Ernest Hemingway Literary Style In “The Old Man And The Sea” Free Essay

Hemingway’s Life

Hemingway had a very interesting life, life of adventures. The author was born in the USA in 1899. He was a brave man and he went to struggle against the evil during the World War I. He was wounded there and had to return home. However, his war experiences affected his entire life.

He was involved in the Spanish Civil War and the World War II. He was a war journalist and he had a lot of diverse experiences. His life was full of risk and even after the three wars he still wanted to take risks. He was almost killed in two plane crashes. These incidents made him feel pain for the rest of his life. He eventually committed suicide in 1961.

Hemingway’s Skills in Description

Hemingway’s writing style has been an inspiration for many writers in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. His skills in description are especially remarkable. It is possible to assume that his journalistic career had a great influence on his writing. The author describes everything in great detail. It makes his works very realistic and characters he created are very lively. At the same time, his descriptions are also full of literary devices (such as metaphors, allusions and so on).

Manolin and Santiago

Manolin and Santiago are close friends. Santiago has taught the boy a lot of things and they have a lot in common. Hence, the boy is attached to the old man and tries to help him. For example, Manolin comes and brings some newspapers and coffee as he cares about the old man.

The Dialogue between Santiago and Manolin

The dialogue between the old man and the boy serves as a pre-story. In other words, the author tells about the two characters and uses their dialogue to do that. The reader follows the dialogue and learns a lot of details about the two characters. Thus, they talk about their fishing not so long time ago, and their first fishing. They also talk about Santiago’s unlucky days and the reason why Manolin cannot fish with the man. As for the style, the dialogue is written in simple language and it is clear that two anglers are talking.

Killing the Marlin

Hemingway depicts the beast in the story as a creature full of strength. The old man has to make a lot of effort to catch and kill the fish. The marlin is very strong as it keeps struggling for its life. Notably, the old man is fascinated by this strength and he is proud that he has such an opponent.

The marlin also has certain skill as he is trying to free himself from the trap. The fish knows that it can succeed in escaping in some parts of the sea. This quality also makes the old man glad as he wants to have a deserving opponent. He wants to win the fight and he thinks that only a strong and skillful opponent can be worth fighting.

The fish is also beautiful as it can be. It is full of life. It is possible to assume that the old man sees the fish’s strength as its beauty. Again, the old man sees beauty in the world of nature and he understands that the fight itself is beautiful.

Finally, the fish also has pathos as it is suffering. The author shows that the two fighters are in pain but they continue their struggle. They fight and suffer. Through suffering, the old man manages to defeat the beast and this suffering makes the old man feel stronger and more alive.

Inventing The American Constitution

The process of adopting the Constitution was one of the most significant events in the history of the American nation. The Constitution was adopted by the Founding Fathers who are discussed as the most influential figures in the history of the United States. In her book A Brilliant Solution: Inventing the American Constitution, Carol Berkin describes not only the process of deciding on the details of the Constitution but also portrays the Founding Fathers as experienced politicians (Berkin 2003, 6).

In spite of the fact that many historians discuss the historical figures of the Founding Fathers with the focus on their diverse contribution to the progress of the American nation and development of the U.S. government, Berkin emphasizes the role of the Founding Fathers as politicians.

The reason for such a vision is that the Founding Fathers used their experience to analyze the situation in the country properly, developed debates, overcame disagreements, and addressed the coming crisis from the political perspective and as the experienced decision-makers. From this point, it is necessary to focus on evaluating the effectiveness of the evidence provided by Berkin in order to support her argument.

In her book, Berkin describes the Founding Fathers as active politicians with the focus on their attempts to address the crisis in the nation’s development as not only theorists but also as practitioners who could provide effective solutions to the problem. Thus, the writer states that “the nation was on the verge of self-destruction” during the period when the Constitution was developed and adopted (Berkin 2003, 6).

As a result, the Founding Fathers had to solve the problem of the national crisis, and they understood “the task of saving their nation” (Berkin 2003, 9). In this case, the Founding Fathers acted as politicians who recognized the issue and focused on developing the plan of actions to resolve it successfully.

Focusing on the process of adopting the Constitution, this plan of actions was realized in articles and in describing the rights for states. Thus, Berkin’s argument and evidence related to the start of the Constitutional process seem to be rather convincing.

Berkin states that only experienced politicians can adopt the effective Constitution as a result of the prolonged debates while focusing on the compromises and on finding what can be good for the whole nation. The author provides the evidence while describing the Founding Fathers’ debates and their steps in overcoming disagreements.

It was important for the Founding Fathers to find the really effective solution and address the nation’s demands in the document because the Constitution was perceived “as an embodiment of a shared political culture” (Berkin 2003, 7). Furthermore, having presented the discussion of the process of the Constitution’s adoption, Berkin claims, “Fortunately for the nation, the framers were accomplished politicians” (Berkin 2003, 98).

