The Sun Also Rises Essay Examples and Writing Prompts

Need to write an essay about The Sun Also Rises? We've got you covered with 5 complete essay types, each with prompts, thesis statements, detailed outlines, and full sample essays.

What You'll Find:

✅ 5 complete essay examples (~1,500 words each)
✅ Essay prompts and thesis statements
✅ Detailed outlines for structure
✅ Key points and writing tips
✅ Ready to use as reference for your own essays

5 Essay Types for The Sun Also Rises:

📖

1. Literary Analysis

A literary analysis essay examines how an author uses literary techniques—symbolism, imagery, characterization, narrative structure—to create meaning. You analyze what the author does and why it matters, supporting your interpretation with evidence from the text.

⚖️

2. Argumentative Essay

An argumentative essay takes a debatable position on the text and defends it with evidence. You're not just analyzing what's there—you're arguing for a specific interpretation that others might disagree with. Strong argumentative essays acknowledge counterarguments and explain why their position is more compelling.

⚖️

3. Compare and Contrast Essay

A compare and contrast essay examines similarities and differences between two or more elements—characters, themes, texts, time periods. The goal isn't just listing similarities and differences but using comparison to reveal something neither element shows alone. Effective comparison creates new insight.

👤

4. Character Analysis Essay

A character analysis essay examines how a character is constructed, what they represent, and why they matter to the novel's meaning. You analyze not just who the character is but how Hemingway creates them through action, dialogue, description, and relationships. Character analysis reveals how characters function as both individuals and symbolic figures.

💡

5. Thematic Essay

A thematic essay focuses on one central theme or idea in the text and examines how the author develops it through plot, character, symbol, and structure. You're not analyzing technique for its own sake but showing how all the novel's elements work together to explore a particular theme.

📖

Literary Analysis

What is a Literary Analysis?

Why Write This Type?

This essay type develops close reading skills and teaches you to move beyond plot summary to deeper interpretation. It's the foundation of literary criticism and required in most English courses. Mastering literary analysis shows you can think critically about texts and articulate sophisticated interpretations.

Recommended Length:

1,500-2,000 words (5-7 pages)

Example Thesis:

Hemingway's iceberg theory in The Sun Also Rises—saying less to mean more—creates emotional power through omission, forces readers to interpret subtext, and revolutionized how novels could convey psychological trauma without naming it directly.

📋 Essay Prompt

Analyze Hemingway's "iceberg theory" of writing as demonstrated in The Sun Also Rises. How does his minimalist style—what he leaves unsaid—create deeper meaning than explicit statement could achieve?

🗺️ Essay Outline

I. Introduction
   • Hook: "Isn't it pretty to think so?" - Jake's final line loaded with unsaid meaning
   • Context: Post-WWI lost generation, Hemingway's new prose style
   • Thesis: Iceberg theory creates power through strategic omission
   
II. What the Iceberg Theory Is
   • 1/8 above surface, 7/8 below
   • Hemingway's belief: dignity of movement comes from what's omitted
   • Application in Sun Also Rises: war wound never described, emotions rarely named
   • Why it works: readers fill in gaps, become active participants
   
III. Jake's War Wound: The Ultimate Omission
   • Never directly described, only alluded to
   • "Undressing" scene with Brett: "Couldn't we live together?" "I don't think so"
   • What's below surface: emasculation, impotence, why their love can't work
   • Power of omission: more devastating than graphic description
   • Universalizing effect: wound represents all war trauma
   
IV. Emotional Restraint and Subtext
   • Characters rarely say what they feel
   • "Isn't it nice?" - dialogue that means opposite
   • Drinking as substitute for emotional expression
   • Bull-fight as metaphor for intensity they can't articulate
   • What's underneath: grief, loss, desperate search for meaning
   
V. Structure and Pacing: What's Cut Out
   • Book I: Paris aimlessness
   • Book II: Spain and the fiesta
   • What's missing: backstory, exposition, explanation
   • How absence creates meaning: drift and purposelessness become the point
   • Geographic movement substitutes for emotional progress
   
VI. Revolutionary Impact on Literature
   • Before: Victorian/Edwardian explanatory prose
   • After: modernist minimalism
   • Influenced: Raymond Carver, Cormac McCarthy, modern short story
   • Why it mattered: showed trauma could be conveyed through silence
   
VII. Conclusion
   • Iceberg theory as form matching content
   • Lost generation can't articulate loss, so prose becomes sparse
   • Still relevant: how we process trauma that can't be spoken
   • Why Sun Also Rises endures: demonstrates rather than explains

💡 Key Points to Address

•Explain what the iceberg theory is before analyzing how it works
•Use specific scenes (Jake's wound, Brett's dialogue) as evidence
•Connect minimalist style to Lost Generation's inability to articulate trauma
•Discuss literary impact: how Hemingway influenced later writers
•Analyze how form matches content: sparse prose embodies emotional damage

📄 Read Complete Sample Essay (1979 words)

