How Does Hills Like White Elephants Address Present Pleasure vs Future Planning?
Author: Martin Munyao Muinde
Email: Ephantusmartin@gmail.com
Direct Answer
Ernest Hemingway’s “Hills Like White Elephants” addresses the conflict between present pleasure and future planning through the unnamed American man and Jig’s conversation about abortion, where the man prioritizes maintaining their carefree, traveling lifestyle of present enjoyment while Jig contemplates the long-term implications of their choice. The story presents present pleasure through the couple’s transient existence—constantly moving between hotels and bars, drinking, and avoiding responsibility—contrasted against the life-altering permanence of either having a child or terminating the pregnancy. According to Johnston (1987), the narrative centers on incompatible desires: the man wants to preserve their hedonistic present by eliminating potential disruption, while Jig increasingly recognizes that perpetual present-oriented living lacks substance and meaning. The white elephant metaphor itself represents this tension—something valuable yet burdensome that forces confrontation with future consequences rather than remaining in comfortable present denial. Hemingway employs the barren landscape on one side of the station and fertile valley on the other to symbolize the choice between continued sterility of pleasure-seeking existence versus fertility of committed future planning. The unresolved ending emphasizes the difficulty of reconciling immediate desires with long-term wellbeing, particularly when partners hold fundamentally different orientations toward time, responsibility, and the relationship between present choices and future consequences.
Understanding the Historical and Literary Context
Ernest Hemingway published “Hills Like White Elephants” in 1927 as part of his collection “Men Without Women,” during a period characterized by post-World War I disillusionment and the emergence of modernist literary techniques emphasizing indirect narration, sparse dialogue, and symbolic depth beneath minimalist surfaces. The story exemplifies Hemingway’s “iceberg theory” of writing, where the visible text represents only a small fraction of the story’s meaning, with vast significance remaining beneath the surface, requiring active reader interpretation to construct full understanding of character motivations, relationship dynamics, and thematic concerns. The 1920s setting proves crucial for understanding the story’s treatment of present pleasure versus future planning, as this decade witnessed significant cultural shifts toward hedonism, sexual liberation, consumer culture, and rejection of Victorian values emphasizing deferred gratification, duty, and long-term thinking. Reynolds (2000) notes that Hemingway’s expatriate characters frequently embody this tension between modern liberation from traditional constraints and the emptiness that can accompany lives structured entirely around immediate pleasure without deeper purpose or commitment.
The story’s treatment of abortion—though never explicitly named—reflects the period’s complex attitudes toward reproductive control, female autonomy, and the consequences of sexual liberation. While contraception and abortion existed, they remained illegal, dangerous, and socially stigmatized, creating circumstances where sexual freedom came with significant risks and consequences that fell disproportionately on women. The couple’s transient lifestyle represents a particular modern phenomenon enabled by post-war affluence, transportation advances, and cultural shifts that made extended travel and rootless existence possible for certain privileged classes. However, Hemingway’s narrative suggests that this lifestyle, while superficially glamorous and free, contains inherent limitations and cannot indefinitely postpone confrontation with fundamental life questions about meaning, commitment, and future direction. Fantina (2005) argues that Hemingway’s fiction consistently explores the unsustainability of lives devoted purely to present sensation, revealing how attempts to remain in perpetual present eventually collapse when future consequences demand acknowledgment and response, forcing characters to recognize that choices always carry future implications regardless of attempts to ignore long-term thinking.
The Couple’s Transient Lifestyle as Present-Oriented Existence
The story establishes the couple’s lifestyle through carefully selected details that reveal their commitment to present pleasure and avoidance of permanence or planning: they wait at a train station between destinations, drink alcohol in the afternoon heat, have “looked at things and tried new drinks,” and maintain a relationship apparently based on shared experiences and sensations rather than long-term commitment or future planning. This existence embodies pure presentism—living entirely in the moment, moving between temporary locations, accumulating experiences without building anything permanent or substantial. The American man explicitly articulates preference for this lifestyle when he attempts to reassure Jig that the abortion will restore their previous existence: “We’ll be fine afterward. Just like we were before” (Hemingway, 1927, p. 212). His vision of an ideal future involves returning to an eternal present of pleasure-seeking without interruption from responsibility or consequences requiring long-term planning and commitment.
