Theme Of Truth In Hills Like White Elephants, By Tim O Brien

Through their stories, writers often use literary elements to enhance the impact on their readers. Using such devices, writers frequently blur the line between true reality and fictional reality. As Tim O’Brien said in “Good Form,” “stories can…make things present” (O’Brien 751). Reading a story rather than just reading facts allows readers to have a personal connection to it. It makes it “real.” Writers such as Hemmingway and O’Brien in their short stories “Hills Like White Elephants” and “The Man I Killed,” use symbols and character conflicts to blur the lines between factual and fictional truth. It is this blurring that makes the stories “real” and allows the readers to have a personal connection to them.

Stories contain immense power,

as O’Brien believes. They allow the readers to experience, first hand, what the author is trying to say. But, by doing so, the authors can blur the lines between fact and fiction making it difficult to distinguish between the two. For instance, in “The Man I Killed,” O’Brien uses the symbol of storytelling to combine fact and fiction and make the story “real.” O’Brien uses the Vietcong soldier as an addition for his storytelling symbol. He describes the soldier in concrete details making the readers forget that O’Brien is telling a story. Rather, the readers feel as if they are right next to him. For instance, when O’Brien says, “his jaw was in his throat, his upper lip and teeth were gone, his one eye was gone, his other eye was a star-shaped hole…” he employs the storytelling symbol (O’Brien 748). O’Brien shows that stories are not only a coping mechanism for soldiers, but also a strategy for communication in life. Additionally, O’Brien provides concrete imagery to make the setting of the war more realistic. His description of the soldier about how “he was not a communist” but a “citizen and a soldier” in “the village of My Khe” reveals the ghastly nature of war (O’Brien 748). O’Brien describes in great detail the physical attributes of the soldier. His concrete imagery again, blurs the lines between the fact and fiction. Reading the vivid description of the soldier, it is hopeless to try and distinguish the truth.
Furthermore, by not using any characters in his story, he places himself as the character thus obscuring the fact from fiction.

Looking at “The Man I Killed,” O’Brien is the prominent character in the story. Whether he is telling the truth or not, the readers cannot tell. His theme of subjection of truth to storytelling makes it impossible to check if any of the events O’Brien mentions ever happened to him. His characters, mainly him, contradict themselves several times in his story, rendering the possibility of truth impossible to ascertain. For example, when Azar sees the soldier’s body, he says, “man, you…trashed the [man]…” implying that what O’Brien did could have been avoided (O’Brien 748). However, a few moments later, he says, “nothing anybody could do,” implying that what O’Brien did was the correct thing to do (O’Brien 748). O’Brien’s point through his uses of symbols and the storytelling theme is that the objective truth of the war is not as important as the act of telling a story. He is not attempting to write a history of Vietnam; rather, he writes about different ways that the audience can feel stimulated about the ghastly nature of war. His concrete imagery alongside his storytelling symbols and themes, blur the lines and thus making the readers feel a personal connection with the Vietcong

soldier.
Similarly, in “Hills Like White Elephants,” neither of the characters truly communicates with each other again making it difficult to distinguish the fact and the fiction. Hemmingway uses the conflict between the two characters to show theme of storytelling. Neither of them says what is on their mind. They hide the “factual truth” and continue their “fictional truth.” Both of them talk, but neither listens. For instance, when the woman says, “They [the mountains] look like white elephants,” the man replies, “I’ve never seen one,” completely ignoring the mountains (Hemmingway 526). He does not even turn his head towards the mountains. He does not understand her point of view. The conflict between the two and the things that they leave unsaid, allow Hemmingway to make the readers jump to conclusions about what is actually going on. It is this conflict of the white elephants that makes it real.
Moreover, the symbol of the white elephant implies something that no one wants. As neither of the characters say it forthright, Hemmingway’s use of the “white elephants” reveals that neither of the characters want the unborn child (Hemmingway 526). Again, as neither of the characters says what is on their minds, the fact and fiction are intertwined. The girl says that the hills look like white elephants but then later on retracts it by saying “they don’t really look like white elephants,” hinting to keep the unborn baby (Hemmingway 526). The American completely misses the point and their conflict—whether they should keep the baby or not—continues. Comparing the hills to white elephants, and metaphorically to the baby, the expression “elephant in the room” comes to mind. This suggests that there is something major that needs to be talked about but neither want to talk about it. It is this non-talkativeness that is blurring the lines between the fact and the fiction as neither character says what he/she wants.
Likewise, the conflict in “The Man I Killed” also makes it difficult for readers to tell the truth apart from the fiction.

In the story, O’Brien’s conflict about the soldier, whether he should have killed him or not, is brought up again and again. He uses concrete imagery, as mentioned above, but also distances his feelings from the readers. He never mentions in the story how he felt about killing the Vietcong soldier. His conflict is left unresolved. He feels guilty, as is implied, but he takes safety in the physical attributes of the soldier and the flowers growing on the side. The failed attempt of consolations by O’Brien’s fellow soldiers, demonstrate that nothing can erase the marks left by war. For instance, when Kiowa tries to help O’Brien, he says, “Tim, it’s a war. The guy wasn’t Heidi—he had a weapon” (O’Brien 749). O’Brien ignores Kiowa’s consolation as he does not even respond. By leaving his own feelings out of the story, O’Brien removes a major aspect that the readers would need to tell fact and fiction apart. Rather, in his strategy, he uses symbols, a moral conflict to blur the fact and the

fiction.
Both O’Brien and Hemmingway use literary devices to make the reader “one with the story.” They make the reader feel as if they are the characters of the story. Even though O’Brien confesses that his story in “The Man I Killed” is made up in “Good Form,” readers who did not read both stories would have never guessed that the story was made up. It is the same case with Hemmingway’s “Hills Like White Elephants.” By not discussing the “elephant in the room” the characters make the readers feel uncomfortable and feel for the woman. It is this blurring of the lines in both the stories that makes the readers enjoy the stories and make a real connection to them.