Week 10

So Picasso…when I first began reading it I actually thought that it was just the same words written over and over again for a page and a half. Then I realized it pretty much was the same words written over and over but with other added words being said in the same yet various ways. Either way it is very repetitious and a little bothersome.

            Anyways The first segment that I found interesting was “ One whom some were certainly following was one working  and certainly was one bringing something out of himself then and was one who had been all his living have been one having something coming out of him.” (Stein 856) I could be wrong but this text seems to me to say that this was a person who was working, and who was bringing something much greater out of himself by working on that specific idea, while others were following hoping to gain something like this person who had been working had gained for themselves. See even as I try to describe it in the terms that I understand it appears to make very little sense. Although I swear I am meaning to.

            At the end it says “ This one was one who was working. This one was one who was almost always working. This one was not one completely working. This one was one not ever completely working. This one was not one working to have something come out of him. He always did have something coming out of him. He was working; he was not ever completely working. He did have some following. They were always following him . Some were certainly following him. He was one who was working. He was one having something coming out of him something having meaning. He was not ever completely working.” (Stein 857)

For a moment I wondered if it was multiple kinds of people being described especially when it talks about those working and having something coming out of them that is meaningful while others are working and they are not fully working and they don’t have as much coming out of them so they follow others who have meaning coming from them.

            Although, as I was reading further I thought of it like we as people, following others who have great talent and strength and hoping something great will come out of us, while other follow and only try half heartedly and can’t provide something as wonderful because they are not trying hard enough. But the very last line when it says “He was not ever completely working.”(Stein 857) I think that might mean perhaps some people are just made with a certain skill or talent and there is no extra hard work given because it just comes naturally.

            Just so everyone knows I feel as if I may so wrong about this entire segment. Feel free to give me your input.

Response to Prof Inquiry

 "Great close reading of this section, and you raise some really interesting questions. Do you see any similarities between Nick and the Hopper? What are we to make of all the focus and attention that the story pays to them? The story tells us they're important because they get some much space, but the story doesn't tell us *why* they're important (which is often one of the frustrating and brilliant things about Hemingway).

What do you think?"  

I know I am supposed to responding to my group members, but I thought that I could further my argument and understanding of the reading if I elaborated on this.

One of the things my group discussed about the Hoppers in this story was that they represented the Soldiers that Nick had previously served with. I think the reason that they were charred in color was meant to be a representation of the men and the weight that they had to carry, with the deaths of their friends and others they had grown so close with. The black coal color was covering the original colors of the hopper, just like the weight of the war had changed the men and their “colors”.

When Nick originally has the Hopper lodged into his sock I got this feeling that it was signifying the war always being something lodged into his life pestering him. Then when he picks it up and really looks at it and looks at the surrounds charred just like this Hopper and it may have been a subconscious reminder.

I also get this feeling that when Nick is finally done examining the Hopper and tosses it back into the charred tree stump and the Hopper blends in with the mess; that it is him trying to let it go, maybe letting a fallen mate or even the memory of it all fall back into his mind and trying to make it all only a memory and leaving all of those men exactly where they lay never having any continuum.

Of course I must remind that this is just me rambling on about my crazy ideas. So take what you will.

Week 9

First off I decided to discuss a few things I found interesting in Hemingway’s Big Two-Hearted River. Yay!

In the prelude to the story we learn that Nick has been a very prominent character in Hemingway’s writing, I am wondering why this is?

What I found most interesting was the way that the grasshoppers were so detailed very early into the story. Nick has this grasshopper wedge its way into his sock and from there a paragraph describes these hoppers “They were not the big grasshoppers with yellow and black or red and black wings whirring out from their black wing sheathing and whirring as they fly up. These were just ordinary hoppers but all sooty and black in color.”(Hemingway 982)

And all this time we are gathering this description about these hoppers before Nick finally removes this grasshopper from his sock. Which makes me wonder how long he had let that grasshopper tag along before he finally decided to actually remove it? Then Nick contemplates further on the identity of these hoppers and decides this “He realized that the fire must have come the year before but the grasshoppers were all black now. He wondered how long they would stay this way.” (Hemingway 982)

Okay so now he finally, after all of this decides he is (for real) going to remove this grass hopper and at this point after already contemplating the reason for this color he actually looks at it. Actually puts a visual to all of his thoughts about this bug. “He turned him up, all his legs walking in the air, and looked at his jointed belly. Yes, it was black too, iridescent where the back and head were dusty.” (Hemingway 982)

So after such a long inquiry of the bugs visual being and then put a visual to his conclusion Nick simply tosses the bug away saying “Go on Hopper, fly away somewhere.” (Hemingway 982) Notice though how the word Hopper is capitalized, like a name would be. Why does the word Hopper become capitalized? Names are very important, why would this insect receive a name? Nick lets this Hopper go “He tossed the grasshopper up into the air and watched him sail away to a charcoal stump across the road.” (Hemingway 982)

I think just the description and the identity of the grasshoppers play a huge role into the character of Nick, and his own personal identity. But how?