User:JHadaway/sandbox: Difference between revisions

Line 2:

THERE HAS BEEN A PLETHORA OF CRITICISM examining one of Ernest Hemingway’s most powerful short stories, “Hills Like White Elephants.” However, one approach that may merit more attention is an exploration of Hemingway’s notions of “action” and of the irreversibility of action within the text. Hannah Arendt, an intellectual whose germinal work has transcended more than one discipline, may be useful in providing some measure of insight into Hemingway’s problematic narrative.

I would like to begin by examining certain rhetorical elements of “Hills,” which suggest traces of Arendt’s perspectives on the “nature of action.” More specifically, Arendt’s influential study, ''The Human Condition'', suggests that the dissonance found in the relationship between Jig and the American primarily arises from their differing viewpoints regarding the Arendtian notion of irreversibility.{{efn|In order to combat irreversibility, according to Arendt, man must either make promises or bestow forgiveness on others, two actions that, by their nature, also require plurality, “for no one can forgive himself and no one can feel bound by a promise made only to ~~himself” (~~237).}} That is to say, the issue is far more important than considerations of the potential abortion, which is the explicit topic of their combative dialogue, as critics have noted (Gillette 50-69~~; O'Brien~~ 19-25; Rankin 234; Urgo 35). We might consider that Jig, in her overtly rhetorical exchanges with the American, illustrates (and promotes) the concept of irreversibility, as she suggests that the conception of life (an action, in essence, as it is a beginning) within her cannot be undone, while the American argues {{pg|407|408}} against irreversibility, as he believes that the conception can be “undone” by the act of abortion. As Stanley Renner proffers in his “Moving to the Girl's Side of ‘Hills Like White Elephants,’” “[I]n choosing whether to abort or to have the child, the couple are [sic] choosing between two ways of ~~life” (~~28). This forty-minute exchange determining the end decision—abortion or life—reveals that the couple is also choosing between two ways of ''living''—either living in such a way so that actions can be “undone,” so to say, or living in such a way where actions bring consequences that are absolute.

I would like to begin by examining certain rhetorical elements of “Hills,” which suggest traces of Arendt’s perspectives on the “nature of action.” More specifically, Arendt’s influential study, ''The Human Condition'', suggests that the dissonance found in the relationship between Jig and the American primarily arises from their differing viewpoints regarding the Arendtian notion of irreversibility.{{efn|In order to combat irreversibility, according to Arendt, man must either make promises or bestow forgiveness on others, two actions that, by their nature, also require plurality, “for no one can forgive himself and no one can feel bound by a promise made only to himself.”{{sfn|Arendt|1958|p=237}}}} That is to say, the issue is far more important than considerations of the potential abortion, which is the explicit topic of their combative dialogue, as critics have noted.{{sfn|Gillette|2007|p=50-69}}{{sfn|O’Brien|1992|p=19-25}}{{sfn|Rankin|2005|p=234}}{{sfn|Urgo|1988|p=35}} We might consider that Jig, in her overtly rhetorical exchanges with the American, illustrates (and promotes) the concept of irreversibility, as she suggests that the conception of life (an action, in essence, as it is a beginning) within her cannot be undone, while the American argues {{pg|407|408}} against irreversibility, as he believes that the conception can be “undone” by the act of abortion. As Stanley Renner proffers in his “Moving to the Girl's Side of ‘Hills Like White Elephants,’” “[I]n choosing whether to abort or to have the child, the couple are [sic] choosing between two ways of life.”{{sfn|Renner|1995|p=28}} This forty-minute exchange determining the end decision—abortion or life—reveals that the couple is also choosing between two ways of ''living''—either living in such a way so that actions can be “undone,” so to say, or living in such a way where actions bring consequences that are absolute.

Throughout the story the American attempts to articulate and advance his belief in reversibility. However, his own actions and statements undermine his attempts to do so. One can first see this situation in the exchange begun by Jig’s comment about the hills in the distance, as this moment initiates the heated philosophical discussion. As David Wyche perceptively states, “This bit of dialogue establishes the characters’ opposing positions in what is, essentially, an emotionally charged ~~negotiation” (~~61). Seated outside the bar, the couple enters into dialogue—the dilemma at hand being whether or not the couple should (or can) have an abortion and thus reverse the conception. While staring off into the distance, Jig remarks that the hills “look like white elephants,” to which the American responds, “I've never seen ~~one”(~~211). Jig views the hills as white elephants, as entities so large and powerful that they require attention and disallow negotiation, much like the baby within her womb—a connection that Stanley Kozikowski makes: “Hills are like white elephants for Jig because they carry ambivalent evocations of the child within her—like a white elephant, an unwanted gift, a seemingly remote but immense ~~problem” (~~107). The American, on the other hand, claims to have never seen a white elephant, a statement that suggests he does not believe in entities or actions that cannot be undone. However, his rhetorical position is weakened by his unwillingness to look up and assess the hills for himself. He responds to his beer,{{efn|Meg Gillette, in her piece “Making Modern Parents in Ernest Hemingway’s ‘Hills Like White Elephants’,” provides a detailed analysis that focuses upon how the characters in the story frequently shift between offering retorts and drinking.}} rather than to Jig, as following his statement, the narrator says, “[T]he man drank his beer,” rather than something like, “The man said,” or, “The man responded” (Hemingway 211; 55-56).

