Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Sorry, I didn't mean to vote FOR this review...I wanted to vote AGAINST it. You must be used to Harlequin Romance types of books...or Danielle Steel, perhaps. Hemingway uses an objective style that allows us to take a scene and respond however we see fit. But the emotion is there, if we can begin to understand the characters. Males can probably more easily relate to this style of writing - emotions felt but not expressed or dwelt upon. If you want a more expressive male, read Zorba the Greek, a wonderful book about life.

I actually have only read one romance in my entire life, but ANYway. I've read plenty of classics I've loved. The Sun Also Rises is just...weak. And it's not because the main character is a coldhearted sumbitch, it's because the entire purpose of the book seems to be his conflict over his war wound. Ironic? Relatable? Pitiable? Not really, just sort of cliched and sad, and it lacks to pull the entire weight of a fairly lifeless book.
I am fully aware of the subtle emotions of the characters, the issues they all have and their true feelings about things. It's somewhat complex, but in a nutshell they're all trying to bring happiness back into their lives by busying themselves with trips and alcohol. What is so amazing about that?? Why, just because you can understand the characters, does that make a book great?
Humbert Humbert in Lolita is a hell of a lot more interesting, AND extremely subtle. He's difficult to understand, yet by the end you feel that you almost can. Real people don't just reveal their entire personalities. It's the ability to understand the characters fully that makes The Sun Also Rises's cast so unrealistic.

"Hemingway uses an objective style that allows us to take a scene and respond however we see fit."

And I see fit to say it's a bore, but I have high hopes for The Old Man and the Sea. Thanks for the vote!

I don't mind your non-attack; you're certainly more polite than the last guy. But you haven't changed my opinion.
For one thing, you are biased. You tell me not to discount the styles of the 1900s, while simultaneously discounting an entire century of novels: "Read some flowery meandering novel from the century before (which is just about all of them save the literature influenced by the American Civil War)..." You seem to prefer the motivation and history behind the recent century, which isn't a bad thing but it might be when it leads you to show so strong a bias in your arguments.

I want to reiterate for you and any future arguers that I am fairly certain I DO understand this book. It was required reading in my college literature class a couple of years ago, so I was able to get my opinion, my professor's doting opinion, as well as those of my classmates. I've also read some online discussions on it and the arguments of you two. I know. I get it. So WHAT, even if it DOES epitomize some time period or ideal? This is absolutely useless to me when it also is so very dull the majority of the time.

If you want to send a message to everyone, it's wise to do it in a way that speaks to everyone, not just the elite. Would this novel be as enjoyable if you knew nothing of "New World American sensibilities" or the "Modernist outlook" or the Beat Generation? You may say yes, but my argument stands in the fact that you will not see any arguments from people who say things like, "I really enjoyed this book, I'm not sure why, I just liked it," and also that while classics like Jane Eyre (which I also dislike, but understand liking) and Great Expectations continue to be just as well known as from the time they became famous, "The Sun Also Rises" is no longer as well-recognized, displayed proudly in bookstores, or read by the general public just because. It's a book read mostly in schools, and there's a reason for it.

"In short you claim it isn't read." No, I didn't.

You might not count yourself in the "literati" but you've definitely got some trademark qualities of the sort--throwing terms at me such as the Modernist and existentialist outlook and talking down to people like so: "I am unconvinced that you understand this book." (As if I was working convince you personally!) "But I hope to at least show you some of what you missed, and why Hemmingway is one of the literary greats and this novel his masterpiece." (Clearly here you think I am ignorant or obtuse and must have things explained to me before I can comprehend their supposed definite greatness. And it's clear you think you're right.)

You have a good point with that Picasso bit. You're right. Liking The Sun Also Rises doesn't automatically make anyone anything. Potentially anyone could like it. I sure am generalizing to suggest that it was written only for the elite.

My point was that a truly great book is loved on two levels: it has natural-born talent and draws you in with great language and all that, and if you look further it also has messages and meanings that weren't immediately apparent.

So I understand about the existence of messages and meanings in this book (and they're not very good ones). But please tell me where is a beautiful or strikingly truthful or incredibly wise passage in the book (or anything of that sort at all). Please explain where it fulfills the need to be loved naturally, without looking deeper.

I agree with your first line, as I do with many of the "classics" of Americana.

If not for the name Hemingway on the cover to wear as a badge of honor for the accomplishment of reading, far few people would give this book a place on their bookshelves.

