For Whom the Bell Tolls (1940)

Estoy leyendo este libro, y me parece una historia muy bonita, hasta el momento me gusta mucho, es entretenedora, sobre todo las peripecias de los personajes que viven en el bosque y una cueva.
El final del libro me sorprendió, ya que al inicio de leerlo no entendía el significado de la frase, por quien doblan las campanas, es una frase que se aplica cuando alguien a muerto, entonces por eso es el final del libro, las campanas doblaron para Robert jordan. El libro lo leí, y realmente de todo lo que leí algo que se quedo mucho en mi mente, fue la frase que usaron María y Robert despues de haber hecho el amor, ellos describian ese momento como "la tierra temblaba" es muy curiosa esa forma de expresión para aquella epoca entonces. ( )

The problem with Ernest Hemingway I guess is that, well, he's Ernest Hemingway.

He was the first author in modern days who consciously forced an image of himself out on the world - and that image was a big bluff self-contained "Man's Man" who could shoot and fish and drink and run with the bulls with the best of them.

And and one who let us say had complicated relationships with women.

So a book like For Whom The Bell Tolls it has to come with a lot of baggage.

Easy to forget that Hemingway also hung around with Gertrude Stein and was in his own way constantly experimenting with prose style and narrative structure.

You probably know the plot - from the movie anyway. Spanish Civil War. American in love with Spain joins up with a ragtag band of Rebels to blow up a bridge.

Along the way he meets and falls in love with a damaged young girl, a child of the forest, and meets others who represent archetypes of different kinds of people in Spain.

Farmers who just want a bit of land to farm. Generals who order their soldiers to kill and sometimes stop and wonder why. Foolish people and angry people and complex loving people too. Each one has his story and his moment.

The futility of war. How quickly idealism changes into something else, but never quite quite dies.

Can't say enough about the writing - it's tight and clear and at times deeply lyrical. The chapters about the massacre of the "Fascists" and the clear sharp description of El Sordo's last stand are amazing and almost journalistic.

And yet . . . and yet. I think to see Hemingway as a "Journalist" is to miss something. He's after bigger game here, I think. (He even sneaks in a little tribute quote to Stein late in the book - just to see if you're paying attention.)

A lot of people in my book group had trouble with it - or with him. But I cared deeply about the people and stood openmouthed in awe at the writing. Sometimes it's too formal and sometimes it doesn't work - but when it does work it's amazing.

A big ambitious book with a lot of little lovely surprises. Recommended ( )

Oh boy. The printer almost did me in with this one. I got to page 442 and the next page was 412. Only the fact that Jim had the text on Kindle saved me from self-explosion. And it's a library book! Didn't anyone tell the librarian about the defect?!?!

ok. got that said. Now, about the book.

I was somewhat surprised by how many people in my f2f reading group actively disliked this book. They objected to Hemingway's portrayal of women (gee, the younger one is pretty naive, and the older one isn't. right). They objected to his attempt to represent the difference between 'usted' and 'tu' in Spanish by using 'you' and 'thou', etc. in English. And I admit that some of the attempts to make the text sound like a translation from the Spanish were worse than awkward,and the editor did the story no favor in insisting that the naturally obscene language be masked so clumsily.

But what about the story? What about the naive volunteer trying his best to be a good soldier for a cause he thinks he believes in, in spite of what we know about the errors and excesses of that cause? The partisan band in the hills, trying to say alive so that they can go back to being farmers and vintners, each one delineated as a distinct person with frailties and honor in unique proportion? And the honesty of the brutality on both sides of this gruesome war, the ineptitude and cynicism of the commanders, the pain of both dying and killing, and the fatalism war can engender.

The intense writing made me see everything as if through a close-up lens. Although the language can seem moderately straightforward (and no, it's not all simple declarative sentences by any means), I had to slow down to capture the vivid detail, even when I wanted to story to move faster because the tension mounts even though the inevitability of the outcome seems clearer every step of the way.

Bad grammar, bad usage can pull me right out of a mediocre story, but nothing could pull me out of this one. ( )

Oh, Hemingway. Is it you or is it me? I don't know why but I can't feel anything above mild acceptance that your novels are okay. Are you just not as good as you're cracked up to be, or do I just not understand your genius? And do I keep reading until I work it out?

Robert Jordan (not just Robert, never Robert, but Robert Jordan) is a Spanish teacher who has become involved in the Spanish Civil War as a dynamiter. He has to blow up a bridge with the help of a band of guerillas living in a cave somewhere in Spain. The world as he knows changes when he falls in love with Maria, who was adopted by the band after they blew up a train.

First off, the dialogue was frustrating to read. With so many thous and thees and thys you would've thought you were reading Shakespearian but actually the translation of Spanish to English translates better that way than to modern English, apparently. The problem is, it doesn't fit with the rest of the narrative. I don't know how else to explain it except it doesn't fit. Just reads wrong. The other thing about the writing style is that while it is written in the third person, the reader spends a lot of time in Robert Jordan's head. Which is not always an exciting place to be as he often argues with himself and goes off on crazy tangents that don't always feel relevant or crucial to the story. It's hard to stay interested.

I struggled to get into the story mainly because it felt like the point, the blowing up of the bridge, was so far away and without it there was so little to keep the plot moving. I also found it hard to connect with the characters - none of them really did anything for me. I wasn't at all moved by this book until the very end. At the end the imagery of Robert Jordan lying on the ground with his leg at an unnatural angle and with his submachine gun pointed at Lieutenant Berrard was just so vivid and so real in the my mind - if the whole novel was more like the last page, my rating would have been very different. ( )

I don't like Hemingway, but I found this book fairly enjoyable. Definitely better than 'The Sun Also Rises'. I find that the character of Robert Jordan spends a little too much time in his head -- it gets irritating the back and forth that he has with himself, his fantasies.

I found it interesting that Hemingway chose to situate the American, Jordan, with the communists. It had to be controversial in its time and I wonder how autobiographical it is.

I like the message. Live in today, it's all we have.

I think it's worth the read or in my case, the listen during the commute. ( )