However, Hemingway subtly suggests the emptiness underlying this supposedly enviable lifestyle through Jig’s growing dissatisfaction and the sterile setting of the train station—a liminal space between destinations, representing the couple’s perpetual state of transition without arrival. The hills that “look like white elephants” provoke the story’s central conversation, with Jig’s observation suggesting her increasing ability to see beyond surface pleasure to recognize the burden and waste of their lifestyle. White elephants traditionally represent gifts that appear valuable but prove burdensome and costly to maintain—precisely describing both the unwanted pregnancy and, perhaps more significantly, their entire relationship and lifestyle that appears glamorous but lacks substance and meaning. Renner (1995) argues that Jig’s reference to white elephants indicates her awakening to the emptiness of their existence, recognizing that what appeared as freedom and pleasure has become a trap of endless repetition without growth, purpose, or genuine connection. The story presents their transient lifestyle not as liberation but as avoidance—an extended adolescence where adult responsibilities and future planning remain perpetually deferred through constant movement and distraction.
The Abortion Decision as Future Planning Crisis
The pregnancy forces the couple to confront future consequences in ways their lifestyle has allowed them to avoid, creating the story’s central crisis where present desires clash with future implications and where the impossibility of remaining in perpetual present becomes undeniable. The American man frames abortion as the solution that will restore their present-oriented existence, insisting “It’s really an awfully simple operation” and “I know you wouldn’t mind it, Jig. It’s really not anything. It’s just to let the air in” (Hemingway, 1927, p. 211). His language minimizes the procedure’s physical, emotional, and existential significance, treating it as a minor inconvenience temporarily disrupting their pleasure-seeking rather than a life-altering choice with permanent consequences. His perspective represents extreme present orientation where future implications—physical risks, emotional aftermath, relationship changes, lost possibilities—remain invisible or deliberately ignored in service of maintaining current lifestyle and avoiding disruption to present arrangements.
Conversely, Jig’s responses reveal increasing awareness that no choice allows simple return to previous existence and that the decision carries irreversible future consequences regardless of which option they select. Her statement “Then I’ll do it. Because I don’t care about me” (Hemingway, 1927, p. 213) expresses resignation rather than agreement, suggesting recognition that either choice—abortion or motherhood—will fundamentally alter her future in ways that cannot be undone or escaped through geographical mobility and distraction. The story emphasizes how pregnancy uniquely forces future planning by creating a deadline—the developing fetus grows regardless of the couple’s wishes, and inaction itself constitutes a choice with specific future consequences. Weeks (2014) analyzes how the story presents abortion not simply as a medical procedure but as a crossroads forcing the couple to decide what kind of future they want and whether their relationship contains substance capable of surviving transition from present pleasure to long-term commitment. The man’s insistence that abortion will restore their previous life reveals fundamental misunderstanding of how such choices alter individuals and relationships regardless of the decision made, as the crisis itself reveals incompatibilities and priorities that cannot be unknown once recognized.
Gendered Dimensions of Present vs Future Conflict
The story’s treatment of present pleasure versus future planning reveals significant gendered dimensions, as the man and Jig face different stakes, consequences, and relationships to time based on their gender positions within 1920s society and within their specific relationship dynamic. The American man enjoys the privilege of present-oriented existence with minimal future consequences because social structures, biological realities, and power dynamics within the relationship shield him from bearing primary costs of their choices. Whether Jig has an abortion or continues the pregnancy, the man retains freedom to leave, resume traveling, and escape consequences in ways unavailable to her. His present pleasure lifestyle proves sustainable for him in ways it cannot for her, as biological realities mean pregnancy interrupts her present regardless of his wishes, while social realities mean motherhood would dramatically alter her future possibilities while potentially leaving his largely unchanged. Kozikowski (1993) argues that the story exposes how seemingly shared hedonistic lifestyles mask fundamental inequalities, as men can maintain perpetual present orientation while women inevitably confront future consequences of present choices through pregnancy, social judgment, and constrained opportunities.
