|
I found it quite difficult to read this with a dispassionate eye. It's been years since I tried any Hemingway, and the small taste back then is why it has been years. Strike one. And I know this story. How can anyone not know this story? Strike two. In the lead up to reading this I thought I really should give Hemingway a chance and read an earlier of this famous books, I chose: The Sun Also Rises. That was a mistake, it was awful. Strike Three.
But I read it anyway, and thankfully it is a better book than The Sun Also Rises. I don't see how it earned classic status - I don't like Hemingway's style much at all - but it's a reasonable little story. Or half a story. To me it felt as if the real story lay between the boy, Manolin, the boy's family and this old man. There's some tantalising history there that might have made for something a bit more personal than a stubborn old man beating a fish to death for no purpose.
It seems to me that, mostly, Hemingway is not a subtle writer. (In that respect, at least, he makes a substantial departure from last month with Nella Larsen and Passing.) I will admit that I am not certain of the baseball and DeMaggio thing. Was there a subtle reason for this that I am missing? Or is it really just - as it seems - to keep us focused on how hard this guy is working compared to the easy life of baseball players?
I saw some study notes (linked by Bookworm_Girl on another thread, I think) that asked how this story confirms the presence of two themes prevalent in Hemingway's fiction "the undefeated" and "winner take nothing". But the thing is, I don't think it does confirm either of these. A fisherman that comes back without his catch has been defeated by something (and he's still alive and not crippled so he wasn't destroyed). In this case he may have won against the marlin, but he was defeated by the sharks. And as winner of the battle with the marlin he does indeed take something, see my next paragraph.
Why did Hemingway leave the skeleton of the fish there to be found? If he really wanted the old man to have nothing there should have been only the empty loops, or maybe a tantalising but inconclusive rib or something. By leaving the whole skeleton in place the old man receives a redemption of sorts: people feeling bad for treating him as unlucky*. So Santiago may not make money, but he gains respect and reputation; and a memory he will cherish along with the memories of lions that keep him company at night.
* Of course he was unlucky. What else can you call it? He gets hold of the biggest fish ever when he has no help; it is a fish he - a very experienced fisherman - must know he cannot get home with without help; and he captures it anyway only to lose it to sharks (as he must know will happen). If that's not bad luck then it is bad management on his part.
|