Ernest Hemingway was celebrated for his direct, clear and concise style of writing. And this characteristic comes in handy today, as I need to be brief and straightforward so as not to risk losing my generous neighbor’s Internet connection… 
In “Hills like white elephants”, his powerful use of dialogue is greatly responsible for building up tension between the two main characters of the short story. I would like you to discuss the narrative technique he employs in the text. Once again, feel free to brainstorm!
To help focus your discussions, read the article entitled “Hemingway’s “Hills Like White Elephants” and the tradition of the American in Europe“.
Finally, in case you would like to have some hints from Nobel-prize winner Ernest Hemingway on how to write your assignments, click here! 
And for a moment of relaxation after a lot of serious work, click here! 
Note: Folks, I’m really sorry I haven’t been present here as I intended to. This post was supposed to have come out on Thursday and it’s already Sunday! I know I told you these 2 weeks would be hard, but I didn’t count on not having Internet access for so long… I hope tomorrow all these technological issues will be solved and I will be able to catch up!
In this short story the dialog between the main characters is very important.
As it is narrated in third person, there are details that we get
only paying attention to characters’ dialog and characters’ body language.
The dialog between Jig and “the American” is really meaningfull.
It reflects maybe acontrast between stereotypical male and female relationship
roles.
For example, Jig makes a comparison of the hills with White elephants.
But the super-rational American fastly denies, destroying the bit of
poetry it had. He was very objective and realistic. (man’s stereotype).
She,
meanwile, was subjective and a little bit dreamer.
In “Hills Like White Elephants” Hemingway does the characters speak for themselves.
First impression was: “What are they talking about?” I felt just as if I was standing alone at the same train station with nothing to do but listen to these stranger’s talk, kind of eavesdropping and not really getting the whole picture of the conversation, except for the fact that they where tense, maybe in the verge of a serius argue…
Stuck in a unfamiliar place, waiting to leave, they have in “in-between” conversation, regarding an “perfectly simple operation”. It seems to me that while traveling they had been avoiding the subject, overwhelmed by distraction, but when they find themselves in a place where there’s nothing to do or see (but the hills that look like white elephants, which seem not not much of a distraction), they fall back into reality and real-life discussions.
The couple is facing a dificult moment, for Jig, the woman is probably sick. We can see in the text that she is aware of her problem but she is trying not to make a great deal of it. On the other hand, the unnamed man, altough remains calm in his talking, is very much concerned with it. nevertheless, he insists by using some king of “psicologia reversa” that she should submitt to the “very simple operation” that will fix everything. Jig states that she herself wouln’t do so if it ws not so important to him… it seems to me that she is playing the old “I need you to prove that you love me by making do something for my life” game, but he isn’t buying it – I guess that is commom in love relationships…
The fact that they are americans travelling through Europe can also indicate that they are both trying to escape from their true situation back home, the real condition that they’re facing, and trying to convince themselves that things will really be alright. However, it could mean that thing are not so perfectly simple and they are trying to escape this “complexity”, you know, like allienating from real problems, or problems that will more probably end up badly, you see… maybe Jig is dying and the guy just won’t want to accept it – this could explain why he is so insisting and also why she is so selfless, like if she was ready to it… Am I going to far??
I guess the narrative technique allow us to imagine a many great range of situation for the couple. As I said, the reader is put in the middle of an on-going situation, there’s no onmiscient narrator to explain thing, there’s no first-person narrator to give at least one point of view… there’s nothing left to us but to wonder. Readers grow tense with characters because we try do understand what are they talking, why are they “arguing”, what are they doing travelling in face of a possible health problem, what is going to happen to them, hoping that their train takes longer to arrive so we can hear a bit more of their talk…
Their conversation is cut by Jig’s childish “please please please please (… please³³³) stop talking” just when thing are getting serious, and the man sees that he has lost this time and – for me – he decides not to distress her any longer… what a pity for the reader not to know anumore of their affairs… So, as they ‘make up’ she says she’s “fine”, and we are left with the question “is she really?”… well, what do you think? I think that the man has touched her wound and maybe awoke her a little to her real situation… and you?
My first impression was quite similar to Juliana’s. At least for me, in the beginning it does sound like a nonsense conversation you overhear while waiting for the bus. Then I realised the dialogue itself was, perhaps, the centre of the story and bearing that in mind everything makes sense.
Even though this comment sounds absolutely silly, it seriously reminds me of those Woody Allen’s typical man-woman conversations. And, somehow, it also resembles Jane Austen’s technique of constructing an entire plot and picturing a society through dialogues.
I would say the characters are less important than their conversation and the issues treated by them. The fact that the man’s name is not mentioned led me to think this way. You don`t know who they are and you know almost nothing of their lives. We, perhaps, think we know what they are talking about, which would be a disease, perhaps. I confess I’m not pretty sure of the reason for the “simple operation”. The fact is that it is being avoided, and I see the “Hills Like White Elephants” as a escape to these distressing matters. Concerning the meaning of “white elephant” we can also see these hills as something which apparently has no practical use, something she just focused on in order to escape from the tense and disturbing issues they were avoiding.