Berkin supports this idea with the evidence in which the process of sustaining order in the country is discussed (Berkin 2003, 102). The Founding Fathers paid much attention to discussing the principles of the U.S. government and to dividing the branches of the power in order to respond to the nation’s needs.

The problem was in the fact that the Founding Fathers had to demonstrate their unique competence in developing and adopting similar documents because the future of the whole nation was in their hands. Berkin states that in this situation, the framers of the Constitution acted as politicians who were tasked to resolve the complex political and national issue (Berkin 2003, 103). Thus, the Founding Fathers succeeded in proposing the politically effective solutions to address the revolution’s outcomes (Berkin 2003, 112).

From this perspective, the description of the Founding Fathers’ debates and their actions taken in order to approach the process of finding the compromise can be discussed as the appropriate evidence to support the idea that the adoption of the Constitution was an important political process. The process was characterized by the fact that the Founding Fathers acted as politicians who were focused on analyzing political realities, on proposing solutions, and on predicting the future changes.

The other part of the author’s evidence is associated with discussing the personalities of the Founding Fathers and with the analysis of their accomplishments as significant political figures. Having discussed the process of the Constitution’s adoption, Berkin starts to describe the Founding Fathers’ biographies full of details associated with the birth of the American nation.

The writer’s description of James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, or William Livingston can be discussed as the effective evidence in order to support her argument because Berkin focuses on the specific examples in the careers of the Founding Fathers (Berkin 2003, 156). These examples are closely associated with analyzing different political situations and with making important political decisions (Berkin 2003, p. 26).

It is significant to state that the author considers the framers of the Constitution as farsighted politicians because they discussed the Constitution as a document that could require further revisions and amendments due to the possible changes in the nation’s development.

Thus, the framers of the Constitution are presented as people who just knew what they could do in the challenging situation because of their previous great experience (Berkin 2003, p. 7). From this point, Berkin’s evidence is grounded on the careful discussion of how the Founding Fathers faced the political crisis and on how they were able to react to the issues as politicians.

In her book A Brilliant Solution: Inventing the American Constitution, Carol Berkin describes the Founding Fathers as the politicians who changed the political course for the American nation because of developing and adopting the document that aimed to sustain the order and equality in the United States. In this case, the author refers to the analysis of the Founding Fathers’ biographies and on the discussion of the complex Constitution’s adoption process in order to present it as the key political process in the history of the United States.

That is why, the Founding Fathers should be perceived as the experienced politicians who selected the most appropriate strategies in order to address the crisis and to provide the solution for the whole nation in the United States.

In spite of the fact that the evidence used by the writer to support her argument can be discussed as rather incomplete and narrow or even limited, the provided evidence focused on the biographical facts and creative description of the Constitution’s adoption process is rather appropriate to support those narrow arguments claimed by Berkin in her book. As a result, Berkin’s discussion of the Founding Fathers as politicians sounds as reasonable in the context of her argument and provided evidence.

Reference List

Berkin, Carol. 2003. A Brilliant Solution: Inventing the American Constitution. New York, Harcourt.

“Where The Conflict Really Lies?” – Philosophy


The book, Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism by Alvin Plantinga, explores various questions on the three broad areas of life. The author borrows heavily from previous works to bring up a provocative argument that atheism conflicts with science while theism does not. The book is written for anybody with an interest in science and religion. I think the book is subjective, and thus it is upon the reader to decide whether to believe its contents or not.

Scientific knowledge has enriched human beings with the knowledge that has shrunk the possible residual sphere of deities to the very minimal. Religions respond by arguing that omnipotent deities still exist in places where science cannot detect. For many years, the religionists’ responses have been the doctrine of religious outliers, which is now the theists’ majority as shown by being a central theme in this book. The author teaches at the Notre Dame University, and he is one of the leading philosophers in the field of religion. Therefore, he is qualified to write on such issues. This paper is a review of the book, Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism, by Alvin Plantinga.


The book consists of four parts. In part one, which deals with biology, the author asserts that evolution is a misguided view, thus making it conflict with theism. The author adds that the available evidence leads to the mediocre conclusion that unguided evolution is possible. He thinks that the theistic and naturalistic accounts are very similar. Besides, he argues that some features of human existence like religion and morality occur under theism as opposed to naturalism, but he does not defend such assertions. He discusses Paul Draper’s arguments of evolution.

This aspect neglects his major claims that in the history of evolution, suffering is explained better using naturalism than theism. In part one of the book, Plantinga’s view on divine action and physics is prefaced by odd complaints regarding the divine action project. The complaints are unusual because he ends up being close to many positions of divine action members, despite complaining about the incoherence of their concerns. The author defends the view that general and special divine actions are consistent with the contemporary understanding of physical laws. He also holds that God operates at the quantum level at which He causes the wave function to collapse in various ways.

