You will choose ONE to which you’d like to respond (250 words). Each prompt will have its own post and comment section. (Comments can be made on either prompt and are not limited to the one you chose for your initial response.)
#1
How does Hemingway develop character in "The Short and Happy Life of Francis Macomber"? Consider all of the ways in which Hemingway gives the reader detail and how he leads us to think or feel a certain way about a character. How does the way the information about a character is revealed add to our understanding of the character?
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
48 comments:
Hemingway reveals the personality and motives of Margot, Francis Macomber’ wife, by beginning the story shortly after the lion incident where her husband publicly showed himself as a coward. Having the story begin in such a place enables the readers to see Margot’s true reaction to what her husband had done. For example, she comments to her husband that it is her face “that’s red today” (Hemingway 6). This is the first punch that Margot takes at her husband by telling him how embarrassed she really is about his cowardly actions. She goes on to play up her total regret of Macomber when she “looked at them both and they both saw that she was going to cry. Wilson had seen it coming for a long time and he dreaded it. Macomber was past dreading it” (7). These reactions are all expected by the other characters, so when she comes back shortly after leaving in tears and asks, “How is the beautiful red-faced Mr. Wilson? . . . I’ve dropped the whole things . . . What importance is there to whether Francis is any good at killing lions? That’s not his trade. That’s Mr. Wilson’s trade. Mr. Wilson is really very impressive killing anything. You do kill anything, don’t you?” (9) This sudden change in attitude, from tears to being nonchalant about the whole business, reveals her plans and motives. She promptly idolizes Mr. Wilson and treats Macomber almost like a child who had done wrong, to show her motive of revenge for her embarrassment of his failure. This is where the reader begins to see Margot at play in her revenge, her regret in marring Macomber, and how she uses Wilson to make her husband miserable and ashamed.
Solid essay Sarah! I'm generally not going to comment after the initial responses, but I do want to acknowledge that you were brave enough to "go first"! :) Thank you!
Well done!
I look forward to reading equally insightful responses from your classmates.
All three characters are developed in unique ways, enough so that when Francis Macomber reaches his change it is clear to all. Wilson is clearly portrayed as a man of business, even to the point of the affair with Margot. In fact, he believes that “the women did not feel they were getting their money’s worth unless they had shared the cot with the white hunter” (Hemingway 21). In fact, although he does call her beautiful now and again, he still sees woman as “a nuisance on safari” (21). Another aspect of his businesslike personality is the fact that his annoyance with Macomber only lasts until Macomber stops being a boy and becomes a hunter, as expressed by the phrase “I’d begun to like your husband” (28). We mainly learn about Wilson from his thoughts and dialogue when the omniscient narrator looks into his thoughts. On the other hand, we learn about Margot’s personality from her dialogue and those of others as well as her actions with Wilson. The specific line that sticks out in my mind as the one which made clear her persona were these, “Margot was too beautiful for Macomber to divorce her and Macomber had too much money for Margot to ever leave him” (18). Macomber’s personality is made very clear both before and after the change. First, we learn about him through his actions, dialogue, and thoughts. However we feel we learn the most about him when his change occurs. We learn that “for the first time in his life he really felt wholly without fear” (24). We picture the man, mouse-like at first, straightening up. His personality changes and he starts to smile and laugh more, an interesting change that helps the readers like Macomber more, making his death all the more stunning.
