On page 43 out of 127
Note: Our versions of the book differ (Mine isn’t illustrated, Abby’s is), so the page numbers/number of pages will differ. It’s a real bummer, since I really like picture books. It’s also a bummer because my version of the book is ridiculously overpriced. Eh. Onto the review, post, commentary, analysis, whatchamacallit.
After analyzing several poems with complicated language and trying to figure out the not-so-straightforward ideas in them, the simplistic plot of Ernest Hemingway’s The Old Man and the Sea has been extremely refreshing. However, it took some getting used to. I found myself rereading sentences because they took actions and compressed them into such simple phrases I needed more time to visualize what had just happened. It starts off with an interesting plot, but it isn’t interesting enough. There’s a boy who’s always addressed as by “the boy”, and there’s an old man who’s always addressed as “the old man”. The first twenty pages are spent describing the relationship between the two and the poverty the old man faces and the old man’s unlucky fishing past, along with a very controlled conversation about baseball where the voices between the old man and the boy blend together because the dialogue isn’t characterized enough. The baseball conversation references to some players that I’ve never heard of and I doubt most of the people who read this book will understand because most readers of Hemingway aren’t exactly baseball fanatics, and even if they are the baseball conversation isn’t really relevant to anything. It also contains a bunch of dialogue that each of them seem to know is imaginary but that both of them seem unsure of, so the reader can’t be sure of it, and I haven’t found any part of it very helpful to the plot in any way. The second twenty pages are filled with descriptions of the old man going fishing and how he keeps following a bird to get the fish the bird seems to find. Then, he almost catches a dolphin. But he doesn’t. And he assumes that there’s a stray one around. It’s a little too optimistic for his bad luck streak he appears to have, and I can’t tell if it’s still part of his “imaginary” dialogue seeping into his personal thoughts.
My favorite part? When he sees a Portuguese man-of-war and uses the most description used in the entire 43 pages so far. And then…“‘Agua mala’, the man said. ‘You whore’”(Hemingway 35).
That’s right. He calls a jellyfish a whore. If there’s anything in the world I would’ve least expected, it was the combination of those two words. And there’s good reason to it, too. Hemingway goes on to explain by saying that the Portuguese man-of-war looks pretty, but stings hard, and then has the old man talk about how much he likes turtles because they eat the Portuguese man-of-war. In this, I find some probably unintended amusement, where first, we have jellyfish whores, and then, we have, by the symmetric property, whore-eating turtles.
However, the book quickly shuffles backward into its original state, except the old man finally catches something: An albacore tuna that he decides to use as bait, despite his poor living conditions, apparent bad luck streak, and the fact that the boy has already given him bait and appears to have the intent to continue doing so. However, the old man’s delight is very short-lived and confusing to me, since for some reason he has gone forty day’s without a fish, but right after catching a fish, tries to trace back to when he first started talking to himself. Then, he says something to himself about baseball, only to quickly tell himself not to think about baseball. Which makes me wonder: “What is the importance of baseball in a story about fishing? Did the random though of baseball even have to be mentioned?”
Unfortunately, our page division ends right in the middle of one of the seemingly important parts of the story where he is, so far, almost catching another big sea creature. Maybe, it’ll be one of his beloved sea-turtles. I’d be interested to see the inner conflict in him under that occurrence.
(Sorry for holding you up Amy... I'm a procrastinator.)
ReplyDeletePage: 34/99.
Before I actually begin my criticism, I will tell you right now that I actually have not read very much. In fact, the preface/introduction thing took up 14 whole pages of my assigned reading. Also, because this is an extremely popular short novel that has been printed in many versions, my page numbers are different from the rest of my group members’. These two things combined means that I have not read as far as Amy. In fact, I would not have even known about the jellyfish whore if I hadn’t accidentally read to page 34 instead of 33. And we all know how disappointed I would have been.