Click to expand full essay →

"Isn't it pretty to think so?" Jake Barnes's final line in The Sun Also Rises carries more weight than any explicit statement could. Brett has just proposed the fantasy that they could have had "such a damned good time together," and Jake's response—seemingly agreeable but actually devastated—captures everything Hemingway won't say directly: the impossibility of their love, Jake's war wound making consummation impossible, their shared delusion about what might have been, and the bitter acceptance that defines the Lost Generation. This single line demonstrates Hemingway's revolutionary "iceberg theory" of writing: showing only 1/8 above the surface while 7/8 of meaning remains submerged. In The Sun Also Rises, Hemingway's minimalist style—what he strategically omits—creates emotional power through silence, forces readers to interpret subtext, and proved that novels could convey psychological trauma more effectively by not naming it directly than through explicit description. The iceberg theory, Hemingway explained to George Plimpton, means "you could omit anything if you knew that you omitted and the omitted part would strengthen the story and make people feel something more than they understood." This sounds cryptic until you see it in action. The Sun Also Rises deploys omission systematically: Jake's war wound is never graphically described, characters' emotional states are rarely named, backstory remains largely absent, and the novel's central tragedy—that Jake and Brett love each other but cannot be together—is conveyed entirely through what isn't said. Readers must become active interpreters, filling gaps with their own understanding. This technique dignifies both characters (who don't explain themselves) and readers (who are trusted to understand without being told). Jake's war wound serves as the novel's ultimate iceberg. We know he suffered "genito-urinary" injury in WWI. We know it makes physical relationship with Brett impossible. But Hemingway never describes the wound directly. Instead, we get the devastating scene in Book I where Brett comes to Jake's room: "Couldn't we just live together?" she asks. "I don't think so. I'd just tromper you with everybody," Brett responds to her own question. Then: "Don't we pay for all the things we do, though?" The wound's nature emerges through absence, through what Jake can't do rather than what happened to him. Later, Jake looks at himself naked in the mirror and thinks: "Of all the ways to be wounded. I suppose it was funny." The sentence carries unbearable weight precisely because we don't see what Jake sees. The omission makes the wound universal: it represents not just literal injury but all the ways war damages men, makes them unable to have the lives they want, turns them into spectators of normal existence rather than participants. This strategic silence about Jake's injury does something graphic description never could. By not naming specifics, Hemingway universalizes the wound. It becomes every form of war trauma: physical, psychological, spiritual. Every reader projects their own understanding of what war takes from people, what cannot be recovered, what makes normal life impossible afterward. The wound becomes metaphor while remaining brutally literal. This is the iceberg working: the specific injury is below surface, but what shows above—Jake's isolation, his relationships impossible, his nights spent unable to sleep—reveals the submerged mass through its effects. Emotional restraint operates throughout the novel with similar power. Characters almost never say what they feel. Instead, they say "Isn't it nice?" or "Let's have a drink" or "It's sort of what we have instead of God." Dialogue becomes a code readers must crack. When Jake and Brett part in Paris and Brett says "We could have had such a damned good time together," she means: I love you but can't be with you because of your wound, so I'll destroy myself with men I don't love, and we'll both suffer this loss forever. Jake's "Isn't it pretty to think so?" means: I know you're fantasizing, I share the fantasy, it's killing me that it's impossible, but I won't burden you with my pain because what's the point? Entire emotional landscapes exist beneath simple exchanges. The characters drink constantly—wine at lunch, whiskey at cafes, absinthe before dinner, brandy after—and Hemingway never explains that drinking substitutes for emotional expression. He shows them drinking and lets readers understand: these people can't articulate their grief, so they numb it. When Jake can't sleep, he doesn't think "I am traumatized by war." He lies awake and describes the ceiling, and readers feel the insomnia's weight without diagnosis. The bullfights at Pamplona—described in detail—function as displaced intensity. The characters can't express what they feel about their own lives, but they can watch a matador face death with grace, and that becomes a kind of prayer, a ritual intensity their own lives lack. Hemingway shows the bullfight vividly and lets readers connect it to the characters' inner lives without making the connection explicit. The novel's structure embodies the iceberg theory. Book I shows Paris aimlessness: cafes, drinking, Brett's endless romantic entanglements, Mike's bitter jokes, Robert Cohn's pathetic hopelessness. Book II moves to Spain for the fiesta: fishing at Burguete, the bullfights at Pamplona, Brett's affair with Romero, everything falling apart. Book III shows aftermath: Cohn vanishes, Brett summons Jake to Madrid, they ride in a taxi and pretend things might have been different. What's missing from this structure is everything traditional novels provide: extensive backstory explaining how Jake got wounded, exposition about characters' families and origins, psychological analysis of their motives, moral judgment about their behavior. Hemingway cuts it all out. The effect is purposeful drift. The characters move geographically—Paris to Bayonne to Burguete to Pamplona to Madrid—but make no emotional progress. The geographic movement emphasizes lack of internal development. They start empty and end empty. The novel's meaning emerges from this structural omission: these are people for whom normal narrative arc (growth, change, resolution) is impossible. War broke something that can't be fixed. The iceberg's submerged portion is all the development that won't happen, all the healing that won't occur, all the life they might have had if the war hadn't destroyed them. By cutting out traditional plot progression, Hemingway makes absence into meaning. This represented revolutionary departure from previous literary prose. Victorian and Edwardian novels explained everything: characters' psychological states, moral implications of actions, authorial interpretation. Henry James, Hemingway's predecessor in writing about Americans in Europe, filled pages with subtle psychological analysis. Hemingway cut that entire apparatus away. The Sun Also Rises shows trauma without diagnosing it, conveys emotion without naming it, explores moral questions without answering them. The restraint itself became the meaning: people too damaged to explain themselves, world too broken for traditional narrative to capture it. The impact on American literature was seismic. Hemingway proved that minimalism could carry more weight than ornate prose, that strategic omission created power, that readers could be trusted to interpret without guidance. Raymond Carver's short stories about working-class despair use the same technique: show the kitchen table conversation, omit the emotional analysis, let readers feel the weight. Cormac McCarthy's violence appears without moral commentary, trusting readers to supply horror. The modern short story as form—compression, omission, subtext—descends directly from Hemingway's iceberg. He demonstrated that saying less could mean more, that the unsaid could be more powerful than the said, that dignity came from restraint. The iceberg theory in The Sun Also Rises represents perfect marriage of form and content. The Lost Generation couldn't articulate what war took from them—how do you explain that you can't feel anymore, that nothing means what it should, that every beautiful thing reminds you of what you've lost? So Hemingway created prose that embodies that inability: sparse, restrained, leaving gaps where meaning used to be. The style IS the content. The omissions are the trauma. What Hemingway won't say becomes what the characters can't say, and readers feel the weight of all that silence. This technique remains relevant because trauma still resists articulation. How do you explain PTSD, depression, the way violence changes you? Hemingway showed you could write around the edges, describe the effects, trust readers to understand the cause. The Sun Also Rises doesn't explain Jake's wound, but we feel it in every scene. The novel doesn't name what these characters have lost, but we sense it in every "Isn't it nice?" and every morning's hangover. The iceberg theory proved that literature could capture what can't be directly stated, and that capturing it through omission might be the only honest approach. "Isn't it pretty to think so?" Seven words containing everything Hemingway won't say: the fantasy of happiness, the impossibility of its achievement, the bitterness of acceptance, the grace of not burdening others with your pain, the exhaustion of maintaining pretense. That's the iceberg at work: simple surface, massive submerged meaning, readers doing the interpretive work. This technique changed how novels could be written, what prose could accomplish, how psychological damage could be conveyed. Hemingway's iceberg theory demonstrated that the most powerful literary truth emerges not from what writers say but from what they have the discipline and courage to leave unsaid.

✏️ Writing Tips

Don't just say Hemingway leaves things out—analyze WHY and WHAT EFFECT that creates. Show how specific omissions (wound's details, emotional states, backstory) make the novel more powerful than explicit statement. Connect technique to theme: why is this the right style for this story? Your essay should demonstrate the iceberg theory by analyzing it: say what's necessary, trust your reader.

⚖️

Argumentative Essay

What is a Argumentative Essay?

Why Write This Type?

This essay type develops critical thinking and persuasive writing skills essential for academic and professional success. It teaches you to build logical arguments, support claims with evidence, anticipate objections, and write with confidence. Universities value argumentative writing because it demonstrates independent thinking.

Recommended Length:

1,500-2,000 words (5-7 pages)

Example Thesis:

Jake Barnes is neither hero nor failure but something more complex: a man whose stoic endurance simultaneously demonstrates grace under pressure and traps him in cycles of suffering—Hemingway's argument that survival itself is the only achievable form of heroism after catastrophic trauma.

📋 Essay Prompt

Is Jake Barnes a hero or a failure? Argue whether his stoic endurance of impossible circumstances represents admirable resilience or passive acceptance that perpetuates his own suffering.

🗺️ Essay Outline

I. Introduction
   • The question: hero (stoic endurance) or failure (passive acceptance)?
   • Why it matters: defines Hemingway's view of post-war masculinity
   • Thesis: Jake is both/neither—his stoicism is all that's possible given his trauma
   
II. The Case for Jake as Hero
   • Maintains dignity despite devastating injury
   • Helps others (introduces Brett to Romero despite his own pain)
   • Never self-pities or complains explicitly
   • Embodies Hemingway's "grace under pressure"
   • Works professionally, maintains routines, doesn't collapse
   
III. The Case for Jake as Failure
   • Enables Brett's destructive behavior
   • Drinks excessively to avoid feelings
   • Makes no progress toward healing or acceptance
   • Ends where he started: "Isn't it pretty to think so" = defeat
   • Lacks agency—things happen TO him rather than BY him
   
IV. Why Both Readings Are Too Simple
   • False binary: hero vs. failure
   • Jake's reality: no "winning" option exists
   • His wound makes traditional masculinity impossible
   • Survival is achievement when alternatives are collapse or suicide
   • Hemingway complicates heroism: it's not triumph but endurance
   
V. Stoicism as Only Available Response
   • Pre-war heroism (combat, achievement) unavailable to Jake
   • Post-war reality: damage that can't be fixed
   • Stoicism not choice but necessity: what else can he do?
   • Code of behavior substitutes for impossible healing
   • Bullfight as model: face what you can't defeat with grace
   
VI. Counterargument and Response
   • Counterargument: Jake could change (leave Paris, avoid Brett, seek help)
   • Response: novel shows change is impossible for traumatized people
   • 1920s had no PTSD treatment, no language for psychological wounds
   • Geographic movement (Paris to Spain) changes nothing
   • "Isn't it pretty to think so" = awareness that change won't happen
   
VII. Conclusion
   • Jake embodies Hemingway's revised heroism: endurance, not triumph
   • Neither hero nor failure but survivor in world with no good options
   • Still relevant: how we judge people living with unhealing trauma
   • The question isn't "did Jake succeed?" but "what does success mean when winning is impossible?"