Personal perceptions only and one more silly comment: this story also reminds me of a recent film released in Brazil named “Two Days in Paris”, which is full of Woody-Allen-like conversations and has Paris as background, just like the “Hills Like White Elephants”.
That’s it.
Cheers.
Wow, this is one of my favorite short stories, ever! I am kinda eversdropping… I am not from your group, but, still, I was allowed to comment.
Guys, they are talking about a particular subject, however, even though they’re not mentioning it. If you pay attention to that part which the male character talks about “letting the air out” he’s talking about letting/ or forcing something out. Another hint that I might give you about the dialogue is that .. is there really dialogue? Isn’t there a lot more void than anything else?
That’s all, folks!
Dear Ghostwriter, I know who you are…
Welcome!!! And it’s very good for you to get to know the people around this blog, you know…
The hint here is to find out what Jig and the American are talking about. This is the hint the Ghostwriter gave you, and that’s THE hint. It is not stated in the text in words, but as soon as you let your imagination free and find out what it is that is disturbing them, you will make sense of the whole short story.
And, well, no, I still don’t have my regular connection, unfortunately, but I couldn’t resist meddling in this discussion…
Lucas, your comments about the Woody Allen kind of dialogues are not silly at all… In fact, if we concentrate on the sort of issue that would drive a relationship into distress (and therefore the neverending dialogues) and that, at least theoretically, could be solved by means of a “simple operation”, you will find the key to the mystery…
But maybe I’m making it too easy for you… Brainstorming, folks, that’s what is needed here!!!
ooooooooooooooh! its an abortion!!!!!!
ihihihihi
This short story really got me misty-eyed, I’ll be honest with you. It really captures subtlties in relationships, insecurities, and those little desperate voids we leave in a conversation with your partner, especially if you having a hard time with eachother.
I can see what Lucas says about the Woody Allen feel, but I have to admit that I really didn’t get that impression, it felt way more tense and dramatic and serious than Woody Allen. I can’t quite explain though…
Well, cutting the babble, if we were to assume they are talking about an abortion, the story changes completely. It becomes a question of power, a question of how far one would go to keep the status quo, to stay comfortable, to maintain a relationship that might not even be worth keeping? (I don’t condemn abortion) It really shows how people are alone in this world and would risk anything to have someone.
First, i loved your “moment of relaxation”. Please do it more often. I really pictured myself on “for example raising a family”. Personally I would add “I am almost 30 years-old.”… hahahahah
First, I though “oh how I would like to have just this kind of problem: continue traveling or not? Does he love me?” But, that would be so easy and certainly the author has something else in mind. I started to question. What does he really want to say? There must have something between the lines and then I read Ghostwriter comments. Thank you so much.
That’s never easy to talk about this polemic topic, abortion. It seems that an older, selfish American man tries to persuade his young girlfriend that though he loves her, the best option is to make an abortion, because that would be much better to continue their lives without worries or responsibilities. That’s clear they have different views (conversation, body language). There are many symbolism, as hills x swollen breasts and white elephant x abdomen of a pregnant woman. The reader must conclude the end, because the author didn’t say if she made the operation or not.
hugs,
In the begining of the SS the narrator describes the scene and put the reader inside the context. Then there are just dialogue, the characters are just acting normally and having a conversation in which the reader can have access to many details not exposed explicitly but that can be inferred.
About the theme of the conversation, I confess that I did not have the impression that the woman is pregnant and the guy wants her to have an abortion (before reading the comments). When I’ve read for the first time, I thought that they were running away their marriages (maybe) and going to have a new life together in another place far from their old lives.
But, after reading the comments here, I think that this theme of abortion is really relevant, the man says many times that he doesn’t want her to do something that she doesn’t want to and always say that he loves her. So, it’s a typically case in which the man doesn’t want to have a baby but the woman does.
Pregnancy and abortion? Yeah, it’s possible…
The techniques Hemmingway choosed weren’t enough for me to catch the idea. It’s full of symbols between the dialogues, but again, I couldn’t see any small piece of such polemic issue.
Maybe because it was such a fast reading (for a SSS*) I wasn’t able to figure this whole thing out.
They both are trying to get rid of this “feeling” so they would do anything in their range to do so. With beers and drinks, enjoying the landscape (at least in her case) and even trying to take about something else. But they can’t!
“That’s all we do, isn’it – look at things and try new drinks?”
They won’t have peace until this torment becomes a past memory. Mainly for him, he just can’t avoid it.
“I don’t want you to do anything that you don’t want to do-”.
And there is more similar lines from him like the one above. I guess he doesn’t want to face the responsibility if anything goes wrong while she wants to go through the consequences. Good story.
*SSS = Small Short Story. ;P
Ops…I meant ‘talk’, not ‘take’…hehehehe.
Thanks a lot sweet sister Erica, for having told me it was an abortion before I even read it! Hehehhe yeah this SS was ok, though it reminded me a lot of Julio Cortazar for some reason I have no idea why…maybe the way the relationship is portrayed, men and women, I don’t know….but the use of dialogue is very interesting, what they don’t say is more important than what they say, definitely! The association I made with the title is ‘the elephant in the room’ an uncomfortable situation, bigger than the abortion, is the fact that the relationship is totally strained, if not over, and they are desperately trying to keep it together. Actually, the woman is, because she is willing to do anything to hold him, if that means getting an abortion, she will ‘I don’t care about me.’ The American is just trying to do what’ s best for himself.