ANYway… the book so far is pretty good. It’s actually pretty epic. I’m not fetish-izing it yet, so none of you readers have anything to worry about. I especially like the imagery. I can just imagine the beach, and the shack thing where all the fishermen go in the mornings before heading out to sea, and the terrace, and the beach, and the old man’s house, and the old man himself, and the little boy. Of course, the fact that there were pictures so generously added definitely didn’t take away from the imagery.
However, there are two points that are bothering me a bit. First, I didn’t know what the little boy’s name was until somewhere around page 25. I mean, seriously?! You’d think such an acclaimed author would do a somewhat better job at introducing his characters early on in the book. But instead, I still keep on calling him “the little boy”.
Also, I don’t know if this was because I was reading too fast, but I didn’t even know that the old man was at home for a very, very long time. I thought he was still at the terrace when he conked out. I finally reread it, and found out that he had indeed gone home.
Anyway, so far the reading is going pretty well.
March 11, 2011
ReplyDeleteThe Old Man and the Sea
Entry 1
Not going to lie, I like this book (well, so far I don’t hate it). The only thing I have to say about the content pertains to the unusual sentence structure. It’s unusual in the sense that it’s unusually common, i.e. subject pronoun verb. The simplicity of it is getting to me a little because I’m so used to having to read books like “To Kill a Mockingbird” and analyze and over-analyze the subject matter (nothing against it, I did enjoy it, however…)
Anyways, to the book, huzzah! The book starts off in a good third-person point of view, following the life of a character known as “the old man”. So far I enjoy his character. He does things his own way, like drink shark oil every day. He lives in poverty because he is extremely unlucky with catching fish, but I loved how he made the best of it in doing things as fantasizing with another character (“the boy” or Manolin as he is later revealed) about having rice or a nice fire to sit by. I admire his ability to ignore his non-luck because in a society where it seems everyone but the old man is catching fish, he is able to support himself and keep his self-dignity.
The boy in the story obviously respects this in the old man. He stayed in contact even when his family ordered him to fish with another boat due to the man’s extremely bad luck. He takes care of the old man, and the two can be identified as companions. They even are able to talk about baseball in normal contexts.
The chapters end when the seemingly unlucky old man has found a fish so big it tows his fishing boat. I’m excited to hear more about this fight between the man and the fish.
To Abby and Amy, the other readers in our group, I bid you good reading.
~Allegra
Page 86 of 127
ReplyDeleteFirst off, responses: Abby, I definitely didn’t catch what the boy’s name was which also bothered me. His name is probably mentioned just once, the rest of the time the old man mentions him it’s always “the boy”. Along with that, the old man’s name is Santiago, correct? It’s difficult to tell in this book, but I think it’s because Hemingway doesn’t really want the characters to be known as just the characters but to be seen as symbols for something (I don’t know of what, but I’ll figure it out eventually). Allegra, I bid you good reading as well, and now think I share a more positive outlook on the books first section after reading your post.
Strangely, the fish that the old man has hooked has still been hooked over the past 43 pages. Even weirder, is that the book ISN’T BORING. Despite the usual boredom of actual fishing, Hemingway is able to find multiple internal and external conflicts that keep the plot moving forward in a way that I would have never thought possible (especially after my previous view of the book). My favorite is the inner conflict of the old man when he feels he isn’t worthy enough to catch such a noble fish but is determined to hang on anyway. He feels guilt for still attempting to catch the fish and making the fish starve/tire to death, something he had never felt before, because before he had the help of the boy.
However, I do have some negatives about the book. One is about the constant baseball references. Going further into the book I have found that the baseball references do not require any knowledge about baseball but more about having an idol. In spite of this, I still get distracted from the baseball references because I’ve heard the baseball player’s name (The Great DiMaggio) more than I have heard the actual names of either of the characters seen in the book (I also get distracted because I’m not a big fan of baseball). Another is about realism. In the book, the sea-creatures are described in great detail. The swordfish is a magnificent purple, the dolphins are bright gold. Neither of which, after being searched up in Google Images, were either purple or gold. Swordfish happen to be silver, slightly blue or pink. Dolphins are grey. Also, the fish caught by the old man happens to be able to pull the fishing line along for two days so far (if I have kept track correctly), which is unrealistic but actually makes the plot more interesting and adds to the “noble”-ness of the fish. Finally, the book lacks consistency on how the old man catches fish. After having this apparent long streak or bad luck, the old man suddenly has a day where he catches a dolphin, and the dolphin’s belly happens to contain two perfectly good flying fish. The man also says he can no longer eat the dolphin because his face squished it, which makes me wonder: How big are these golden dolphins?
