Sunday, April 3, 2011

Continuing our Discussion of Hills Like White Elephants

Hey Everyone,

I've been thinking more about what we began to discuss at the end of last Monday's class regarding Hemingway's "Hills Like White Elephants," particularly with regard to the discussion of the "it" in the story.

I especially appreciated the point that any divining of the meaning of "it" relies on archetypes, and I've begun to consider more how much this is the case. In my own cultural experience of life, the combination of an older man, a younger girl, an affair-like (or at least, non-married) relationship, a trip to an unknown place to perform an activity that is ominously never named... well I wouldn't say it screams abortion, but abortion was in fact one among the initial idea to cross my mind when I first read this story a few years ago. This all being said, this story was written in 1927. Of course I can only speculate, but I imagine that the even-more-ominous nature of an illicit May-December affair, let alone the act of getting an abortion, against the backdrop of the 1920s would serve to emphasize the unspeakable nature of "it."

I guess I'm a little preoccupied with how much time - the period and the distance from present day - affects understanding of an archetype. For example, when the American insists "I wouldn't have you do it if you didn't want to. But I know it's perfectly simple," I take him to be patronizing and reliant on the fact that, at the end of the day, Jig values his experience and conceptions of the world as outweighing her own (151). I form these interpretations based on words from his dialogue such as "I wouldn't have you" and "it's perfectly simple," which to me suggest a broadcast sense of worldliness and a condescension based on 'the wisdom of his years'.

But in 1927, would I derive these same opinions of the man? I can't say because I don't know how the typical man...let alone the typical man in his relationship with a woman...let alone the typical man in his relationship with a younger woman (... I could go on and on and on) would be generally categorized or represented in literature and other forms of fictional entertainment. Beyond even the era-based conception of archetypal man, I could delve deeper into the fact that he is referred to as The American, and all of the potential archetypal symbols that fall in with this. Ultimately, though, I am conflicted. I don't feel limited by my lack of first person understanding of gender roles in the 1920s, but at the same time I am fairly certain that there were certain cultural sentiments from this time period that I am unknowingly excluded from fully comprehending. To this end, I think that time significantly determines the presence of archetypes, but conversely the passage of time or the newness of an era cannot prohibit the existence or understanding of them.

Elizabeth

1 comment:

  1. I was definitely wondering the same thing about how much time it takes for an archetype to be established and if something is or isn't an archetype if it is too new. I think that if we agree on it, or if a groups of people agree that something is an archetype based on their own learning and experience, it should be allowed to be an archetype. Our students may not be acquainted with some archetypes, but would be familiar with more modern symbols.
    If you have to take into account the historical time period that it was written and use that perspective to understand the archetypes in the story, wouldn't that almost be like using the historical lens also?

    ReplyDelete