Well, while reading the SS I´ve asked myself what kinda “disease” the characters were talking about…yeah, I´ve started to think about a disease because of the passage: “It´s really an awfully simple operation, Jig”… but then the man said that “it´s not really an operation at all”… from this moment on I got confused…so what health problem could it be? Thus, the man said that “it´s really not anything. It´s just to let the air in”… a simple operation to let the air in?… I couldn´t figure it out… finally the man said that: “But I don´t want anybody else but you. I don´t want any one else. And I know that it´s perfectly simple”. Now I´ve realized that Jig was pregnant and the couple was pondering about abortion.
I´ve said all this bla bla bla in order to show the great narrative technique that was applied by Hemingway, to show the way that we readers tend to follow as we are reading such a wonderful piece of work. I do agree with Bárbara when she mentioned that what is unsaid is quite more relevant than what is said. The dialogs are really concise. They seem to portray the dilemma (abortion) which the characters are facing. Then, the unsaid, these gaps that is symbol of the SS style, might be built by us readers.
There is one recurrence of Jig´s speech – “things are like white elephant” – that could be just a silly fancy, an escapism as she was on the verge of deciding about an abortion, or it could stand for the odd. When I´ve come to think about a “white elephant”, it hit me the idea of the odd, something that doesn´t fit… something strange…something separated from another thing…on Jig´s words: “No, we can´t (have the world). It isn´t ours any more… And once they take it away, you never get it back”. Jig was alluding somehow to their previous situation, before the happening of pregnancy… to their relationship, their love, to this new and undiscovered place – Europe – and its possibilities…to gain and lose…
Someone, correct me , if I’m wrong. When I start reading the short story, I firstly, thought that the title had no connection with the story. As it was only sth to make us absent-minded. However when I read the part the man said “it’s really an awfully simple operation” and “it’s just to let the air in” . a light switch on my mind. The main point in the story is to find out which kind of problem the characters are talking about and want to solve.
“we’ll be fine fine afterward. Just like we were before.”
And I totally agree with Lucas when he says that the fact is linked with the historical expression “white elephant”. It’s sth that has no pratical use. The place, which looks like an white elephant has a important meaning in the SS. But I confess I don’t know which importance. They want to eliminate this problem, the “white elephant”. I found The meaning of this expression and I mean , it helped me a lot to understand the context of the SS.
“White elephant _ sth no longer wanted by its owner; sth, often property, requiring so much expenditure and care as to be an emcubrance or give little profit”
As usual, Hemingway prefers to leave details of character to the interpretations of the reader, allowing the characters to speak for themselves free of an omniscient narrator’s subjective observations. This ambiguity leaves an open interpretation; while most critics have given interpretations of the dialogue (with Jig as the dynamic character, traveling reluctantly from rejection to acceptance of the idea of an abortion), a few have argued for alternate scenarios based upon the same dialogue.
It is commonly accepted that the story is about abortion but the vague manner in which it is told allows for another interpretation: the “operation” also can be interpretted as an operation to Jig not have children.
I think we can associate that they are talking about abortion and that they board the train to Madrid, where, presumably, the abortion will be performed. Talking about Europe I think that we can associate this with the Lost Generation.
Another point is the name Jig. It is a significant name, as it is the fact that her real name is never given, that “Jig” is only her lover’s pet name. In addition to being a slang term for sexual intercourse as more of a sex object or tool than a person with feelings and values to be respected.
As everybody has already said, the technique used by Hemingway was the dialogue between a woman and a man who talk about abortion in an indirect manner. However, it is also important to notice that before this conversation starts he makes us aknowledge the setting (as Verônica has said before) which takes place in Spain in a valley. Being more specific, in a railway station between two lines of rails in the sun. It is said that the two sides of the railway are symbols used to reinforce the division between the couple, that is, their disagreement of the theme of abortion which we only know later on in the story.
Sparse narrative… “Uma narrativa rarefeita’ with much ‘air in it’…I mean, the third-person narrator doesn’t really interfere much and let the dialogues take care of the plot. All of this airy – vague spaces – is actually one of Hemingway’s strategies very based in his own theory- the iceberg theory… “If a writer of prose knows enough about what he is writing about he may omit things that will have a feeling of those things as strongly as though the writer had stated them. The dignity of movement of an iceberg is due to only one-eighth of it being above water. A good writer does not need to reveal every detail of a character or action.” – from Death in the afternoon.
Well, it is an interesting strategy to make readers really pay special attention and focus on the dialogues to find the mysteries and treasures in it.
About the plot… yes, when I first read it.. I was : “-What the h???” But, then, I could finally realize that it was an abortion. I also think that the decision, though was not very easy (especially) for the girl, would really change their lives of travelers : It seems that they were really committed to this kind of life. Even the girl wondered about losing ‘all of that’ by having to take care of a family : “And we could have all this. And we could have everything and every day we make it more impossible”…
I wonder, were they scaping from something? Maybe… What Juliana said that ‘The fact that they are americans travelling through Europe can also indicate that they are both trying to escape from their true situation back home”…The 1929 crises? And maybe it would be a good explanation for the dialogue: “No, we can’t. It isn’t ours anymore.” (…)” No , it isn’t. And once THEY take it away, you never get it back” “But THEY haven’t taken it away” “ We’ll wait and see”…”I just know things”.
