, rats,/ Rats as big as cats,/ In the quartermaster’s store!” (56). This makes me recall, in Orwell’s novel 1984, O’Brien, a member of the Inner party, uses psychological torture and Blackmailing through the use of rats, in-order to threaten Winston into obeying. It is clear that in both of Orwell’s works, his fear of rats is brought to light. Like most writers, what they write can reflect how they are as a person.

From Chapter VII and VIII on, there is a change in Orwells views, after experiencing the trench warfares and such, he started to become a “democratic socialist.” There seems to be a clear disappointment in his part, because once he returned to Barcelona, he felt that the revolutionary atmosphere had disappeared, perhaps due to the losses they’ve had. After all that they were fighting for, freedom and equality, the re-emergence of the class system most likely brought him down. From the start, this war, may have been a loss cause already, so why does Orwell, go back to the front to fight? Would it make much of a difference?

The political situation seemed to be unstable in Spain, perhaps one could say that thanks to this instability, Orwell and his family, were able to successfully escape prosecution. Which could be seen in Chapter XII. A question I’ve been wondering, is it possible that Orwell regretted joining the POUM? If from the start, Orwell had been on a different side to begin with, would he have been a regular journalist, or would he still eventually join the war? From the start, he was swept with the emotions of the people, that’s why he joined the revolutionary front instead of being a journalist. Given the political situation, it makes me unable to relate to his feelings because it feels like a whole other world and also since we live in a love different era, an era of peace.