The only thing I remember about this book is that it made me want to eat flying fish.

Not his best book (in my opinion), but a great one. It’s a remarkable example of the “whole is much better than the parts”: the start is a bit boring, the pseudo-dialogs with the fish are a bit silly and the climax is a bit disappointing, but when you close it you get the feeling that you experienced something great.

What is always superb in his work is the language economy, the to-the-point sentences, the lack of useless words and meaningless descriptions. Hemingway invented the modern prose and all of us readers and writers owe him a drink.

@MariaRomanov A few people have told me that the whole thing needs to be read in a single sitting for it to work.

Personally… It’s just slow and depressing. Nothing that really keeps me, and nothing that makes it feel worth reading.

I don’t know how to explain why I like Hemingway. His work just feels hyper true in a way. Him and Steinbeck both stay with me for a while after I put the book down.

Read it long ago, don’t remember it being depressing, but definitely had a raw feeling about the story. I see it as a piece that takes an aspect of life that may look devoid of meaning from the outside and reveals meaning buried within intricate detail… But take that with a squeeze of lime, it’s been a while :P

I agree with others that a single sitting improves the book. I’m not sure why it has such acclaim, but it was at the very least memorable to me. I read it a year or so ago now and I can still recall the plot

I’ve had on my bucket list to do a short book/long cigar afternoon at some point and I’ve been saving this book for that afternoon.