Do you guys have any clue of what they are talking about at that part? That’s actually the part I really got intrigued with. Who can be possibly ‘THEY’?
And about the white elephant meaning… I actually thought about two meanings:
The first one: white-elephant game – It’s a game like ‘amigo oculto de 1,99’ that people in US play – exchanging cheap gifts. _ Maybe the “elephant x pregnancy” relationship pointed out by Jorgeane can be seen as if the baby was an “useless thing” or as Barbara said ‘ the elephant in the room’: the uncomfortable issue would be then actually unimportant ( ” the only thing that bothers us” ‘a very simple procedure’).
And the other is the Buddhist meaning of a white elephant- a rare kind of sacred and precious belonging that represents prosperity and wisdom, peace… – and that would be sometimes considered “a curse because it couldn’t be put to practical use”- Wikipedia
Mixing the two views – the baby would become “a very inconvenient blessing/gift”.
But why? Because of the life they were having? Maybe a fugitive’s life?
Am I watching too much of CSI?
Good, Natalie! I haven’t thought about that yet!
Ok, am I the only one who knew what they were talking about before start reading? Blast!
All right! Like some of my friends have said, the short story begins in a third person narrative that situate us where they are, and then turns to a dialogue between a couple that we don’t known nothing about, but they are Americans. Like some people said, the dialogue is very interesting because they don’t talk much about the issue, and we have to read in the line space to try to understand the topic. The body language is also important in this short story.
Although I’ve already known what they were talking about, it looks so confused, like Juliana said. But I think the author give us some clues to understand the meaning of the conversation. And I also agree with her that looks like if “they are both trying to escape from their true situation and while travelling they had been avoiding the subject”.
PS: I found this interesting curiosity about the short story:
“This story was rejected by early editors and was ignored by anthologists until recently. The early editors returned it because they thought that it was a “sketch” or an “anecdote,” not a short story. (…)
In part, some of the early rejection of this story lies in the fact that none of the editors who read it had any idea what was going on in the story. Even today, most readers are still puzzled by the story. In other words, it will take an exceptionally perceptive reader to realize immediately that the couple is arguing about the girl’s having an abortion at a time when abortions were absolutely illegal, considered immoral, and usually dangerous.”
http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/LitNote/Hemingway-s-Short-Stories-Summaries-and-Commentaries-Hills-Like-White-Elephants-.id-10,pageNum-50.html
“Everything in a SS is important to the understanding of it. Things are not supposed to be there by chance.” This was told just the other day in Elisas’s class and it fits perfectly here. And as Bárbara said: “what they don’t say is more important than what they say” And Luciana: “the unsaid, these gaps (…) might be built by us readers.” Note the word “abortion” was not mentioned.
As to the end, I agee with Jorgeane when she says the reader must conclude the end because the author didn’t say if she made the abortion or not. Then, what if the train they were waiting for is a metaphor of the pregnancy? In the end, it is said the train is about to come. The girl seems to be happy to take the trip. They stop the discussion. Arrange things to take the trip. And he asks her if she feels fine. She responds there’s nothing wrong with her and that she feels fine…
I thought it is full of symbols. The trip through Europe meaning a new experience, or a escape; the hills being like white elephants. I liked very much the explanation given by Elisa about buddhist meaning of white elephants. There’s also the trying of new drinks. I don’t know if I am assuming too much by saying this but they started drinking beer, then while waiting for the train they gave a new drink a try:
‘You want them with water?’ asked the woman. /’Yes, with water.’ /’It tastes like liquorice,’ the girl said./ (…) / ‘Yes,’ said the girl. ‘Everything tastes of liquorice. Especially all the things you’ve waited so long for, like absinthe.’
What did she mean by things you’ve waited so long for? Then, when the train was to arrive and he was arranging things, he finishes the story drinking another Anis at the bar. Wasn’t this drink thing something related to accepting new experiences also?…
As to the narrative technique, the dialogue, the discussion between them is a good way to show the tension and the antagonic thoughts on the matter by both. Note also the way both try hard to persuade one another. He says he accepts her decision, but assumes he definitely prefers not having a baby. She induces that he don’t care about her feelings.
I think I went too far on my effort to find symbolism in the text.. Besides the main suggestion was to write about the narrative technique. Anyway, it is always worth writting something even if you think maybe you’re not making any sense at all…
I agree with Jorgeane when she says that “The reader must conclude the end, because the author didn’t say if she made the operation or not”.
This is my conclusion:
It is easy to understand how much Jig loves the American man based on the statement, “I don’t care about me”. “I care about you”. Jig expressed her desire to put him first. At the same time, she privately hopes that he will change his mind. He stood firm in his decision by speaking of the child as if it were already dead, as an “it” and she takes up the same cold theme when she says, “It isn’t ours anymore” and “Once they take it away, you never get it back”.
