Ernest Hemingway’s “Hills Like White Elephants” leaves so many unanswered questions for its readers. However, once again, Hemingway presents us with two fascinating characters to analyze. The story, which is widely accepted as a story about the possibility of an abortion, presents typical Hemingway’s male and female characters in both dialogue and dilemma. The central focus is dialogue as Hemingway has masterfully paints a word picture for us featuring the state of this relationship. Hemingway presents a tale of detachment and modern alienation in the relationship between these two people as well as the setting itself. The sense of isolation is so blatant that the two of them will not even name their subject matter; they never say the words “abortion” or “baby.”
The entire story takes place in a train station as an “American man” and a “girl” prepare to leave the station. Basically they drink and talk, and the only real action is when the man gets up to move their luggage and then comes back and sits down. The subject matter of their conversation is a first unclear, but after a second glance, the reader determines they are trying to make a decision about whether or not to have an abortion. Underneath this seemingly simple story, there are numerous aspects to discuss and analyze.
The setting provides ultimate isolation for the characters. The story itself is set in a railway station, a place of movement, but a place where everyone is a stranger. However, the two are stuck between destinations, as everyone else in the train station, between Barcelona and Madrid. They must “move,” and they have little time to do it for the train only stops here for two minutes. Of course, this mirrors the couples’ situation. They must decide which course to take in a limited amount of time. While these two are surrounded by people at the station, each is essentially alone. They are unable to conquer the great divide that separates them from each other and themselves. Additionally, they have isolated themselves physically from the others at the station. This couple is sitting outside the bar, on the platform, while other travelers are sitting inside the bar. Even further as they look at the two sides of the station, there are two very different views. On one side of the station, the land is barren. “The hills across the valley of the Ebro were long and white. On this side there was no shade and no trees and the station was between two lines of rails in the sun” (Hemingway 623). On the other side of the station, the land is green and lush. “Across on the other side, were fields of grain and trees along the banks of the Ebro. Far away, beyond the river, were mountains. The shadow of a cloud moved across the field of grain and she saw the river through the trees” (Hemingway 625). These opposite images in setting also symbolize the two choices the couple has? Will they choose sterility or fertility? One side is barren and brown and isolated; the other is green and alive. In addition, both characters are strangers to their surroundings. They are isolated from those who care about them and might aid in this decision. The man is identified as the “American,” who is abroad and the girl is clearly not from Spain. The reader knows that she doesn’t speak Spanish; she keeps having to ask the man what the waitress said. This train station has provided a perfect backdrop for the story.
In the dialogue Hemingway presents a view of two people increasingly isolated from one another and from themselves. They begin with a conversation that demonstrates their lack of understanding each other as well as their differences in character.
They look like white elephants” (referring to the hills)
I’ve never seen one.”
No, you wouldn’t have.”
I might have. Just because you say I wouldn’t have doesn’t prove anything.” (Hemingway 623)
Literary critic Mary Dell Fletcher says that the girl’s imaginative comment is “an attempt to recapture a former time when their behavior as more spontaneous and inane remarks had private meaning” (Fletcher 17). What this dialogue shows the reader for certain is that the girl is more imaginative or intuitive, and the man is more literal. They are not connecting here; the man doesn’t see anything but hills. He is incapable of looking beyond the obvious. As literary critic Maynard Reid says in his essay called Leitmotif and Irony…”The man’s callousness and sterile views are contrasted with the girl’s sensitive, sensuous response to life” (Reid 273). As the story goes on, it becomes more clear that his couple drinks to avoid the emptiness of their lives and their defense mechanism is talking more to avoid the silences. Progressively, the man seems defensive toward the girl. He humors her. He patronizes her–“That was bright” (Hemingway 624)”). He ignores her–“What did you say?”(Hemingway 625). He does not understand the ramifications of the decision they are about to make. She does. All of this is shown in her statement, “And we could have all this. And we could have everything and everyday we make it more impossible” (Hemingway 625). She understands that whatever decision is made here will alter the course of the relationship. She wants his reassurance that he understands the magnitude of the decision. She asks for it with the lines that follow. “And you think then we’ll be all right and be happy. And if I do it, then it will be nice again if I say thing are like white elephants, and you’ll like it?” (Hemingway 625).