I did like this particular book though. I was a teenager at the time, and thought the socialite way of life described in this story was cool.

Who would have thought that decades later, I'd be sitting around a poorly lit cafe drinking wine...contemplating my fertility.

I rate this book highly as a guilty pleasure. Much the same way my girlfriend likes to read celeb' magazines. It gave me the hope that not everyone in that time period was a southern, backwoods, uneducated straw chewer.

By no means does that make it the all-hailed classic of classics. But in contrast to Faulkner or even Steinbeck, I was thankful to read dialog that was coherent and not filled with the struggles of being poor when I was in high school. Not to say they weren't good, but I had my fill at that point.

I have no problem at all with someone enjoying a book. =) My only annoyance was how people talk about it like it's...well, "the all-hailed classic of classics". And try to shove it in your face as well.

It certainly is an easier read than a lot of the stuff they make you go through, and it does have its comedic bits. It struck me pretentious but I can definitely see the languid, detached, snarky ways of the characters as being cool.

I happen to like the Hemingway style, not all of his novels, but his style. Long winded descriptions are boring to me. I form my own descriptions by what the character says and does. Same with emotions, manufactured emotions give me a pain. They also cause me to close the book and move on.
Tom

I've been hearing about this book for years, and just read it this past week. I immediately jumped online to find out what the hell I was missing.

Everyone who defends this novel does so while ignoring one important lil' factoid: it's simply not an interesting read. Hey, that's great for Hemingway he was able to make waves with his minimalist style back in the day, but how does that make this a great or even good novel? Certainly now, but even then? It's just a pointless -- and, even more offensively, boring -- series of events (not a story, heavens no) in which a bunch of incredibly bland social elite personalities flail around on vacation.

As others have said, if The Sun Also Rises was written today by a nobody, it would universally be accepted as just plain "bad." Not the mark of a masterpiece.

In short: Kay, you're right.

Why thanks! You're about as refreshing as a root beer float.

Hum, I usually dislike Hemingway cause well, he's pretenious but for some reason I found this book hilarious in the ridiculousness of the characters, which I kind of thought was on purpose on his part. It could also be because of my strange sense of humor...

just read it, my first hemingway, and thought, what the hell is this? to hell with you! let's get a drink. to hell with you! wait, let's have a drink. it reads like a night in my local

"If This Book Weren't Famous, Most People Wouldn't Like It."

That's a contradiction in terms. It's famous precisely because people like it.

"If I were Hemingway's English teacher (or anyone's any kind of teacher) I'd say, "This reads more like a screenplay than a novel. Where are your descriptions, where is the emotion??""

Thank fuck you're not a teacher.

It's famous because Hemingway wrote it, and because it was popular in its time. (I have altered the title to reflect these specifics.) Its time is past, "thank fuck." FEWER and FEWER people know what the heck it is, for the reasons I mentioned above.

Kay wrote: "Less and less people know what the heck it is..."

"Less and less" denotes a degree of scale; "fewer and fewer" indicates a decline in number. People aren't decreasing in scale or becoming smaller. As it happens, the number of them reading The Sun also Rises also isn't really changing.

The novel sells roughly as well today as it has ever done (over the course of 40 years - by 1961 - it had sold 1,000,000 copies, meaning an average of 25,000 per year, which is about what it continues to sell today in the USA alone). Hardly stands up to the 45 million copies of Stieg Larsson's books sold worldwide, but such is the nature of popular fiction.

As to people reading it "because Hemingway wrote it:" well, sure, Hemingway is one of the greatest writers ever, but that alone is no reason for 3 generations of humanity to read one particular novel.

Here's an example: ever heard of The Garden of Eden? No? It didn't do that well, despite being written by Ernest Hemingway, and being the last thing he ever published (posthumously).

That's because the Garden of Eden sucks.

So, you see, having a famous writer produce something might be enough to float it for a while, maybe a few years, but it's been 90 years since the publication of The Sun Also Rises, and even someone like you knows about it, is arguing over it right now on an internet forum. That alone speaks for itself.

Plus, it's a fantastic book.

That's "Internet" forum.
You still have to italicize titles after you mention them once.

I am talking about the number of people who know about it, not the number of people who read it. The only reason I did was for a class in a small private college. If it's selling less by relative population, in any case, I consider that more telling than if it were selling less by an exact decline in numbers. (You do have to consider that there have been more people every year, and the numbers sold since '61 surely don't spread out evenly over each year.)

