Monthly Archives: March 2022

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.

The Good Lion by Ernest Hemingway and Where the Wild Things Are by Maurice Sendak both present wildness in their stories but use it to send different messages. In Where the Wild Things Are, wildness is used to describe a world with beasts that have sharp teeth and claws that live in nature. The Good Lion uses wildness to present the contrast between the uncivilized and civilized. Though, both of the stories use wild to describe the behavior of a person or folk characters. 

In Where the Wild Things Are, wildness is used to describe the world that has creatures with claws and scary teeth. The world is away from any kind of civilization and the child protagonist is there living without any rules and can behave in any way he wants. He likes to make mischief and is called a wild thing by his mother. “And when he came to the place where the wild things are they roared their terrible roars and gnashed their terrible teeth…till Max said ‘Be Still’ and tamed them with the magic trick…and they were frightened and called him the most wild thing of all”. The child is considered the most wild among wild untamed creatures. The word “wild” and “terrible” are repeated throughout the story which show how untamed the beasts are and how despite that, the child is still the most wild. 

In The Good Lion, wildness describes how the African lions behave in comparison to the good lion. “But the good lion would sit and fold his wings back and ask politely if he might have a 

Negroni or an Americano and he always drank that instead of the blood of the Hindu traders”. In the story the good lion only eats refined and civilized food in comparison to blood and meat that the African Lions eat. The Good Lion compares how the good lion is much more civilized than the African lions but does so in a way that looks down upon the wildness of them. ““Yes, father,” said the good lion and he flew down lightly and walked to Harry’s Bar on 

his own four paws.” In Africa, the good lion flies above the African lions as though he were too good to walk among them, but when he is back home he walks to the bar and does not fly above everyone else. 

-Stephanie Wilhite

The “Good Lion” and “Where the Wild Things Are” are both stories which portray wildness in the context of animals that are not domesticated and portray traits of savageness. For example, in “Where the Wild Things Are,” the creatures “roared their terrible roars and gnashed their terrible teeth and rolled their terrible eyes and showed their terrible claws.” This shows the wildness of the creatures in the fact that they are portrayed as violent and undomesticated creatures. In “The Good Lion,” the bad lions are also portrayed as wild in the description that they had “blood caked on her whiskers and he smelled her breath which was very bad because she never brushed her teeth ever.” This quote depicts the fact that the bad lions not only are savage and eat animals and people, but they are also very dirty because they do not clean themselves. The wildness of the creatures and bad lions are both seen to be very savage, violent, and dirty. 

The two stories are different in the fact that the good lion and Max react to the wild animals in different ways. In Hemingway’s short story, the good lion travels to visit Africa to find that there are a lot of other lions living there as well. However, these “bad lions,” he learns are much more savage than he is because they would drink “the blood of the Hindu traders” and “eat eight Masai cattle.” The savageness of the bad lions really scares the good lion, causing the good lion to leave and go back home. On the other hand in “Where the Wild Things Are,” Max is not scared by the creatures, but instead stares at them without blinking. Because of Max’s unwavering boldness, the creatures crown him as king of the wild things. Furthermore, Max joins the creatures in their wildness and leads a “wild rumpus” with them.  These two stories highlight two different ways to respond to “wildness.” On one hand, the good lion was scared and rejected the bad lions’ wildness whereas Max embraced the creatures and was able to join them in their wildness. 

Kristine Chin

In both stories, “The Good Lion” by Hemingway and “where the wild things are” by Maurice Sendak, the use of “wild” is used in context to civilized and uncivilized. In the Good Lion, we see the difference between what a “good” lion and a “bad” lion is. The bad lion is considered wild and evil because of their choice to eat Hindu people with no regard. On the other hand, the good lion is viewed as good for only eating pasta and scampi. In this story we can see the way wild is used due to the lions actions and choices. On the contrary, In Sendak story, wild is used to describe attributes and environment associated with wild. The main character is a boy who dresses up in a wolf suit and takes a journey to the wildness. In this setting, he is appointed as the king of all wild things for being frightening. The difference of wild in Sendak’s story, is that the protagonist is a mere human but is viewed as wild due to his suit and frightening impression. However, after being king, he longs for love in a normal and domestic society.

