Final assignment

Tianyi (Fred) Niu wrote: I guess I'm going with question 4. This question interests me because I believe there are so many plausible allusions that could be tied with the ants and fire.

First of all, the ants could represent the men fighting in the war. The log, the perfect shelter for ants, represents the ideal homeland, Italy, before war came along. Ants could live happily in the log, protected from all the harms and perils of the outside world, and so could the men. Throwing the log on fire can be compared to war raging in Italy. These men, watching their homeland burn in flames became enraged, a voice in their mind tells them to fight, fight for everything they have ever known. And they did indeed, so did the ants. They all swarmed to fight the fire, to fight the war with high morale, but only to turn back defeated. The ants realized that they were never going to save their homeland, and the men of Italy realized that they were fighting a war that could never be won. In the end, both were defeated and compelled to turn back. The ants had to escape the heat of the fire, and the men had to escape the heat of the war. I do agree with Cathy that "I" here represents fate. Fate could have easily saved the Italians, yet it sent in the Germans, like how I poured a cup of water into the flames. The Germans helped steam the doomed Italian army, the men that is already on the verge of inevitable demise because of Austria-Hungary. Whereas the water steamed the ants that would soon be boiled by the flames.
Another understanding is that the ants represent the spirits of the Italian army men (or their morale), rather than their physical bodies. Ants in the log is comparable to the high spirits of the men before the war, living a happy and stable life. Then came the war, the fire. The men's morale, eager to rush to their bitter adversaries. The ants, eager to rush to the center of the fire. After realizing that there was no chance of victory, the ants withdrew. So did the men's morale. They became disillusioned just like the ants, and wondered about without an aim. Finally, fate poured a cup of water onto men's morale, which streamed their morale even further. As with the entrance of the Germans.

In conclusion, I believe this paragraphs relates closely to the characters of the novel and the plot. It could be said that the ants and fire acts like a summery of the war in the novel. Yes, a recap. Like Jamin said, it's odd for Hemingway to suddenly write down this paragraph that seems so "incompatible" with his usual writing style. Such an oddity forces the reader to think about alternative means or explantations possible for this out-of-place paragraph. Iceberg theory in it's fullest glory.

Rachel Ge wrote:Question 3

People often try to find the deep meaning of literature works and title them as the so-called profound theme. This novel is also interpreted as an anti-war novel. However, I believe maybe Hemingway did not decide to put painstaking elements in his novel when he first wrote it---in other words, he did not INTEND to make it a work of that high value as anti-war. Hemingway, as a writer who had fought on the front life before, were just depicting the reality: the cruelness, the ruthlessness, the bloodiness, the hopelessness, the craziness, and the nothingness existing in the war. The reality then was a long way from what we experience now, which creates barriers in understanding and difficulties in accepting, inciting readers’ negative attitude towards war, thus gaining itself the title of anti-war.
I always remember one of my favourite authors once said that when he wrote his novels, he did not consciously CREATE any expression, action, or life trend of his characters; instead, the characters went to their own fate without his interference. So whenever I’m with literature, I view every character as an independent individual.
Since there’s not a definite theme or intention here, we can say that all is reasonable because it’s just the reflection of reality---Fredric Henry’s use of violence was the result of his pride of being obeyed and insecurity for being taken over; while his seemingly masculine persona with his disillusionment was caused by the wound of war. All reactions of the character are reasonable in a period full of blood and bullet, and these reactions, without readers’ common value to understand, eventually become the reason for anti-war.

Cathy Teng wrote:I choose question 4.

The ants are similar to the characters in the novel. They struggled to get rid of something, but ultimately failed. They did not escape successfully from their fate, just like the ants, running back and forth to escape from fire but of no use. For Catherine, when she was in dystopia, she tried quite hard, but finally both she and her baby died. For the baby, I think he did a lot to embrace the world, but he choked in his mother’s body. For Henry, he struggled to have an ideal life——free, unlimited, and with his lover, he escaped from the army confronting the enormous danger, but eventually he lost his lover and baby and meant to go through a long and lonely life. They made huge efforts to achieve the life they wanted to have, but they all failed to escape from fate, falling into the dreadful fire.

And I think “I” in the passage is referred to fate. It is one’s fate that decides his future, being safe away from fire or falling into the heat, being satisfied and enjoyable or suffering from sorrow, according to the passage. Unfortunately, the existence for human being is tragedy since our future has already been confirmed——death. In other words, no matter how hard we try, no matter how much glory we gain, we will definitely and inevitably gradually walk towards death. People can escape from war or other things, but we cannot avoid death. Human beings are so vulnerable that we will easily be put into fire by the hand of fate. Also, as an atheist, Henry may want to imply that if someone wants to avoid death by anchoring the hope to his belief, the one holding his fate, it is quite sorry because that guy wants to drink whiskey and does not have time or willing to deal with his stuff.

In conclusion, I think the information the passage wants to convey is the vulnerability and tragedy of human’s life and the inevitable future—death of human.