How Does “Hills Like White Elephants” Exemplify Modernist Literary Techniques? Understanding Hemingway’s Modernist Masterpiece
Author: MARTIN MUNYAO MUINDE
Email: Ephantusmartin@gmail.com
Direct Answer
Ernest Hemingway’s “Hills Like White Elephants” stands as a quintessential example of modernist literature, embodying the movement’s core principles through its revolutionary narrative techniques and thematic concerns. The story exemplifies modernism through its radical use of minimalist prose, the “iceberg theory” of omission, fragmented dialogue without traditional exposition, and its exploration of alienation and communication breakdown in the post-World War I era. Hemingway eliminates conventional narrative structures, providing no clear beginning, middle, or end, and refuses to offer explicit moral judgment or resolution. The story’s focus on subjective experience, ambiguity, psychological realism, and the inadequacy of language to express profound emotional truths directly aligns with modernist literary philosophy. By stripping away Victorian sentimentality and ornate description, Hemingway creates a text that demands active reader participation in constructing meaning, reflecting modernism’s rejection of passive consumption and its embrace of complexity, uncertainty, and the fragmented nature of modern existence.
The Historical Context of Literary Modernism
Literary modernism emerged as a revolutionary artistic movement in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, reaching its apex in the years following World War I. This period witnessed unprecedented global trauma, technological advancement, and social transformation that fundamentally challenged traditional values, beliefs, and artistic conventions. The devastation of World War I, which claimed millions of lives and shattered the optimistic faith in progress and civilization, created a generation of writers who rejected Victorian and Romantic literary traditions as inadequate for expressing the fragmented, disillusioned reality of modern life. Modernist writers sought new forms, techniques, and approaches that could capture the complexity, ambiguity, and psychological depth of twentieth-century experience (Bradbury & McFarlane, 1976). These artists believed that traditional linear narratives, omniscient narrators, and clear moral frameworks falsified the actual nature of human consciousness and contemporary existence, which they perceived as fundamentally fragmented, uncertain, and subjective.
Ernest Hemingway emerged as a leading figure in the modernist movement during the 1920s, alongside contemporaries such as T.S. Eliot, James Joyce, Virginia Woolf, F. Scott Fitzgerald, and Gertrude Stein. Published in 1927 in Hemingway’s short story collection “Men Without Women,” “Hills Like White Elephants” appeared at the height of modernist experimentation and innovation. The story reflects the particular branch of modernism associated with American expatriate writers of the “Lost Generation,” who lived in Paris and other European cities during the 1920s, grappling with post-war disillusionment and the search for new values and meanings. Hemingway’s experience as an ambulance driver during World War I profoundly influenced his rejection of grandiose language and heroic narratives, leading him to develop a stripped-down prose style that became synonymous with modernist fiction. His work rejected the elaborate, decorative language of nineteenth-century literature in favor of simple, direct sentences that carried complex meanings beneath their deceptively plain surface (Reynolds, 1999).
The Iceberg Theory and Modernist Omission
Hemingway’s “iceberg theory,” also called the “theory of omission,” represents one of modernism’s most significant contributions to narrative technique and is fully realized in “Hills Like White Elephants.” This approach holds that a writer can omit essential information from a story, allowing the missing elements to strengthen the narrative by creating deeper resonance and requiring active reader engagement. Like an iceberg, which reveals only one-eighth of its mass above water while seven-eighths remains submerged, Hemingway’s fiction presents minimal surface detail while vast complexities of meaning exist beneath. In “Hills Like White Elephants,” the word “abortion” never appears, yet the entire story concerns a couple’s conflict over whether the woman should terminate her pregnancy. This radical omission forces readers to construct meaning from subtle clues, ambiguous dialogue, and symbolic imagery, embodying modernism’s rejection of explicit statement and embrace of suggestive indirection (Waldhorn, 1973). The technique assumes an intelligent, sophisticated reader capable of inferring unstated information and interpreting symbolic meaning without authorial guidance.
This modernist approach contrasts sharply with Victorian and Realist fiction, which typically provided detailed exposition, character backgrounds, clear causal relationships, and explicit moral frameworks. Hemingway strips away these conventional narrative supports, presenting a story that consists almost entirely of dialogue between two characters identified only as “the American” and “the girl” called Jig. No physical descriptions of the characters appear beyond the woman’s comment about the hills resembling white elephants. The story provides no information about their past relationship, how they arrived at their current crisis, or what decision they ultimately make. Even the setting receives minimal description—a train station in Spain’s Ebro Valley, hills on one side, a river and fields on the other. This extreme economy of detail exemplifies modernist aesthetics, which valued compression, precision, and the elimination of unnecessary ornamentation. Hemingway believed that by omitting obvious statements and trusting readers to understand implications, he created stronger emotional impact and more authentic representation of how people actually experience and process reality—not as organized, coherent narratives but as fragments requiring interpretation (Smith, 1989).