Jig’s position illustrates how women’s relationship to present versus future differs from men’s due to biological and social realities that make long-term thinking necessary for survival and wellbeing. Her growing questioning of their lifestyle—”And we could have all this” and “And we could have everything”—suggests recognition that authentic freedom requires stable foundation and genuine commitment rather than perpetual movement avoiding attachment and responsibility. The man’s response, “We can have everything,” followed by “No, we can’t,” and finally “We can have the whole world” (Hemingway, 1927, p. 212), reveals his inability to distinguish between genuine possibility and empty promises, between substantial future and extended present. His conception of “everything” and “the whole world” involves continued travel and sensation without recognizing that Jig increasingly understands these as empty without deeper meaning, commitment, and future planning. O’Brien (1999) emphasizes that the story portrays women’s necessary engagement with future planning not as limitation but as clearer perception of reality, while men’s present orientation represents privilege enabling delusion that choices lack future consequences and that perpetual adolescence can continue indefinitely without cost or loss.
Landscape Symbolism: Barren Hills vs Fertile Valley
Hemingway employs the story’s setting—a train station between two contrasting landscapes—as central symbolism representing the choice between continued present-oriented sterility and future-oriented fertility. The side of the station where the couple sits features hills described as “white in the sun” and “like white elephants,” with landscape that is “brown and dry” (Hemingway, 1927, p. 211), suggesting aridity, lifelessness, and sterility that metaphorically represents their current existence and the future the American man advocates through abortion. This barren landscape symbolizes the emptiness of lives devoted purely to present sensation without growth, fertility, or creative production of anything beyond consumed experiences. The white elephants—simultaneously valuable and burdensome—represent both the pregnancy itself and the couple’s entire relationship, which appears desirable but has become costly and problematic, forcing decisions about whether to maintain or abandon the burden.
In contrast, the opposite side of the station features “fields of grain and trees along the banks of the Ebro” with “long white clouds over” and shadow, creating an image of fertility, growth, life, and future possibility (Hemingway, 1927, p. 214). This landscape represents the alternative future—having the child, establishing roots, building something permanent rather than remaining in perpetual transit between temporary experiences. The train station itself symbolizes the couple’s liminal position—they must choose which direction to travel, toward continued sterility or toward fertility, and the decision point cannot be indefinitely postponed. Fletcher (2013) interprets the landscape symbolism as representing not simply the abortion choice but more broadly the conflict between different life philosophies: sterile present-oriented hedonism versus fertile future-oriented commitment, superficial pleasure versus deep meaning, freedom from attachment versus freedom to build and create. The story’s setting emphasizes that remaining at the station—avoiding the choice—is impossible, as the train will arrive and they must board, just as the pregnancy progresses and inaction itself constitutes a decision with irreversible consequences requiring confrontation with future planning rather than comfortable present denial.
Communication Breakdown and Incompatible Temporal Orientations
The couple’s conversation reveals fundamental communication breakdown rooted in incompatible temporal orientations—the man focused entirely on restoring the present while Jig increasingly oriented toward future implications and broader meaning. Their dialogue operates through indirection, repetition, and misunderstanding, with neither truly hearing or responding to what the other expresses. The man repeatedly reassures Jig that the abortion is “simple” and “natural” and will restore their previous existence, never acknowledging her concerns or addressing her actual fears and desires. He speaks past her rather than to her, his words functioning as manipulation rather than genuine communication. Meanwhile, Jig’s increasingly cryptic responses—”I don’t care about me,” “Would you please please please please please please please stop talking?”—express desperation and resignation rather than agreement, revealing that the conversation accomplishes no meeting of minds or genuine understanding.
