A Feminist Criticism of a Farewell to Arms Essay

After finishing A Farewell to Arms, I found it difficult to reconcile Judith Fetterleys feminist attack of the novel with my admit personal opinions. I agree that Hemingway does kick women to the curb in his portrayal of Catherine, but my reasons for pinning this crime on Hemingway are different from hers. Although she means well, Fetterley makes the ridiculous direct that by portraying Catherine as an angelic, selflessly loving woman to end tot all toldy women, Hemingway disguises misogynistic attitudes and a deep-seeded nuisance towards the XX chromosome. This claim is not supported by the text.If we look at Hemingway through the lens of his own words, we find that his misogyny does not spring from a too good to be true enactment of Catherine, but rather in his tendency to cast her down into the dirt-Catherine is a dependent, mollycoddle-manufacturing trap that stifles Lieutenant atomic number 1 Poor, poor dear Cat. And this was the price you paid for sleeping together. Thi s was the end of the trap (320). It is his penchant for sex and his indigence for womanly comfort that keeps hydrogen coming back to Catherine, not some notion of love or true connection.This is Hemingways misogyny, however unintentional, unmasked. But to get a true sense of this anti-Fetterley feminist gull of the novel, it is important too look at the specifics of Hemingways construction of Catherine-facts that stand in direct antagonist to Fetterleys stated attacks. First of all, Catherine is not Fetterleys unique and unattainable goddess-she is an object in hydrogens universe, a feast of sensations but nothing more. She is akin to good food and good revel I was made to eat. My God, yes.Eat and drink and sleep with Catherine (233). Indeed, henrys thoughts about Catherine, both when he is at the front or by her side, mingle with longings for good wine and reflections on sumptuous meals. In Henrys world, a good Capri would be nice, a nice hunk of cheese would be grand, and sl eeping with Catherine would be sublime. These things all equate to the satisfaction of basic human needs. Every now and then, Henry feels a grumbling in his loins-a periodic hunger for the cheese between Catherines legs.Hemingway dissolves Catherine into the least unwashed denominator-the object, devoid of meaning or real importance (when Henry isnt hungry). How can Catherine be an angel, as Fetterley claims, when she is merely an object, a small, rocklike satellite orbiting Planet Henry? This leads us to another aspect of Hemingways treatment of Catherine. In the novel, she is a completely dependent and subservient slave to Henry and his desires-she is placed intemperately under his heel. This is evident from her dialogue Im good.Arent I good? You dont want any other girls, do you? You see? Im good. I do what you want (106). by dint of her words, we get a sense that the only thing that concerns Catherine is the level of Henrys satisfaction. She needs his adulation he is the beg inning and end of her world. This dependency resurfaces many times in the novel. In Milan, Catherine works herself to the oculus sinister all day, so that she can have sex with Henry all night. Throughout this period, her greatest stupefy is that she doesnt tack up to the girls that he has had in the past Ill say just what you care and Ill do what you wish and then you will never want any other girls (105).When she is pregnant, her thoughts and concerns stay fresh to center completely around Henrys happiness But after shes natural and Im thin again Im going to cut it (her hair) and then Ill be a fine new and different girl for you (304). Even during her long and arduous labor, Catherines single worry is that she is a burden on Henry Oh, I wanted so o have this baby and not make trouble, and now Im all done and all gone to pieces and it doesnt work (322). Fetterley might claim that this amounts to selfless-love, but I think this phrase gives Catherine (and Hemingway) too oftent imes credit. Catherine, as portrayed in the text, seems more like an obedient dog then a virtuous, selfless being of light she is like a mutt that serves its master because it has no one else and cannot survive on its own. By the end of the novel, Hemingway succeeds in portraying Catherine as both an object and a docile return in Lieutenant Henrys kingdom.This construction diminishes Catherines character and allows Henry (and Hemingway) to view her and the baby completely in terms of the burden they entail. They are a trap-flames that burn the log that Henry the ant scurries around on. This makes it much easier for Hemingway to kill off Catherine and wash Henrys hands of all responsibility-the final pieces in his misogynistic puzzle. This harsh take is a more tenable alternative to Fetterleys feminist attacks on the novel.