In the part two of the book, the author asserts that science and theism conflict in the methodological naturalism, which is an extra commitment to science. For both evolutionary psychology and biblical criticism, the scientific theories contradict when anti-theistic assumptions are included, or when theistic assumptions are omitted. If theism is assumed as true, scientific theories cannot conflict with theism. The author thinks that any belief cannot be assumed as true. He includes a specific view on Imago Dei in the Christian’s evidence base and omits the view that the earth has corners. The view of the Imago Dei is a legitimate reading from the Biblical Old Testament, while the view on the earth is not.

In part three of the book, the author examines theism from a cosmological fine-tuning and biological complexity. The fine-tuning discussion opens with the premise that life evolves when the conditions are favorable. According the author, there is a wide range of those conditions and the universe is favorable for life. The fine-tuning argument concludes that theism is the best way to explain the apparent fine-tuning of the universe. The author also concludes that arguments presented in fine-tuning somewhat provide only moderate support for theism.

He also claims that biological complexity supports theism. At this point, the author suggests that design arguments could be regarded as perceptions because we do not infer designs, but rather perceive them. In any case, the author makes little biological and cosmological observations. Besides, he discovers unity between science and Christianity in all scientific investigations. He claims that theism provides to science all the assumptions it needs to take off. These claims can be found elsewhere, and thus they are not novel claims.

In part four, the author presents an evolutionary argument against naturalism. He argues that while science requires trust in cognitive and perception, naturalism does not give any reason to do so. Cognitive and perception evolved by unguided evolution, and thus they should generate beliefs that increase fitness instead of those that track truths. Naturalism cannot give the assumptions required to do science, as opposed to theism. According to Plantinga, a naturalist argument is not correct, although he does not prove this assertion (320). He only concludes that naturalism and science do not agree.


Plantinga’s arguments are difficult to adjudicate, and thus they end in a stalemate. First is the assertion that evolution could be guided. The author asserts that the biological theory does not support the idea that evolution occurs arbitrarily. He also feels that this aspect has not been proved, and thus it unscientific. Arguing that God always works mysteriously does not defend the directed evolution. In addition, the author claims that there could be a possibility that God planned, superintended, and guided evolution, but this assertion lacks credible evidence.

According to Plantinga, an evidence base entails a set of beliefs used in conducting an inquiry (171). The author further says that a believer has a wider evidence base from which to judge issues as compared to a naturalist. One of the beliefs in the atheist evidence base is that world and God created its inhabitants. In this belief, Jesus Christ was the incarnate Son of God, who was resurrected, and similarly humans will be resurrected. The belief extends further to assert that the entire creation will be redeemed one day. However, a naturalist does not hold these set of beliefs. Therefore, a naturalist can sensibly question what guarantees those beliefs. A realistic base of evidence should have guaranteed or warranted beliefs and not only opinions.

At this point, the author could say that there are other ways to justify this issue in addition to the natural scientific findings. For instance, he could read the Gospel from the Bible and use the life history of Jesus Christ. However, since a naturalist has nothing to do with biblical teachings, s/he cannot use this as evidence, and thus the author does not have convincing information on this issue. Plantinga could use the aspects of the naturalists’ base of evidence to argue that theism is more prudent as compared to other ideologies. The author could extend his argument further that theism fits better between nature and the success of science than it does to naturalism. However, naturalists have to agree with those conclusions because they have responses to each of the claims that Plantinga puts across.

In a different dimension, Plantinga could be of the view that perception can bring about non-contentious explanations. It is very difficult to see what to make of this claim, but Plantinga may argue that perceptual experience results in guaranteed beliefs, which are not illative in design. However, what will Plantinga say to someone who is of a different view, in this case, a naturalist? On one side, Plantinga tends to imply that those who do not believe in design struggle to ignore what is right before their eyesight (265). However, on the other side, he quotes a letter written by one of the friends of Darwin. This letter talks about a conversation involving Charles Darwin where he said that sometimes he perceived the grounds for design, but in other instances, he could not. In this case, it is not clear if he deliberately decided not to see the reality.

There is a possible line of defense for the perception argument. Plantinga feels that human beings have the sense of divinity, which John Calvin believed all humans possessed (271). He holds that this sense of divinity does not function properly in some human beings. In addition to this feature, wisdom involves a common cognitive operation. From this assertion, one can reason that it is irrational to deny the divinity. The outstanding challenge for this reasoning is that a naturalist would decline the suggestion that s/he acknowledges divinity congenitally.

This assertion holds because a naturalist does not think that there is anything divine to perceive. Plantinga cannot do anything to convince such a person. Despite these criticisms, the book presents very interesting thoughts, which are valid to be read by atheists, naturalists or any other group because it considers difficult and contentious issues. I hereby encourage other readers to read the book.

Works Cited

Plantinga, Alvin. Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Print.

error: Content is protected !!