Talk:For Whom the Bell Tolls

Fascist?

The article describes the forces of Franco as "fascist". Although this is the word used in a lot of literature from the time, it is an inaccurate description. I have changed it to the much better and more applicable term "nationalist".89.242.215.180 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC).

Hello,

the article keeps referring to "the fascists" in the Plot Summary section. Suggest to have it changed to "the nationalists" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.121.98.7 (talk) 11:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Clean Up

I have started to clean up this article. It is still a major mess, but I have removed the worst of the non-sequitors, illiteracy, original research, and random speculative statements. So far, I have:

• amplified and corrected the language and narrative style section;
• changed the headings structure slightly
• cleaned up the "popular culture" references section (which were confusing the Donne with the novel), cleaned up the section on actual events;
• added in the proper links & improved the historical references to the Spanish Civil War.
• cleaned up the lead

The plot outline, imagery, etc... still need to be reworked to an encyclopedic standard. This still reads too much like a student essay.

To do:

• publication history
• critical reception
• improve text sourcing/correct note format
• rewrite plot summary
• change character list
• rewrite section on main themes and imagery

  Eusebeus 11:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

imo, John Donne should be mentioned earlier in the article, not in the "References in popular culture" section, as Donne PREDATES Hemingway. --Bobbozzo (talk) 07:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

too many links

Under 'Main Themes' Every word is linked. This should be corrected. 134.106.199.5 13:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources?

Is this a summary of critical literature, or someone's original critical reading of the novel? It seems to alternate between the two, sometimes reading like a paper, making a claim and supporting it with a quotation from the novel, and then there will be parts like-

"Some have said that it was a signal of him giving in to the demands of Hollywood directors who wanted books that can be easily used as scripts, while others consider it a signal of him disassociating himself from the protagonist, maybe because of superstition (it brings bad luck to write about one's own end), but more likely because of his inner struggle that will be explained later (Pablo )."

-which reads like secondary research (maybe that is why it's needlessly oblique?).

I'd prefer if whoever wrote the majority of this content could clean it up his/herself, since (s)he'd know where things came from, but in the meantime I'll work on putting together a more encyclopedic, less close-reading, style article.--Hal 19:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Question about language in the book

My copy of the book has frequent passages along the lines of "I unprintable in the milk of your mothers." Was the original novel self-censored in this fashion or is my copy a bowlderized version? Just curious.

Yes, the original is like that. It is quite typical of Hemingway's writing. (Themusicinmyhead 07:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC))

I assume that it's also a function of the times. Publishers in the 1940s might have refused to print a book with that much profanity in it had Hemingway not substituted for the expletives. | Klaw Talk 17:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Hemingway did this partly due to the times and partly because he believed that any translation of spanish to english obscenities would lose their effect, he states this in an interview.

Donne quote

The Donne quote was incomplete and inconsistently formatted. I changed it to a transcription in modern English, since attempts to reproduce the original "faithfully" without using photographs are probably doomed to failure. One example of trying to reproduce the original (different from what the article had) is

No man is an Iland, intire of it selfe; every man is a peece of the Continent, a part of the maine; if a Clod bee washed away by the Sea, Europe is the lesse, as well as if a Promontorie were, as well as if a Mannor of thy friends or of thine owne were; any mans death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankinde; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee.

Considering that spelling and formatting weren't quite as standardized in 1624 as they are now, there is probably little to gain from trying to be "exact" about this. 82.92.119.11 22:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC) Fixed

Actually, after comparing two versions of the book (one very old one and a newer one), the quotes at the beginning were the same (what you have there). I will change it; if someone wants to fix it they can change it back.Ernest3.141 (talk) 02:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Donne wrote in Modern English. . .

Introductory Material

I've reorganized the introductory material so that it's more consistent with other Wiki articles, and in a way which I think makes more logical sense. More specifically, I simply moved the material under "Plot Introduction" and moved it to the beginning of the article, after the introductory sentence -- there aren't any plot spoilers here so there should't be any problems. --Todeswalzer 23:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

How is "death" a theme!?

l

Irony

I find the sentence "The view of suicide of Robert Jordan as a selfish act is ironic, given that Hemingway took his own life twenty-one years later." to be an over-symplistic analysis of both hemmingways writing and his own life. It is plainly not ironic considering that the character, and hemmingway as the writer of the character, fully understood the selfishness of the act but also,and most importantly, fully understood the reasons why a person might be led to this ultimate act. No irony is present in either the traditional of correct forms, Hemmingway did not foresee his own death by suicide and therefore no irony was meant (applying irony to a text years after it was writen is bad form) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.201.68 (talk) 04:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement of irony has been removed. 68.205.147.98 (talk) 16:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ErnestHemmingway ForWhomTheBellTolls.jpg

Image:ErnestHemmingway ForWhomTheBellTolls.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Popular References

I have to questions some of the entries in the "References in Popular Culture" section. Hemingway didn't invent the phrase, so any use of it can't definitively be a reference to the book. It's just a handy metaphor for death. ASWilson 03:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Possible Reference to Bombing of Guernica?

