|
I found this book very powerful, but almost unbearable to read. While I had sympathy for Santiago's situation, I disliked the whole premise of the heroic man battling and trying to overcome nature.
There was the epic struggle with the huge fish and its long fight against death. Then there were the sharks which came for the dead fish tied to the side of the boat, which in turn were killed or injured by Santiago in his desperation to keep at least some of the fish from them.
(And I just have to ask: if only the skeleton was left, how come it stayed attached to the boat? Surely it would have fallen through the ropes. But that's just nitpicking on my part.)
The real problem for me is that I just don't buy into the whole idea of its being noble to go into the wild to kill animals, especially for sport. Yes, I know that for Santiago this was his livelihood rather than a "sport", but for Hemingway, it was something he chose to do, and so something which he upholds as a virtue. So even though Santiago knew the fish was far too big for him to be able to bring it into the boat, he persisted in continuing the battle.
So much death and destruction, and for what? Why am I reminded of the stubborn butchery of the Great War? Maybe because it might be seen as unmanly to take a step back from the precipice and acknowledge that the battle is pointless.
So for me the story is compelling, but I am not tempted to read anything more by Hemingway because of those underlying themes.
Thanks for the link to the article, Bookworm_Girl. It was interesting to read.
|