These both stories shed light in the different meaning of wild(ness). In the Good Lion, Hemingway uses “wild” to define the acts and savageness of untamed animals. For example, Hemenway writes” the bad lions would roar with laughter and eat another Hindu trader and their wives would drink his blood.” This act shows the differences between good wild and bad wild. Having consumed humans with no regard or shame, expresses the gruesome behind wild animals. On the contrary, since the good lion chooses not to consume Hindu traders, we view this lion to be good. Although they are both lions and considered “wild”, the use of words and imagery highlight the difference between good and bad in a wild setting. On the other hand, Sendak story uses wild to describe wild creatures that are associated with “terrible” characteristics. For example, the story says, “they roared their terrible roars and gnashed their terrible teeth and rolled their terrible eyes and showed their terrible claws.” Wild is used in an observatory way for abnormal characteristics. The protagonist is considered “wild” due to his wolf suit and the wild animals are established as “wild” because of their abnormal teeth, eyes, and claws. Although both stories use wild, the context of it differs and shows a different meaning for each of them.

-Jaileen Gutierrez

Ernest Hemingway’s The Good Lion and Maurice Sendak’s Where the Wild Things Are both entail their own idea of the “wild.” Hemingway’s story utilizes the “wild” to describe his ideals of civilized versus uncivilized individuals. His comparisons between the lions metaphorically demonstrate Hemingway’s underlying racist ideology through the fictitious lions to compare European and African culture. Sendak’s work uses the “wild” to illustrate the protagonist’s desire to escape reality. He uses wildness to express the desire to be liberated rather than be contained. These works differ because Hemingway uses the “wild” to illustrate the racial disparity between Europeans and Africans. Sendak uses the “wild” to illustrate the desire to be free.

Hemingway’s short story uses “wildness” to differentiate savagery and civility. The good lion is characterized as a civilized and cultivated individual. Rather than kill other animals and humans to eat, the good lion only eats pasta and other Italian food. In contrast, the “bad” lions are described as savages and wicked creatures. They differ from the “good” lion because they make fun of the way he looks, and their violent nature demonstrates their barbarity. In the story, Hemingway describes the disparity between the “good” and “bad.” He 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 making this distinction of different dialects used by the lions, Hemingway demonstrates which languages he deemed “civilized.” This only perpetuates the idea that some cultures are uncivilized compared to others, in this case, African versus European culture. By doing this Hemingway indirectly states that certain cultural groups are seen as “wild” in comparison to others. 

Sendak incorporates “wildness” as means of escape. The protagonist, Max, is sent to his room by his mother. To retaliate, Max creates an imaginary world where there are creatures “wild” like him. However, Max soon realizes that he wants stability and structure rather than freedom. Sendak writes, “And Max the king of all wild things was lonely and wanted to be where someone loved him best of all.” This demonstrates the dilemma of craving freedom while also needing support and stability. Sendak uses “wildness” to create the dilemma of Max wanting to live by his own rules while also desiring structure and love from his mother.

-Anna Allen

Hemingway’s “The Good Lion” and Sendak’s “Where the Wild Things Are” both incorporate themes of wildness in their stories, but they engage with this theme very differently to reveal messages antithetical to each other.

In “The Good Lion,” Hemingway quickly establishes a sharp contrast between The Good Lion and the other lions in Africa. The main character is described as “good,” eating “only pasta and scampi” while the other lions are “bad,” eating “Swahilis, Umbulus and Wandorobos and they especially liked to eat Hindu Traders.” Hemingway emphasizes the wildness of the lions from Africa, and how they are much more wicked and violent than the civilized Good Lion.

In “Where the Wild Things Are,” Sendak focuses especially on wildness in children, as Max screams “I’LL EAT YOU UP” to his mother. This tantrum is met with Max not receiving dinner, which shows how a child misbehaving and engaging in their wild side will ultimately backfire for them.

Both stories treat “wildness” as a largely negative concept, as Hemingway highlights how violent the lions from Africa are, and Sendak illustrates how acting wildly will backfire and result in consequences. However, the moral of “The Good Lion” is almost the exact opposite of the moral of “Where the Wild Things Are.” The Good Lion orders a “Hindu Trader sandwich” when he gets back home, despite avoiding the food when he was in Africa. This is surprising because eating Hindu Traders was heavily associated with wildness, as the wickedest lions would have “the blood of Hindu Traders” on their whiskers. This drives home the message that even a being as tame as the Good Lion will inevitably return to their wild roots. Conversely, Sendak ends his story with Max returning home from the land of the wild because “he smelled good things to eat.” Max is smelling his mother’s supper, which he decides to leave the Wild Things for. Sendak is highlighting how one may occasionally indulge in their wild side, but they will inevitably become tame often due to strong bonds of affection with their loved ones. Thus, the messages of Hemingway and Sendak’s stories are fundamentally opposed to each other despite their initially similar interpretations of “wild.”

