Brian, I just had to bring forward your comment from yesterday concerning the reference at the beginning of ch. 2 to Paul's forgotten play called "Saul." This is some good reading on your part, and I can see both of your conjectures about the meaning of this as being valid: Saul was both a failed warrior/king (actually a good warrior who turned out to be a bad king) in the Old Testatment and the pre-conversion name of Paul the great (and first) Christian missionary. Don't both names fit the context here? There's a great gap between good soldiers and good leaders, and Paul's narration is a testimony powerful enough to convert many who would romanticize war.
Can Remarque be that subtle a writer? I think so.
Get Breaking News on your cell
E-mail 
Newsletter sign-up: Top Headlines
