Blurred Morality in “A Farewell to Arms” by Ernest Hemingway and TS Eliot’s “Wasteland” Morality, as defined by Microsoft word, are principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. Mortality, or the state of being subject to death, is also something most people see as straight forward. These definitions and most people’s general knowledge would make it seem as all decisions are either right or wrong and all behavior is good or bad but both “A Farewell to Arms” by Ernest Hemingway and “Wasteland” by TS Eliot blur these defined lines. Ernest Hemingway uses a combination of detached prose, random changes from first to second person viewpoint and from the events taking place to keep the reader from questioning the morality of his actions. Henry’s relationship with Catherine is what initially causes his morality to be called into doubt. The loss of Catherine’s fiancé makes her desperate for some type of love again which leads to the first questionable moral act by Henry. After just their first few meetings Catherine asks, “You did say you loved me, didn’t you?” Henry replies “yes” but follows it by thinking “I knew I did not love Catherine Barkley nor had any idea of loving her. This was a game, like bridge, in which you said things instead of playing cards.” (Hemingway, 30) Whether he was unsure of his true feelings or they changed rapidly is unknown but within just a few short chapters any free time he has while away from Catherine is spent thinking of her and how they will spend their time together after the war. Henry doesn’t mean to fall for Catherine but the impact of the war causes nearly every character to search for love in order to feel anything but the horror of war. Rinaldi’s love for every beautiful woman he meets is an added example of this desire for passion in a world that seems completely engulfed by war. The next instance of questionable morals is the way Henry and Catherine go about their relationship once he is wounded. While not many working at the hospital are fooled by their attempts at hiding their relations it could still be seen as putting both of their careers in jeopardy. Having a child out of wedlock may not seem immoral or even unnatural now but when “A Farewell to Arms” was written it was most definitely another action of questionable morality that Hemingway adds to develop the inevitable and tragic ending. Helen Ferguson calls the morality of both Henry and Catherine into question upon Henry’s return by saying, “I can’t stand him…He’s done nothing but ruin you with his sneaking Italian tricks.”(Hemingway, 246) After Henry and Catherine tell Helen that they plan to run off together Fergy, as she is referred to by Catherine, calls out their lack of morality in saying “I’m ashamed of you Catherine Barkley. You have no shame and no honor and you’re as sneaky as he is.”(Hemingway, 247) Helen is really the only person in “A Farewell to Arms” that openly questions either Catherine or Henry’s actions. As an older man the reader could assume Count Greffi would seek answers for why Henry leaves the military but he completely understands with little explanation needed from Henry. Henry and Catherine’s relationship isn’t the only place there are examples of questionable morals. His time in the Italian army is full of actions that can be seen as immoral. Another time when Henry’s morality is called into question is when he tries to help another American without medical papers get to a hospital instead of marching on with the rest of his regiment. Hemingway’s use of stream of consciousness shows us why Henry risked anything for the other soldier when he thinks “It(the war) did not have anything to do with me.” (Hemingway, 37) The act that questions morality most directly takes place in chapter twenty-nine. After Henry shoots one of two sergeants who refused to cut brush and help get their car out of a ditch he quickly moves past the events and gets back to the task at hand. Bonello asks Henry “You see me shoot him, Tenente?” (Hemingway, 204) Henry doesn’t even acknowledge the question replying, “We’ve got to get the brush quickly.” (Hemingway, 204) Henry’s sudden violent outburst is shocking because it goes against his detachment to the war and duty. It also shows that war can make any crime justifiable because it is all just a byproduct of the violence and disorder caused by war. Henry’s abandonment of his military duty is similarly immoral. He rationalizes his decision by comparing his military duties to being a floorwalker at a department store that wouldn’t return to work after being fired. Later in the novel, when Catherine asks Henry about the war he says “I’ll tell you about it if I ever get it straight in my head.”(Hemingway, 250) This statement makes the reader feel that Henry could be questioning some of the decisions he has made. Who knows whether it is shooting another comrade, knocking up a girl he hardly knows or any other of his debatable decisions throughout the book. Written just a few years after Einstein’s famous theory of relativity, “Wasteland” uses this theory in order to question morality as well as many other things we thought to be certain. TS Eliot’s “Wasteland” questions morality and mortality from beginning to end. Starting with the epigraph, which was taken from “the Satyricon,” a Sibyl, or woman with prophetic powers who ages but never dies, looks ahead into the future and decides her only wish is to die. Eliot’s opens his poem describing what could be seen as a fond recollection of Marie’s childhood memories but because of the present these memories remind her how much the present has deteriorated. Throughout the opening scene “The Burial of the Dead” all four narrators have a desire to speak to anyone but only have their own memories or, as in the fourth episode of section one, a ghost named Stetson who the narrator recognizes as a fallen comrade. The first questioning of morality in Eliot’s poem comes with the first woman in the second section, “A Game of Chess.” Eliot’s allusions to Cleopatra and Dido, both of whom took their own lives because of their lovers, followed by her pleading to her lover, “Speak to me. Why do you never speak? Speak./What are you thinking of? What thinking? What?/I never know what you are thinking. Think.” (Eliot, 112-114) make the reader see the irrational tendencies the women are capable of when they are in love. Her lover, upon this barrage of questions, can only think of drowning, rats and the bones of men. Later in the same scene two women discuss a friend, Lil. Lil has done everything seemingly right. She married, supported her husband while he was off at war and gave birth to five children of his but is being betrayed by her body. The ladies discussing Lil act as if her moral duty is to continue giving birth and raising children until her husband is satisfied. In the third section titled “The Fire Sermon” Eliot depicts three sexual encounters all seemingly impossible to reproduce for one reason or another. The first of which is the most morally questionable. Eugenides suggests a homosexual liaison between himself and the speaker who then reveals himself as Tiresias, a person from mythology who is both male and female and can see into the future. Although probably not considered immoral, homosexuality of the time was misunderstood and definitely frowned upon. The second of these occurrences is seen through Tiresias foresight. It is between a typist and her lover, which hypothetically could have reproduced but the line “On the divan are piled (at night her bed) (Eliot, 226) makes one assume she is not in any place to have a child. A few lines later she states, “well now that’s done: and I’m glad its over”(Eliot, 252) makes the reader assume that even though she didn’t stop her lover she wanted no part of it. The third couple in this section is Queen Elizabeth and Leicester. The Queen, known as the “Virgin Queen” was required to act as if she was available for marriage, hiding any relations she had in order to keep the possibility of a marriage alliance alive. This holding back of any relationships she may have had is another example of the blurred sense of morality Eliot depicts in his poem. The fourth and fifth section of “Wasteland” question morality as a whole by insinuating that decisions don’t really matter because at the end of the day everything is cyclical. If you are at the top you will eventually fall just like all the great empires like Jerusalem, Greece and Egypt. Ernest Hemingway and TS Eliot were two of the greatest writers of their time and some might say ever. Their ability to make the reader question things, like morality, which they thought were clearly outlined is what makes both authors’ works so riveting. “A Farewell to Arms” by Hemingway and “Wasteland” by Eliot are two examples of this skill. Both Hemingway and Eliot question things we think of usually as absolute in differing ways. Hemingway’s combination of stream of consciousness and detached prose and Eliot’s idea that if all things are relative than everything has it’s own unique shades of grey are ways in which these men accomplished this thought provoking style.