At the beginning of Chapter 8, several paragraphs note an extensive force of German Heinkel bombers, such as the ones used in Guernica, since the story also takes place around the months in which the Guernica attack occurred, could this be a reference to that? -Black Mage- 00:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Original research

It would seem as if it were written for a class and just pasted here, at first glance. Where are the references for this article? Much of the materials from when this article was created back in 2002 still seem to be intact, but the only references are to the book itself, and to a version which no one seems to know. For example: "At the time the novel was published, it seemed as though he separated the narrator from the protagonist to become what he had always wanted to be: A big, omniscient and ubiquitous daddy who tells all the stories and who has everything under control." Okay, according to what reputable source? This is a mess of an encyclopedia article. --Tom (talk - email) 03:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think the best thing to do is to just delete all the OR sections until sources can be found. --S.dedalus 00:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I dunno what this means

Quote: "A third-person selective-omniscient narrator direct conversations between the characters, and by extensive back-and-forth mental conversations within the mind of Robert Jordan." Perhaps someone could translate this into English? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PiCo (talk • contribs) 07:52, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

Regarding Robert Jordan

there is a line under references in popular culture that states

The late James Oliver Rigney Jr. (better known as Robert Jordan), the author of the popular "Wheel of Time" saga, dirived his pen name from the main character of For Whom the Bell Tolls.

however, look at the Robert Jordan page. he apparently has clearly stated that the above is not the case. I'll leave the quote there for now because im too lazy to verify it, but maybe someone should check and if valid remove the Robert Jordan section from thsi pages popular culture section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.112.34 (talk) 06:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Too negative?

Although this article seems to cover all the important areas, I do feel that the tone of the piece is too negative consering the reputation of this book as one of the greatest of the century.

It seems that a few negative comments have been given more weight than they deserve. Especially here:

"Since its publication, the prose style and dialogue in Hemingway's novel has been the source of controversy and fairly negative critical reaction." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.78.21 (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• I put that in based on the contemporary reviews garnered by the novel, one of (the most important of) which is provided as an example. The article simply reflects the reality of the critical reception and is not a POV statement. Eusebeus 16:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I see the citation, but that reviewer is talking rubbish. Criticisng this book for having "a strange atmosphere of literary medievalism" and for using workds like "thou". It's like criticism Star Wars for being unrealistic. I just don't think this opinion comes anywhere near to reflecting the thousands of great reviews and the fact it is heralded as a classic. It's POV of the reviewer and not reflective of the general status of this book. And what's more, it's a very silly POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.78.21 (talk) 17:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
    • lol. The reviewer is Edmund Wilson! Anyway, the point is to note the contemporary critical reaction and I think that this is a fair portrayal (see also the Pulitzer deliberations). If you can marshal evidence to the contrary, I look forward to seeing it, but i don't think it's POV to provide the critical reception, nor does such reception detract from its status as a literary landmark. I think you are confusing the historical context of its critical reception with an implied value judgment. Eusebeus (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ErnestHemmingway ForWhomTheBellTolls.jpg

Image:ErnestHemmingway ForWhomTheBellTolls.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

"Widely considered to be his greatest work"

I removed the line that this novel is "widely considered to be his greatest work" (that's actually a paraphrase, not a direct quote of the article). I don't know how this statement could be justified without clear POV problems. If Hemingway was an otherwise mediocre or bad writer and this was his one good book, then maybe--just maybe--that statement could stand, but since he also wrote The Sun Also Rises, The Old Man and the Sea, Farewell to Arms, etc. it hardly seems like an unambiguous claim, particularly as it isn't attributed to anyone (not that that would likely matter, as one could easily find quotes saying the same thing about each of the other novels listed). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.81.250.225 (talk) 20:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It is a major work, however I agree that modification is probably the better course to take. I had questions of my own about the claim...I modified the statement. Modernist (talk) 20:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ernest Hemingway project? taskforce?

