Skip to main content

Can you explain Harry's death? Did he die in the plane or was that a dream?

The end of Ernest Hemingway's "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" is ambiguous to be sure, and it can be difficult to understand whether or not Harry's trip in the airplane was real or imagined. At first, we read a section in which Harry is carried onto a plane and taken away, ostensibly for medical attention. However, rather than heading toward a city, Harry's plane instead flies toward Mount Kilimanjaro. Directly after this section, we read of Harry's wife, Helen, discovering Harry's dead body. While this sequence of events is confusing, it's important to understand that Hemingway is suggesting Harry did not die in the plane, or even travel on the plane at all; rather, he died in the tent, and the trip in the plane was either an illusion or a feverish dream. 


It's possible to interpret this ending in a variety of ways. On the one hand, it's possible to see it as a pessimistic conclusion. Rather than escaping and getting medical treatment, Harry dies a defeated man. This interpretation is certainly plausible, and there are elements of pessimism in the text, but I prefer to read the end in a more positive manner. The final image of Harry's imagined plane journey is a description of Mount Kilimanjaro, a place of grandiose, natural beauty. As such, though Harry passes away after experiencing many disappointments, his story ends with a peaceful image of a majestic mountain. As such, we can tentatively read Mount Kilimanjaro as a metaphorical representation of the afterlife, or at least of inner peace. Based on the beautiful way Hemingway describes the mountain, we can assume that this particular afterlife is a pretty good one. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more