-Avinash K

In Hemingway’s “The Good Lion” and Maurice Sendak’s “Where the Wild Things Are”, the authors both use the word “wild” to expose the tension between civilized and uncivilized existences. In both stories, the civilized world is conveyed as tamed, domestic, good, and normal; while the uncivilized world is revealed as untamed, wild, evil, and abnormal. However, the protagonist in “Where the Wild Things Are” is also considered wild, while the protagonist in “The Good Lion” is considered the complete opposite of wild.

In “Where the Wild Things Are”, the author uses the word “wild” all throughout the novel as a way to characterize the animals in the forest Max visits at night. When Max’s imagination took him where the wild creatures lived, “they roared their terrible roars and gnashed their terrible teeth and rolled their terrible eyes and showed their terrible claws” (pg. 21). The repetition of the word terrible symbolizes the untamed and vicious nature of these wild things. Even though the wild creatures warm up to Max and start loving him by the end of the story, he is still referring to them as wild because they are coming from his wild imagination after his mom classified him as a wild thing when he was misbehaving. 

In “The Good Lion”, the author uses the theme of wildness to describe the characters in his story in a very similar way. Wildness is perceived through the wicked lions as they, “roar with laughter and eat another Hindu trader and their wives would drink his blood. They only stopped to growl with laughter or to roar with laughter at the good lion and to snarl at his wings. They were very bad and wicked lions indeed” (pg. 388). The gruesome and descriptive imagery in this passage shows the reader the true extent of the wildness and savagery of these lions. This is also contrasted in the story through the good lion and his seemingly perfect morals.

Katsiaryna Aliashkevich

In both Hemingway’s The Good Lion and Maurice Sendak’s Where the Wild Things Are, “wildness” is conveyed in both, but with separate meanings.  In Sendak’s Where the Wild Things Are, wildness is depicted as animalistic and imaginative. In the beginning of the story, Max’s mother calls him a “wild thing” with which he responds “I’ll eat you!” This implies his wildness is mischievous and daunting. Later when he reaches the mysterious island, he finds that it is infested with “wild things” or beasts. In the picture book, they have fangs and claws, ready to demolish and destroy anything in their way, yet Max was able to tame the wild beasts. The repetition Sendak uses of the “wild things” is also noticeable as well. The type of wildness portrayed in this book is animalistic as seen with the creatures Max comes across, but there is also wildness in his imagination- as his bed room turned into a forest, he sailed on a boat for a year, and was able to tame their wild creatures. On the other hand, Hemingway’s The Good Lion depicts wildness in a conceptual way demonstrated through good versus evil. The good lion escapes the dangerous lands in Africa which are full of evil lions that just want to kill him. Instead, the good lion is a “past-eating lion” that has no intentions of killing for food. The wildness is also portrayed in the fact that a lion has wings, which ultimately help in his escape from the bad lions. The bad lions were seen as less than and “uncivilized” because of this therefore making a massive differential between good and evil. The wildness portrayed in The Good Lion is more hidden, more between the lines compared to Where the Wild Things Are as wildness here is used repetitively to describe the imagination and animalistic tendencies.  

~Audrey Wines

In both “Where the Wild Things Are” by Maurice Sendak, and “The Good Lion” by Earnest Hemingway, the idea of “wildness” is integrated into both stories, although in different ways. In the former, the word “wild” is not only in the title, but it is also on almost every descriptive page in the book. There are “wild things” and they are acting “wild” during when Max cried, “let the wild rumpus start!” By including the word “wild” so much in the story, Sendak forces the reader to consider the definition of “wild” to be connected to one’s imagination, since the premise of the story is that we are party to a boy Max’s imaginary “wild things.” With this, the term wild is, for the most part, used with a positive connotation. While the actual word “wild” is used many times in “Where the Wild Things Are,” the word is used as more of a concept in “The Good Lion” rather than Hemingway including the actual word. In the short story, the Good Lion, who is “cultured” and only eats human food, visits Africa, where he meets native lions there that eat other animals and humans. During this visit, the Good Lion thinks, “what savages these lions are,” which shows that the Good Lion does not think highly of these lions that are, what Hemingway would consider to be, living in the wild, thus painting the term “wild” in a negative connotation. The word in this negative connotation is being connected to the word “savage” that the Good lion used to describe the wild African lions. While the word “wild” in both stories is used to describe personified and made-up creatures, the light that is painted on the creatures of each story is very different from each other. While both the African lions and wild things are considered to be uncivilized in the stories, the Good lion wants to get away from the “savage” lions while Max wants to be with the wild things, until the end where both of their feelings switch towards the creatures.

Anna Ranslem