I am interested in starting am Ernest Hemingway project or taskforce to improve content related to his life and works, and have proposed the project at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Wikiproject_Ernest_Hemingway_project. Please share your thoughts there! kilbad (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with your comments. As a historian and keen student of the SCW and a fluent Spanish speaker, this novel does not deserve to be considered one of his best works nor the definitive novel of the SCW. Quite frankly, without going into too much detail, after a good, movie-useful opening it is BORING, probably the greatest insult that could be hurled at the would be writer who was a far better journalist and short story writer than he was as a novelist. The transliteration of Spanish vernacular is nauseating: he could have left those comments in Spanish and let those who know understand. His characters purport to be a cross section of Spanish society; the image that remains is a bunch of foul-mouthed brigands, some too stupid to feel any sympathy for. The only saving grace in this novel is the story within a story, that of Andrés and the maniacal André Marty. He got that guy alright; the Spanish used to laugh at him, you know that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.158.98.211 (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Gustavo Durán

Could you link to Gustavo Durán if relevant? --Error (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Reference

Team Fortress 2 achievement named "For Whom the Shell Trolls". Is it important enough to add to "References in popular culture"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.27.92.106 (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I was just over at the Wiki site on Sun Valley and it states that Hemingway finished writing "For Whom The Bell Tolls" in Suite 206 at the Sun Valley Lodge in 1939. Hemingway fans might like to know this for when they vacation there. I wonder if Suite 206 is constantly booked (pun intended)?Silver Bayonet (talk) 06:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Trivia

To clarify: There was some minor back and forth on the "trivia" tag I put in the popular culture section. The point here is that lists of pop culture references have been deemed inappropriate and non-encyclopedia. Though many editors enjoy adding misc pop culture reference lists, they really do nothing but trivialize the topic. Mind you, an actual discussion about how the book has influenced popular culture would be a very valuable thing to add. But that's not what is there now.

--Mcorazao (talk) 22:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

There are standards for this list, which you can see when you open it for editing. People haven't always been following them, which is why I keep removing things from the list when I remove your tag. But it is not a list of miscellaneous trivia.

I removed the tag a second time on the grounds that, without anything on this talk page indicating an issue, there was no issue to address. But when I came here to complain about that, I saw that you had added this. So I will go back and replace the tag now, even though I do not consider it appropriate for the short, focussed list that we have at the article.

—Toby Bartels (talk) 01:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I reorganised the section a bit, which hopefully makes it work better. —Toby Bartels (talk) 02:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Concur with the trivia tag. Please incorporate it into the article. ----moreno oso (talk) 02:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea how one would incorporate this section into the rest of the article; it stands on its own. However, if anybody wishes to prove me wrong by example, then please do! —Toby Bartels (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Characters Remove all passages that refer to Robert Jordan's fate dead or alive. Let Hemingway tell that story!

Bold text — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:E:8700:33F:F9F3:F8D:791A:461E (talk) 15:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Modernize the Donne quote?

I think the language should be modernized, and the archaic italic removed, which would make the quote more accessible.

Also, I recommend it be divided into verses, as is frequently done today: see https://www.poemhunter.com/poem/no-man-is-an-island/ and http://www.mensaforkids.org/MFK2/assets/File/Read/MFK-Poetry-1.pdf and many others. This was how it was in my high school English book in which I was first exposed to it. The original is prose, but many things we would print in verses were printed as prose in early books. (Saved paper, which was expensive, rag paper.)

Anyone have any problem with this? deisenbe (talk) 14:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, in Hemingway's book, this is how it appears. So it seems to me that it should stay as is. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Mention of the International Brigades in intro

This article's opening paragraph has always described Robert Jordan as belonging to the International Brigades. I don't recall that ever actually being established in the book, and I suspect it was written by someone who assumed that "International Brigades" was basically just an interchangeable term with "foreign volunteers for the Republic". I've never objected to it, though, because Jordan's good standing with the Soviet military advisors does indeed argue in favour of him being with the Brigades, which were a Communist-led formation. But recently the sentence has been changed to state that Pablo's entire band are part of the International Brigades, which isn't supported by the book at all—Pablo's people are all Spanish and appear to be entirely outside the Republic's military hierarchy. I'm going to describe Jordan as a foreign volunteer in the Spanish Civil War, because our description of a text should be limited to what it actually says or what secondary critical sources have read into it, not what we've read into it ourselves. However, if I'm misremembering the text, or if there are reliable sources that describe Jordan as being with the International Brigades, or even if it's just really important to someone that he be described as a Brigader, I won't object to them being mentioned again. Just as long as they're not being associated with Pablo's guerrillas. Binabik80 (talk) 21:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Intentional irony

This irony is actually in the book and is intended. Jordan sees the irony in that the Spanish side he is assisting are "The Republicans" and the fact that his Amercan ancestors were also styled as being " Republicans" even though the two groups meant could hardly have been more dissimilar in ideology. Someone should find a reference work which is worthy of being considered as a reliable source stating this and then refer to it in the text. It is an important point. 2600:1004:B11E:B576:0:57:CAB7:C201 (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

El Sordo

I believe the text of this article incorrectly stated that Sordo's band conducted a raid supporting Jordan, which then leads to Sordo's band being attacked and annihilated. In fact, Sordo's band went horse stealing in a snow storm leading the fascists to track the band to their mountain hiding place. The horse stealing raid was unrelated to Jordan's mission to blow the bridge. 96.237.61.162 (talk) 02:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)