The man Jig loved so dearly and for so long was suddenly the coldest hearted and arrogant person she had ever known. The couple traveled with two luggage bags which symbolized the problems within their relationship.
Based on the closing of the story, Jig comes to the realization that she can keep her child and be happy without the American man. She states that nothing is wrong and that she is feeling just fine.
The first impression I had while reading this short story was: “These characters are really drunk!”. I was unable to figure out what they were talking about. And after “dos cervezas”, “Anis del Toro” (with water) and some more beers, and after that strange dialogue, I felt like I was kind of drunk too…
I could also notice that this girl “Jig” was very insecure, but again I was thinking that she didn’t know what she was saying, since I took it for sure that she was drunk as a skunk (!). She said that she didn’t care about herself, and she kept asking the guy if he would love her and blah blah blah.
Going back to the subject of the characters’ conversation. What were they talking about? I confess that I couldn’t imagine anything.
I found the “abortion” interpretation fantastic. I would NEVER think of that. (Ok, “never” is too much, but I would certainly take a very long time to have an insight like that. Especially because I was reading the word “operation” as a synonym for “process” or “procedure”, not for “surgery” or something like that.)
Now this part of the text makes sense: “‘It’s really an awfully simple operation, Jig,’ the man said. ‘It’s not really an operation at all.’”
Now, commenting on Sabrina’s question (comment # 21):
“Then, what if the train they were waiting for is a metaphor of the pregnancy?”
I think it is. The train can represent pregnancy, and also abortion. If Jig doesn’t want to go until the final destination of the trip, the only thing she has to do is leave the train at an early station…
Ok, I’m very instable and sometimes I have a very mathematical mind, so I’ve just decided to make some changes in my previous comment – specifically in the last paragraph. I said that “the train can represent pregnancy, and also abortion”, but that is not possible.
If we assume that Jig is already pregnant, she would have to be IN the train. Then we could say that the train represents pregnancy.
If she left the train, then we would say that “leaving the train” represents abortion.
But what is the situation in the short story?
Jig is NOT in the train. The train is about to come. But that doesn’t mean that now I disagree with the idea that the train represents pregnancy, not at all! We’ll just have to fix some things so that it makes sense:
If we consider that the train represents pregnancy, we we’ll also have to consider the following: if Jig decides to enter the train, this means she is going to keep the baby; but if instead she decides NOT to enter the train, then she is NOT going to keep the baby. It’s a matter of “taking the trip or not”.
Now I’m able to say that I agree with Sabrina (comment # 21).
I must confess that when I read the SS I got a little bit confused..but with some researches and reading the other’s people comments I could understand better. “Hills Like White Elephants” is thematically very interesting, On the surface, we can notice concepts “such as the conflict between personal responsibility and hedonism; rhetorical and psychological manipulation; coming of age; and the dynamics of the romantic relationship and its metamorphosis into the family”. However, in a more abstract and profound level, it can be interpreted the lifestyles and attitudes of the post-World War I “. And it is interesting to take into consideration the simbolism concerning what many people said about the pregnancy in the SS.”The symbolism of the hills and the white elephant can be thought of as the image of the swollen breasts and abdomen of a pregnant woman, and to the prenatal dream of the mother of the future Buddha in which a white elephant (in this case, a symbol of prestigious leadership) enters her womb.”
Hills like white elephants. This title is really appealing in a poetic
way. It catches the attention immediately. The abortion situation wasn’t clear until it was elucidated in the article linked on the post. It was initially more about how to connect the text with the Lost Generation thoughts. It happens in Europe and at least one of the characters is American and he doesn’t want to leave that amazing continent because “Europe traditionally represents to American novelists a life, or Life itself, that remains somehow unavailable back home. The paradox of Europe as both the antithesis of America and the only field upon which Americans can become themselves (…)” ¹
The voids are evident, as it was already pointed out, and the dialogue-dialogue-dialogue structure reminds a play, but something was missing and it was the meaning of the “simple operation”. The abortion does fit well. Denial is a key feature in practically every text so far and this one is not different. The way they talk about the “situation” gives a clear impression of denial and the image of the elephant being ignored in the living room also comes to mind, as mentioned before. Ignoring the obvious doesn’t make it go away.
***
The description of the scenery as white elephants also carries an idea of something magical, dreamy. They were in Europe, backpacking, experiencing a lot of incredible feelings in a incredible culture. Pregnancy was not really a good thing at that moment (because of the natural human desire of perpetuating great experiences). They don’t want that to end. Especially the man. “That’s the only thing that bothers us. It’s the only thing that’s made us unhappy” – he said. She was in a very delicate position because she didn’t seem so sure that
interrupting the pregnancy was the best option. She just wanted to be happy and if a family would bring them closer together, so be it. If not, she would “let the air in” and continue their adventure. As long as the white elephant is inside the room with them, the trip wouldn’t be as enjoyable as it was before.