💡 Key Points to Address

•Present both sides of the argument fairly before taking your position
•Use specific evidence from text (Jake's actions, not just abstract claims)
•Address counterarguments: why might someone disagree with you?
•Connect to larger questions: what does novel say about post-war masculinity?
•Avoid simple binary: Jake is complex, your argument should reflect that

📄 Read Complete Sample Essay (1921 words)

Click to expand full essay →

Is Jake Barnes a hero or a failure? The question haunts readers of The Sun Also Rises because the novel provides evidence for both interpretations. Jake endures catastrophic injury with dignity, never complaining, maintaining friendships and work routines despite losing the physical capacity for romantic love—seemingly heroic stoicism. But he also enables Brett's destructive behavior, drinks himself numb nightly, makes zero progress toward healing, and ends the novel with the same bitter impossibility he started with—seemingly passive failure. Critics have argued both positions, and Hemingway deliberately refuses to settle the question. However, the real answer is neither "hero" nor "failure" but something more complex and more devastating: Jake Barnes embodies Hemingway's argument that after catastrophic trauma, stoic endurance—surviving with grace despite circumstances you cannot change—is the only achievable form of heroism, even though it looks like and often feels like failure. Jake is both hero and failure simultaneously, and that paradox defines the Lost Generation's entire condition. The case for Jake as hero is substantial. He maintains dignity despite devastating injury that would destroy weaker men. When we meet Jake in Paris, he's working as journalist, maintaining professional competence despite personal catastrophe. He has friendships, routines, a life—not a happy life but a functional one. When Brett comes to his room and the impossibility of their physical relationship becomes explicit, Jake doesn't rage or collapse. He lies awake, yes, but he doesn't lose control. He embodies Hemingway's famous definition of courage: "grace under pressure." The pressure is constant—every interaction with Brett reminds him of what he's lost—but Jake maintains grace. More impressively, Jake helps others even when it costs him. He introduces Brett to Romero, the young bullfighter, knowing she'll seduce him and that watching this will torture Jake. He does it anyway because Brett asks and because helping her matters more than protecting himself from pain. This seems genuinely noble: putting others' needs above your own suffering. After everything falls apart in Pamplona, Jake doesn't blame anyone. He goes fishing, gets drunk, and when Brett summons him from Madrid, he goes. He pays her bills, listens to her rationalizations about leaving Romero, and comforts her. This is heroic in the classical sense: self-sacrifice, helping the beloved despite cost to yourself, maintaining duty and loyalty when you'd be justified in walking away. Jake also never indulges self-pity explicitly. The prose remains controlled, observations factual rather than emotional. When Jake looks at his wound in the mirror and thinks "I suppose it was funny," the word "funny" carries unbearable irony, but Jake doesn't elaborate, doesn't explain how devastating it is. This restraint seems admirable. He doesn't burden others with his pain. He keeps working, keeps functioning, doesn't collapse into visible despair. By Lost Generation standards—where Cohn whines constantly and Mike drinks himself belligerent—Jake's stoicism looks like strength. But the case for Jake as failure is equally compelling. He enables Brett's destructive behavior at every turn. When she asks him to facilitate her affair with Romero, a decent friend would refuse, would protect the young bullfighter from being used, would tell Brett she needs to deal with her own problems. Jake does the opposite. He's complicit in damaging a talented young man because Brett asks. This isn't noble—it's weak. Jake can't say no to Brett even when saying no would be right. He participates in destruction because confrontation is harder than compliance. Jake's drinking operates as escape rather than solution. Every scene involves alcohol: breakfast coffee with brandy, wine at lunch, aperitifs before dinner, whiskey and soda after, absinthe when things get really bad. The characters drink to avoid feeling, and Jake is no exception. When he can't sleep, when Brett's behavior tortures him, when the impossibility of his situation becomes acute, Jake drinks. This isn't grace under pressure—it's numbing pain because you can't face it. The stoicism is partly alcohol-induced avoidance. Most damningly, Jake makes no progress. The novel's circular structure—ending where it began with Jake and Brett in a taxi, pretending things might be different—emphasizes that nothing has changed. Book II's Spain trip promises possibility: new location, the ritualized intensity of bullfights, maybe something will shift. But everything falls apart and they return to status quo. Jake hasn't learned anything, hasn't changed, hasn't found a way forward. The final "Isn't it pretty to think so?" is admission of defeat: acknowledging the fantasy of happiness while knowing it's impossible. Jake ends where he started: trapped, unable to have what he wants, unable to stop wanting it. This looks less like heroic endurance and more like passive acceptance of suffering. But both hero and failure interpretations are too simple because they assume Jake has better options he's choosing not to take. The novel's power comes from showing that Jake has no good options. His war wound makes traditional masculinity impossible: he cannot be the romantic hero who gets the girl, cannot have physical relationship, cannot father children, cannot fulfill any traditional male role. This isn't something he can fix through effort or therapy (1920s had no PTSD treatment). It's permanent damage with no solution. In this context, the question isn't "why doesn't Jake be heroic?" but "what does heroism mean when winning is impossible?" Hemingway redefines heroism as endurance rather than triumph. The bullfights at Pamplona demonstrate this: Romero faces the bull with grace, skill, honor. He doesn't avoid danger (that would be cowardice) but he also doesn't triumph permanently (there's always another bull tomorrow). The heroism is in how you face what you cannot ultimately defeat. This becomes Jake's model. He cannot defeat his wound, cannot have Brett, cannot recover his pre-war life. But he can face these impossibilities with grace rather than collapse. He can maintain routines, help friends, keep working, avoid self-pity. The stoicism isn't chosen strategy—it's the only available response to damage that won't heal. This makes Jake neither hero nor failure but something closer to survivor. He survives his wound. He survives loving Brett while being unable to have her. He survives watching her destroy herself with men she doesn't love. He survives the meaninglessness of post-war existence where nothing quite matters but you keep going anyway. In Lost Generation terms—where the alternatives are Cohn's pathetic romanticism, Mike's bitter alcoholism, Brett's desperate promiscuity, or suicide—Jake's controlled endurance is achievement. Not admirable achievement, not happy achievement, but achievement nonetheless: still alive, still functional, still capable of friendship and work even if joy is inaccessible. The counterargument asks: couldn't Jake change? Leave Paris, avoid Brett, seek treatment, find new purpose? The novel's answer is no. Book II shows geographic change (Paris to Spain) changes nothing. Jake does avoid Brett temporarily (fishing at Burguete with Bill) and it doesn't help—she summons him back and he goes. The 1920s had no effective treatment for PTSD or for literal war wounds. And the novel's psychology suggests that traumatic damage of this magnitude doesn't heal, can't be overcome by willpower or change of scenery. Jake's "Isn't it pretty to think so?" at the end demonstrates his awareness: he knows the fantasy Brett proposes (that they could have had a good time together) is false. He's not deluded. He sees his situation clearly. Clear-eyed awareness that change won't happen is different from failure to try changing. Jake's stoicism comes from accurate assessment that his situation has no solution. This matters beyond the novel because it defines how we judge people living with unhealing trauma. Is a veteran with PTSD who maintains family and work despite constant struggle a hero or a failure because they haven't "gotten over it"? Is someone managing chronic pain while staying functional succeeding or failing because they aren't cured? Jake Barnes embodies the question: what does success mean when winning is impossible, when the best you can do is endure with whatever grace you can manage? Hemingway refuses to call this heroism in the traditional sense (triumph, achievement, getting the girl) but also refuses to call it failure. It's survival. It's grace under impossible pressure. It's facing the bull with skill and dignity even though the bull will eventually win. Jake Barnes is neither hero nor failure but something harder to categorize and more human: a man doing his best with damage that won't heal, maintaining dignity when happiness is inaccessible, helping others even when it costs him, surviving when survival is all that's possible. That's not the heroism of myths or movies, but it might be the only heroism available after war breaks what cannot be repaired. The question isn't whether Jake succeeds but whether we recognize that survival itself, under his circumstances, represents grace and courage even when it looks like mere endurance. Hemingway argues it does, and the novel's enduring power suggests we recognize in Jake's impossible position something true about what it means to keep going when the life you wanted becomes unreachable.

✏️ Writing Tips

This is an argument, not just analysis, so take a clear position. "Jake is complex" isn't a thesis—it's a starting point. Your thesis should be arguable: something a smart reader could disagree with. Then prove your case with evidence. Address the strongest counterargument (not a strawman) and explain why your interpretation is more persuasive. Show you've thought about other readings and still believe your own.

⚖️

Compare and Contrast Essay

What is a Compare and Contrast Essay?