The polite people who have disagreed with my opinion of the book seem to like it because they find the characters funny or cool, or like the short, straightforward writing style. The impolite ones "like you" seem to like it because it says all sorts of truthy things about the time period and the kinds of lives that intelligent, useless people live. It seems to me that the book is good - "fantastic", hell, I'll not go that far - in small, varying ways, like having funny moments or a distinctive overall vibe, but that in any one of those ways it is beaten thoroughly in quality by a plethora of other things.

Are you serious right now? I can't tell.

Thanks Sarah. The neat thing about having written this review is that I have been receiving a wide variety of explanations as to why various people DO like this book. (The bad thing is that I'm probably going to have to read it again just to keep responding, because at this point it's been years.)

Although Norman's comment annoyed me (because it was rude and pretentious, not unlike A-ron and Yeahiknow3's comments), I barely even picked up on the flaccid misogyny. I'm glad you did. Shame, Norm, shame.

I agree wholeheartedly with your comments about reasons for accepting or rejecting a novel. "The Sun Also Rises" didn't at all strike me as one that deserves to stand the test of time as a beloved classic, but while the comments of some have bolstered that sentiment, others have made me begin to question whether there really is something both meaningful and cherishable here. ...I am still answering "not really" right now.

I think I would have liked it more if it had not been forced upon me as required reading with the appellations of "genius" and "classic". As just a BOOK, especially one bought on sale and also a whim, I could see it being a fun trounceabout with a bunch of pompous beat windbags.

You should try "Miss Lonelyhearts" by Nathaniel West, cuz I think you would like it. The prose is about the exact opposite of that of "The Sun Also Rises" (i.e. florid and phenomenal), but it has the same theme of literati running on empty and nice tongue-in-cheek wit.

(Excerpt: "Shrike again began to shout and this time Miss Lonelyhearts understood that he was making a seduction speech.

'I am a great saint,' Shrike cried, 'I can walk on my own water. Haven't you ever heard of Shrike's Passion in the Luncheonette, or the Agony in the Soda Fountain? Then I compared the wounds in Christ's body to the mouths of a miraculous purse in which we deposit the small change of our sins. It is indeed an excellent conceit. But now let us consider the holes in our own bodies and into what these congenital wounds open. Under the skin of man is a wondrous jungle where veins like lush tropical growths hang along overripe organs and weed-like entrails writhe in squirming tangles of red and yellow. In this jungle, flitting from rock-gray lungs to golden intestines, from liver to lights and back to liver again, lives a bird called the soul. The Catholic hunts this bird with bread and wine, the Hebrew with a golden ruler, the Protestant on leaden feet with leaden words, the Buddhist with gestures, the Negro with blood. I spit on them all. Phooh! And I call upon you to spit. Phooh! Do you stuff birds? No, my dears, taxidermy is not religion. No! A thousand times no. Better, I say unto you, better a live bird in the jungle of the body than two stuffed birds on the library table.'

His caresses kept pace with the sermon. When he had reached the end, he buried his triangular face like the blade of a hatchet in her neck.")

Kay wrote: "Although Norman's comment annoyed me I barely even picked up on the flaccid misogyny."

The word you were looking for is "sexism," not misogyny. Might wanna crack open a dictionary once in a while, Kay.

I agree that Norman was wrong to rationalize your flagrant illiteracy to a simple dislike of Hemingway's prose.

He thinks you are sexist for not liking Hemingway's style, which is itself a sexist thing to say - I know, complicated, right? The reality is much simpler than that.


Kay wrote: "The Sun Also Rises" didn't at all strike me as one that deserves to stand the test of time as a beloved classic.

You know, nothing is more annoying than people making up reasons to hate something when there are so many reasons already available. For instance, you're welcome say: "I did not enjoy this story; I did not enjoy these characters; I did not enjoy the tone. I did not enjoy the scenery, the imagery, the ending, the beginning, the descriptions, the time-period, the dialogue:" HOLY COW LOOK AT HOW MANY REASONS THERE ARE. But that would require honesty. Instead, you choose to rage that the book is a classic, which bothers you, apparently.

If you have a coherent reason you honestly didn't like it - it rubbed you the wrong way, whatever - try deciding what that is and including it in your review next time.

