Hemingway’s Hills: An Examination of a 20th Century Work

Introduction

It is clear that literature – its style, its function, and its process – has undergone a dramatic shift in the last century. As tastes have changed, so has a literary style. As reading practices have changed, so has a literary function. Finally, as storytelling itself has changed, so has the process of telling a literary story. There are many examples of this shift – far too many to account for here. However, looking to particular works as an example of the change should be telling, particularly when juxtaposed against each other. This paper analyzes a piece of 20th century writing – Ernest Hemingway’s “Hills Like White Elephants” - in the context of what has been largely used to define western literature up until the 20th century – Aristotle’s “Poetics.” Doing so will give insight into the major shift in literature in the early 20th century.

When Ernest Hemingway’s story “Hills Like White Elephants” is viewed from the perspective of Aristotle, it is evident that 20th century literature changed the notion of what is good literature based on Ethos or character, Lexis or speech, and Mythos or plot. An examination of “Hills like White Elephants” from Aristotle’s perspective, based on these three criteria, would state that Hemingway’s story is not good, although that is clearly not true. It is this that shows a shift in literary style, function, and process.

First, the paper gives a brief summary of both works. A simple plot summary of Hemingway’s “Hills Like White Elephants” will be provided, followed by an introduction to Aristotle's concepts of Ethos, Lexis, and Mythos. The paper will then briefly explain how Hemingway’s story differs from Aristotle’s understanding of these three terms. After introducing and explaining the topic, the paper will give in-depth explanations as to how these terms are used by Aristotle and how Hemingway is writing from different than Aristotle's. To conclude, the paper will explain exactly what has been discussed and prove that Aristotle’s notions of Ethos, Lexis, and Mythos are different than the way Hemingway thought of them.

Summary of the Works: Hemingway

“Hills like White Elephants,” by Ernest Hemingway, begins with a description of the valley of the Ebro, a River Valley located along the Iberian Peninsula; in Spain, specifically. There is a long description of the setting – the hills, fields, and trees of the valley. The story opens with the dialogue of a man and woman, sitting at a train station about an hour’s ride outside of Barcelona. The man, simply known as “the American”, and the woman, presumably his wife, girlfriend, or significant other, are sitting outside the station, waiting for a train to Madrid. The American and the woman sample a beer each while discussing the scenery and other topics – the woman notes that the hills resemble white elephants, but the American responds that he has never seen one.

After deciding to sample a drink they had never tried before, called “Anis del Toro,” they argue about the taste of the alcohol. The American comments that they should stop, and try to enjoy themselves. The woman responds that she was merely being playful – and then comments that the hills do not look like white elephants to her anymore. Then the story turns. The American man begins speaking to the woman about a potential operation she may or may not have – although what type of operation is not specified. He wants the operation to take place, and it is insinuated at this point in the story that the two are on their way to have said operation performed. The American downplays the operation, saying that it would be simple, not actually an operation at all.

While discussing the potentially impending operation, the American relates that, whatever it is that the operation will be fixing, it is the only thing they argue about in their relationship and, should the operation take place, they can be happy together again. The woman is noticeably skeptical and passively resistant to the idea, despite the American’s insistence that the two of them “…can have the whole world” (213). The American then states that he will not make her have the operation, if she does not want it, but thinks it’s the best course of action to take. She tells him that she will have the operation as long as he will still love her and they will be able to live happily together afterward. Details presented in the story, notably the man’s first comments regarding an operation, where he states “It’s really simple operation…” and “They just let the air in and then it’s all perfectly natural,” indicate that the operation is likely that of an abortion (212).

Near the end of the story, the woman asks the American, who has been passively identified as her significant other, to please stop talking and bring their bags to the other side of the train station, where the train to Barcelona will soon await. Upon his return from dropping the bags off, the American asks the woman whether she feels better. His companion tells him that she “feels fine,” and that there is nothing wrong with her, indicating that she has indeed decided to go through with the operation.

Summary of the Works: Aristotle

Now we turn to a summary of a classic take on literature. Aristotle’s “Poetics” is one of the earliest surviving works in the field of dramatic theory and the very first philosophical treatise to focus on literary theory. In the text, Aristotle defines what he calls “poetry,” examining the principles, genres and basic elements that, in his opinion, comprise great poetry. The text most referenced within this work of Aristotle is that of the play “Oedipus Rex” by the ancient Greek playwright Sophocles. Aristotle specifically mentions this work by Sophocles because to him (as made clear throughout the work) “Oedipus Rex” single-handedly embodies the greatest qualities of the main principles of poetry (it should be noted that “Oedipus Rex” is on record as Aristotle’s favorite play).

First of all, Aristotle distinguishes between the genres of poetry using three terms: matter, subjects, and method. Matter, to Aristotle, is the language, rhythm, and melody of the piece. In other words, how the piece is related to the hearers or readers. Subjects (or, agents, in some translations) are the characters of the piece. The very differentiation between tragedy and comedy comes by distinguishing the type of human characters that are found in the piece. It is important to note here that Aristotle conceives of tragic characters as important, or virtuous and ethical, while comedic characters are less virtuous and undignified. Finally, the method of poetry is simply whether the story is narrated or driven by the agents.

Having conceptualized literary work on the whole Aristotle then turns to a definition of tragedy. This is essential that a serious, complete story is conveyed by actors rather than narration. There are six main principles of tragedy detailed in “Poetics”: Mythos, Ethos, Dianoia, Lexis, Melos and Opsis (1997). Translated into English, the six principles of tragedy are known as plot, character, thought, diction, melody and spectacle. The plot, as defined by Aristotle is the “arrangement of the incidents” and the best plot ought to be “complex” (1997).