Hemingway develops his characters using two main ways. The first way is by allowing the characters themselves to show the reader who they are. Hemingway develops the character of Wilson by using his thoughts. Hemingway develops the character of Margot by her dialog, actions, and what the other characters say or think about her. The character Macomber, however, is developed by his thoughts, actions, dialog, and what other characters say or think about him. The second is by using the sequence of events to reveal their reactions and thoughts after the lion incident at the beginning. Upon entering the story we are bombarded with the shamed Macomber, the disapproving Wilson, and the pitiful Margot. Seeing the characters for the first time at a time when they are dealing with a difficult and embarrassing event helps the reader look upon their “true colors”. Had we come in at the beginning Macomber would have seemed more brave and the reader would have felt for him after the lion mishap. However, because we were introduced to him only after he was proved a coward that is how we see him, which is what makes his change at the end more exciting for the reader. The change is not a return to who we thought he was but a brand new man. Macomber even says it himself: “something happened in me,” he even, “felt a wild and unreasonable happiness”. The same goes for Margot. The reader is first introduced to a sad, embarrassed woman who runs away crying in shame, but who soon turns into a very cruel woman teasing her husband saying things like, “oh, the lion… I’d forgotten the lion!” The only time we see a loving wife is in the flashback of Macomber’s memory.
In “The Short and Happy Life of Francis Macomber”, Hemingway, develops his protagonist via a two step method: he first describes the character, and then uses events in the storyline to flesh out the finer points of the character’s personality. For Macomber, Hemingway tells the reader that Macomber has “shown himself, very publicly, to be a coward” (Hemingway 6).later in the story, the reader finds out that when Macomber thought a lion charged at him, he panicked and was almost killed. The story then goes on to show that Macomber is an even bigger coward when he refuses what amounts to almost an invitation from the hunter, Wilson, to confront him for sleeping with Mrs. Macomber. And at the resolution of the story, Macomber demonstrates his foolishness when he faces down a charging buffalo and shoots it exactly where Wilson told him not to shoot it.
The other two main characters are developed with a three step method. At first Hemingway lays out events and depicts their reaction to those events. Then he relays the character’s thoughts to the reader. And last, he develops them through their actions. Wilson is depicted as the consummate professional hunter in the opening of the book, refusing to comment on his client’s shortcomings. But later, his thoughts reveal that he is practically self-interested, since he “hunted for a certain type of clientele... where the women did not feel they were getting their money’s worth unless they shared that cot with the white hunter” (Hemingway 21). And at the end, his practicality is shown again, when after Macomber is killed, he takes the measure of the buffalo and tells Mrs. Macomber that has nothing to fear for killing her husband. And Mrs. Macomber is shown to be a person who takes revenge for any perceived slight against her, when she acts so brusquely towards Macomber after the incident with the lion. And later, it is shown that she will never leave Macomber, perhaps because she cannot bring herself to do so, so she take her revenge by sleeping with Wilson. And in the end, it is implied that she might have shot Macomber on purpose, as a final act of revenge
Hemingway develops his characters in a very unique way: they already have one when the story starts. He begins the story in what would normally be the first falling action, after the introduction and first rising action. This makes the readers start searching for the main characters, as they are dropped in the middle of the drama. But more than that, it also provides a very clever way of characterization- because the main characters personalities and traits would have already been explained and described in the beginning of the story, Hemingway can skip the written characterization of his characters, and describe them to the readers simply through their dialogue and the actions they take. After all, don’t actions speak louder than words? But this way of telling a story can be (and usually is) very confusing, because a story can be hard to understand when it begins in the middle with no background information. So Hemingway gives the reader clues to the characters identities- even in the title. “The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber” tells the reader several things: who the main character is, that he will die in the story, and that his life is either very happy or very sad. (The title might be ironic.) But these clues do more than just help along character development; they allow the reader to predict what the characters will do next. And it is that that keeps the readers reading, and what makes Hemingway such a great author- his control of information. He feeds the reader just enough to understand the situation, and just enough to understand the reasons behind the characters actions- and then he leads the reader on a guessing game of who is going to do what next; until all the chips are down and the pieces played out. But even then, he leaves the readers with a mystery- did Maycomber’s wife accidentally shoot and kill him, while aiming for the bull? Was it murder or manslaughter? We’ll never know.
