User:JHadaway/sandbox

This is the user sandbox of JHadaway. A user sandbox is a subpage of the user's user page. It serves as a testing spot and page development space for the user and is not an encyclopedia article. Create or edit your own sandbox here.

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.^[a] 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

page 407

page 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.

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,^[b] 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,

page 408

page 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.

Another such exchange occurs when Jig and the American try Anis del Toro. Upon imbibing the drink, Jig comments that "[i]t tastes like licorice," to which the American responds, "That's the way with everything" (212). The American's response plays into Jig's beliefs about irreversibility, for she seizes upon the chance to rephrase the statement and direct it back toward the American: "Yes," she says. "Everything tastes of licorice. Especially all the things you've waited so long for, like absinthe" (Hemingway 212). Perhaps the American only meant to dismiss Jig's childish statement about licorice; however, in doing so, he opened the door for her to make a philosophical statement about consequence. In saying that everything amounts to one thing—one "taste"—Jig suggests that actions have an absolute consequence, one that leaves a bitter taste that cannot be undone. After a succession of comments about each rhetorician's motivation, Jig concludes, "That's all we do, isn't it—look at things and try new drinks?" (Hemingway 212). Jig's statement indirectly reproves the American for not allowing action within the relationship. The only action she has seen, in her opinion, was the conception, and the American will not even allow that to progress to full term. Detecting Jig's intimation, David Wyche writes that "[Jig] manages to articulate, again figuratively, what has no doubt been an increasing awareness of the emptiness of the couple's lifestyle to date" (62). Similarly, Paul Rankin surmises that, despite the American's desire to "act" on the conception, his character is "essentially passive in nature": "the man has nothing to offer, nothing to contribute to the story, just as he has nothing more to contribute to Jig's pregnancy" (235). As such, despite the American's desire to reverse the action—the life—he created through the abortion, his passivity inhibits his rhetorical position.

Notes

↑ 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).
↑ 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.

Works Cited

Arendt, Hannah (1958). The Human Condition. 2nd ed.: Chicago: U of Chicago P.

Citations

[1] 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).

[2] 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.

[a]

[b]