Why Write This Type?

Comparison is fundamental critical thinking skill. It teaches you to identify patterns, recognize connections, and synthesize information from multiple sources. Compare and contrast essays are common in college because they develop analytical sophistication: seeing how things relate, what makes them distinct, why differences matter.

Recommended Length:

1,500-2,000 words (5-7 pages)

Example Thesis:

Jake Barnes and Robert Cohn represent opposing responses to post-war emasculation—Jake's stoic realism versus Cohn's romantic delusion—and through their contrast, Hemingway argues that acknowledging loss honestly, however painful, preserves dignity that denial and fantasy destroy.

📋 Essay Prompt

Compare Jake Barnes and Robert Cohn as two different responses to post-WWI male crisis. How do their contrasting approaches to love, masculinity, and meaning reveal Hemingway's values and critiques?

🗺️ Essay Outline

I. Introduction
   • Both men love Brett and cannot have her
   • Both damaged by modernity (Jake by war, Cohn by antisemitism and modernity's meaninglessness)
   • Thesis: Their contrasting responses (realism vs. romanticism) reveal Hemingway's values
   
II. Similarities: The Setup
   • Both in love with unavailable woman
   • Both sexually compromised (Jake by wound, Cohn by being "used" by women)
   • Both expatriates seeking meaning in Europe
   • Both experience humiliation and loss
   • Establishes that differences aren't in circumstances but in response
   
III. Difference 1: Romantic Delusion vs. Stoic Realism
   • Cohn: reads The Purple Land, believes in romantic adventure
   • Jake: knows nothing will work out, accepts it
   • Cohn's trip to San Sebastian: thinks affair with Brett means something
   • Jake's awareness: understands Brett can't commit, accepts it
   • Effect: Cohn looks pathetic, Jake looks dignified
   
IV. Difference 2: How They Handle Humiliation
   • Cohn: follows Brett to Pamplona, stalks her, makes scenes
   • Jake: endures silently, doesn't force confrontations
   • Cohn: punches people when humiliated, then cries
   • Jake: drinks, maintains composure
   • Violence vs. restraint: Hemingway values controlled response
   
V. Difference 3: Self-Awareness and Code
   • Cohn: deluded, thinks he's romantic hero
   • Jake: clear-eyed, knows he's damaged
   • Cohn: has no code except Victorian romance
   • Jake: develops code (bullfight ethics, how to behave with grace)
   • Why it matters: code provides structure when meaning is absent
   
VI. What the Contrast Reveals About Hemingway's Values
   • Realism > romanticism
   • Stoicism > emotional display
   • Honest assessment > delusion
   • Controlled behavior > violence or whining
   • But: neither man is happy or successful
   • Hemingway doesn't offer solutions, just better and worse responses
   
VII. Cohn's Jewishness and Hemingway's Antisemitism
   • Cohn explicitly Jewish, othered by group
   • Hemingway uses Cohn as negative example
   • Problematic: Jewish character is the fool, the outsider, the one who doesn't get it
   • Historical context doesn't excuse, but complicates reading
   • Modern readers must acknowledge this troubling dimension
   
VIII. Conclusion
   • Jake and Cohn as two paths through same crisis
   • One preserves dignity (Jake), one loses it (Cohn)
   • Neither gets what he wants
   • Hemingway's bleak wisdom: how you lose matters even if you lose
   • Comparison reveals values: face truth even if it's devastating

💡 Key Points to Address

•Establish similarities before exploring differences (shows sophisticated thinking)
•Use specific scenes as evidence (not just character traits in abstract)
•Explain WHY differences matter (what do they reveal about Hemingway's values?)
•Address problematic elements (Cohn's Jewishness, Hemingway's antisemitism)
•Use comparison to create insight neither character alone would reveal

📄 Read Complete Sample Essay (2083 words)

Click to expand full essay →

Jake Barnes and Robert Cohn both love Brett Ashley. Both cannot have her in the way they want. Both suffer humiliation, loss, and the meaninglessness of post-war existence. Their circumstances are strikingly similar: two men damaged by modernity (Jake by war, Cohn by antisemitism and cultural displacement), both seeking something to believe in, both finding that romantic love offers no salvation. But their responses to this shared predicament couldn't be more different. Jake faces his loss with stoic realism, maintaining dignity even in defeat. Cohn clings to romantic delusion, making scenes and demanding what cannot be given, losing all dignity in the process. Through this contrast, Hemingway makes a devastating argument: acknowledging loss honestly, however painful, preserves something essential that denial and fantasy destroy. Jake and Cohn show two ways of being broken, and Hemingway is clear about which is more admirable—even though neither leads to happiness or success. The similarities establish that what matters isn't the situation but the response. Both men love a woman who cannot or will not commit to them. Both experience sexual compromise: Jake literally cannot consummate love because of his war wound; Cohn is repeatedly "used" by women (Frances controls and emasculates him, Brett has affair with him and immediately discards him). Both are American expatriates in Europe, unmoored from home, seeking meaning in cafes and bullfights and alcohol. Both endure humiliation—Jake watching Brett with other men while loving her hopelessly, Cohn being mocked by the group for his earnestness and his Jewish otherness. The novel sets up parallel damage and then shows us radically different responses. The fundamental difference is romantic delusion versus stoic realism. Robert Cohn's worldview comes from romantic literature, particularly The Purple Land, a Victorian adventure novel about romantic conquest in South America. "For a man to take it at thirty-four as a guidebook to what life holds is about as safe as it would be for a man of the same age to enter Wall Street direct from a French convent," Jake observes acidly. Cohn actually believes in romantic adventure, believes his affair with Brett in San Sebastian meant something profound, believes she might love him, believes passion and intensity matter. He lives in Victorian fantasy imported to post-war reality that has no use for such delusions. Jake operates from opposite premise. He knows nothing will work out. He loves Brett but understands she can't commit, can't be faithful, can't give him what he wants even if his wound weren't an obstacle. He doesn't expect happy endings. When Brett comes to his room and they acknowledge the impossibility of their relationship, Jake doesn't protest or propose romantic solutions. He accepts it. This doesn't mean he doesn't suffer—the sleepless nights prove he does—but he suffers realistically, without the added pain of false hope. His clear-eyed assessment of his situation preserves dignity that Cohn's delusion destroys. How they handle humiliation reveals character. When Brett dismisses Cohn after their affair, he follows her to Pamplona like a kicked dog returning to its master. He lurks around the group, clearly unwanted, making everyone uncomfortable. When Mike mocks him brutally ("Tell us about it, Robert. Tell us about that beautiful lady you've been sleeping with and how you've been the most wonderful married man that ever lived"), Cohn endures it desperately, unable to leave but unable to respond with dignity. Finally he snaps, punches Jake and Romero, then cries and apologizes. The violence followed by tears, the physical assertion of masculinity collapsing immediately into emotional display—this is humiliation compounded. Jake endures similar humiliation silently. He watches Brett with Romero, the young bullfighter, knowing he facilitated the affair at Brett's request. This torture is largely self-imposed, but Jake doesn't make scenes. He drinks, maintains composure, doesn't force confrontations. When things fall apart, he goes fishing, maintains routines, doesn't demand explanations or declarations. The restraint preserves dignity. Hemingway's code of behavior—the bullfighter facing the bull with grace, the fisherman respecting the catch, the drinker holding liquor well—values controlled response over emotional outburst. Cohn's violence and tears violate the code utterly. Self-awareness separates them most definitively. Cohn seems genuinely deluded about his role: he thinks he's the romantic hero of his own adventure. When Frances calls him "the bright young Jewish prince," it's devastating mockery, but part of Cohn actually believes in his own significance. He doesn't understand that to the group he's a figure of fun, that his earnestness makes him ridiculous, that Brett used him and felt nothing. His lack of self-awareness makes every humiliation worse because he doesn't see it coming and can't process it when it arrives. Jake is brutally self-aware. He knows his wound makes him unfit for normal romantic life. He knows Brett is destructive and his love for her is hopeless. He knows the group's pleasant drinking and conversation masks desperation. He knows the bullfights offer temporary meaning that won't last. This self-awareness doesn't save him from suffering, but it prevents the additional suffering of surprise and delusion. More importantly, Jake develops a code of behavior to replace missing meaning: how to watch bullfights properly, how to drink well, how to behave with grace under pressure, how to help friends even when it costs you. The code doesn't make life meaningful, but it provides structure when meaning is absent. Cohn has no code except Victorian romanticism, which doesn't work in the post-war wasteland. The contrast reveals Hemingway's hierarchy of values: realism over romanticism, stoicism over emotional display, honest assessment over comforting delusion, controlled behavior over violence or whining. Jake isn't happy—the novel ends with the same bitter impossibility it began with—but he maintains dignity. Cohn loses dignity entirely: he's last seen crying and apologizing, then fleeing. Hemingway doesn't offer solutions to the Lost Generation's crisis of meaning. He doesn't suggest Jake will heal or find happiness. But he clearly indicates that Jake's response is superior to Cohn's, that facing truth preserves something essential even when truth is devastating. However, modern readers must confront the troubling dimension that Hemingway makes his negative example explicitly Jewish. Robert Cohn is introduced with his Jewishness foregrounded: "Robert Cohn was once middleweight boxing champion of Princeton. Do not think that I am very much impressed by that as a boxing title, but it meant a lot to Cohn. [...] He was Spider Kelly's star pupil. Spider Kelly taught all his young gentlemen to box like featherweights, no matter whether they weighed one hundred and five or two hundred and five pounds. But it seemed to fit Cohn." The boxing detail seems innocuous until you realize it's about a Jewish man learning to fight to defend himself, to fit in, to prove his masculinity by Protestant prep school standards. Throughout the novel, the group others Cohn: "Tell us that one about the prize-fighter," Mike says mockingly. "Oh, go to hell, Mike." "You know," says Mike, "Brett said that he would become better company if he would just go off and become a boxer again." The antisemitism is casual but constant, and Hemingway makes his fool, his romantic deluded failure, his example of how not to behave, a Jewish character. This isn't accidental. It's troubling. Historical context—1920s casual antisemitism in American expatriate circles—explains but doesn't excuse. Modern readers must acknowledge that part of what makes Cohn "other" to Hemingway is his Jewishness, and that Hemingway uses this otherness to mark him as outside the code, unable to understand the rules, fundamentally not one of us. This complicates the comparison. Are we meant to see Jake's stoicism as genuinely superior, or is Cohn's failure partly that he's Jewish and therefore incapable of the WASP masculine restraint Hemingway valorizes? The text supports both readings, and readers must decide how much the antisemitism undermines the philosophical contrast. At minimum, we must note that Hemingway's values—stoic realism, emotional restraint, grace under pressure—are presented as particularly masculine and particularly Anglo-American, and that the Jewish character is positioned as incapable of achieving them. Still, the contrast between Jake and Cohn reveals Hemingway's central argument about dignity in defeat. Both men are defeated: neither gets Brett, neither finds lasting meaning, neither escapes the post-war wasteland. The novel offers no happy endings, no healing, no solutions. But how you lose matters. Jake loses while maintaining dignity: he helps friends, works professionally, endures without complaining, faces truth without delusion. Cohn loses all dignity: he makes scenes, stalks Brett, punches people then cries, clings to delusions, can't accept reality. Hemingway doesn't promise that Jake's approach leads to happiness—the final "Isn't it pretty to think so?" is bitter acknowledgment that happiness isn't accessible. But Jake's approach preserves self-respect and the respect of others (however grudgingly), while Cohn's destroys both. The comparison reveals Hemingway's bleak wisdom: in world where winning is impossible, how you conduct yourself in losing determines whether you preserve any shred of dignity. Romantic delusion (Cohn) makes everything worse—you suffer the actual loss plus the added pain of disappointed expectations plus the humiliation of public emotional display. Stoic realism (Jake) doesn't prevent suffering, but it allows you to suffer cleanly, to face what's happening without additional delusion or spectacle. This isn't much, but it's something. It's the only thing Hemingway offers: not salvation or healing but a code of behavior that allows you to walk through hell with some shred of grace intact. Jake embodies this possibility; Cohn embodies its failure. Neither gets what he wants, but one preserves dignity and one doesn't, and Hemingway is clear that the difference matters even when the destination is the same.