A character is an agent by which these incidents take place – the main character of a tragedy being the hero. This main character, according to Aristotle, ought to be good, appropriate to his setting, and consistent. There are six qualities, in all. The character ought to be good, or fine; have the fitness of character; be true to life; have consistency; be necessary or probable, and be both true to life, yet more beautiful. This is also an important element to note for further discussion in Hemingway’s “Hills Like White Elephants”.

The thought is how the themes of the tragedy should be reflected in the speech of the characters. The reasoning of human characters (usually spoken) can give important background for both story and characters. Diction is, according to Aristotle, “the expression of the meaning in words” (1997). In other words, a character’s speech should reflect their moral qualities. Melody, Aristotle argues, should be fully integrated into the play like an actor, and that the application of song shall not consist of “mere interludes.” Instead, it should have its share in the action.

Finally, the spectacle is mentioned last, as it is the least connected with the literature of any of the previous five themes. According to Aristotle, “the production of spectacular effects depends more on the art of the stage machinist than on that of the poet” (1997). As such, he argues that the inner structure of the play will be more indicative of any performances emotional arousal if the poet is indeed superior, rather than relying on pure spectacle. These are the most important aspects of “Poetics” as they relate to 20th century literature – specifically a discussion of Hemingway’s work.

The Comparison

Heming way exhibits what he calls the “iceberg theory” in this work (Weeks, 1980). This is what stands in stark contrast to Aristotle’s description of a dramatic tragedy. Instead of the meaning being found in the matter, subject, and method of the story, it is found in between the lines in Hemingway’s writings. If one reads the story without this understanding, “Hills Like White Elephants” would seemingly be nothing more than a casual conversation between two people waiting for a train. This would mean missing the tension, drama, and even anguish found in the in between. Nothing is explicitly said about abortion or separation, but this is what the entire story is about. Hemingway accomplishes this by stripping “everything but the bare essentials form his stories and novels, leaving readers to sift through the remaining dialogue and bits of narrative on their own” (Weeks, 1980). This is the essence of the iceberg theory – readers are given just the visible tip, and left to find out the huge mass of ice under the surface. This approach is unique to the 20th century and far removed from Aristotle’s ideal.

Examples

There are many ways in which Hemingway’s work is juxtaposed to Aristotle’s precepts. Each is discussed here. Contrary to Aristotle’s understanding of setting as being the least important aspect of dramatic literature, Hemingway’s setting at a train station is paramount to the meaning of “Hills Like White Elephants” – it essentially highlights the nature of the relationship between the American and the woman as being at a crossroads. The symbol is clear: just as travelers must decide which direction to take, the two characters must decide whether to continue their relationship. The setting of the train station is important too – in a barren valley with distant white hills, the setting reflects the woman’s decision between fertility and sterility. This is not making the story overly symbolic – these are the symbols that Hemingway deliberated placed in the story to give it meaning.

Even the use of white elephants in the story’s imagery holds meaning for the moving forward of the narrative. In general, white elephants represent something no one wants – in this story, that something is the couple’s unborn child. The woman’s casual comment that the hills look like white elephants actually was a marker for the couple to start discussing the planned abortion and the future of their relationship – although the reader would not know it from just their conversation. Later, when the woman remarks that the hills only looked like white elephants at first glance, this may be a subtle hint that she would want to keep the baby. While this may seem to align with Aristotle’s emphasis on the characters conveying the narrative, rather than a narration – but the symbolism is what is new. The narrative is moved forward through both character dialogue and narration, but in a way that Aristotle would not have considered a good tragedy or drama.

The characters in Hemingway’s work are another deviation from Aristotle’s ideal. Whereas Aristotle’s tragic characters are supposed to be good, virtuous, and the hero of the story, neither of Hemingway’s characters seem to be admirable. One is rigid, while the other seems desperate. The American’s treatment of his girlfriend is not what Aristotle had in mind in his hero, nor does the girlfriend fit the conceptualized “damsel,” changing her mind about her commitments, making for a rather pathetic figure.

Conclusion

The above makes it clear that Hemingway’s quality work is a shift away in literary style, function, and process as laid out in ideal form by Aristotle. When Ernest Hemingway’s story “Hills Like White Elephants” is viewed from the perspective of Aristotle, it is evident that 20th century literature changed the notion of what is good. Instead of idealized heroes, Hemingway uses the situation and setting to convey a sense of tragedy. Instead of carrying the narrative through dialogue and narrative, Hemingway leaves the reader with strategically placed gaps to be filled. This, in a way, makes for a more dramatic storytelling. The above examination of “Hills like White Elephants” in conjunction with Aristotle’s perspective shows a clear break from to form of literature, rather than a deviation in good literature. Looking at Hemingway’s “Hills Like White Elephants” has given insight into the major shift in literature in the early 20th century.

Works Cited

Hemingway, Ernest. Hills like white elephants. New York: Scribner, 1987. 211-14, Print.

Kenneth G. (Autumn, 1982). "Hills Like White Elephants". Studies in American Fiction 10 (2): 233–38.

Weeks Jr., L. "Hemingway Hills: Symbolism in 'Hills Like White Elephants.'" Studies in Short Fiction, Winter 1980. Vol. 17 No. 1. p. 75

Whalley, George. Aristotle's Poetics. Montreal [Que.: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1997. Print.