Fragmentation and Stream of Consciousness
Modernist literature frequently employs fragmented narrative structures and stream of consciousness techniques to represent the actual nature of human perception and thought, which modernists believed was non-linear, associative, and subjective rather than orderly and rational. While “Hills Like White Elephants” does not use interior monologue or stream of consciousness in the manner of Joyce’s “Ulysses” or Woolf’s “Mrs. Dalloway,” it achieves fragmentation through its disjointed dialogue and lack of narrative connective tissue. The conversation between the American man and Jig jumps abruptly between topics, circles around the central issue without direct confrontation, and includes non-sequiturs and incomplete thoughts that mirror actual speech patterns rather than the polished, purposeful dialogue of conventional fiction. The story begins in medias res, with no introduction or context, thrusting readers immediately into a moment of crisis without preparation or orientation (Johnston, 1987). This technique reflects modernist belief that life does not present itself as neatly structured narrative with clear beginnings and endings, but rather as ongoing flux punctuated by significant moments that lack obvious meaning or resolution.
The fragmented structure of the story also reflects the psychological fragmentation experienced by the characters themselves. The man and woman cannot communicate effectively or honestly about their situation, instead circling around the abortion issue through evasive euphemisms, deflections, and surface-level observations about the landscape and their drinks. Their conversation repeatedly breaks down, with Jig making statements like “Would you please please please please please please please stop talking?” that reveal her desperation and the inadequacy of language to resolve their conflict. This breakdown of communication exemplifies a central modernist theme: the failure of language to convey authentic experience or create genuine human connection in the modern world. Where Victorian literature often portrayed language as a reliable tool for expressing truth and achieving understanding, modernist writers recognized language’s limitations, ambiguities, and capacity for distortion and manipulation. Hemingway’s spare dialogue, filled with repetitions, interruptions, and pregnant silences, demonstrates how people use words to avoid rather than achieve real communication (Hannum, 1994). The story’s fragmented form thus becomes inseparable from its content, as modernist aesthetic principles dictated.
Alienation and the Crisis of Modern Relationships
Modernist literature consistently explores themes of alienation, isolation, and the breakdown of traditional social bonds and value systems in the modern world. “Hills Like White Elephants” presents a relationship characterized by profound disconnection despite physical proximity and apparent intimacy. The unnamed man and Jig sit together at a table, sharing drinks and conversation, yet exist in fundamentally separate psychological and emotional spaces with incompatible desires and worldviews. This alienation reflects the modernist perception that modern life, despite increased mobility and communication technologies, paradoxically produced greater isolation and inability to achieve authentic human connection. The story’s setting at a train station—a transit point where people gather temporarily but do not belong—symbolizes this rootlessness and alienation that modernists saw as characteristic of twentieth-century existence (Smiley, 1988). The couple’s expatriate status, implied by their identification as American while traveling through Spain, reinforces their displacement and lack of anchoring in stable community or shared cultural framework.
The gender dynamics in the story also reflect modernist concerns about changing social relationships and the inadequacy of traditional romantic narratives. The man wields conversational power throughout their exchange, repeatedly asserting that the “operation” is simple and that everything will return to how it was, while dismissing Jig’s hesitations and emotional responses. However, Hemingway’s narrative technique subtly undermines the man’s authority by allowing readers to perceive the hollowness of his assurances and the selfishness underlying his supposedly reasonable arguments. Jig’s cryptic responses and eventual request that he stop talking suggest her recognition of their fundamental disconnect and the impossibility of genuine resolution through continued discussion. This portrayal of relationships as battlegrounds of competing wills rather than unions of compatible souls reflects modernist skepticism about romantic love and traditional gender roles. The story refuses the conventional narrative arc of crisis leading to resolution, reconciliation, or clear decision, instead ending ambiguously with the man carrying bags and Jig sitting alone, smiling, and asserting unconvincingly that “I feel fine” (Weeks, 1980). This rejection of narrative closure embodies modernist resistance to false certainties and neat resolutions that distort the messy, unresolved nature of actual human experience.
Symbolism and Objective Correlative
Modernist writers developed sophisticated approaches to symbolism that differed from earlier symbolic traditions. T.S. Eliot’s concept of the “objective correlative”—a set of objects, situations, or events that evoke particular emotions without explicit statement—profoundly influenced modernist technique and appears throughout “Hills Like White Elephants.” Rather than using symbols with fixed, universal meanings, Hemingway employs imagery that functions as objective correlative, allowing concrete details to carry emotional and thematic weight. The white hills that Jig observes and comments look “like white elephants” provide the story’s central symbol, though one whose meaning remains deliberately ambiguous and open to interpretation. In Western culture, “white elephant” idiomatically refers to a burdensome possession that costs more than its worth, yet the hills Jig sees might also suggest pregnancy itself, or perhaps something rare and valuable depending on one’s perspective (Renner, 1995). This multiplicity of potential meanings exemplifies modernist symbolism’s resistance to single, reductive interpretations.