✏️ Writing Tips

Don't just list similarities and differences. Use comparison as analytical tool to reveal something new. Ask: What does seeing these two characters side-by-side help us understand about the novel's values? How does their contrast create meaning? The best comparison essays use similarity to set up meaningful difference, then explain why that difference matters thematically. Also: acknowledge when comparing requires addressing problematic elements (antisemitism). Sophisticated analysis doesn't ignore uncomfortable textual politics.

👤

Character Analysis Essay

What is a Character Analysis Essay?

Why Write This Type?

Character analysis develops close reading skills and teaches you to see how authors construct characters through literary technique. It's essential for understanding how fiction works: characters aren't real people but carefully crafted constructions designed to create specific effects. Analyzing characters teaches you to distinguish between what characters do and what they mean.

Recommended Length:

1,500-2,000 words (5-7 pages)

Example Thesis:

Brett Ashley embodies the New Woman's contradictions: sexually liberated but emotionally trapped, asserting autonomy while remaining dependent on male attention, challenging traditional femininity while suffering from her own rebellion—ultimately Hemingway's ambivalent portrait of female liberation as both exciting and self-destructive.

📋 Essay Prompt

Analyze Lady Brett Ashley as Hemingway's portrait of modern womanhood. How does her characterization challenge and reinforce gender expectations of the 1920s? Is she a liberated New Woman or a tragic figure destroyed by modernity?

🗺️ Essay Outline

I. Introduction
   • Brett as iconic 1920s figure: short hair, drinks, controls her sexuality
   • But: also desperate, unstable, unable to commit
   • Thesis: Brett embodies contradictions of New Woman
   
II. How Brett Challenges Traditional Femininity
   • Physical appearance: short hair like a boy, masculine title ("Brett" not "Lady Ashley")
   • Sexual freedom: multiple partners, initiates affairs, refuses to be possessed
   • Drinking and camaraderie with men as equals
   • Rejects domestic femininity: won't marry Jake, leaves Romero
   • Independence: summons Jake when needed but won't be controlled
   
III. How Brett Reinforces Traditional Femininity
   • Needs constant male attention and validation
   • Financial dependence on men (Mike pays her bills, Jake rescues her)
   • Defined entirely by relationships to men (no work, interests, or identity outside romance)
   • Emotional instability: impulsive decisions, can't be alone
   • Self-destructive pattern: pursues men she doesn't love, abandons men who could make her happy
   
IV. Brett and Jake: The Central Relationship
   • She loves him but won't/can't be with him because of wound
   • Uses him as confidant and emotional support while sleeping with others
   • "Couldn't we just live together?" she asks, but answers herself: no
   • Is she cruel (using him) or honest (acknowledging impossibility)?
   • Their relationship as metaphor: modernity promises freedom but delivers isolation
   
V. Brett and Romero: The Potential Escape
   • Young, talented, represents vitality and purpose Brett lacks
   • She leaves him because she "won't be one of those bitches that ruins children"
   • Her only unselfish act in novel
   • But: even her unselfishness is form of selfishness (maintaining her self-image)
   • Shows self-awareness but inability to change
   
VI. What Brett Represents Thematically
   • New Woman's freedom without purpose: liberty to do what, exactly?
   • Post-war gender confusion: old roles broken, new ones not yet formed
   • Female version of Lost Generation: unmoored, seeking meaning, finding only temporary pleasure
   • Hemingway's ambivalence: is liberation good (agency) or bad (instability)?
   
VII. Feminist Critique of Hemingway's Portrayal
   • Brett has no interiority: we never see her thoughts directly
   • She exists as object of male fascination, not as subject
   • Her "liberation" is mostly sexual availability to men
   • No female friends, no interests beyond men and drinking
   • Is Hemingway critiquing society or just perpetuating sexist tropes?
   
