Farewell to Arms"

John Stubbs' essay is an examination of the defense which he believes Henry and Catherine use to
protect themselves from the discovery of their insignificance and "powerlessness...in a world
indifferent to their well being..." He asserts that "role-playing" by the two main characters, and
several others in the book, is a way to escape the realization of human mortality which is unveiled
by war. Stubbs thinks that Hemingway utilized role-playing as a way to "explore the strengths and
weaknesses of his two characters." Stubbs says that by placing Henry's ordered life in opposition
to Catherine's topsy-turvy one, and then letting each one assume a role which will bring them
closer together, Hemingway shows the pair's inability to accept "the hard, gratuitous quality of life."

Stubbs begins by showing other examples, notably in In Our Time and The Sun Also Rises, in
which Hemingway's characters revert to role-playing in order to escape or retreat from their lives.
The ability to create characters who play roles, he says, either to "maintain self-esteem" or to
escape, is one Hemingway exploits extraordinarily well in A Farewell to Arms and therefore it "is
his richest and most successful handling of human beings trying to come to terms with their
vulnerability."

As far as Stubbs is concerned, Hemingway is quite blatant in letting us know that role-playing is
what is occurring. He tells that the role-playing begins during Henry and Catherine's third
encounter, when Catherine directly dictates what is spoken by Henry. After this meeting the two
become increasingly comfortable with their roles and easily adopt them whenever the other is
nearby. This is apparent also in that they can only successfully play their roles when they are in
private and any disturbance causes the "game" to be disrupted. The intrusion of the outside world
in any form makes their role-playing impossible, as evidenced at the race track in Milan, where
they must be alone. The people surrounding them make Catherine feel uncomfortable and Henry
has to take her away from the crowd. He goes on to describe how it is impossible for them to play
the roles when they are apart and how they therefore become more dependent upon each other's
company.

Stubbs goes on to explain how, "neither mistakes role-playing for a truly intimate relationship, but
both recognize that it can be a useful device for satisfying certain emotional needs." He says that
originally Henry and Catherine are playing the "game" for different reasons but eventually move to
play it as a team. Henry is role-playing to regain the sense of order he has lost when he realizes the
futility of the war and his lack of place in it. Catherine is role-playing to deal with the loss of her
fiance and to try to find order in the arena of the war. When they are able to role-play together,
"the promise of mutual support" is what becomes so important to them as they try to cope with
their individual human vulnerability.

He also analyzes the idyllic world introduced early in the story by the priest at the mess and later
realized by Henry and Catherine in Switzerland. They fall fully into their roles when they row
across the lake on their way to their idealized world. The fact that they actually are able to enter
this make-believe world strengthens their "game" and allows it to continue longer than it would
have otherwise. And once they are in this new world they adopt new roles which allow them to
continue their ruse. They also need to work harder to maintain the "game" because far from the
front they are both still aware the war is proceeding and they are no longer a part of it. The world
in which they exist in reality (!) is not conducive to role-playing because it tries repeatedly to end
their "game".

Stubbs manages to uncover numerous instances in which the two are role-playing and he makes a
very interesting case that this is exactly what they are doing and not just his imagination reading
into the story. He does make certain assumptions, that their love is not "real", that the characters
are searching for order, which are not completely justified or even necessary to prove his point.
He also forces an intentionality upon Hemingway which could have been avoided without harming
his theory. Towards the end of the essay Stubbs infers that their role-playing is "inferior to true
intimacy," which is a point that, although he defends well, is not central