Introduction
This story brings up a particularly challenging issue of abortion, which always provokes a lot of debate and controversy. Paradoxically, this topic is as significant as is taboo and is usually bypassed in works or represented one-sidedly. The story is not long-drawn and with no explicit details; but is replete with metaphors and veiled essence, like an iceberg. In this work, two people discuss the matter of conceivable abortion. Most readers would probably side with the girl since this character is better spelled out and easier to sympathize with. However, for the whole comprehensive picture, it is vital to look at what is happening through the eyes of the second side — her man.
The Man’s Alternative Perspective to the Circumstances
One of the main characters, Jig, is lost, upset, and in urgent need of the support of her lover. Her partner does not have a name in this story, only the faceless description “American” at the beginning of the narrative. The couple travels throughout Spain without doing anything on purpose, but “just trying different drinks,” which Jig says sarcastically. During their conversation, it becomes clear that the man does not need a child since this is a serious obstacle on the way to an open-handed life. He actively convinces the girl of the littleness of the operation, that all people do it and live happily ever after. There is no constructive communication; people do not understand each other. The frivolity of the man is expressed in belittling the seriousness of abortion and unwillingness to disclose the subject. He also offers Jig alcohol drinks one by one, deliberately neglecting the fact of her pregnancy (Schumacher, 2017). In his eyes, everything is pretty simple and can be solved in a couple of minutes.
Varying Interpretations of Metaphors in the Story
The man is not on the same wavelength as his companion. He does not understand her imaginative comparison of hills to white elephants due to his more down-to-earth reflection. If Jig sees the whole picture, her man does not see it as well as the future with a child. The expression “white elephant” means a too high-priced and pretentious gift, which is hard to appropriately adapt to everyday life (Schumacher, 2017). The girl consciously or unintentionally attempts to reveal a parallel between such a gift and a child. She already considers the child as a present but does not know what to do with it. However, the man not only does not share her point of representation, he persistently does not see her whole picture of the world. For him, everything is easy: hills are hills, white elephants are animals, and abortion is a small operation on the way to a freewheeling life.
Conclusion
The story does not have a well-defined core and is more like a part of some big novel. However, even a few lines of the dialog can make readers assume the feelings of the woman and charge the man. He probably does not do this out of malice or intentionally; there is a big misunderstanding and disconnection between the lovers. They had a former life full of joy and travel; perhaps he sincerely does not understand why to change it. The man’s emotions are not sufficiently described in the text, but his actions and quick catchwords speak for themselves.
Reference
Schumacher, A. (2017). Disenfranchised mothers and maternity insurance – tracing progressive arguments in Ernest Hemingway’s short stories. Current Objectives of Postgraduate American Studies, 18(1).