Throughout the story the American attempts to articulate and advance his belief in reversibility. However, his own actions and statements undermine his attempts to do so. One can first see this situation in the exchange begun by Jig’s comment about the hills in the distance, as this moment initiates the heated philosophical discussion. As David Wyche perceptively states, “This bit of dialogue establishes the characters’ opposing positions in what is, essentially, an emotionally charged negotiation.”{{sfn|Wyche|2002|p=61}} Seated outside the bar, the couple enters into dialogue—the dilemma at hand being whether or not the couple should (or can) have an abortion and thus reverse the conception. While staring off into the distance, Jig remarks that the hills “look like white elephants,” to which the American responds, “I've never seen one.”{{sfn|Hemingway|1987|p=211}} Jig views the hills as white elephants, as entities so large and powerful that they require attention and disallow negotiation, much like the baby within her womb—a connection that Stanley Kozikowski makes: “Hills are like white elephants for Jig because they carry ambivalent evocations of the child within her—like a white elephant, an unwanted gift, a seemingly remote but immense problem.”{{sfn|Kozikowski|1994|p=107}} The American, on the other hand, claims to have never seen a white elephant, a statement that suggests he does not believe in entities or actions that cannot be undone. However, his rhetorical position is weakened by his unwillingness to look up and assess the hills for himself. He responds to his beer,{{efn|Meg Gillette, in her piece “Making Modern Parents in Ernest Hemingway’s ‘Hills Like White Elephants’,” provides a detailed analysis that focuses upon how the characters in the story frequently shift between offering retorts and drinking.}} rather than to Jig, as following his statement, the narrator says, “[T]he man drank his beer,” rather than something like, “The man said,” or, “The man responded” (Hemingway 211; 55-56).

When Jig snaps back, “You wouldn’t have,” the American replies, “Just because you say I wouldn’t have doesn't prove anything” (211). In his response, the American, perhaps unwittingly, takes power away from speech, through which the two ways in which actions can be reversed—the making of promises and forgiveness—occur. As such, within this exchange about the hills, Jig constructs the fetus within her womb as irreversible and non-negotiable, {{pg|408|409}} much like a white elephant, while the American attempts to forward his belief in reversibility—in the abortion of actions. Yet the American fails to construct the plurality necessary for such actions to be reversed, as he talks into his beer and limits the power of his own statements.