This communication failure reflects their incompatible relationships to time and fundamentally different understandings of what the choice means. For the man, the decision involves restoring a preferred present state, making it purely practical with clear correct answer—abort and resume previous lifestyle. For Jig, the decision involves choosing between incompatible futures, each carrying permanent consequences and revealing truths about their relationship, her identity, and her life possibilities that cannot be unknown regardless of the choice made. Smiley (1988) analyzes the story’s dialogue as revealing absence of genuine relationship beneath surface companionship, arguing that the couple has no shared language for discussing meaningful concerns because their connection is based entirely on shared present experiences rather than mutual understanding, authentic communication, or ability to navigate disagreement and difficulty together. The story suggests that present pleasure relationships, precisely because they avoid depth and planning, lack the communication foundation and mutual understanding necessary for confronting future crises when they inevitably arise, leaving partners unable to genuinely discuss or resolve conflicts requiring future planning and competing with present desires.
The Unresolved Ending and Ongoing Temporal Conflict
Hemingway’s characteristically ambiguous ending—the man carrying the bags around the station, having a drink, noting people “were all waiting reasonably for the train,” and returning to Jig who smiles and claims she feels “fine”—leaves the central conflict unresolved, refusing to provide clear indication of what decision they reach or whether their relationship survives. This ambiguity serves multiple artistic and thematic purposes beyond simple mystery or reader engagement. The unresolved ending emphasizes that the conflict between present pleasure and future planning admits no easy resolution, particularly when partners hold incompatible temporal orientations and when the relationship itself is based on avoidance rather than confrontation of difficulty. The story’s structure mirrors its content—just as the couple avoids direct discussion of abortion, referring to it only as “it” and “the operation,” the narrative avoids explicit resolution, leaving readers in the same state of unresolved tension that characterizes the couple’s situation.
The final exchange—”Do you feel better?” “I feel fine. There’s nothing wrong with me. I feel fine”—carries obvious irony, as Jig’s triple repetition of “fine” suggests anything but genuine wellbeing. Her statement recalls the man’s earlier reassurances that everything will be “fine” after the abortion, suggesting either capitulation to his wishes, continued misery hidden beneath claimed wellness, or resigned acceptance that honest communication proves impossible within their relationship. The ending’s ambiguity reflects the impossibility of truly reconciling present pleasure and future planning when these represent fundamentally incompatible life philosophies and when one partner’s power enables them to impose their temporal orientation on the other. Barlowe (1990) argues that the story’s refusal of closure reflects Hemingway’s recognition that such conflicts often lack satisfying resolution, instead persisting as ongoing tensions that individuals and couples navigate imperfectly across time, making provisional choices without genuine resolution of underlying philosophical and practical incompatibilities between immediate desires and long-term wellbeing.
Broader Themes: Responsibility, Commitment, and Maturity
Beyond its specific treatment of abortion and relationship conflict, “Hills Like White Elephants” explores broader themes about responsibility, commitment, and maturity that connect the present pleasure versus future planning conflict to fundamental questions about meaningful adult existence. The story suggests that perpetual present orientation represents extended adolescence—a refusal of adult responsibilities and long-term thinking that may be temporarily sustainable but ultimately proves empty and unsustainable. The American man embodies this adolescent position, wanting pleasure without consequences, freedom without responsibility, and relationship without commitment or accommodation to another’s needs and perspectives. His insistence that abortion will restore their previous existence reveals magical thinking—the belief that choices can be unmade, consequences avoided, and perpetual present maintained through strategic interventions that eliminate disruptions without requiring fundamental change or growth.
Jig’s arc suggests movement toward maturity through reluctant recognition that adult existence requires future planning, that choices carry permanent consequences, and that meaningful life involves commitment to something beyond present sensation. Her growing dissatisfaction with their lifestyle, her vision of alternative possibilities, and her recognition that “we could have all this” but “once they take it away, you never get it back” (Hemingway, 1927, p. 212) indicate developing understanding that authentic freedom requires stable foundation and that refusing long-term thinking ultimately proves more constraining than liberating. Svoboda (1976) interprets the story as examining the transition from adolescent to adult consciousness, where individuals must relinquish fantasy of perpetual present and accept that maturity involves confronting future consequences, making difficult choices, and assuming responsibility for how present decisions shape long-term wellbeing and meaning. The story presents this transition not as simple or pleasant but as necessary and ultimately more authentic than the comfortable denial that present orientation enables, suggesting that present pleasure purchased through avoidance of future planning ultimately proves hollow and unsustainable when confronted with life circumstances demanding acknowledgment of consequences and long-term implications of choices made in pursuit of immediate gratification.
