The End of Something - Analysis

Analysis

Most readers agree the opening description "represents a vivid (if disturbing) metaphor for the relationship Nick and Marjorie share.” Analysts like Paul Smith claimed that the use of a descriptive and symbolic introduction is rather common in writing, but this does not reduce the introduction's usefulness in conveying the state of Marjorie and Nick's relationship at the beginning of the story. In “False Wilderness”, Frederic Svoboda emphasized the significance of the description of the old lumber town when he explained that “Horton Bay in Hemingway’s time was hardly the ghost town of "The End of Something." While the lumber mills indeed had moved away… the village was not abandoned. It was rather a small summer resort.” We can conclude from Svoboda’s research that Hemingway was not simply representing Horton Bay as he remembered it, but instead making a distinct choice to create a setting representative of the plot of the story. Laura Gruber Godfrey agreed that “The End of Something” shows “the careful interweaving of human characters with their communities and their landscapes.” In losing the mill, the town lost the linchpin that held it together, so when Nick and Marjorie row by ten years later, “there was nothing of the mill left except the broken white limestone of its foundations.” The mill was once something, like the relationship of Nick and Marjorie, but, as reflected in the title of the short story, time and change has reduced it to brokenness.

Lisa Turner took the comparison even further in claiming that Hemingway parallels Nick’s behavior towards Marjorie with loggers’ treatment of the forests of Michigan, so that “Nick, like the loggers, is all too aware of the damage he is doing,” but he has simply ignored the harm he causes Marjorie until it is too late. Turner argued that “Hemingway uses the imagery of an irreparably damaged environment in “The End of Something” and elsewhere throughout the stories of In Our Time to link violence against nature with other forms of violence depicted in that collection, including violence against… women,… suggesting that he was more ecofeminist in his sympathies that his readers have yet acknowledged.” While many view Turner's argument as rather radical, she was correct that the environment surrounding Nick and Marjorie represents their relationship.

As the story moves into dialogue between Nick and Marjorie, Marjorie begins to prove her emotional maturity. Nick merely complains about the fish and resists any conversation outside of what is necessary for their fishing. By avoiding conversation, Nick acknowledges that something is wrong, but he does not communicate it with Marjorie. Showing both her knowledge of Nick and her maturity, Marjorie recognizes the tension when she asks, “What’s the matter, Nick?” When Nick avoids the question, she asks again, “What’s really the matter?” (Hemingway, 81) According to Turner, Marjorie’s questioning proves her “sensitivity to Nick’s emotional state.” She understands Nick, and in her questioning, she gives Nick a chance to express his problems. As exhibited in her understanding, Marjorie could help Nick with the emotional struggles he is facing, but he resists her because (as proven in “The Three-Day Blow", the sequel to this story) he chooses to trust the judgment—and nagging—of Bill. In his refusal to communicate even when Marjorie encourages him, Nick shows his emotional immaturity.

When Nick expresses the frustrations he has with the relationship, he shows his own emotional immaturity, but his failures give Marjorie an opportunity to show her responsibility and sensibleness. Nick declares to Marjorie that “You know everything. That’s the trouble.” The claim is false, at least in relation to Marjorie’s outdoor skills, since Nick has to explain to Marjorie how to properly gut a fish, telling her that “You don’t want to take the ventral fin out” It is, however, an accurate description of Marjorie’s maturity. When she recognizes Nick’s unhappiness, she questions him about it. She refuses to ignore and overlook difficult problems. Instead, she confronts them in order to find solutions. When Nick expresses his dissatisfaction with the relationship, instead of drawing out the conversation or pleading with Nick to reconsider, she declares “I’m going to take the boat.” When Nick offers to push it off for her, she informs him that “You don’t need to.” Marjorie handles the situation calmly and maturely, especially in comparison to the emotionally stricken Nick who has his head in his hands. Once she is aware of Nick’s feelings, she makes a rational decision and leaves. She even asserts her independence and her by rejecting Nick’s offer to assist her. She is capable, strong, and far more serene than Nick. H.R. Stoneback claims that Marjorie’s handling of the entire situation shows “competence, skill, discipline, humility, pride, and poise.” Perhaps Nick is right that “It isn’t fun any more. Not any of it.” Perhaps Marjorie has outgrown him, and he is not ready to move from being playful and young to making a commitment and solving difficult problems.

Nick’s incapacity to acknowledge difficult problems plays a significant role in the end of the relationship, but in the final sentences, Hemingway reveals that Bill also influenced the breakup. Based on the “Three Day Blow”, Bill instructed Nick to end things with Marjorie because of differences in class and because women “ruin you”. Bill represents societal pressures on Nick, and in his inability to make independent decisions, Nicks gives in. Some analysts, like Gerry Brenner, interpret the Bill interlude as expressing Hemingway's “latent homoeroticism.” According to Smith, such an argument explores how Nick and Marjorie sat on the blanket “without touching each other,” and afterwards how Nick notices that “Bill didn’t touch him, either.” By adding “either” to the end of the second phrase, Hemingway definitely intended to connect the two, but most literary analysts believe that the lines do not express Nick’s unfulfilled romantic desire for Bill, as there is little other evidence to support such an argument. Instead, the lines show an isolation of Nick from the rest of humanity. Stoneback claims that the theme of “touch and being touched” runs throughout In Our Time, with a culmination of the theme in "Big Two-Hearted River", when Nick reaches a place where “Nothing could touch him.” This corresponds with the emotional angst Nick expresses with his revelation that “I feel as though everything was gone to hell inside of me.” Smith takes a different route from Stoneback in claiming that Bill and Marjorie are “disembodied representations of a conflict within mind,” but his analysis is also consistent with Nick’s expression of his inner hell.