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 THERE HAS BEEN A PLETHORA OF CRITICISM examining one of Ernest Hemingway’s most powerful short stories, “Hills Like White Elephants.” However, one approach that may merit more attention is an exploration of Hemingway’s notions of “action” and of the irreversibility of action within the text. Hannah Arendt, an intellectual whose germinal work has transcended more than one discipline, may be useful in providing some measure of insight into Hemingway’s problematic narrative.
-I would like to begin by examining certain rhetorical elements of “Hills,” which suggest traces of Arendt’s perspectives on the “nature of action.” More specifically, Arendt’s influential study, ''The Human Condition'', suggests that the dissonance found in the relationship between Jig and the American primarily arises from their differing viewpoints regarding the Arendtian notion of irreversibility.{{efn|In order to combat irreversibility, according to Arendt, man must either make promises or bestow forgiveness on others, two actions that, by their nature, also require plurality, “for no one can forgive himself and no one can feel bound by a promise made only to himself” (237).}} That is to say, the issue is far more important than considerations of the potential abortion, which is the explicit topic of their combative dialogue, as critics have noted (Gillette 50-69; O'Brien 19-25; Rankin 234; Urgo 35). We might consider that Jig, in her overtly rhetorical exchanges with the American, illustrates (and promotes) the concept of irreversibility, as she suggests that the conception of life (an action, in essence, as it is a beginning) within her cannot be undone, while the American argues {{pg|407|408}} against irreversibility, as he believes that the conception can be “undone” by the act of abortion. As Stanley Renner proffers in his “Moving to the Girl's Side of ‘Hills Like White Elephants,’” “[I]n choosing whether to abort or to have the child, the couple are [sic] choosing between two ways of life” (28). This forty-minute exchange determining the end decision—abortion or life—reveals that the couple is also choosing between two ways of ''living''—either living in such a way so that actions can be “undone,” so to say, or living in such a way where actions bring consequences that are absolute.
+I would like to begin by examining certain rhetorical elements of “Hills,” which suggest traces of Arendt’s perspectives on the “nature of action.” More specifically, Arendt’s influential study, ''The Human Condition'', suggests that the dissonance found in the relationship between Jig and the American primarily arises from their differing viewpoints regarding the Arendtian notion of irreversibility.{{efn|In order to combat irreversibility, according to Arendt, man must either make promises or bestow forgiveness on others, two actions that, by their nature, also require plurality, “for no one can forgive himself and no one can feel bound by a promise made only to himself.”{{sfn|Arendt|1958|p=237}}}} That is to say, the issue is far more important than considerations of the potential abortion, which is the explicit topic of their combative dialogue, as critics have noted.{{sfn|Gillette|2007|p=50-69}}{{sfn|O’Brien|1992|p=19-25}}{{sfn|Rankin|2005|p=234}}{{sfn|Urgo|1988|p=35}} We might consider that Jig, in her overtly rhetorical exchanges with the American, illustrates (and promotes) the concept of irreversibility, as she suggests that the conception of life (an action, in essence, as it is a beginning) within her cannot be undone, while the American argues {{pg|407|408}} against irreversibility, as he believes that the conception can be “undone” by the act of abortion. As Stanley Renner proffers in his “Moving to the Girl's Side of ‘Hills Like White Elephants,’” “[I]n choosing whether to abort or to have the child, the couple are [sic] choosing between two ways of life.”{{sfn|Renner|1995|p=28}} This forty-minute exchange determining the end decision—abortion or life—reveals that the couple is also choosing between two ways of ''living''—either living in such a way so that actions can be “undone,” so to say, or living in such a way where actions bring consequences that are absolute.
-Throughout the story the American attempts to articulate and advance his belief in reversibility. However, his own actions and statements undermine his attempts to do so. One can first see this situation in the exchange begun by Jig’s comment about the hills in the distance, as this moment initiates the heated philosophical discussion. As David Wyche perceptively states, “This bit of dialogue establishes the characters’ opposing positions in what is, essentially, an emotionally charged negotiation” (61). Seated outside the bar, the couple enters into dialogue—the dilemma at hand being whether or not the couple should (or can) have an abortion and thus reverse the conception. While staring off into the distance, Jig remarks that the hills “look like white elephants,” to which the American responds, “I've never seen one”(211). Jig views the hills as white elephants, as entities so large and powerful that they require attention and disallow negotiation, much like the baby within her womb—a connection that Stanley Kozikowski makes: “Hills are like white elephants for Jig because they carry ambivalent evocations of the child within her—like a white elephant, an unwanted gift, a seemingly remote but immense problem” (107). The American, on the other hand, claims to have never seen a white elephant, a statement that suggests he does not believe in entities or actions that cannot be undone. However, his rhetorical position is weakened by his unwillingness to look up and assess the hills for himself. He responds to his beer,{{efn|Meg Gillette, in her piece “Making Modern Parents in Ernest Hemingway’s ‘Hills Like White Elephants’,” provides a detailed analysis that focuses upon how the characters in the story frequently shift between offering retorts and drinking.}} rather than to Jig, as following his statement, the narrator says, “[T]he man drank his beer,” rather than something like, “The man said,” or, “The man responded” (Hemingway 211; 55-56).
+Throughout the story the American attempts to articulate and advance his belief in reversibility. However, his own actions and statements undermine his attempts to do so. One can first see this situation in the exchange begun by Jig’s comment about the hills in the distance, as this moment initiates the heated philosophical discussion. As David Wyche perceptively states, “This bit of dialogue establishes the characters’ opposing positions in what is, essentially, an emotionally charged negotiation.”{{sfn|Wyche|2002|p=61}} Seated outside the bar, the couple enters into dialogue—the dilemma at hand being whether or not the couple should (or can) have an abortion and thus reverse the conception. While staring off into the distance, Jig remarks that the hills “look like white elephants,” to which the American responds, “I've never seen one.”{{sfn|Hemingway|1987|p=211}} Jig views the hills as white elephants, as entities so large and powerful that they require attention and disallow negotiation, much like the baby within her womb—a connection that Stanley Kozikowski makes: “Hills are like white elephants for Jig because they carry ambivalent evocations of the child within her—like a white elephant, an unwanted gift, a seemingly remote but immense problem.”{{sfn|Kozikowski|1994|p=107}} The American, on the other hand, claims to have never seen a white elephant, a statement that suggests he does not believe in entities or actions that cannot be undone. However, his rhetorical position is weakened by his unwillingness to look up and assess the hills for himself. He responds to his beer,{{efn|Meg Gillette, in her piece “Making Modern Parents in Ernest Hemingway’s ‘Hills Like White Elephants’,” provides a detailed analysis that focuses upon how the characters in the story frequently shift between offering retorts and drinking.}} rather than to Jig, as following his statement, the narrator says, “[T]he man drank his beer,” rather than something like, “The man said,” or, “The man responded” (Hemingway 211; 55-56).
 When Jig snaps back, “You wouldn’t have,” the American replies, “Just because you say I wouldn’t have doesn't prove anything” (211). In his response, the American, perhaps unwittingly, takes power away from speech, through which the two ways in which actions can be reversed—the making of promises and forgiveness—occur. As such, within this exchange about the hills, Jig constructs the fetus within her womb as irreversible and non-negotiable, {{pg|408|409}} much like a white elephant, while the American attempts to forward his belief in reversibility—in the abortion of actions. Yet the American fails to construct the plurality necessary for such actions to be reversed, as he talks into his beer and limits the power of his own statements.