When it comes to literary criticism, people will often analyze written texts from different perspectives in order to better understand them. These can include but are not limited to viewpoints that are historically based, cultural, formal, or even psychological. By approaching a text with such mindsets, a reader may be able to gain new insights on that particular work. Furthermore, it can also help clarify what exactly may be the argument that the author is trying to convey. In the short stories “Hills Like White Elephants” by Ernest Hemingway and “Story of an Hour” by Kate Chopin, the contrasting personalities of the main characters in each story can make an argument from a psychological (Freudian) point of view that lives dominated by the “ID” (reckless indulging in basic desires) or the “Superego” (stringent compliance with society’s conventional tradition and values) may result in an unfulfilling, unhappy life.
“Hills Like White Elephants” is essentially about a relationship dominated by the “ID”. It mainly focuses on two unnamed characters simply referred to as the American and the girl, who is called Jig (Hemingway, 277). The characters themselves in the form of a conversation mostly tell the story itself. The two are having drinks at a table outside of a train station located in “the valley of Ebro” (Hemingway, 276), Spain, while waiting to catch a train from Barcelona that “stopped at this junction for two minutes and went on to Madrid” (Hemingway, 276). During this time, they hold a conversation as to why they are going to Madrid. The American is trying to convince the girl to go through with some sort of operation; presumably to discontinue a pregnancy; so that they can continue their carefree, hedonistic, “ID” dominated lifestyle. The reality of bringing a new life into the world and caring for that child would be the conventional, socially acceptable choice (Ego), and the woman (Jig) is beginning to realize that their current lifestyle may not be fulfilling. She makes statements such as: “That’s all we do, isn’t it – look at things and try new drinks?” (Hemingway, 277) Further in the story, when the American realizes that Jig is having second thoughts, he assures her that the procedure will be “perfectly simple”. (Hemingway 278) Jig becomes further conflicted and prone to her “Ego” when she tries to predict how things between the couple will be if she has the abortion. “And we can have all this,’” she said. “And we could have everything and every day we make it more impossible.” (Hemingway, 278) The American realizes that this may be a cynical remark, and as he tries to clarify her meaning and reinforce the idea that: “We can have everything”. (Hemingway, 278) Jig replies, “No, we can’t” (Hemingway 278) The ensuing dialogue between Jig and the American reflects Jig’s assertion that once they take this step, there is no turning back, she is beginning to embrace the values imposed by the “Superego” and her “Ego” is relenting to the desire for conformity. They can’t have everything, they can’t have the whole world, they can’t go everywhere and the whole world isn’t theirs any more because “…once they take it away, you never get it back” (Hemingway, 278), inferring both the baby and the opportunity for a conventional, fulfilling relationship.
Like most relationships, the one between the American and the girl is quite complicated. The American clearly wants to maintain the status quo. Jig, on the other hand seems to be “growing up” and willing to accept conventional responsibilities (“Ego” driven instead of “ID” driven). This ultimately escalates in an argument between them, which ends with the realization that their relationship is over.
Jig becomes greatly dissatisfied with the relationship because she does not feel that she and the American are growing and maturing together in a way that an actual couple would. Ten times throughout the story, there is a reference to the number two (279): ‘…the station was between two line of rails in the sun.’, ‘ “Dos cervezas,” the man said into the curtain.’, ‘ “Yes. Two big ones.” ’, ‘The woman brought two glasses of beer and two felt pads…’ , ‘ “We want two Anis del Toro.” ’, ‘The girl looked at the bead curtain, put her hand out and took hold of two of the strings of beads.’, ‘The woman came out through the curtains with two glasses of beer…’, ‘He picked up the the two heavy bags and carried them around the station to the other tracks.’ (Hemingway, 276, 277, 279). The most notable examples are the two train tracks parallel to each other and two strings of beads on the curtain that do not intersect. The significance of these images and the repetitive use of the number two is to describe the couple’s relationship. Basically they never seemed to connect like a couple but rather as two separate people who are growing apart from one another, like the train tracks and the bead strings. Even with this in mind, what really seems to be driving their relationship to the point of breaking up is Jig’s willingness to comply with conventionality (Ego/Superego) and the American’s continued rigidness to succumb to his base desires (ID).