Ultimately, the problems with the parts of Hemingway’s The Old Man and The Sea actually add to the plot of The Old Man and the Sea, and the baseball references connect one part of the plot to another. So far, it has shown messages of perseverance, and is making its way into my list of favorite books.
Page: 62/93. (Haha... counted my pages wrong last time. Sorry about that.)
ReplyDelete@ Amy: The boy’s name is Manolin. It was only mentioned once, so don’t worry about it.
Also, the old man said before that he doesn’t like dolphin… so now I’m confused.
Despite all those negative comments that I keep seeing, I still like the book. The old man reveals himself to be a “round” character. (The boy, as of now, is still a “flat” character.) Santiago seems like a very laid-back person whose thoughts seem to be more fluid and less structured. His descriptions of the fish are not very realistic, as Amy pointed out. (I’m still wondering how a man can squish a dolphin with his face.) However, he also has a more ambitious, goal-oriented side. He continues to try and catch the fish despite the fact that he thinks he isn’t worthy. He even has a person to look up to: the Great DiMaggio. I’m not sure what baseball has to do with all this, but by the end of the book, I’ll probably figure it out.
I also noticed this recurring theme of lions in Santiago’s dreams. Again, I’m not sure what this is supposed to mean, but Hemingway must have written it for a reason.
The only complaint I have is that the plot is moving rather slowly. It reminds me suspiciously of The Tourist: the beginning and middle are slow-paced, and the end is full of action. Maybe that’s what will happen here. If so, I’m looking forward to it.
Since Allegra has not posted her second post yet, I’m going to go ahead and post my third.
ReplyDeletePage: 127 out of 127, otherwise known as DONE.
Beginning again with responses:
Apparently, the boy’s name is mentioned only once or twice (As mentioned by Abby). It bothered me a little more than Stephen King’s The Green Mile, because unlike Stephen King, Hemingway fails to remind the reader what the narrator’s name is. However, Hemingway definitely does a better job at remaining consistent throughout the actual story, despite the fact that in both books, the main character is old. In King’s book, it was a first-person story told from a remarkably old man; Meanwhile, Hemingway’s book is in third-person but the main character is remarkably strong and keeps their thoughts in a well-organized manner so that unlike King’s story, it’s easy for the reader to keep track of the plot. In the end, it’s okay if the plotline is confusing or names are a little restrained, but the plotline and names cannot be both.
Also, I remember him saying he didn’t like dolphin too but I looked back and couldn’t figure out where it was. I love Abby’s mentioning of “round” and “flat” characters, Hemingway hasn’t seemed to add enough description of Manolin to show why the old man cares so much about him. I still don’t really understand the use of the lions in his dreams, but it did make the ending seem natural (Vague spoiler?).
Personally, this is one of my “new” favorite books (“new”, because it’s not actually new but it’s new to me). I love classics in general because most of them tend to be really good; The Old Man and the Sea is no exception. Also, I applaud Ernest Hemingway for his ability the make the plot near-perfect of a story involving a simple concept: An old man hooks a big fish. Of course, the actual story involves plenty of added conflicts such as the previously mentioned bad luck streak and inner feelings of not being good enough for the fish, as well as missing the boy, being in danger of starving to death, and more recently, sharks.
There is a point in the book where I was afraid that Hemingway was going to have the fish get unhooked from the line, and I thought “If he doesn’t catch this fish, this is going to be the worst book ever”, but the old man caught the fish. Much like other classics, the book couldn’t end with a happy ending. The old man still has the issue of returning back with a giant fish strapped to his boat, and has some epic battles where, dehydrated and starving, he kills SIX sharks. It added some intense excitement to the plotline, despite the old man’s apparent weakness (as stated previously, the realism/lack of consistency bothers me, but I find the way it is used adds to the plot makes its use acceptable. Also, as previously stated, the baseball references are used as the general idea of idols, and in spite of previous statements, the baseball references stopped bothering me because the references are very simple.
