Iceberg In Ernest Hemingway's Hills Like White Elephants

Ernest Hemingway’s Iceberg

Drifting through the sea, an iceberg aimlessly wanders. As big as a house, ships steer clear of being near it. However, they do not avoid the iceberg because of what they can see above the water, but what they know is below it. Icebergs then are judged not by what you can see but what you cannot. Hemingway’s story “Hills Like White Elephants” is no different. Although short, Ernest Hemingway’s “Hills Like White Elephants” has deep and conflicting issues and symbolism through the use of his theory of omission.

While living in France, Ernest Hemingway created a unique theory for writing fiction. He called it his “theory of omission” in which he believed anything could be omitted as long as it met two conditions. First,

the omitted part would have to “strengthen the story” (Akers 167). Second, it must also “make people feel something more than they understood” (Akers 167). There are those who do not support this theory, such as Frank O’Connor who claims “Hills Like White Elephants” does not “provide the reader with enough information” (Akers 167). However, given time to “flesh out the implications” of such a concise and “carefully woven” tale; the reader has more than enough information to see the “rich pattern” in which Hemingway created this story (Akers 167). It becomes obvious why Hemingway described his stories with an iceberg analogy saying, “There are seven/eighths of it underwater for every part that shows” (Schlib 297) and that the “meaning of the story is submerged beneath the text” (Akers 161). It is no surprise then why “Hills Like White Elephants” has had scores of critics when the text so openly invites participation.
The story itself “appears deceptively simple” with a man and woman engaging in conversation while they wait for the train (Akers 165).

Upon first look, Hemingway drops the reader right into that conversation and leaves them to deciphering what the couple is talking about. It is not until the reader recognizes the couple is talking about having an abortion that they can truly understand the depth of the story. Starting with just the setting, the couple sits at more than just a train station. Instead, they sit at a juncture from which they will either have or not have the abortion. Even the sides are polar opposites, with one side covered in “fields of grain” and “mountains”, the other “dry” with a few hills (Schlib 299). Jig constantly admires the fertile side, leading toward a “settled family life” (Akers 168) and using the landscape to relate the truth of how she feels about her unborn child. During this, Jig acts as “her own chorus” by “standing outside herself and seeing the larger situation” (Akers 167) when she says “And we could have all this… And we could have everything and every day make it more impossible” (Schlib 299). However, Hemingway spares no imagery and symbolism as Jig sees “the shadow of a cloud” (Schlib 299) moving over the field foreshadowing “the death of her unborn child” (Akers 168). All the while, the American fights for Jig to have the abortion. The white elephants mentioned in the story is an analogy to the unborn child. While a white elephant is

“paradoxical in nature” due to its conflicting meanings, Jig and the American have conflicting views on the child (Akers 171). On one hand a white elephant is “rare and valuable” and can even be “sacred” (Akers 171) similar to how Jig views the pregnancy. On the other hand, a white elephant is a “worthless or burdening possession” (Akers 171) which is how the American feels about the pregnancy. Acting as the antagonist to the story, the American “grossly oversimplifies the issue” saying that it is an “awfully simple operation” (Rankin 3) then contradicting himself, following his previous statement with “not really an operation at all” (Rankin 3). Throughout the piece, the American makes it clear, he does not care for Jig and more so regrets the night he caused this pregnancy. Upon Jig’s mentioning of the “licorice taste” (Schlib 298) reminding her of absinthe, he becomes “irritated” (Akers 169) and snaps, “Oh, cut it out,” (Schlib 298). However, the irony of this event falls flat for the American. Absinthe can and likely caused “sexual arousal” and he now wants to be rid of the “unwanted by-product of that passion” (Akers 169).
“Hills Like White Elephants” is an incredibly short story consisting of almost nothing but dialogue. However, through Ernest Hemingway’s theory of omission, it has a deep conflict littered with symbolism. This on top of the controversial nature of their conflict has caused it to draw scores critics since its creation. Even in today’s society, the controversial conflict remains relevant to current political issues.