VIII. Conclusion
   • Brett as neither fully liberated nor fully tragic but both
   • Hemingway captures contradictions without resolving them
   • Still relevant: what does female freedom mean if it's defined by men?
   • Brett endures as icon because she embodies unsolved questions

💡 Key Points to Address

•Analyze how Hemingway constructs Brett (what she says, does, how others perceive her)
•Examine both traditional and non-traditional elements of her characterization
•Use specific scenes as evidence (not just describing her in abstract)
•Address complexity: Brett is neither simple heroine nor simple victim
•Consider feminist critique: What are limits of Hemingway's portrayal?

📄 Read Complete Sample Essay (2323 words)

Click to expand full essay →

Lady Brett Ashley enters The Sun Also Rises like a force of nature: short hair "brushed back like a boy's," surrounded by adoring men at a Paris nightclub, drinking and laughing and utterly in control of her sexual power. She's the iconic New Woman of the 1920s—bobbed hair, masculine title shortened to first name, sexual freedom, refusal to be domesticated or possessed. She represents everything modernity promises: liberation from Victorian constraints, female autonomy, equal participation in male spheres of drinking and adventure. But by the novel's end, Brett is summoning Jake to rescue her in Madrid after another failed relationship, admitting she ruins everyone she gets involved with, resigned to marrying Mike though she doesn't love him. Is she liberated or trapped? Empowered or self-destructive? Hemingway refuses simple answers. Brett Ashley embodies the New Woman's deepest contradictions: sexually liberated but emotionally trapped, asserting autonomy while remaining dependent on male attention, challenging traditional femininity while suffering from her own rebellion—ultimately Hemingway's ambivalent portrait of female liberation as both exciting and self-destructive, possibility and failure simultaneously. Brett challenges traditional femininity in virtually every external way. Her physical appearance deliberately invokes androgyny: hair "brushed back like a boy's," slim figure, masculine style. She goes by "Brett" rather than "Lady Ashley," rejecting aristocratic formality for casual American directness. She drinks as heavily as the men, participates in their café conversations as equal, travels independently. Most dramatically, she controls her own sexuality: she chooses her partners, initiates affairs, refuses to be possessed by any single man. When Robert Cohn imagines their San Sebastian affair meant something, Brett dismisses him brutally. She sleeps with Romero when she wants to, leaves him when she chooses to. This sexual autonomy was revolutionary for 1920s female characters, who typically appeared as either virtuous maidens or fallen women. Brett is neither: she's sexually active without guilt or punishment, and she maintains the men's respect (Jake's, Bill's, even Mike's despite his jealousy). She also rejects domestic femininity entirely. When she and Jake acknowledge their love in his apartment, Brett says "Couldn't we just live together?" but immediately answers herself: "I don't think so. I'd just tromper you with everybody." She won't pretend to domestic monogamy she knows she can't maintain. When she leaves Romero in Madrid, she tells Jake: "I'm not going to be one of those bitches that ruins children." She could marry the young bullfighter, could have security and his devotion, but she chooses not to because she knows she'd destroy him. This is female agency: making choices based on self-knowledge rather than social expectation. But Brett simultaneously reinforces the most traditional feminine dependence. She requires constant male attention and validation. Every scene involves Brett surrounded by men: at the nightclub with her "crowd," in San Sebastian with Cohn, at Pamplona with Jake, Mike, Romero. She has no female friends, no interests outside romantic relationships, no work or purpose. When Jake asks what she does, the answer is nothing: she drinks, she has affairs, she moves from man to man. Her "liberation" is freedom from traditional constraints but not freedom to anything in particular. She's liberated to drink and seduce and move through Europe, but to what end? What is she building toward? The novel offers no answer. More troublingly, Brett remains financially dependent on men. Mike pays her bills—she's marrying him partly for money. When she summons Jake from Madrid, he pays her hotel bill and the wire to Lyon. She operates with apparent independence but always with male financial support. This reveals the limits of her liberation: she's free from sexual propriety but not from economic necessity. She can choose her partners but only from men who can afford her. The independence is real in certain spheres and illusory in others. Emotionally, Brett is deeply unstable. She makes impulsive decisions (affair with Cohn, pursuit of Romero, repeated returns to Mike), can't be alone, changes her mind constantly. When Jake asks "Don't you ever just want to get married and settle down?" she responds "I don't think so. I'd just be miserable." She knows what she wants (Jake) but can't have him, and knowing this, she pursues men she doesn't want. This is self-destructive pattern, not empowerment. She has freedom to choose but consistently chooses badly, which raises the question: what good is choice if you can't use it to create sustainable happiness? The central relationship is Brett and Jake, and it defines her character. She loves him—this seems genuinely true—but won't and can't be with him because of his war wound. Their love is impossible, and both know it. But Brett uses Jake anyway: as confidant, as emotional support, as the person she summons when other relationships fail. She asks him to facilitate her affair with Romero—a request that tortures Jake but he grants anyway. Is this cruel? Is she using his love for her to manipulate him? Or is she being honest in way that respects Jake's agency to say no if he chooses? Hemingway leaves it ambiguous. Brett asks but doesn't demand. Jake could refuse but doesn't. Both are complicit in a relationship that satisfies neither but that neither can abandon. Their relationship becomes metaphor for modernity's promise. Old structures (marriage, sexual propriety, traditional gender roles) have collapsed. Brett and Jake are free to love each other without marriage, to maintain intimacy without consummation, to define their relationship however they want. This is what modernity offers: freedom from convention. But what they discover is that freedom without possibility of fulfillment is torture. They can love each other freely, but Jake's wound makes that love unconsummatable. Modernity grants liberty but not necessarily happiness. The broken structures aren't replaced by something better—just by emptiness and improvisation. Brett's relationship with Romero offers potential escape. He's young, talented, has purpose (bullfighting), represents vitality the other men lack. He's not damaged by war, not alcoholic, not cynical. When Brett seduces him, it seems possible that maybe he could be different, could give her what she needs. But Brett leaves him, and she's most admirable in this moment. "I'm not going to be one of those bitches that ruins children," she tells Jake. She recognizes that her chaos would destroy Romero's talent and youth. Leaving him is her only unselfish act in the novel. But even this unselfishness is complicated. Brett leaves Romero partly to preserve her self-image: she won't be "one of those bitches." Her identity as not-that-kind-of-woman matters more than actually being with Romero. She has self-awareness—she knows she's destructive—but that awareness doesn't lead to change. She knows she shouldn't marry Mike, knows she'll be miserable, but she'll do it anyway. Knowledge without capacity for change is its own trap. Brett understands her situation clearly and remains unable to alter it. This is more devastating than simple delusion. Thematically, Brett represents the New Woman's freedom without purpose: liberty to do what, exactly? She can drink, seduce, travel, but none of it means anything or creates lasting satisfaction. She embodies post-war gender confusion: old roles (wife, mother, lady) are broken but new roles aren't yet defined. What is a woman who won't be domestic, can't find meaningful work (none is available to her class), exists outside traditional respectability? The 1920s created her freedom but didn't create structures to make that freedom sustainable. Brett is female version of Lost Generation: unmoored, seeking meaning, finding only temporary pleasure that doesn't satisfy. Hemingway's ambivalence is crucial. He seems both excited by Brett (her vitality, her refusal of convention) and critical (her instability, her dependence, her inability to commit or build anything lasting). Is liberation good because it grants agency, or bad because it produces chaos? Hemingway won't say. He shows both: Brett has freedom Victorian women lacked, and she's miserable. Traditional women were constrained, but at least they had structure and purpose. Brett has neither. The novel suggests liberation without purpose creates different problems than constraint without freedom, not necessarily better problems. Feminist critics rightly note that Brett has no interiority. We never see her thoughts directly. Everything is filtered through Jake's perspective. She exists as object of male fascination rather than as subject with her own inner life. Her "liberation" is mostly sexual availability to men—she's free to sleep with whomever she wants, but Hemingway doesn't show her having interests, ambitions, or identity outside her romantic relationships. She has no female friends, no hobbies, no work, no purpose beyond drinking and pursuing men. This is Hemingway's limitation: he can imagine liberated woman only as sexually available woman, can't imagine female freedom extending to intellectual or creative or professional spheres. This raises the question: is Hemingway critiquing society that gives women freedom in sex but not in work or thought? Or is he simply perpetuating sexist tropes by making Brett shallow and dependent despite her surface liberation? The text supports both readings. Brett could be Hemingway's critique: look what society does to women—gives them sexual freedom but no education, no career options, no purpose, then acts surprised when they're unstable. Or Brett could be Hemingway's sexism: women are naturally shallow, emotional, dependent, and liberation just removes the structures that managed these inherent flaws. Readers must decide. What's undeniable is that Brett Ashley has endured as cultural icon precisely because she embodies contradictions Hemingway doesn't resolve. She's neither fully liberated nor fully tragic but both simultaneously. She has real agency and real constraints. She makes choices and remains trapped. She rejects convention and remains conventional in deeper ways. These contradictions still resonate because the questions remain unsolved: What does female freedom mean if it's defined primarily through relationships with men? Can liberation from external constraints create internal freedom, or does it just replace one trap with another? Is agency meaningful if material dependence persists? Hemingway captures these tensions without answering them, and that's why Brett Ashley remains fascinating rather than dated. She's not a simple feminist heroine or a simple cautionary tale but a complex portrait of what happens when social structures collapse faster than new ones can form, when freedom is granted without the resources to make it sustainable, when liberation turns out to be more complicated than its promise suggests. Brett walks through the novel with apparent confidence, short hair and masculine title and men at her beck and call, but the final image is her in a taxi with Jake, fantasizing about the happiness neither of them can achieve, hearing Jake's bitter "Isn't it pretty to think so?" The freedom to choose your own destruction is still destruction. That's Hemingway's ambivalent portrait of modern womanhood: real liberation, real suffering, no easy answers.

