Reaction to "Hills Like White Elephants"

“Hills Like White Elephants”- Ernest Hemingway

The plot of the short story seems pretty straightforward; a man and a girl, clearly together and seasoned travelers, are sitting at the train station discussing whether or not the girl should get an abortion. The interesting this is that there are many thematic traces of feminism, responsibility, and more, in only light descriptive narration and ambiguous dialogue.

The light descriptions reveal a considerable amount about the work. The “labels from all the hotels where they spent nights” show that the two have a transient lifestyle, and have been together for some time. The setting of this story seemed especially important to me, as the author gives little else away. The hills seem reminiscent of a pregnant stomach, full of life and excitement. The train station matches the impasse that the two travelers find themselves at in the story. On one side, there are hills, vegetation, “fields of grain and trees,” and life. The other side is barren and desolate, with “no shade and no trees.” The two clearly have a huge decision to make, one side of the tracks or the other, a child or an abortion, and the few lines of descriptive scenery aid to explain this struggle. Also, the simple act of considering the man a man, implying age and maturity, matched with a girl, known for frivolity and youth, suggests that the girl is considerably more innocent and callow than her companion. Therefore, it comes as a surprise when the girl develops a much more pragmatic view of the world, as seen through her few short lines of discourse.

The dialogue, which makes up most of the short story, develops the characterization of the two companions, as well as my feelings toward them. Like I said earlier, the author implies that the girl is young and innocent, which is bolstered by the man calling her “Jig.” The name is jubilant, free, and young. The man clearly does not really take his companion seriously, even though she has clearly traveled and drank with him for awhile and is now deciding the fate of his unborn child. While the few lines describing the girl’s actions, like looking down when talk of abortion comes up, are a large part of the illustration of the characters, I felt that the lines that they said added even more. That being said, I cannot decide how I feel about the man. On one hand, he genuinely seems to tolerate and go along with whatever the girl wants, even though he continually tries to sway her into doing the operation. However; he does not seem to grasp how having a child would affect their life together the way the girl does. He insists that then “can have everything” and “go everywhere,” basically continuing their lifestyle of travel and drinking. The girl, on the other hand, clearly understands that this train station and decision is a turning point in her life; nothing will ever be the same again. As much as she may want to continue on, she realizes that she cannot, because the world “isn’t ours anymore.” Some of the last lines about taking the luggage to the lively “other side of the station” makes me believe that the girl is actually going to stand up for herself and choose to have a baby, despite her husband and his happiness. The short lines of dialogue between the two hold much more than a brief conversation between lovers; the lines give rise to the themes, characterizations, and eventual outcome of the entire story, even if the reader never sees the end.

Hemingway somehow managed to pack an extensive amount of information into a short story, especially considering the amount of repetitive dialogue. Still, I am not entirely sure which way she decided. While some of the text may point to her choosing to have her child, other sections lean toward going through with the abortion, and she does agree to the operation on the third page. Also, I cannot make a decision about the man’s intentions either. On one hand, he seems open to raising a child, even though he clearly does not want one. However, I also think that he could be manipulative and abandon the girl if she makes the “wrong” decision; there are certainly hints that he is overly controlling throughout the text. Overall, I cannot find a distinct ending for the story in the text that the author gives the reader.

Reaction to "The Guest"

While reading through Albert Camus’ short story, the first thing that struck me was the title, “The Guest.” It seems a little confusing; the Arab man is clearly not really a welcome guest, despite his welcoming treatment of tea, food, and shelter from the cold for a night. At the same time, Daru seems akin to a classic character from bad television; he plays the surly host, the man who graciously bends over backwards to please the guests he prays will leave soon. All we need is a mother-in-law and a night gone wrong. The actions Daru takes toward the prisoner immediately give insight into Daru’s character. He admittedly despises the Arab, feeling a “sudden wrath against the man, against all men with their rotten spite, their tireless hates, their blood lusts” when he finds out his prisoner’s crime. However, he is still unable to treat him poorly, even as he contemplates whether to send him to death or let him free. The addition of the man sets the stage for what is probably the most important choice of Daru’s isolated life: Does he consider the Arab a guest, or is he a prisoner?

Right away, Daru boldly states that he will not lead the man to his death, even after he learns that the man killed his cousin over grain. Daru clearly does not want to go against his own morals, but still does not want to make the decision to set the man free. I thought that this emphasis on choice was one of the main themes of the novel, the unavoidability and consequences of choice on the individual. The story actually reminded me of something my Macroeconomics professor said, “You can choose whatever you want, but you have to make a choice.” While Professor Sawyer was talking about choosing the shape of the bottom of the recession (I still think it’s a “W”) and not the fate of another human, I think that the basic concept still applies. Daru has to make a decision about what to do with the Arab, and even though he lets the tension build for hours struggling to get out of taking a preference, he knows that in the morning he will basically choose life or death for his houseguest.