***
Giving a primary setting and then focusing on the dialog goes against the long descriptions of the 19th century and how worried they were about placing the reader on that specific background with details of chairs and doors. The meaning of the setting now is more subtle. It is important because Europe was the representation of freedom and – as the article quoted above – Life itself, so when this is established, the text goes to another level. But in order to do that, Hemingway didn’t feel like he had to go through every tiny little detail. The intention now was speaking about universal topics, human reactions, feelings and troubles. T.S. Eliot, in his essay “Tradition and the Individual Talent” talks about how the true poet doesn’t talk about “new emotions”. On the contrary, “The business of the poet is not to find new emotions, but to use the ordinary ones and, in working them up into poetry, to express feelings which are not in actual emotions at all.”² This is not poetry, but the idea still applies. Those “holes” can be understood as a challenge to the reader and also as part of the experimentations the Lost Generation is known for as far as narration structure goes.
1 – Source: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2455/is_3_35/ai_83585388
2 – Source: http://articles.poetryx.com/51/
Thank you all for so many insights! I would also never thought about abortion! Wow!
Hemingway’s style is really great. The dialogues of this short story trie to get really close to real dialogues, with its interruptions, high speed, detached comments, sometimes nonsense also. They are realistic and dry. But, as real conversations, they don’t go straight to the point. That’s because don’t talk like that. We “enchemos lingüiça” all the time!
While I was reading, I was wondering if the opertaion mentioned could be a “pneumotorax”… lol. Then I wonder if it could be about their first sexual relation, but they probably wouldn’t have to go that far for that!
Anyway, after reading that the operation was an abortion and after reading Anderson’s and Lucas’ comments, I thought of a horrible, horrible interpretation for the “white ellephant”: it is the fetus! See these definitions I’ve found in Dictionary.com: “a possession unwanted by the owner but difficult to dispose of”; “a possession entailing great expense out of proportion to its usefulness or value to the owner”; “A rare, expensive possession that is a financial burden to maintain’. Yeah, awful, but it did make sense. They wanted to get rid of that thing that would cost them a lot and, in their point of view, would be of no use. Argh!
Bad, bad exemple!
example!
This dialogue which is apparently nonsense in my opinion actually hides a serious situation this couple has been passing through. It can be either the women’s disease- as Juliana pointed out- or a crisis in their relationship. The “simple operation” expression can refer to anything that could solve their problem easily. Regardless of what on Earth they are talking about, what really caught my eye is their endless escapism throughout the SS. Firstly they traveled to another country and continent and they also know very well what they are talking about, but they seem to prefer to talk things at random, talking their minds clearly.
In both Portuguese and English language there is the “white elephant expression”, which means something deprived of practical value, something big which occupies a big space but it is useless anyway. So, we can assume that it was the kind of problem they were passing through. Moreover, they left USA, a land that is usually associated with pragmatism and practicality and traveled to Europe, a continent full of old traditions and history. So, in case my though is reasonably correct, this fact can also reinforce the escapism of the 2 main characters. They do want to get rid of their problem, but deep inside their hearts they’re afraid.
Thus, I don’t know if I’ve stretched my opinions too much, but what I think is that maybe Hemingway’s narrative style to make readers reach their own conclusions is done to enable people to associate the dialogue to the escapism that is part of our lives so often, but we do not notice it as we all get tangled in our own private world and ignorance, which are in fact an armor to cover our own sorrows. Have I “traveled” too far, perhaps?
In Hemingway’s short story “Hills Like White Elephants,” he uses many symbols to suggest the idea that the girl is hesitant to having an abortion and that her older American boyfriend doesn’t want to have the baby. The word abortion is not used in the story, though. In spite of this, the reader comprehends the idea through symbolism.
In the beginning of the story, Jig and her boyfriend are waiting for a train. Leandro made a good comment about the meaning of the train in the SS. And… I was thinking about the train… Why the train? Not a car? Well, on a train, the track can just lead one direction or go in the opposite way, which indicates that Jig has not made her decision yet and when she decides, there’s no reversion. The train represents the choice they have to make.
Now I’m going to concentrate on the use of specific words.
The boyfriend is constantly telling the girl: “It’s really not ANYTHING”. The use of the word ANYTHING/NOTHING has a serious meaning: he feels that the baby in Jig’s stomach is nothing. Also, he doesn’t even feel the baby as a part of himself: “I don’t want ANYBODY but you. I don’t want ANYONE else” It is crystal clear that he doesn’t want the baby.
Jig, on the contrary, started to consider the child SOMETHING. She tells her boyfriend: “We could have all this… and we could have EVERYTHING”. It’s very difficult for her to get rid of the baby.
The word “TWO” is also important and recurrent throughout the story, maybe to emphasize that they weren’t ready to have a third person between them:
“On this side there was no shade and no trees and the station was between TWO lines of rails in the sun.”
“It stopped at this junction for TWO minutes and went to Madrid.”
“Yes. TWO big ones”
“The woman brought TWO glasses of beer and TWO felt pads.”
“We want TWO Anis del Toro.”
“The girl looked at the bead curtain, put her hand out and took hold of TWO of the strings of beads.”
“The woman came out through the curtains with TWO glasses of beer…”
“He picked up the TWO heavy bags…”
Well, but I prefer agreeing with Sabrina that they are going to give the baby a chance because at the end they drink something NEW!
Maybe this new drink is connected to going through new experiences, I mean, having the baby!
Oh, folks, we’ve been reading so many short stories with sad happy endings…
I confess I’m used to Hollywood happy endings
and I do prefer to believe that they’re going to have the baby!!! 
