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
I, too, think that Hemingway’s definition of the “wild” in his short story, The Good Lion, demonstrates a disparity between the civilized and uncivilized. While I like your thoughts and discussion, I think your argument could be taken a step further. Interestingly, Hemingway incorporates his prejudices into what he believes to be “good” and “bad.” Hemingway associates European culture with the “good lion” while associating African culture with the “bad lions.” His characterizations of the “bad lions” illustrate his view on non-western cultures and his belief that they are primitive savages.
I also would like to discuss your interpretation of Sendak’s story Where Wild Things Are. You state that Sendak uses wildness to describe Max’s attempt to be frightening. The protagonist, Max, tries to find his place in life and expresses himself freely. He attempts to be liberated by using his imagination to escape into a new reality. However, this isn’t sufficient enough for Max. As you state, Max longs for love and security in a domesticated society. Ultimately, I think Sendak tries to define “wildness” through liberation and escapism.
Overall, I think you brought up some good points in your blog post, and I just wanted to elaborate on my thoughts on them.
-Anna Allen