Hemingway chooses to build his characters by using direct characterizations and inferred characteristics of his characters. His direct characterizations are constructed through narrative remarks concerning other characters’ thoughts. By the use of this characterization, the reader develops a somewhat negative view of Mrs. Macomber when Wilson thinks to himself that she is “simply enameled in that American female cruelty” (Hemingway 9). This critique, along with the many others in the story, contributes to how the thought is interpreted by the reader. By the thought having the potential to be understood negatively and being kept to oneself, it becomes more negative than perhaps the critic intended it to be. Any inferred characteristics drawn from the text by the reader are pulled from planted actions or comments made by the characters. A prime example of such planted characteristic concerns, yet again, Margot. The actions of the woman removing “her hand from his” when her husband takes her hand and then “[leaning] forward over the low seat and [kissing Wilson] on the mouth” are definitely characterizing of the person that she is, but they are left open to the reader’s interpretation. Some readers may interpret her actions as desperate for redemption from her husband’s cowardice, but other readers may interpret her actions as simply undermining and provocative. Because the information given about Margot is left hanging without other explanation, our understanding of her character is left hanging. In the same way, however, and on a different line of thought, the outward self-expression by Margaret also adds to our understanding of her. A shy, quiet woman would not have done such a flamboyant thing. A defiant, upset woman would. The visual sedition by Macomber’s wife is definitive of her character without any deep interpretation.
One of the hardest parts about writing a short story is developing characters and charter dynamics that the reader can become invested in, with just a few choice words. Almost every one of Hemingway’s stylistic choices contributes to the development of these characters. The story starts “It was now lunch time and they were all sitting under the double green fly of the dinning tent pretending nothing had happened” (5) In just one sentence, Hemingway adds a crucial dimension to his characters; history. We don’t know who they are, what they are doing, where they are or how they got there, but we already have a sense of their past and how their relationships have developed. Had Hemingway started the story chronologically, the scene with the Lion would not have been half as interesting. We would have known nothing of the dynamics between the different players or what was at stake for Francis. By starting the story midway, Hemingway creates an illusion of past for the characters that the reader can latch on to. Dialogue also plays a major role in the development of the characters. The characters never exchange more than a few short sentences at a time, but what they say and how they say it conveys as much as a lengthy monologue. For instance, much about Margot’s character depicted in a conversation with Wilson and her husband. Wilson has just denied her “request” to accompany them on their next hunting expenditure, to which she replies “Oh, yes I am. Mayn’t I Francis?” (9) The question here is obviously meant to be ironic and more of a display of her control over Francis than a sign of respect for asking him. When she is told again that she may not follow, her response is “Oh yes I am” (9). Through the use of stylistic choices, Hemingway is able to create dynamic characters without being verbose
One of the hardest parts about writing a short story is developing characters and charter dynamics that the reader can become invested in, with just a few choice words. Almost every one of Hemingway’s stylistic choices contributes to the development of these characters. The story starts “It was now lunch time and they were all sitting under the double green fly of the dinning tent pretending nothing had happened” (5) In just one sentence, Hemingway adds a crucial dimension to his characters; history. We don’t know who they are, what they are doing, where they are or how they got there, but we already have a sense of their past and how their relationships have developed. Had Hemingway started the story chronologically, the scene with the Lion would not have been half as interesting. We would have known nothing of the dynamics between the different players or what was at stake for Francis. By starting the story midway, Hemingway creates an illusion of past for the characters that the reader can latch on to. Dialogue also plays a major role in the development of the characters. The characters never exchange more than a few short sentences at a time, but what they say and how they say it conveys as much as a lengthy monologue. For instance, much about Margot’s character depicted in a conversation with Wilson and her husband. Wilson has just denied her “request” to accompany them on their next hunting expenditure, to which she replies “Oh, yes I am. Mayn’t I Francis?” (9) The question here is obviously meant to be ironic and more of a display of her control over Francis than a sign of respect for asking him. When she is told again that she may not follow, her response is “Oh yes I am” (9). Through the use of stylistic choices, Hemingway is able to create dynamic characters without being verbose
This will have two comments.