Well, well, so many insights and so many ideas…
You are doing very well! One of the most important things to point out in this short story is that what is left unsaid is thousands of times more significant than whatever is actually said in their dialogues. Their silences, the hesitations, the hidden or ambiguous meanings of their words reveal a lot more than anything that is explicit.
Now, just one thing… I notice you seem a little anxious sometimes to come to a conclusion when the short story is open-ended… Don’t worry about that, just relax – we don’t have to “discover” or “guess” how the situation would develop, and whatever we say about it would really be just guessing…
But what we know for sure is that, no matter if Jig decides to try “the awfully simple operation” or to keep her baby, they will never, ever, go back to being the two people they were before, and this is what really matters… Don’t you agree?
Well, I spent so much time trying to understand what they were talking about. I read the beginning at least three times! I swear I did! And I confess that only when I read Ghostwriter’s and Erica’s comment I realized that the subject of that strange conversation was abortion! And then I restarted my reading… things are clear now rs The title was a mystery and Anderson was an angel writing the meaning of the expression.
I’m late in my readings and what I saw, everybody had already talked about! But I’ll try to do something. It’s funny how we don’t have anything about the character’s personality and the third person narrator doesn’t help in that part too! We can imagine everything (even the subject of their conversation). Well, maybe that is the author’s idea; give us freedom to think and to conclude what we can/want. And that is what really made me create in my mind the story. The little introduction kind of give us a clue about the relationship, like Natalie said: It is said that the two sides of the railway are symbols used to reinforce the division between the couple, that is, their disagreement of the theme of abortion which we only know later on in the story.
The boyfriend is very assured about his position and tries to persuade his girlfriend (“You don’t have to be afraid. I’ve known lots of people that have done it”). I see that her “fear” about the operation is just a mask, she isn’t sure if she wants to take off the baby. He feels nothing about that child, that child is a problem (“We’ll be fine afterwards. Just like we were BEFORE”) and she… But ate the same time he doesn’t want her to do the abortion forced… “I think it’s the best thing to do. But I don’t want you to do it if you don’t really want to”.
Like Carla, I believe they will never be like they were before that trip. Having or not the baby their lives will be different, they are gonna feel the importance of their decisions.
“Para os ocidentais, o elefante é a imagem viva do peso, da lentidão e da falta de jeito; no entanto, ba Ásia, a idéia que se tem desse animal é fundamentalmente diferente.(…)” Dicionário de Símbolos, Jean Chevalier e Alain Gheerbrant.
Doing a research about the symbol of the elephant, I’ve found basically the same as Elisa’s. I agree that it could perfectly be an unconscious representation of their big inconvenient.
In my opinion, once you realize they’re talking about abortion, everything makes sense and it is difficult to find another explanation. The subject of the conversation becomes clear in this part: “Doesn’t it mean anything to you? We could get along.” “Of course it does. But I don’t want anybody but you. I don’t want any one else. And I know it’s perfectly simple.” The “operation” cannot be interpreted as an operation for Jig not to have children because of this passage: “That’s the only thing that bothers us. It’s the only thing that’s made us unhappy.” For him, the baby is nothing more than a big white elephant.
“(…) the station was between two lines of trail in the sun.” It symbolizes the decision Jig has to take between two opposite paths that have not going back. As she looks around, try to relax, we see she doesn’t want to be pressured about the important decision of having or not the baby. It’s her decision and she will have to make it alone. The man tries to convince her that it’s nothing at all, but she doesn’t feel this way: “Then what will we do afterward?” She means: Will we act as if nothing has happened? It’s not so simple for her, she is not sure about what se’s going to do. He says: if you don’t want to you don’t have to. I wouldn’t have you do it if you didn’t want to. But I know it’s perfectly simple.” And she answers: “And you really want to?”. Than she realizes that her decision will affect them both and that deciding to have the baby would mean to go against him and affect his life against his will. She knows he doesn’t want the baby, so she decides: “Then I’ll do it. Because I don’t care about me.” But we can finally see she does want the baby when she says: “Doesn’t it mean anything to you? We could get along.” So she wants the baby, but he doesn’t, it’s a very complicated situation, because although that life is only inside of her, it will directly affect their lives, changing it completely.
Now analyzing the other point of view. The man who seems to be her boyfriend is willing to accept whichever may be her decision, but he can’t just sit and wait, because this decision is going to affect his future, so he tries to convince her of aborting. For him, the baby is nothing more than a big problem, it will disturb everything about their lives: “That’s the only thing that bothers us.” He is completely sure about what has to be done: “(…) I don’t want anybody but you. I don’t want any one else.” She understands his point of view, she knows other people have done it and were happy, but it is always harder to the woman because she is carrying life inside of her. And he respects it: “if you don’t want to you don’t have to. I wouldn’t have you do it if you didn’t want to.” Jig feels everything is wrong and she just wants everything to be as it used to be before. “(…) if I do it, then it will be nice again if I say things are like white elephants, and you’ll like it?” But can’t help being worried, being insecure, because his future is going to be decided by other person. “I’ll love it. I love it now, but I just can’t think about it. You know how I get when I worry.”