The psychological (Freudian) argument presented in “Hills Like White Elephants” is in contrast to the one stated through The Story of an Hour. “The Story of an Hour” by Kate Chopin basically tells the story of a woman named Louise Mallard who is dominated by her “Superego” (and the conventionality of society). When her sister Josephine and her husband’s friend Mr. Richards break the news to Louise that her husband Brently was killed in a railroad disaster, she reacts to the news as society would expect. It is described that she “wept at once, with sudden, wild abandonment, in her sister’s arms. When the storm of grief had spent itself she went away to her room alone. She would have no one follow her.” (Chopin, 236). Upon grieving in solitude, her “Ego” begins to allow the “ID” to impact her personality and she becomes less dominated by her “Superego”. She starts to look out the window onto the open square below. What she sees, hears, and smells are “the tops of trees that were all aquiver with the new spring life,’ ‘the delicious breadth of rain,’ ‘a peddler crying his wares,’ ‘notes of a distant song which someone was singing,’ ‘countless sparrows twittering in the eaves,’ and ‘patches of blue sky showing here and there through the clouds that had met and piled one above the other” (Chopin, 236). These are all metaphors for the desires driven by the “ID” and perhaps symbols of her newfound hopes for the future. The patches of blue sky in particular among the dark clouds represent her hope peeking through after all the years of unhappiness that marriage had brought her, while the peddler and the distant song represent the joy that is beginning to cultivate and spread within her. Aside from the lively images of hope that she sees out her window, another great realization that becomes more and more relevant to Louise Mallard during the course of the story is her true feelings toward her husband. Although he was kind and loving man who cared for her dearly, that he had “never looked save with love upon her” (Chopin, 236), she was unable to acknowledge, even to herself, that she did not fully love him back. What love she had for Brently was only there because she felt she was compelled to do so in order to be a suitable wife for him (because of the conventional social norms/“Superego”). By marrying him, she had given up her free will and became completely dependent on him. In a sense, this seems to argue that marriage symbolizes oppression and imprisonment and that it has left Mrs. Mallard trapped and helpless.
This sense of oppression, however, recedes as Louise Mallard begins to embrace the desires of her “ID” and becomes more and more enthusiastic about life without Brently. Through his death, she is now free from the prison that kept her from her own independence, even when she is hesitant to embrace it. “She was beginning to recognize this thing that was approaching to possess her, and she was striving to beat it back with her will…When she abandoned herself a little whispered word escaped her slightly parted lips. She said it over and over under her breath: “free, free, free!”… (Chopin, 236). Upon this, she thought about how she would react on the day of his funeral, seeing him lying dead in his coffin. She knew that she would “weep again when she saw the kind, tender hands folded in death” (Chopin, 236), but only because it would be the appropriate thing to do on such an occasion After this, however, she looked on to the years that lay ahead, and all the great things she would be able to do without being held back by the responsibilities of a housewife. She saw that there would be “no one to live for during those coming years; she would live for herself. There would be no powerful will bending hers…” (Chopin, 237). She found comfort in the fact that she would no longer have to live for someone else or abide by the notion that men and women have the right to impose their control over one or the other. Formerly being guided by conventionality (Superego), separation or divorce was not an option.
Sadly, this time of gladness was short lived for Louise Mallard. When she descends back downstairs under Josephine’s urgings to do so in fear that she would make herself ill, someone completely unexpected walked through the front door. It was Brently Mallard, alive and well. Apparently he chose to not take the train that day and had been very far from where the accident had taken place. In fact he did not even know that an accident had occurred at all. Knowing that Louise had heart trouble, Richards did his best to block her view of him, but alas, he did not act quickly enough. Louise Mallard died that day from a shock-induced heart attack, and with it her hopes and dreams for the future died too. “When the doctors came they said she died of heart disease –of joy that kills.” (Chopin, 237). Although her weak heart condition was addressed earlier on in the story, her death did not just have to do with her health. It may also had been due to the fact that her “Superego” was once again in full charge and the “ID” desires had been suddenly ripped away. When she heard about her husband’s death, she started to gain more confidence in herself and her newfound life of independence, but when it is revealed that he is alive, what kills her is actually the loss of the happiness she would have had living life without him.
The arguments presented by Ernest Hemingway’s “Hills Like White Elephants” and Katie Chopin’s “The Story of an Hour” are certainly rather insightful in nature. The former argues that a relationship based on indulgence of the “ID” between two people is not conducive to a healthy relationship or a fulfilling life. The latter, on the other hand stresses that strict compliance with norms and values of society (“Superego”) – staying in an unhappy, unfulfilling marriage is also detrimental to one’s personality and happiness. The main protagonists of both stories, Jig and Mrs. Mallard, live their lives on the opposite ends of the psychological (Freudian) spectrum, and neither one of them is content with their lives. It takes balance between the “ID” and the “Superego” monitored and controlled by a strong “Ego” to develop a healthy personality. It is truly remarkable with the kinds of arguments that one can make via the written word, in many ways more so than people tend to think.
Works Cited:
Hemingway, Ernest. “Hills Like White Elephants.” Literature and the Writing Process. 10th Edition. Pearson Education Inc. 2014
Chopin, Kate. “Story of an Hour.” Literature and the Writing Process. 10th Edition. Pearson Education Inc. 2014