The contrasting landscapes on either side of the train station function as objective correlative for the couple’s conflicting visions of their future. One side features the barren white hills, while the other side contains “fields of grain and trees along the banks of the Ebro” and “the shadow of a cloud” moving across the fertile land. These contrasting vistas suggest the choice between sterility and fertility, death and life, yet Hemingway refuses to assign clear value judgments to either option, maintaining the modernist commitment to ambiguity and complexity rather than didactic moral instruction. The couple’s consumption of alcohol throughout their brief encounter—beer, then Anis del Toro—might symbolize their attempt to numb themselves to their crisis, or simply reflect the casual drinking culture of 1920s expatriate life. The modernist approach to symbolism requires readers to actively interpret these details and construct meaning rather than passively receiving authorial instruction about how to understand the story’s significance (Kozikowski, 1993). This technique respects reader intelligence while acknowledging that meaning is not fixed or universal but constructed through individual interpretation shaped by personal experience and cultural context.
Rejection of Victorian Sentimentality and Moral Certainty
One of modernism’s defining characteristics was its aggressive rejection of Victorian literary conventions, particularly the sentimental treatment of emotion, the clear distinction between moral good and evil, and the assumption that literature should provide uplifting moral instruction. “Hills Like White Elephants” embodies this rejection through its refusal to sentimentalize the couple’s dilemma or provide moral guidance about the abortion decision. Victorian literature typically would have portrayed such a situation through melodramatic conflict between virtue and vice, with clear authorial sympathy for one position and condemnation of the other, likely ending with punishment for immoral choices or redemption through correct decision-making. Hemingway eliminates all such moralizing, presenting the situation with stark objectivity that neither endorses nor condemns abortion, neither celebrates nor vilifies either character’s position (O’Brien, 1999). This moral neutrality shocked many contemporary readers and continues to generate critical debate about the story’s ultimate stance on its central issue.
The story’s emotional restraint also contrasts sharply with Victorian effusiveness and Romantic intensity. Where earlier literary traditions often featured elaborate expressions of feeling, passionate declarations, and detailed exploration of characters’ emotional states, Hemingway’s characters speak in clipped, controlled sentences that suppress rather than express their feelings. The most emotionally charged moments occur not through explicit statement but through telling silences, repetitions, and oblique references. When Jig looks at the landscape and says “And we could have all this,” then adds “And we could have everything and every day we make it more impossible,” the understated phrasing carries immense emotional weight precisely because it avoids melodramatic excess. This modernist restraint reflects the post-war generation’s distrust of grandiose language and emotional display, which they associated with the propaganda and false heroic rhetoric that had sent millions to die in the trenches. Hemingway’s famous statement that he was “embarrassed by the words sacred, glorious, and sacrifice” captures the modernist rejection of abstract, emotionally manipulative language in favor of concrete, specific detail (Hemingway, 1929). “Hills Like White Elephants” demonstrates how this aesthetic principle could generate powerful emotional impact through compression and implication rather than explicit statement.
Psychological Realism and Subjectivity
Modernist literature pioneered new approaches to representing human consciousness and psychology, influenced by developments in psychological theory, particularly the work of Sigmund Freud and William James. Rather than presenting characters as unified, consistent personalities with clear motivations, modernist writers explored the contradictory, irrational, and often opaque nature of human thought and feeling. “Hills Like White Elephants” achieves psychological realism not through interior monologue or authorial analysis of characters’ thoughts, but through the revelation of psychological truth in dialogue and behavior. The man’s repeated insistence that the operation is “simple” and “natural” and that he loves Jig, combined with his immediate qualifications and conditional statements, reveals his manipulative psychology more effectively than any authorial explanation could. Similarly, Jig’s oscillation between engagement and withdrawal, her cryptic observations, and her final assertion that she feels fine despite obvious evidence to the contrary, convey complex psychological states without explicit analysis (Smith, 1989).
The story’s refusal to provide access to characters’ internal thoughts reflects modernist interest in the gap between interior experience and external expression, and the difficulty of truly knowing another person’s subjective reality. Readers never enter either character’s consciousness, instead remaining outside as observers who must interpret behavior and speech to infer psychological states. This technique acknowledges the fundamental isolation of individual consciousness and the impossibility of perfect understanding or communication between separate subjectivities. The modernist emphasis on subjective experience appears in how the landscape’s meaning changes depending on who perceives it—Jig sees white elephants and possibilities for happiness, while the man sees only obstacles to their previous carefree existence. This recognition that reality is not objective but shaped by individual perception represents a fundamental modernist insight that challenged nineteenth-century confidence in shared, verifiable truth (Waldhorn, 1973). By presenting conflicting perspectives without authoritative resolution, Hemingway embraces modernist relativism and acknowledgment of interpretation’s role in constructing meaning.