Kay said: I think I would have liked it more if it had not been forced upon me as required reading.

Stephen Fry on learning:

It's very common to hear people say, "Yeah, Shakespeare was ruined for me at school, because it was required reading," and I always say to them, "Yeah, god, the Grand Canyon was ruined for me. We did it in geography, so I just found it really ugly, because we did it in geography." I mean, that's how fatuous it is to say that Shakespeare was ruined for you at school. It's there. It can't be ruined for you. That's jus mentally lazy.

Fits like a glove.

The word I wanted, thanks very much, was exactly "misogyny," which means woman-hating, which can be construed from an irrational sexist attack. I wanted "flaccid misogyny", as in lethargically woman-hatingish, because it works and it's much more fun than "sexist."

I didn't recommend West to YOU, '3. The character depicted there is a fun sexist asshole who gets women by being eloquent and witty, if also vapid and egotistical, so I thought it was a nice relevant choice.

So, originally I was all like, "The Sun Also Rises" really is not a very well-known novel. Most people you ask about it won't know what you're talking about, unlike classics like "Jane Eyre" or "The Old Man and the Sea." While that's been true in my own experience, rankings in various places prove otherwise. The problem wasn't one of me trying to say that it isn't read without evidence, but one of me doing so without anything but evidence from personal experience, which is notoriously shady. I think I will finally have to alter my review to reflect the reality of the situation.

Anyway. Did you miss the parts in my review that mentioned my dislike of the simplistic writing style and excess of time spent on bullfights, my boredom with the mild wittiness that doesn't really pass as actual humor, the pretension, the transparent characters, and the failure to represent the actual people of the era? Because it's all in there. It's kind of obvious, too, but I can see you're the sort of person who doesn't get stuff unless it's put very plainly.

I'm happy to discuss our differing opinions, but if you're going to continue to be rude and hostile, I'm going to start ignoring you and/or deleting your comments, alright? There's no reason for it. I'm sure you do think that there are many reasons to "hate something already." You seem like a very hateful person who is quick to resort to personal attacks. It gives me the same feeling as those windshield stickers of Calvin from "Calvin and Hobbes" peeing when I see your demeaning, ranting comments combined with an image of the Little Prince. It's also quite despicable how you try to say things in a nasty sort of way so as to be intimidating and hurtful.

By the way, "juxtaposing that to Hemingway" is grammatically incorrect.

~

When people say, "It was ruined for me at school, because it was required reading," what's really meant is that it was ruined because of their being forced to read it (unpleasant), or because they had to write about and discuss it to such an extent that they became sick of it, or any number of similar things. What I meant is that the novel was so built up in my class that it ultimately disappointed. I'm not saying that I would have otherwise loved it, but that I probably would have liked it more, because I wouldn't have had such high expectations for a staccato novel about depressed drunks wandering about on vacation. A more apt metaphor would be that it was like being told that a certain film was an amazing classic, one of the best ever, and then expecting so much that you're disappointed and don't like it even as much as you might have without all the build-up.

Kay wrote: "The Sun Also Rises" really is not a very well-known novel. Most people you ask about it won't know what you're talking about, unlike classics like "Jane Eyre"

Actually, the Sun Also Rises is the 88th bestselling classical book in the USA for the month of November, 2010.

I'm trying to determine whether you're trolling right now, or if you're genuinely confused.

Oh, and since you were too lazy to check for yourself, Jane Eyre sells fewer than one TENTH as many copies as The Sun Also Rises annually. Oops.

For anecdotal purposes, I also turned to my roommate, who has read very few books in his life, and asked him:

"Yo, ever heard of The Sun Also Rises?"
"It's a book by Hemingway, right?"

Whoa! He's heard of it, too, apparently, but that's no surprise.


Kay said: "The word I wanted, thanks very much, was exactly "misogyny."

Well then you don't know the meaning of "misogyny."

But let me get your story straight:

1) You're accusing Norman of being a "flaccid misogynist," because he suggested that the cold-hearted brevity of Hemingway's sentence structure might not appeal to warm-hearted females.

Is that right?

2) Sarah brought attention to Norman's statement and made fun of his stupid ideas of male stoicism by alluding to the female orgasm (which was pretty funny).

3) This was when you decided Norman's statement was somehow "misogynistic" and perverted Sarah's "facepalm" response into something far more negative.

Fascinating.