He clearly doesn’t understand her questions as evidenced by his answer. “I love it. I love it now but I can’t think about it. You know how I get when I worry” (Hemingway 625). As literary critic S.P. Jain says, “She perceives all about her lover too correctly to find solace. No soothing balm of deception or misunderstanding alleviates her sharp awareness of her predicament” (Jain 37). Very clearly she demonstrates her awareness with the words, “I don’t feel any way. I just know things” (Hemingway 625). The man, rather than communicating with her reverts to his standard line, “I don’t want you to do anything that you don’t want to do” (Hemingway 625). As literary critic Jeffrey Meyer eloquently states “the egotistic man, unaware of the woman’s feelings tries to bully her into having an abortion so they can be exactly as they were before” (Meyer 196). He just keeps repeating himself. The woman knows that their relationship will never be as it was before. Literary critic Donald Hardy points out, “Throughout the story the woman repeatedly attempts to get the man to see the emotional costs of the abortions and the man’s alienation from her” (Hardy 8). Ultimately she asks him to stop talking. She sums up the lack of understanding in their entire relationship early on in the story with “That’s all we do, isn’t it? Look at things and try new drinks” (Hemingway 623). These two characters clearly do not understand one another. Hemingway further creates isolation by all the repetition in the dialogue. They keep talking in circles because there is nothing new to say to each other and no understanding of what has been said.
The couple’s isolation is further shown by their body language. They never really look at each other. At first, “The girl was looking off at the line of hills.”(Hemingway 623) and “The girl looked across at the hills.(Hemingway 624). Then, “The girl looked at the ground the table legs rested on” (Hemingway 624) after the man’s initial statement about the topic of the discussion–“It’s really an awfully simple operation, Jig” (Hemingway 624). Hemingway tells the reader, The girl looked at the bead curtain, put her hand out and took hold of two of the strings of beads.” (Hemingway 624) after the man’s answer to her questions of, “That’s the only thing that’s made us unhappy”(Hemingway 625). And finally, after she requests he stop talking, “The girl looked across at the hills on the dry side of the valley and the man looked at her and at the table”(Hemingway 625). It seems that a couple would look at each other during such a serious conversation if the connection were there. They might even touch each other, but they don’t. She touches beads. Just simply the lack of eye contact speaks volumes to the reader.
The lack of connection between these two people is mirrored in the story itself because there is no resolution. They never do understand each other so no conclusion can be reached. What the girl clearly knows is that they do not connect, and they never will. We are left to wonder whether a decision has been made, and if so, what it is. What we come away with is that there are two people who have created a baby who clearly have no understanding of each other. They may or may not get on the train together and will only have two minutes to decide. If they walk away the man will do so unchanged. The woman is changed no matter what.
Hemingway is a master at dialogue and this story is nothing short of a masterpiece. There is little action, and the reader actually feels like a character in the story. It’s the kind of conversation one might overhear from an adjacent table, getting snippets of the dialogue but never the thoughts of the people involved. Even with the sparseness, the reader is clear that these two characters simply cannot see eye-to-eye. The man does not understand the inner workings of the girl. They are together, yet completely apart. The setting, dialogue, and body language aid in conveying this lack of connection between characters.
Works Cited
Fletcher, Mary Dell. “Hemingway’s Hills Like White Elephants.” Explicator. 38:4.
1980: 16-18.
Hardy, Donald. “Presuppostion and the Coconspirator.” Style 26:1, Spring 1992: 1-11.
Hemingway, Ernest. The Short Stories of Ernest Hemingway. Charles Scribner’s
Sons. 1938. 623-626.
Jain, S.P. Hills Like White Elephants: A Study.” Indian Journal of American Studies.
1:3.1970: 33-38.
Meyer, Jeffrey, Hemingway A Biography. Harper Row Publications, 1985. 196-197.
Reid, Maynard. “Leitmotif and Irony in Hemingway’s ‘Hills Like White Elephants,'”
University Review. Vol. XXXVII. No. 4. 1971: 273-5.