Formal Innovation and Reader Participation
Modernist literature demanded unprecedented active participation from readers, abandoning the conventional narrative supports that allowed passive consumption of fiction. “Hills Like White Elephants” exemplifies this by requiring readers to supply information, interpret implications, and construct narrative coherence from minimal textual evidence. The story provides no exposition explaining who these characters are, how they arrived at this crisis, what their history together includes, or what decision they ultimately make. Readers must deduce that the “operation” refers to abortion from contextual clues, understand the relationship dynamics from brief exchanges, and interpret the story’s meaning without explicit thematic statement or authorial guidance. This technique reflects modernist belief that great literature should challenge and engage readers intellectually rather than provide easy entertainment or simple moral lessons (Johnston, 1987). The difficulty and ambiguity that characterized modernist texts were not flaws but essential features designed to mirror the complexity and uncertainty of modern existence.
The story’s formal structure also innovates through its dramatic quality, consisting almost entirely of dialogue with minimal narrative frame, resembling a one-act play more than conventional prose fiction. This dramatic approach eliminates the mediating presence of an omniscient narrator who traditionally guided reader interpretation and provided reliable information about characters and situations. Without such guidance, readers must evaluate characters and situations independently, making their own judgments about reliability, motivation, and meaning. The story’s ending offers no closure or resolution, instead stopping abruptly with the man’s claim that Jig looks “fine” and her agreement, despite both statements’ obvious hollowness. This rejection of narrative closure became a hallmark of modernist fiction, reflecting the movement’s recognition that life does not organize itself into tidy stories with clear resolutions, but rather continues in ongoing uncertainty and ambiguity. By refusing to provide the satisfying endings traditional fiction offered, Hemingway forces readers to continue grappling with the story’s questions long after finishing the text, achieving lasting impact through incompleteness rather than comprehensive resolution (O’Brien, 1999).
Conclusion: A Modernist Masterpiece
“Hills Like White Elephants” stands as an exemplary work of literary modernism, embodying the movement’s revolutionary techniques, themes, and philosophical commitments. Through radical economy of language, strategic omission, fragmented structure, and refusal of traditional narrative supports, Hemingway created a story that demands active reader participation while exploring quintessentially modernist concerns: alienation, communication failure, moral ambiguity, and the inadequacy of language to express profound emotional truths. The story’s minimalist prose style, dramatic structure, and symbolic landscape demonstrate how modernist formal innovation served thematic purposes, creating texts whose form and content remained inseparable. By rejecting Victorian sentimentality, moral certainty, and narrative closure, Hemingway produced a work that captured the fragmented, uncertain, psychologically complex nature of modern existence as the modernist movement understood it.
The enduring power of “Hills Like White Elephants” testifies to modernism’s lasting influence on literary art and its successful revolution in how stories could be told. Hemingway’s techniques—now so influential they seem almost conventional—were genuinely radical in their time, challenging readers’ expectations and expanding fiction’s expressive possibilities. The story remains relevant because its modernist innovations address timeless human experiences through aesthetics that respect complexity, ambiguity, and reader intelligence. Understanding “Hills Like White Elephants” as a modernist text illuminates both the specific historical context that produced it and the universal artistic principles that continue to shape contemporary literature.
References
Bradbury, M., & McFarlane, J. (1976). Modernism: A guide to European literature 1890-1930. Penguin Books.
Hannum, H. L. (1994). “Jig” shouldn’t have another: Drinking and knowledge in Hemingway’s “Hills Like White Elephants.” Studies in Short Fiction, 31(4), 689-697.
Hemingway, E. (1929). A farewell to arms. Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Johnston, K. G. (1987). The tip of the iceberg: Hemingway and the short story. Penkevill Publishing Company.
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. S. (1999). Hemingway: The 1930s. W. W. Norton & Company.
Smiley, P. (1988). Gender-linked miscommunication in “Hills Like White Elephants.” The Hemingway Review, 8(1), 2-12.
Smith, P. (1989). Hemingway’s early manuscripts: The theory and practice of omission. Journal of Modern Literature, 16(2), 268-278.
Waldhorn, A. (1973). A reader’s guide to Ernest Hemingway. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Weeks, L. E. (1980). Hemingway hills: Symbolism in “Hills Like White Elephants.” Studies in Short Fiction, 17(1), 75-77.