✏️ Writing Tips

Don't just describe what Brett is like—analyze how Hemingway creates her character and what she represents thematically. Use the text: her dialogue, her actions, how other characters respond to her. Address the complexity: she's both liberated and trapped, both admirable and troubling. And engage with the gender politics: Hemingway's portrayal is complicated, both progressive for 1926 and limited by his own sexism. Sophisticated character analysis doesn't just praise or condemn—it examines how and why a character works in context of the novel's themes.

💡

Thematic Essay

What is a Thematic Essay?

Why Write This Type?

Thematic essays teach you to see the big picture: how all parts of a novel work together to create meaning. They develop synthetic thinking—connecting disparate elements to reveal underlying patterns. This skill transfers to any field requiring you to identify core issues and trace how they manifest in different contexts.

Recommended Length:

1,500-2,000 words (5-7 pages)

Example Thesis:

The Sun Also Rises portrays traditional masculinity as shattered by WWI—Jake's literal emasculation symbolizes broader male crisis—and while Hemingway offers no recovery or redemption, he proposes a revised masculine code based on grace, restraint, and authentic expertise (like bullfighting) as substitute for impossible traditional manhood.

📋 Essay Prompt

Examine the theme of masculinity in crisis in The Sun Also Rises. How does Hemingway portray traditional masculine identity as broken by war and modernity? What, if anything, does he offer as alternative?

🗺️ Essay Outline

I. Introduction
   • WWI destroyed a generation of young men literally and psychologically
   • Traditional masculinity (warrior, provider, sexual potency) impossible for Jake
   • Thesis: Hemingway diagnoses crisis and offers revised code, not restoration
   
II. Jake's Wound as Central Symbol
   • Never described explicitly but present in every scene
   • Literal emasculation represents broader crisis
   • Can't be lover, can't be warrior (war is over), can't be father
   • All traditional male roles unavailable
   • Universalizes war's emasculating impact
   
III. Failed Models of Masculinity
   • Robert Cohn: romantic/Victorian model doesn't work in modern world
   • Mike Campbell: aristocratic masculinity reduced to drinking and debt
   • Count Mippipopolous: old-world model (scars, experience) interesting but irrelevant
   • Brett's fiancé Mike: can't even show up in novel, pure absence
   • No existing model works for post-war men
   
IV. Hemingway's Alternative: The Code
   • Grace under pressure: maintain dignity when circumstances devastate
   • Authentic expertise: knowing how to do something truly well
   • Restraint: control emotions, don't make scenes, hold your liquor
   • Helping others even when it costs you (Jake facilitating Brett/Romero)
   • Honest clear-eyed assessment of reality without delusion
   
V. Bullfighting as Masculine Ideal
   • Romero embodies the code: skill, courage, grace
   • Faces death with control and artistry
   • Not about domination but about proper relationship to danger
   • Why bullfighting matters: it's real, has rules, requires mastery
   • Substitute for warfare: ritualized violence with meaning
   • But: Americans are spectators, not participants (can admire, not achieve)
   
VI. Fishing at Burguete as Alternative Masculine Space
   • Jake and Bill escape women and complexity
   • Simple competence: catching fish properly
   • Camaraderie without intensity (contrast to Jake/Brett scenes)
   • Nature as space unmarked by war or modernity
   • Temporary respite but not solution (they return to chaos)
   
VII. What Hemingway Does NOT Offer
   • No restoration: Jake won't heal, won't get Brett, won't recover pre-war masculinity
   • No transcendence: fishing and bullfights are temporary, not transformative
   • No new purpose: work, family, nation all absent or hollow
   • No community: everyone isolated despite superficial friendships
   • Bleak honesty: code manages crisis, doesn't solve it
   
VIII. Why This Still Matters
   • Masculinity still defined partly by warrior role, sexual potency, provider capacity
   • What happens when these prove impossible or destructive?
   • Modern masculine crisis: mass shootings, incels, toxic masculinity debates
   • Hemingway diagnosed problem, offered partial solution (code, competence, restraint)
   • Didn't solve it—but named it honestly
   
IX. Conclusion
   • Traditional masculinity shattered, no restoration possible
   • Code offers way to behave with dignity in defeat
   • Not a happy answer but maybe the only honest one
   • Still relevant: we're still asking what masculinity means when traditional models fail

💡 Key Points to Address

•Connect theme to multiple elements: character (Jake's wound), symbol (bullfighting), setting (fishing trip)
•Show how theme develops through novel, not just exists statically
•Use specific evidence from text, not just abstract claims
•Address what Hemingway offers AND what he doesn't offer
•Connect to contemporary relevance: why does this theme still matter?

📄 Read Complete Sample Essay (2426 words)