I'll say again, though: the word you wanted was "sexism."

Open a dictionary once in a while, it won't kill you, honest.


Kay said: "Usually, for the title of "classic," a book has to be well-known at least in name, but this one no longer is."

Since you bring this up repeatedly, let me just correct you once and for all: The Sun Also Rises is the 88th bestselling classic in the USA. On Amazon.com, it's nestled right below The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand, and right above Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen.

Maybe you think those aren't classics either?

In the UK, The Sun Also Rises, published under the title: Fiesta: The Sun Also Rises as an Arrow Classic is the 79th bestselling classical book for November, 2010.

Isn't it awesome not lying? You should try it sometime.

Psst. Check my comment again. I edited it while you were writing this.

...I don't really see the need to respond to the "flaccid misogyny" thing as I already wrote the definition in plain English and explained my usage of it. I was exaggerating, of course.

...are you my brother? Cuz...

"You must be used to Harlequin Romance types of books...or Danielle Steel, perhaps. . .Males can probably more easily relate to this style of writing - emotions felt but not expressed or dwelt upon."

This can certainly be read as Norman (sorry if you're still reading this thread, Norman; I don't think you deserved insults from three people) showing a negative attitude toward what he perceives as typical female interests and capabilities. He implies that women can't easily pick up on emotional subtlety, and that those who can't (presumably the majority) prefer to read bad romance novels (i.e. have poor taste and/or are stupid). From there, it's pretty easy to generalize that his comments were showing some extent of mistrust or dislike of women. I don't think it's true that he's a misogynist, minding; I was just having some fun with exaggeration.

Right, are we done then?

No, no! And I want to be very polite about it, and this sounds stupidly condescending but it's true, I thought the exact same thing the first time I read it. But I WANT you to love this book because, read the right way, it can be so beautiful and more romantic than any Nicholas Sparks or florid, Victorian drivel piece.

The part you said at the end about arbitrarily injuring a character making Hemingway seem "amazing" is really what gets me. I honestly believe Hemingway was a closet homo, but anyway, the castration or impotence of the character taking away his manliness is so significant because of Hemingway's troubles with gender and also the deep-running theme of unrequited and impossible love. Imagine being in a relationship where you both loved each other so much but some frivolous reason kept you from ever being together truly. Now apply this to Jake and Brett and the whole story could be changed for you. Each subtle action, each kiss, each turn in the cab that presses one against the other becomes so painfully terse with macabre romance. In my situation... well, no one really cares, but once I found someone that I wanted to love and who loved me back but couldn't be with me, I truly understood the tragedy of this book, whereas when I first read it I similarly thought, "this is just a bleak story with sparse character development. I could have written this in a week."

But no, I could never have written this book before because I had no idea how much pain was involved in such a relationship. To have Jake watch Brett flirt and throw herself at men while trying to remain undisturbed and secretly hopeful that some other man could fulfill for her the needs he could never provide--that's romance! To have Brett try and fail miserably to distract herself from the fact that she's still so desperately in love with Jake is heart-wrenching to watch. Brett's not just some slut, in my opinion, she can't have the one man she loves because he can never satisfy her, and it drives her mad. How unjust of the world, to hang her soul mate from a string so close to her but impossible to grasp. Imagine it. Finding the one man you love and finding out he has the vital flaw, impotence. What would you do with your lust?

And of course, Brett being manly or "boyish" has it's obvious connotations. I do believe that Hemingway acted in certain ways misogynistic, but I also believe it was a rouse to cover up his attractions to men... Updike, on the other hand, is just a penis with a dictionary.

Upon closer inspection, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any student or writer dead or alive who can suggest so much with so brilliant of word economy as Hemingway. The closing scene of the book, which in my mind is one of the most beautiful I've read, suggests so much. He leaves us right where we started, the book is but a snippet of the lives of these expatriates. As Jake is drinking and Brett tells him not to, the reader understands what the drinking is for, to drown out the pain that they both know surfaces whenever they are near one another. Brett wants to stop him, she wants to face it, but he just can't. She says "we could have had such a damned good time together." meaning that if he hadn't had that injury, their lives could have been so beautifully romantic, they could have had it all, the children, the small house and the dog and weekends in the mountains and romantic dinners. She wants to hold on to the hope so much, and so does he, that's why they're both so desperately lonely. They want to escape one another but are bound to each other as true loves. And as the cab turns and presses her lightly against him he responds, indifferently, "Isn't it pretty to think so?" Suggesting he may have finally given up on the possibility of them being together, but can he truly escape?