While reading through the portion where Daru hears the man leave the room and hopes that he escaped so Daru would not have to actively make the difficult choice, I started to feel some annoyance with Daru. Even though I think that I would probably have all of the same feelings as Daru, I immediately thought of him as a coward when he lets the Arab leave instead of making a decision. I feel like Camus purposely makes the reader feel removed from Daru’s emotions; I never really felt empathy toward Daru considering his situation. I think that I immediately took on the position of the reader. To the removed reader, the choice Daru’s makes is inevitable; he has to make a selection, one way or another. Allowing the prisoner to escape seems to completely avoid a climax. The story builds on the emotional states and tensions between the characters, and just bailing out before the obvious climax is downright frustrating. This is why the return of the prisoner aroused positive feelings in me, despite the fact that both major characters are worse off in this situation.

This dedication to the fate of choice finally arrives in the climax of the short story, where Daru leaves the Arab man with food and the choice of two paths. By letting the prisoner select his own path, Darus essentially avoids the actual decision. He somehow avoids his fate, albeit momentarily. Not making a decision did not end up saving him from anything; the message on his blackboard proves that his attempt to avoid a situation was futile. The Arab man is hiking toward his death, and Daru will be punished for “sending” him there, despite the fact that Daru chickened out of actively causing the actions to happen. I think this is why I actually hope that the murdering, yet somewhat righteous, Arab somehow avoids his fate, because he actively made a difficult decision.

I found that the entire story seemed odd to me when I went back and reflected upon it. While normally I side with the narrator, even though if I were presented with the same information in a different setting I would not, I disliked Daru. In reality, I probably would have done what he did, yet somehow I feel that he deserves what he gets for not facing the inevitable. I think it must be the view from the reader’s perspective; I know that he has to make a decision in the next few pages, with Daru himself has no idea what the future holds.

Reaction to "The Lady with the Dog"

From the beginning of Anton Chekhov’s “The Lady with the Dog,” the speaker paints Dmitry Dmitrich Gurov as a disgusting human being. While I would not particularly consider myself a strong feminist, I found myself quite offended by Dmitry’s views towards women. He openly considers them a “lower race,” yet admits to enjoying their company and falls for anyone attractive. Dmitry’s actions and thoughts in every situation lead the reader despise him; he is unfaithful, obnoxious, and takes innocent, unmarred Anna Sergeyevna as a lover, then disturbingly compares to his own prepubescent daughter. He does not care for anything more than passion with strangers. In short, Dmitry Dmitrich Gurov is introduced as a pig.

The interesting thing about the short story is how the speaker tries to change the reader’s feelings toward Dmitry. Even the questions at the end of the story lead the reader to believe that he should reconsider the speaker’s initial impression of Gurov. My feelings towards Gurov never changed. Originally, he only held Anna in a sort of ironic mockery as he cheated on his wife and ignored his children. Even at the end of the story, when Dmitry “transforms,” he is still despicable. Just because he decides that he loves this woman and wants to work through their flawed relationship and struggles together does not make him a decent person. He is still cheating on his wife and abandoning his children! He is not the victim of fate, marrying the wrong person at the wrong time; Dmitry is a selfish human being who makes a woman fall in love with him through deceit, then later decides that he loves her as well. Dmitry takes on the stance that new love is fresh and exciting, but thinks it fades quickly. Just because the love he has with Anna has not faded as quickly as it did with others makes him believe erroneously that the two of them can last. Their relationship is built on lies, yet they act as if they are blameless lovers scorned by destiny. Dmitry considers the two to be “like two migrating birds, the male and female, who had been caught and put into separate cages.” However, the poetic tragedy of their situation is far more poetic than tragic. Just because Dmitry actually finds someone to care about does not change my feelings towards him.

On the same note, why does Gurov feel that he can work through the hopeless train wreck of a relationship that he shares with Anna, but not his connection with his wife? Clearly he felt something for his wife when they first got married, even though he later considers the move a mistake. Why is Dmitry so willing to fix a relationship with a random woman over his own wife? The relationship Dmitry has with Anna was built on a foundation of deceit, and I believe that this “love” will fade just as his legal relationship has.

Whatever the speaker was trying to say about passion, love, commitment, struggles, and more, was completely lost on me with the lack of character development. While Dmitry may have changed his opinion of all women, he remains disgusting and confused by the reality of life. Despite what the authors of Fiction 101 seem to think, I do not believe that the reader should feel any sympathy for Dmitry, or feel any drastic change of emotion toward him at all. The entire short story became frustrating for me; I feel like the speaker was using overly-dramatic language and similes to arouse a change of heart in the reader, and I do not appreciate this. No amount of poetry will convince me that Dmitry is anything more than a pathetic man who seals his own fate.