Click to expand full essay →

Jake Barnes's war wound is the novel's literal and metaphorical center. It's never described explicitly—Hemingway's iceberg theory leaves the specifics submerged—but we know it's genito-urinary injury that makes sexual relationship impossible. Jake can feel desire but cannot consummate it. He loves Brett but cannot have her physically even if other obstacles were removed. This literal emasculation—war destroying Jake's physical capacity for traditional masculine role as lover and potential father—symbolizes the broader crisis The Sun Also Rises diagnoses: World War I shattered traditional masculinity's foundational roles (warrior, sexual partner, provider, father) and offered nothing to replace them. Hemingway portrays traditional masculine identity as irreversibly broken by war and modernity, and while he offers no recovery, redemption, or restoration, he proposes a revised masculine code based on grace under pressure, authentic expertise, and emotional restraint as partial substitute—not for impossible traditional manhood itself but for the meaning it once provided. Jake's wound functions as the ultimate symbol because it makes concrete what war did to an entire generation. He cannot be a lover—Brett wants him but the wound makes consummation impossible. He cannot be a warrior—the war is over, and being wounded discharged him from even that. He cannot be a father—no physical relationship means no children. He cannot be a provider in traditional sense—he works as journalist but has no family to support, no domestic masculine role. Every foundational element of traditional masculinity is foreclosed to him. And because Hemingway never shows us the wound directly, never reduces it to specific medical details, it universalizes: Jake's literal injury represents all the ways war damaged men, made them unable to have the lives they'd expected, turned them into spectators of normal existence rather than participants. The novel systematically presents failed models of masculinity to demonstrate that no existing template works for post-war men. Robert Cohn embodies romantic/Victorian masculinity: he believes in chivalry, romantic love, adventure modeled on outdated novels. This makes him ridiculous. When he follows Brett to Pamplona after she's dismissed him, when he punches Jake and Romero then cries, when he can't accept that his affair with Brett meant nothing—every instance shows romantic masculinity as pathetic delusion in modern context. The world has no use for Victorian gentlemen quoting The Purple Land. Mike Campbell represents aristocratic masculinity: title, old family, assumption of superiority based on birth. But Mike is reduced to drinking and debt. He can't pay his bills, Brett supports him financially, he has no purpose or function. His class status means nothing—it's decorative at best, actively destructive at worst (he's cruel to Cohn partly from aristocratic disdain). The old aristocratic masculine model survives as hollow shell, all entitlement and no substance. Count Mippipopolous offers intriguing alternative: old-world masculinity based on experience, scars, wealth, sophistication. He's the only character who seems content. But he's also irrelevant, a curiosity from different era. Jake and his cohort can't become the Count—they don't have his wealth, his aristocratic ease, his generation's certainties. He's interesting but not a usable model for young men destroyed by war. And Brett's nominal fiancé Mike barely appears—he's pure absence, masculinity that can't even show up in the novel. Every existing template for manhood is either ridiculous, hollow, irrelevant, or absent. Into this void, Hemingway proposes what critics call "the code": a revised masculine identity based on behavior rather than role. The code has several elements. First, grace under pressure: maintain dignity when circumstances devastate. Jake can't have Brett, but he doesn't rage or collapse. He endures with composure. This is different from traditional masculinity's conquering heroism—it's about how you lose, not how you win. Second, authentic expertise: knowing how to do something truly well. Jake understands bullfighting, can explain what makes Romero great, knows how to fish properly. This mastery provides purpose when larger meanings (nation, God, family) ring hollow. Third, emotional restraint: control emotions, don't make scenes, hold your liquor. When Mike gets drunk and cruel, or when Cohn cries after punching people, they violate the code. Jake drinks as much as anyone but maintains control. Fourth, helping others even when it costs you. Jake facilitates Brett's affair with Romero despite knowing it will torture him to watch. This seems like traditional masculine self-sacrifice until you realize it leads nowhere, protects no one, achieves nothing except Brett's temporary gratification. It's code-based behavior without the traditional payoff (hero gets the girl, sacrifice leads to reward). You help because it's how you behave, not because it fixes anything. Fifth, honest clear-eyed assessment of reality without delusion. Jake knows his situation is impossible. He doesn't indulge false hope. This brutal realism distinguishes him from Cohn's romanticism or Mike's aristocratic pretense. The code doesn't make Jake happy, but it provides structure when meaning is absent. Bullfighting represents the code's purest embodiment. Pedro Romero demonstrates perfect masculine grace: skill, courage, emotional control, authenticity. He faces the bull with artistry and precision. He doesn't posture or show off—he does his work perfectly. When he makes a kill, it's clean and necessary. This is Hemingway's masculine ideal: genuine competence in the face of real danger, grace in proximity to death, mastery of a craft requiring courage and discipline. Importantly, bullfighting isn't about domination—it's about proper relationship to danger. The matador doesn't simply overpower the bull; he engages with it artistically, risks himself, demonstrates skill and bravery within rigid traditional rules. Bullfighting matters because it's real. It has standards. You can do it well or poorly, and the difference is visible. In a world where traditional masculine roles (warrior, provider) have collapsed, where God and nation and family ring hollow, bullfighting offers something genuine: a craft requiring authentic mastery, with stakes high enough (death) to matter. It's ritualized violence with meaning, a substitute for warfare that provides intensity and purpose within controlled form. But the Americans—Jake, Bill, even Robert—are spectators, not participants. They can appreciate bullfighting, understand it, even love it, but they can't do it. It's not their culture, not their skill. The best they can do is recognize excellence when they see it, distinguish between real matadors and fake ones. This is devastating limitation: Hemingway shows his male characters what masculine grace looks like, but they can only watch, not achieve it themselves. Romero has the code because he was born to it, trained from childhood, embodies it naturally. Jake and his cohort can admire it but cannot become it. They're permanently outside the only masculine ideal Hemingway finds admirable. The fishing trip at Burguete offers alternative masculine space: Jake and Bill escape women and romantic complications for simple competence in nature. They catch fish properly, appreciate the landscape, enjoy camaraderie without intensity or complication. It's masculine friendship based on shared activity rather than emotional intensity. This seems restorative—Jake even sleeps well at Burguete, rare for him. Nature appears as space unmarked by war or modernity, where traditional masculine skills (fishing, hiking) still function. But the respite is temporary. They return to Pamplona and all the chaos. Fishing offers brief escape, not solution. You can't stay in the mountains forever. Crucially, Hemingway does NOT offer restoration, transcendence, or new purpose. Jake won't heal. He won't get Brett. He won't recover pre-war masculinity or find replacement that satisfies. The bullfights and fishing trips are temporary management strategies, not transformations. The novel ends where it began: Jake and Brett in a taxi, acknowledging their impossible situation, pretending briefly that it might be otherwise, then returning to bitter realism: "Isn't it pretty to think so?" No growth occurs. No healing happens. No new meaning emerges. The code manages the crisis; it doesn't solve it. Work, family, nation—traditional sources of masculine purpose—are all absent or hollow. Jake has a job but it's not meaningful, just functional. Family never appears (everyone is isolated expatriate). Nation rings hollow for generation that fought for it and got destroyed. God is absent ("It's sort of what we have instead of God," Bill says about bullfighting). Traditional support structures for masculine identity have all collapsed, and nothing replaces them except drinking, brief pleasures, temporary reprieves. Hemingway offers bleak honesty: the code helps you behave with dignity in defeat, but it's still defeat. Grace under pressure is admirable, but you're still under pressure forever. This diagnosis remains relevant because masculine crisis persists. Traditional masculinity is still defined partly by warrior role (military service, physical courage), sexual potency (conquest, performance), and provider capacity (earning more than partner, supporting family). But modernity makes these problematic: warfare is mechanized and often morally ambiguous, sexual conquest is increasingly recognized as toxic, single-provider families are economically unviable for most people. What happens when foundational masculine roles prove impossible, destructive, or obsolete? Contemporary masculine crisis manifests in mass shootings (performing violent masculinity when peaceful outlets fail), incel communities (rage at being denied sexual role), toxic masculinity debates (recognizing traditional models harm men and others). Hemingway in 1926 diagnosed the problem: war and modernity shattered traditional masculine identity, and men raised to expect those roles found themselves unable to fulfill them, with no clear alternative. His proposed solution—the code: grace, expertise, restraint—is partial at best. It's not about new purpose but about how to behave when purpose is absent. It's damage management, not healing. Hemingway didn't solve the problem of post-war masculinity. He named it honestly and proposed code of behavior that allows dignity in defeat. That's not a happy answer, but it might be the only honest one. We're still asking what masculinity means when traditional models fail. We still struggle with whether restraint and competence and grace under pressure are sufficient substitutes for larger meaning. We still have men raised to expect roles (warrior, provider, sexual partner) that modernity makes complicated or impossible, and no clear template for what comes next. Hemingway's diagnosis endures because the crisis endures. The Sun Also Rises offers no restoration of traditional masculinity, no healing of Jake's wound, no redemption arc where characters find new purpose. It offers brutal honesty: war broke something that won't be fixed, traditional masculine roles are gone, and the best you can do is maintain dignity while acknowledging the loss. The code—grace under pressure, honest assessment, authentic expertise—provides structure without meaning, behavior without purpose. It's how you survive with shred of dignity intact when survival is all that remains possible. That's Hemingway's answer to masculine crisis: not solution but acknowledgment, not transcendence but endurance, not triumph but grace in defeat. For men still asking what masculinity means when traditional answers fail, Hemingway's bleak honesty remains uncomfortably relevant: maybe there is no new meaning, only new ways of behaving while meaning stays absent. Maybe grace under pressure is all we get. Maybe that has to be enough.

✏️ Writing Tips

Thematic essays require synthetic thinking: connect plot, character, symbol, setting to show how they all explore your theme. Don't just say "the theme is X"—show how Hemingway develops it through specific techniques. Address complexity: Hemingway's treatment of masculinity is neither simple celebration nor simple critique. And make it relevant: why should modern readers care about 1920s masculine crisis? Because the questions persist. Strong thematic essays make old texts speak to contemporary concerns.

Need More Help?

💡