In both The Good Lion and Where the Wild Things Are, terms related to wildness are usually being used to describe a behavior of some sort. However, The Good Lion portrays wildness in a negative or derogatory light by directly correlating it to eating humans, drinking blood, and a generally non-civilized lifestyle. In contrast, wildness in Where the Wild Things Are may be destructive or chaotic but is not particularly violent or harmful towards others.
The Good Lion doesn’t use the word “wild” often but the “bad” lions are often characterized as “savage” which can be considered a synonym of “wild.” In this context, the word savage is being used against the lions in a somewhat derogatory manner. The “good” lion believes that the “bad” lions are “savage” because they exhibit behavior that he does not exhibit and therefore deems inappropriate, even though he is basically just a visitor in their home. At the end of the first page of the short story, he goes on to call them wicked and frightening creatures when they confront him about his negative judgments of their lifestyle.
In Where the Wild Things Are, wildness refers to unusual behavior without such a negative connotation. While the main character, Max, is first called a “wild thing” by his mother in an altercation that results in her punishing him by sending him to bed without dinner. This is the only time in this story that wildness means something somewhat negative because throughout the rest of the night Max spends time with other “wild things” embracing those “wild” behaviors alongside them in some harmless fun. Furthermore, it is made even more clear that “wild” means unusual or unexpected in this story when Max is deemed “the most wild thing of all” (pg. 23) by the other wild creatures. This title was awarded to him after he simply reacted to their intimidating presence in a way that they did not expect and might never have seen before.
– Tsion Teffera
You make a good point about how “Where the Wild Things Are” does not give as negative of a connotation to “wild” than the “The Good Lion.” Hemingway uses lots of brutal and violent imagery to show that the Bad Lions are wild in a bad way.
I like the distinction you pointed out in wildness between “The Good Lion” and “Where the Wild Things Are.” In “The Good Lion,” wildness is portrayed as a bad thing because it represents violence and savageness, while in “Where The Wild Things Are,” Max joins in on the wildness and it almost is portrayed as fun and exciting. This was a really good analysis of the two stories!
I agree with you on that the two connotations of these short stories are opposites of each other. The way “wild” was portrayed in “The Good Lion” was evil and bad, as it showed acts of violence. On the contrary, in “Where The Wild Things Are”, “wild” is shown as a fun happy place as Max was having fun.