And in case you were wondering, the Old Man eventually figured out that the fish did, in fact, defeat him by dragging him so far out into sea that the Old Man eventually came back with nothing (the sharks ate it all). But Hemingway doesn’t just leave it there. There’s a heartwarming conclusion: The boy, excuse me, Manolin, decides he will start fishing with the old man again, whether the old man is lucky or not.
[SPOILER ALERT!!!]
ReplyDeletePage: 93/93. Done, and thoroughly upset.
Don’t get me wrong here. It was a good book. In fact, it was a GREAT book. It’s just that the ending was so very disappointing. But I’ll get back to that later.
About the face-squishing-the-dolphin thing earlier, I found out that the man’s face didn’t squish the entire dolphin. It was just a piece of the dolphin meat, and now it makes much more sense.
I’m still speculating about the lions, by the way. It’s the last word of the entire book, and it appears several times when the old man is dreaming, so it must have some significance other than the fact that it sounds suspiciously like my last name. Maybe it’s a symbol of courage or something. Or a symbol of pride. (Sorry… bad pun.)
Something else that I’m wondering is why he didn’t take some of the meat off the fish and put it in the boat where it would be safe. After all, wouldn’t he find that this was a better solution, especially after the first shark came? Although, I guess if he did that it wouldn’t make a very good story.
So, back to the ending. I was disappointed because the old man had put ALL of his effort into catching this fish, and all he got at the end was a single bite of really good fish, the opportunity to kill some sharks, and a giant useless fish bone. The lesson taught by the ending was completely counter-intuitive. I thought the old man would succeed, so the moral of the story would be that if you work hard, you will get what you want. But that didn’t exactly happen here.
Although, I suppose that even if he ultimately failed, he still succeeded in his own way. The single bite of fish that he ate was significant. It seemed like such a small thing; a shark attacked and took out a chunk of meat, so he decided to give some of the fish a try. But in the end, that was all he got.
Overall, Hemingway did a great job writing this book. And I feel that the Great DiMaggio would be very proud.
Part 1
ReplyDeleteI'm with Abby on the SPOILER ALERT!!!
93/93 pages
And I do apologize for not posting the second post. Thank you Amy for posting
The book itself was actually a pretty good book with a very straightforward plot and simplistic text structure. What I really enjoyed in the book was the symbolism of the different fish. (By the way, Abby, the book mentioned the large fish was a marlin, and he had a very small fishing boat. Keep in mind marlins are huge. I recommend you google "marlin")
I believe the marlin represented the old man himself. In the beginning it was a strong persevering fish. If you remember when the old man described himself at a younger age, it was as a boy who took risks easily and could do anything he set his mind to i.e. the arm wrestling match. If the old man is the marlin (or vice versa) it can be safe to say the sharks all represented struggles the old man had throughout his life. When everything is over and the old man reaches the shore, the fish meat is all gone, and the man is very weak. As a side note, I love the book's defiance of natural order: the big fish being killed, the weak old man staying alive, etc
Symbolism is also present in the fish, such as green fish turning to gold (the fish is actually a dorado, not a dolphin) I believe the changing of green to gold symbolizes the man's reliance on the natural order for food, for it was only when the old man was very weak that he decided to fish for himself.
part 2
ReplyDeleteWhat confused me the most about the ending was, like Abby said, the lions. Why did the old man fall asleep dreaming of lions?
I think the lions represent good fortune or life without worry, because the old man talks about seeing lions in the beginning of the book when he was in Africa. He says he was much younger then the boy when he saw the lions on the beach. This is after he and the boy discuss imaginary food.
