The Old Man And The Sea - Purpose

Applying this story structure paradigm to The Old Man And The Sea was a very difficult and frustrating experience. I think this is mostly because Hemingway’s writing is truly the work of a master. While not perfect, it is complicated and effective. Thus it defies simple objectification

However, I learned some very interesting things while attempting what I have produced. And I do believe that Hemingway purposely let the beginning of the novel drag – those who made it through the boring beginning were rewarded for it, but I don’t think I am going too far by saying that the first act has little conflict and drama. It could do a much better job of ‘hooking.’

In the April 1936 issue of Esquire, Hemingway wrote a piece about fishing in the gulf. He included an anecdote:

“…an old man fishing alone in a skiff out of Cabanas hooked a great marlin that, on the heavy saschord hand-line, pulled the skiff out to sea. Two days later the old man was picked up by fisherman sixty miles to the eastward, the head and forward part of the marlin lashed alongside. The old man had stayed with him a day, a night, a day and another night while the fish swam deep and pulled the boat. When he had come up the old man had pulled the boat up on him and harpooned him. Lashed alongside the sharks had hit him and the old man fought them out alone in the Gulf Stream in a skiff, clubbing them, stabbing at them, lunging at them with an oar until he was exhausted and the sharks had eaten all they could hold. He was crying in the boat when the fishermen picked him up, half crazy from his loss, and the sharks were still circling the boat…” 

Hemingway much later went on to extend this little story into a novella. Clearly, Hemingway could have told the story more briefly. I would argue he made a good story a profound one. But perhaps some could have been cut or shortened. Despite a weak opening, the story finishes very strongly. Hell, it won Hemingway a Pulitzer.

I may follow up in the future with more specifics of how prose fiction defied my structure approach. The paradigm is still useful, but I may need to understand its application to fiction better.

On to the structure.

Santiago’s desire is to CONQUER THE IDEAL. He is a very poor man, not giving much thought to practical things, except where they lead him to achieve the extraordinary in the ordinary. Couldn’t he find another boy to go out and fish with him? Couldn’t he sell some of those bonitos and albacore for awhile, get better equipment then go after the big marlins with a better boat and larger crew? Maybe he used to, but Santiago is no longer after practical victories. In many ways he is a fool – but he is a romantic hero as well.

The controlling idea is that “When we seek meaning in victory, we will find meaning, but in the attempt only – in the end, all outcomes are a loss.”

Clearly, Santiago’s is a very relatable premise. Which of us lives only in the real and practical? Only one who never had a childhood.

The drama of the story structure is ultimately mostly textbook – this story defied me, I believe, because so much downtime and inner instrospection intercuts the drama. And through this, the rich subtext and theme truly grow.