Monday, July 30, 2012

Old Man and the Sea: Author's Tone and Voice

The tone of Ernest Hemingway in this novel was quite easy to understand.  He was pretty much straight to the point, yet he had some sympathetic emotion toward the old man.  Hemingway stated the old man's emotions and thoughts, so it made the tone very factual.  On the other hand, it seemed as if Hemingway wrote in a way that was sympathetic toward the old man.  Hemingway basically wrote in a way that made the reader consider that maybe Hemingway wrote about an experience that related to the old man's in some way.  The reader can easily tell that Hemingway was sympathetic to the old man because he used no humor in the novel.  There was no comedy because the author wanted the old man's struggle to be serious.  Everything Hemingway mentioned was serious and had no hints of being any other way.  This contributed to the tone a lot.  Those were the only big hints I picked up from Hemingway when reading the novel.

Hemingway's voice in this novel is fantastic!  He uses words similar to a fable to make reading it more interesting.  The way Hemingway skillfully uses these words makes it unlike a regular novel, and so that interests the reader very much.  This contributes largely to his voice because it is a personal writing style, so the voice is strengthened by this.  Another big contributing factor to Hemingway's voice is how he had the old man talk to himself.  This made the novel seem less boring because the characters were still talking although there was only one.  This made small descriptions more interesting and important to read because that was not the only thing you get to read.  The reader may not notice that the way Hemingway broke up the writing with the old man's speeches made each part a little more interesting.  The voice Hemingway contributed to the novel is obviously a factor that made it so popular.  Hemingway's strong voice in this novel was nothing short of excellent.


Hemingway, Ernest. The Old Man and the Sea. New York: Scribner, 1952. Print.

1 comment: