The short story “The Good Lion” by Ernest Hemingway and the story “Where the Wild Things Are” by Maurice Sendak use the notion behind the word wild to convey images of uncivilized behavior, wilderness, and savagery. Comparing the two writings showcase the versatility of “wild” and “wilderness” but also the similarities behind the different definitions.
Hemingway brings forth the idea of Western superiority in his characterization of the good lion and the “bad” lions. There are sinister motives behind these depictions as the bad lions from Africa are shown as uncivilized, ill-mannered, and unclean. One example of the distinction made between the good lion and the bad lions is in the way their languages are described and perceived. Hemingway writes, “‘Adios,’ he said, for he spoke beautiful Spanish, being a lion of culture. ‘Au revoir,’ he called to them in his exemplary French. They all roared and growled in African lion dialect.” By describing Spanish as beautiful and French as exemplary, there is already an elevated perspective on these European languages. However, the language of the bad lions is described as being roared and growled and referred to as an African lion dialect. There is a clear bias here to show which languages and backgrounds are seen as proper and more desired. This comparison showcases the belief of certain ethnicities being more superior than others and seeing certain cultures as lesser than. In the case of this story, African cultures are being described as savage and uncivilized whereas European and westernized culture is being conveyed as proper and civilized. This is a very harmful narrative and does not provide an accurate representation. Furthermore, it perpetuates ethnocentrism and stereotypical beliefs that are often wrong.
In “Where the Wild Things Are,” Sendek uses wild to describe an unrestrained child with an active imagination who brings life to beings that are unworldly. The first instance of the word wild in the story is when the protagonist, Max, is referred to as a “wild child” by his mother. This introduces the idea of wild unrestrained by the bounds of certain expectations, in this case, discipline. As the story continues, wild is used to refer to the wild creatures in the story who are characterized as frightening as “they roared their terrible roars and gnashed their terrible teeth and rolled their terrible eyes and showed their terrible claws.” The repetition of the word terrible reinforces this idea of wildness being synonymous with savagery and untamed.
I like your critique of Hemingway’s ‘Tht Good Lion’ but the only problem with it is that I still do not understand what ‘wild’ meant in his writing. You go into detail about how Hemingway compares the languages of the Good and the African lion and how one is a cultured language while other is a savage one. You also comment on the terrible narrative in the story but you fail to mention, as i see it, why the story was wild in the first place.
I like your commentary about the repetition of the word “wild” in Where the Wild Things Are and the idea that the word perpetuates throughout the story. However, I do think you could’ve gone more into detail about the wildness conveyed in The Good Lion instead of focusing as much on their dialect being discriminatory, it was a good point to add though.
I liked how you noticed even the difference in languages that was used by the Good Lion that even depicts his level of superiority over the bad lions. This was something I did not notice when reading the Good Lion.