Can anyone escape love?

And also, suggested reading, Hemingway's Gender Troubles, by J.G. Kennedy. It pulls in many examples from all his works, many of which involve women who assume the characteristics and often the positions of men. He even writes about switching gender roles and female domination in the posthumously published "Garden of Eden." So all this "Heminway hates women" crap seems sort of weak to me, personally, if anything he was afraid of being thought as one because deep down he knew what they were feeling. He was, honestly, such a tragically romantic man...

"It can be so much more romantic than dramatic, overwrought romantic novels." Is that so! Well, it's not more romantic than, say, Neuromancer. Which is the same. In ways. Except with sex. Where is the sex, Hemingway.

Nowhere. Nowhere.

And that's why it's not romance, it's just SAD.

I couldn't disagree with this review more. This book isn't supposed to be dripping with emotion. That's because:
a) Hemingway deliberately tried to make his writing as plain as possible; not everything needs to be said. As an earlier reply suggested, the line "Isn't it pretty to think so" doesn't need to be supplemented with further description. It reveals the heartbreak of the character perfectly.
and b) The novel is about people who are emotionally damaged. Description of character's emotional states would jar with the very essence of those characters who are themselves trying to suppress their feelings.

As for it being a novel about the 'true character of America', I couldn't comment on that. My understanding is that it's about the ability of that generation to deal with the horrors of the war.

That said, Hemingway's a love-him-or-hate-him writer. Some people just don't like his style. I feel that way about Joseph Conrad. Hemingway's certainly a very 'masculine' writer. I think his themes and his style probably have more appeal to male readers.

Dear Future Critics of This Review,

I'm kind of OVER it. I've been getting this kind of comment for years now, and the only critic who really made good points and made me rethink it was YeahIKnow3 (albeit he was rude and inflexible). Read EVERY comment, and if what you want to say isn't there, bring it on. You may change my mind. Otherwise, there's no need to rehash what others have said.

Oops! Looks like it was me who pushed you over the edge. Sorry for that! I hope my comment didn't come across overly aggressive.

As a final thought, I recently came across this quote on Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ:

"We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." Anais Nin.

I think this discussion demonstrates how true that quote is.

When writing, there are two equally important, and astoundingly big tasks to fulfull. One, to decide what words put in the book. Two, to decide what words to leave out of the book. Mr. Hemingway was the epitome of masters of this balance. In The Sun Also Rises he walked the tight rope between neccessity and excess and without so much as a quiver. I don't want to argue with you because you annoy me. not women. not you as an idea or a stereotype, but you. you personally annoy me, and you do not understand this book. And before you start with the garbage about the times, and the lost generation, and the culture, and the cliched chliches stop. there's more to understanding a book than understanding its intent.

this is the most authentic book i've ever read.

Oh, and i'm 23 years old and i found this work FULLY relatable.

You really don't have to be rude just because you disagree with someone, or even because they annoy you. Your opinion is not fact, and even on the Internet, even concerning debates, there's such a thing as courtesy.

The thing about the choice to be rude or have courtesy is that, though one is pleasant and one is not, neither is right or wrong. But I will attack you no further. And I didn't attempt to present facts because this is a tired debate. I only got angry and voiced my opinion.

On the sexism/misogyny point, I agree that the comment to the effect that men may just understand this novel more than women was, at least, not made particularly eloquently.

I suspect, though, that the poster was trying to convey what he/she has heard before: that Hemingway (as someone else here said later) is a "masculine" writer.

It's possible that the comment was neither sexist nor misogynist but rather meant to capture the idea that men, generally, are socialized to minimize emotional expression and as a result may feel more comfortable with a piece of writing that similarly minimizes the extern expression of emotion and have a greater amount of comfort navigating the emotions below the surface.

But maybe the commenter was just a woman hater; that's definitely also possible.

And as to why people read or used to read this novel, and that it was maybe just because it was HEMINGWAY, in has been fairly well received since it was published, and this was his first novel. So, even if we accept that that's the only reason it's read today (which I doubt), it is, to an extent, the reason Hemingway is such a bold faced name to begin with.

It was his first novel, but he was already famous for his short stories, and the novel was not AS well-received.

