“He was feeling exalted and talkative as football players are in the dressing room after a game.”
Hemingway, Ernest. In Our Time. New York: Scribner Paperback Fiction, 1958. p18.
I thought that this comparison with the football players was very odd. It did not fit into the context of what seemed to be a very serious, warlike environment. Did Hemingway use this specific comparison to show how the people who were witnessing and experiencing war were regular people who used to be in the “football” culture back at home?
“I kept to the track though–then stopped to listen. The night was very clear: a dark blue space, sparkling with dew and starlight, in which black things stood very still. I thought I could see a kind of motion ahead of me. I was strangely cocksure of everything that night. I actually left the track and ran in a wide semicircle (I verily believe chuckling to myself) so as to get in front of that stir, of that motion I had seen–if indeed I had seen anything. I was circumventing Kurtz as though it had been a boyish game.”
Conrad, Joseph. Heart of Darkness and Other Tales. “Heart of Darkness”, 172. Oxford: Oxford NY, 2002.
This passage continues Conrad’s thematic comparison between childishness and imperialism. Marlow’s chase through darkness in search of Kurtz mirrors the chase for ivory that he is supposed to be on, but he is preoccupied with other issues. Clearly Kurtz takes the place of the ivory in Marlow’s eyes. Marlow makes a contradictory statement by saying that he was “cocksure of everything,” but later reveals that he had at the time been unsure if he has even seen Kurtz. This image mocks the assurance of those empires who make guesses of where they can find wealth then send men to go excavate it (while “chuckling” to themselves). The parallels between his silly game and imperial conquest create a frame of both satire and criticism in Heart of Darkness.
“A novel is in its broadest definition a personal, a direct impression of life: that, to begin with, constitutes its value, which is greater or less according to the intensity of the impression. But there will be no intensity at all, and therefore no value, unless there is freedom to feel and say. The tracing of a line to be followed, of a tone to be taken, of a form to be filled out, is a limitation of that freedom and a suppression of the very thing that we are most curious about. The form, it seems to me, is to be appreciated after the fact: then the author’s choice has been made, his standard has been indicated; then we can follow lines and directions and compare tones and resemblances. Then in a word we can enjoy one of the most charming of pleasures, we can estimate quality, we can apply the test of execution. The execution belongs to the author alone; it is what is most personal to him, and me measure him by that” (James 578).
Henry James, “The Art of Fiction” Major Stories and Essays (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, 1999), 578.
James expresses the novel’s power as a “direct impression of life”, providing readers with the opportunity to compare the quality of the execution, a process that he describes as being “one of the most charming of pleasures”. James also stresses the novel’s ability to represent the author as it is the creation that is “more personal to him”.