In the story “The Good Lion”, wild is represented by the bad lions since, compared to the good lion, they don’t seem to care about others but themselves. “The other lions .. every day ate zebras and wildebeests and every kind of antelope. Sometimes .. people too. They ate Swahilis, Umbulus, and Wandorobos and they especially liked to eat Hindu traders.” The lions show how they were untamed, felt no restriction to doing whatever they pleased, and didn’t try to act a certain way even when their actions were hurting others. When the wickedest of all the lionesses told the good lion “I think I shall kill you and eat you, wings and all”, we see how wild the bad lions can really get since not only did they not care for eating people, but they didn’t care for eating one of their own. On the other hand, in the story “Where the Wild Things Are”, wild is represented by scary monsters, the wild things, and they “roar terrible roars and gnash their terrible teeth and roll their terrible eyes and show their terrible claws”. What makes them wild is the fact they are monsters and act as such but they don’t necessarily hurt anyone, instead, they make Max the king and proceed to have a “wild rumpus” which just goes back to being loud and monster-like but not hurtful like the lions. These stories are different because they each represent wild in a different way, “The Good Lion” represents wild as untamed and with no regard to consequences while “Where the Wild Things Are” represents wild as scary creatures but don’t act out of impulsion and are nice to those around them. Although both the lions and the wild things look like they would do wild actions, only the lions act this way.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In the story “The Good Lion”, wild is represented by the bad lions since, compared to the good lion, they don’t seem to care about others but themselves. “The other lions .. every day ate zebras and wildebeests and every … Continue reading