That's what i thought about the book until my English teacher got into the details. There is SO much symbolism in this book, and despite me hating all the characters (aside from Jake) i came to sympathize with them. If you read more into what they actually say and how they act around each other, i'm sure you'll come to appreciate it a little more. It's hard to change your opinion, i know, but if you can understand it a little better perhaps you'll enjoy it more :)

I've just started reading this. I wanted to see if I'm alone in thinking that this is kind of dull. I'm a retired English teacher who never read or taught any Hemingway. I now know why and I feel good that there others who agree with me.
I just finished The Paris Wife which is about Hemingway and Hadley. I next read A Moveable Feast which has been edited twice. We don't know how it was altered. I'm in a book group and these are the books. I really dislike his character in the novel, but that was a novel. His character isn't any better in the memoir, but there are a few times when his writing sparkles.
Now I've begun The Sun Also Rises. The narrator, Jake, is just like Papa. A womanizer who thinks that he is a gift to women. I'm only about 15% through and I'm bored and disgusted.
What has delighted me, is this conversation which has lasted years. I know that this is a popular novel which is available all over the world. This does not make it a classic. It hasn't passed the time test yet. In order to become a classic, it has to be appealing to many people, not just the elite or literati and it has to be appealing not for 60 or 70 years, but for 100's of years.
I am reading this for a book group. Because the leader is good and the other members are interesting, I'll stick with it. I've found that readers change and evolve, like Biden and Obama. Something might be good or valuable, but you, the reader, might not get it. Later on you my evolve and be ready for. Not everything is good or valuable and not everyone changes. I will continue reading, hoping that I will connect to something. Even if it doesn't, this conversation has been stimulating. Thank you.

I think your review is spot on. Other reviews have prompted me to read it again hopes if getting more out of it, especially since its such an easy read.

outlanders like it and understand it better...

What are "outlanders"? Are they super men or extra terrestrials?
Classics are usually classics because most people can understand them. Usually they are translated and appreciated in many cultures.

If I had to choose between reading "The Sun Also Rises" and this review trail, I would choose this review and subsequent comments. What's not to love? There's drama, modern-day matadors slinging their bull, love, hate, and sex(ism). It's almost as though you all are related and I feel dirty for eavesdropping on your little family spat. PLEASE don't post the status of your relationships...because I enjoy the dirty feeling. LOL

I completely disagree with you. Just because most Americans weren't hanging out in France and Spain at that period doesn't make the book unrealistic. Also, his characters were complex and had a lot of emotion. Jake, for example, was a good person. He was caring and gentle. He was also very cruel and bitter sometimes because he was impotent. Jake also loves Brett but it killed him when she wouldn't return the feelings. Which leads me to Brett. She was very promiscuous and aloof, but she loved Jake. All of characters were pretty lost anyways. They were trying to find their way. They were all involved in the war. Now that it was over and needed something to do with themselves.
I honestly think that if you couldn't understand that then you have terrible comprehension skills.

Not big on reading other comments before commenting, are you.

Never once did I say, "I don't understand." Consider for a moment the possibility that despite understanding the novel -- which is simplistic -- I disliked it. Anyway. Just imagine that this is possible, because it's what happened.

And thats why those who cant do, Teach.

lmao. I'm with Matt.

I don't doubt you understood the novel, but I'm guessing that you did not feel it on the visceral level like others did. Which is ok. No fault of yours and definitely no fault of the book. It's really not simplistic. There book's depth really does go on for miles and miles but only if you agree with it and feel with it. If you didn't agree with the resonant frequency of the book, then yes it might seem simplistic.

Iceberg theory. Check it out.

I agree with Areg. You clearly did not understand the novel. Hemingway's books don't read like John Grisham's. The sentences tend to be short and very nuanced. There is more to it than the words on the page. You must understand what is not being said as well as what is being said. Maybe read it again in 10 or 15 years. It might mean more to you then.

Todd, the trouble with the iceberg theory is that it really works better in short stories where you can afford to spend time poring over the subtext without losing hold of context. There is too much text here for a truly successful application of the "iceberg principle". I plan on looking for short stories by Hemingway rather than reading more of his novels.

Thought the book was a load of old bollocks, personally.

personally think this book is brilliant and original but maybe that's just me

Totally agree. I cannot for the life of me understand how one could find this book in any way interesting and original and inspiring. I'll join you for that 1926 newspaper...