She feels pressured and he feels insecure.
About the narration style, I agree with Rachel and many others that have already said it, it makes the dialogue very realistic, we feel like we are there hearing the conversation. Sometimes when I read a story I get very angry when two people are talking and one of them stars summarizing all their relationship and the situation in which they are, it is clear that the narrator wants to contextualize the situation, but I think that if the author wants to do that, he/she shouldn’t use one of the characters, he/she should do it by him/herself.
Going back to the SS, the third person narrator and the way the dialog happens, hiding the main information, make the story very interesting. You have to be curious in order to find out what they are talking about, just like in real life.
At the first time I read this short story, I could not understand what they were talking about. My first impression was that the dialogue was kind of crazy and it seemed nothing important. But then I concluded it must have importance since the short story IS the dialogue.
Well, it was very difficult for me to catch the narrator’s idea since he does not give explicit elements concerning the characters’ features or the plot of their conversation.
The way the story is written, with the narrator in third person, with this apparently lack of details; led me to believe that is the main intention of the author: he attributes to the reader the responsibility of “creating” or “rebuilding” it with what is shown in the story. And as Carla said, the implicit elements of their conversation are even more important to understand it.
When I was reading, I could not see the abortion as the subject of their talk, but it makes sense! When she says: ” Then I’ll do it. Because I don’t care about me.” and then she says: “But I don’t care about me. And I’ll do it and then everything will be fine.” I think she is afraid of doing that and also, she doens’t seem sure of abortion. Maybe, she would like to keep the baby, but as her boyfriend doens’t seem happy to keep it, she is in doubt. For him, this baby is like a white elephant: it’s just something “big” that is bothering them, but there’s no importance on it. He thinks the best to do is to get rif of this.
I hope I did not “travelled” a lot!
I hope I did not “travel”. Without ED. rsrs.
In “Hills like white elephants”, Hemingway takes the dialog as the basis for the development of the short-story. There is little interference of the third person not-omniscient narrator, so it seems that we are overhearing the dialog, there in the station.
Also, there is no direct reference to the abortion issue – their “white elephant”, as we often say about things that are in the way or disturbing us – , as some of our colleagues just said.
All the clues we have to put the puzzle together are the dialogs between the characters. And, as we can not rely on characters that drink that much (!), we could both imply that they are drunk – and that would be the reason why they are talking nonsense – or that they are having a recurrent discussion – probably the real reason for the ellipsis – : all the things that were left unsaid, have already been discussed by them.
So, Hemingway constructs an atmosphere of tension that can only be understood through reading in between the lines, a gap that he also doesn’t fill in the open-ending.
The way in which the short story is created seems to be somehow similar to the way Raymond Carver creates his. The reader’s attention is held through hiding information. In Jon Powell’s text about Carver, we are presented to a said “sense of menace”.
As in Carver, in “Hills like white elephants” Hemingway creates great interest with very few words and this is achieved by strategically and efficiently choosing where and how to leave gaps for the reader to realize.
We, as readers, are able to take part in just a small part of the couple’s life almost as if we were really eavesdropping (as mentioned in comment above). The conversation feels natural and this also contributes for the reader’s being interested in what they are talking about.
It really is an interesting SS.
The two elements I considered to be of most relevant importance are: the narrative techniques, a best-seller’s one and the messages between the lines.
In order not be confused by the short and vague comments along the short story, I tried to use Ernest Hermingway’s techiques in my favour.
I came to these conclusions:
*the author’s iceberg theory in this specific SS is being applied with all its force because in no part of it there is such a good amount of information we would consider to be relevant; the reader has necessary to read it inductively in order to make a deep reading;
*therefore, the narrator appears so rarely; the narrator works as guide to the reader somehow; although he is a third person narrator, the reason why he doesn’t interfer much is not due to few information on his part, but to an intention, personifying Hermingway’s technique, to let the reader fill in the gaps with his/ her version;
*the huge and and, many times, casual-like dialogues are metaphorical, like the symbols along the SS and, in fact, are big symbol for a duality I see in the story: what it seems to be X what it really is.
People,
Just a small slip: “a best-seller’s one” comes between commas.
Well, when I really discovered the subject of the conversation, I found the SS very exciting. everybody has already talked aobut lots of things. Then, I’ll show a part of the SS I found very rich in meaning.It’s a moment they talk about different subjects and the man notices it only at the end of it and reacts in a cold and indifferent way.I wolud say even rude.
“we can have the whole world”
“No, we can’t.”
“We can go everywhere.”
“no, we can’t.It isn’t ours anymore.”
“It’s ours.”
“No, it isn’t. And once they take it away, you never get it back.”
“But they haven’t taken it away.”
“we’ll wait and see.”
Until now,he doesn’t know teh real meaning she is giving to her words and is trying to cheer her up with a ridiculous illusion.
“Come on back in the shade”, he said. “you mustn’t feel that way”
He is inviting her to the shade she belonged to but doesn’t want anymore.This shade can be translated as Illusion.He wants her back to the illusion of a false happiness( because she can’t realiza her desire),false freedom(because she’ll prisoner of this guilt forever)and false love…
Comments for this post are closed. This post is saved for consulting only. Any new comments will be discarded.