Overall I liked the book. There were pieces that were very slow, but the book was quite fast-paced as well. I believe Hemmingway captured the Old Man's voice quite accurately and I enjoyed his writing thoroughly
Review of The Old Man and the Sea
ReplyDeleteRating: 9/10. I ♥ this book lots.
@ Allegra: The key word is “some.” It absolutely would be ridiculous to try to put the entire fish in the boat, considering that the fish is two feet longer than the boat itself. Although, it would make a nice Saturday night math problem if I knew the dimensions of the boat, the dimensions of the fish, and the amount of space the old man and his tools take up.
So, back to the review. This book is so great that I’m about to explode. I love it almost as much as I love math, and that’s saying something. The images are extremely descriptive (both the word images and the real images). The characterization is believable. The plot is interesting, well-paced (unlike The Green Mile), and thought-provoking.
The only two things that bother me are the unclear passing of time and the failure to mention the characters’ names more than once or twice. However, if I thought about it for a very long time, I could probably think of some reason why the characters’ names aren’t used.
Anyway, this book is a must-read. I would definitely recommend it to anyone and everyone.
Review of the Old Man and the Sea
ReplyDelete9.5/10
@Abby: LIONS PRIDE! :D Also, He keeps referring to it as a dolphin but also I remember him mentioning “Dorado” earlier in the book…That makes so much more sense. And his logic in keeping the fish in the water doesn’t make much sense, but I guess the way back would be really boring if he did.
@Allegra: Good point about the lions, I feel like it’s his way of reminiscing about the past when he was strong like a lion.
My posts have shown a pretty consistent view on Ernest Hemingway’s The Old Man and the Sea. Fortunately for Hemingway, my view is positive.
Throughout the novel the plot is pretty simple, made interesting by the inner and external conflicts which all connect together in some way or another. The Old Man (Santiago) misses the Boy (Manolin), and finds that there are many things he cannot do without the boy, including reeling in the fish. The Old Man is slowly dying of hunger and thirst, and it adds to the previous problem. There always seems to be some odd thing or another happening at every moment, whether it is the oddly colored fish or shark attacks.
In terms of symbolism from the fish, I think the colors represent them well. The marlin was described to be purple. Purple is considered a royal color to some, so the marlin can be seen at a higher status. When the old man kills the fish, it seems that he gains a higher status and realizes he is stronger and can accomplish more than he previously believed, which is why he constantly reminisces about the lions (strong creatures), because he discovers that his strength has not completely gone away. The way back from catching the marlin was a struggle showing how he could maintain his strength even though on the way he grew weak (What doesn’t kill us makes us stronger philosophy). When people see that he has brought back a giant marlin skeleton, it’s a kind of redemption of what he can accomplish because he had previously been seen as unable to catch fish (bad luck streak). On terms of the gold Dorado symbolism, I sort of agree with Allegra but don’t quite understand everything she’s saying. I think it’s more of a food becoming more even more valuable situation.
The lack of name mentioning does annoy me a bit, but I feel like it makes it easier to keep track of who is who; I probably would get the characters mixed up because of their unusual names. Everything else Hemingway uses, the simple language and plot along with the ingenious balance of dreams, memories, and problems, topped off with fantastic symbolism, creates one of the best tales of rediscovering ability and persevering through hardships.
In the end, I would recommend this book to anyone who can maintain maturity towards a small amount of “bad language”.
Review of The Old Man and the Sea
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed the book very much, especially the symbolism packed into the smallest things, such as the fish, and Hemmingway does a refreshing job explaining the symbolism in parts where he feels it is important (i.e. the man of war jellyfish).
Apart from symbolism, I loved the story of (I'm not trying to sound cheezy at all) how persistance can get you great places, but can also take it away. There were times I felt myself cheering on the old man as he sailed with the fish, and times where I felt myself say "WHAT?! NO!" (which is good).
One thing that gets under my skin a little is the simplistic plot. It can be nice to be able to predict the outcome of a story once in awhile, but paired with the sentence structure, it annoyed me when I could predict EXACTLY WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN. Overall I give the story an 8/10 and would reccomend it to anyone who enjoyed a lovely story of natural order in action.