Conclusion
“Hills Like White Elephants” masterfully addresses the conflict between present pleasure and future planning through its spare narrative of a couple confronting an unwanted pregnancy that forces them to choose between incompatible temporal orientations and life philosophies. The story reveals how their transient, pleasure-seeking lifestyle—superficially enviable in its freedom and sensory richness—contains inherent emptiness and proves unsustainable when confronted with circumstances demanding genuine planning, commitment, and acknowledgment of future consequences. The American man’s desperate attempt to preserve perpetual present through abortion contrasts with Jig’s growing awareness that no choice restores previous existence and that continuing to defer future planning merely perpetuates hollowness rather than achieving authentic freedom or satisfaction. Through landscape symbolism, dialogue revealing communication failure, and deliberately ambiguous ending, Hemingway explores the impossibility of reconciling present desires with future wellbeing when partners hold fundamentally incompatible relationships to time and responsibility.
The story’s treatment of this conflict transcends its specific historical moment and circumstances to examine universal tensions between immediate gratification and long-term flourishing, between avoiding difficulty and confronting necessary challenges, and between adolescent fantasy of perpetual present and mature recognition that meaningful existence requires engagement with future planning despite the constraints this imposes on present freedom. Hemingway suggests that lives devoted purely to present pleasure ultimately prove sterile and unsatisfying, yet he offers no easy resolution or clear path forward, instead leaving readers with the same uncomfortable tension the characters experience. This irresolution reflects the genuine difficulty of balancing present enjoyment with future planning, particularly within relationships where partners hold different temporal orientations and where power imbalances enable some to impose their preferences while others bear disproportionate consequences. The story’s enduring relevance stems from its honest examination of how individuals and couples navigate these fundamental conflicts without pretending that simple answers or comfortable resolutions exist for the complex tensions between living fully in the present and planning responsibly for the future.
References
Barlowe, J. (1990). “Rereading women: ‘Hills Like White Elephants.'” In J. M. Howell (Ed.), Hemingway’s neglected short fiction: New perspectives (pp. 107-124). UMI Research Press.
Fantina, R. (2005). Ernest Hemingway: Machismo and masochism. Palgrave Macmillan.
Fletcher, M. D. (2013). Hemingway’s Hills Like White Elephants. The Explicator, 71(4), 261-263.
Hemingway, E. (1927). Hills Like White Elephants. In Men Without Women (pp. 69-77). Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Johnston, K. G. (1987). “Hills Like White Elephants”: Lean, vintage Hemingway. Studies in American Fiction, 15(2), 233-238.
Kozikowski, S. (1993). Hemingway’s “Hills Like White Elephants.” The Explicator, 52(2), 107-109.
O’Brien, T. (1999). Allusion, word-play, and the central conflict in “Hills Like White Elephants.” The Hemingway Review, 19(1), 19-27.
Renner, S. (1995). Moving to the girl’s side of “Hills Like White Elephants.” The Hemingway Review, 15(1), 27-41.
Reynolds, M. (2000). Hemingway: The 1930s through the final years. W. W. Norton & Company.
Smiley, P. (1988). Gender-linked miscommunication in “Hills Like White Elephants.” The Hemingway Review, 8(1), 2-12.
Svoboda, F. J. (1976). Landscapes real and imagined in “Hills Like White Elephants.” The Hemingway Review, 3(2), 2-10.
Weeks, L. E. (2014). Hemingway Hills: Symbolism in “Hills Like White Elephants.” Studies in Short Fiction, 17(1), 75-77.