The characters in "The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber", by Ernest Hemingway, are given their initial attributes within the first nine paragraphs. Margot, the wife of Francis is described by the omniscient narrator alone while Francis and Wilson are both described by the narrator telling the reader what Margot thinks of them.
Margot is described as "handsome and well kept"(Hemingway 6). The term "handsome" is normally used to refer to a man or masculine object. Using it to describe Margot has the effect of showing the reader that she has a dominating spirit and that she tends to get her way, also stereotypical male traits in literature. When Margot describes Wilson, the way she describes him causes the reader to view him as a very businesslike character. According to Margot, Wilson has "extremely cold blue eyes...he smiled at her now...the baked red of his face stopped in a white line that marked the circle left by his Stetson hat"(6). The eyes have long been one of the true defining characteristics of a person. Wilson's cold blue ones reveal his true cold, calculating disposition. The smile toasted Margot while she was examine him, which he certainly noticed, shows his business side. He wants to keep her happy and interested in this safari, which is a business venture for him. The tan line left by his hat surely proves his practical nature, anyone spending large amounts of time in Africa must wear a hat. Francis is also described by Margot. She pegs her husband as having "hair cropped like an oarsman, rather thin lip[s]"(6). Aside from her seeing Francis as the coward he is, she has just described him as looking like a menial worker and having thin lips. Both of these traits are negative and undesirable. This is how Hemingway introduces the characters.
Hemingway proceeds to develop the characters through a flashback. The story could also be taken as the beginning developing what the middle introduces, but the more literal interpretation is to take it in the order the book was written in. Margot is developed to show her desire for her life of five years ago. Francis describes how "at the end of that time his wife came into the tent, lifted her mosquito bar and crawled cozily into bed"(18). Francis foes on to insinuate that Margot has been sleeping with Wilson, a very believable statement. While she may not have cheated on Francis prior, she did have a glamorous life and sleeping with the manly hunter would probably have brought her the feeling that she was glamorous again. Wilson is still businesslike but the narrator shows a lighter side to him. Wilson "had put the two in the back seat out of his mind now and was thinking about buffalo" but he eventually thinks "poor beggar. He mist have a way of getting over it. Well it was the port sod's own fault" (21). Wilson is still ready for the day's hunt but he at least sees the pain in Francis. Albeit, he brushes off the problem by suggesting that Francis has a way of getting over his wife's adultery. Still, he is able to recognize a problem, revealing a human side to himself. Francis on the other hand sinks into a deeper despair, proving his current negative attributes. He "had been asleep a little while after he had stopped thinking about the lion, wakened and then slept again, woke suddenly, frightened in a dream of the bloody-headed lion standing over him...realized his wife was not in the other cot in the tent. He lay awake with that knowledge for two hours"(18). Francis not only proves his cowardice by continually thinking about the lion, he is such a coward that he simply sits in shock in his tent instead of stopping his wife from cheating on him.
This is the second of two comments.
There is not any real change in Margot towards the end of the story. Wilson as well does not change as a person, only his attitude towards Francis and Margot. Francis is the only one who is further developed by Hemingway. When they go hunting for buffalo "he had no fear, only hatred of Wilson" (22). At this moment Francis undergoes his transformation. He let's his hatred of Wilson drive his adrenaline and he writing style of Hemingway switches to very short syntax for as long as Francis is alive. This conveys the strong manliness francis feels after his change. With these three people Hemingway develops them into three distinct individuals through different methods.
qeustion: for the response to the comment, do we simply post it in the same area with comments, or will there be another page ore something?
Hemingway has the unique talent of developing his characters as if the reader is a stranger just walked in on these people’s lives. Hemingway tries to make his stories as real as possible. In life, when you meet someone they do not give you a complete back story of their life with its accomplishments and failures, and Hemingway does not address his characters in this fashion. When Macomber is introduced in the story, Hemingway shows that he is very new and naïve to the ways of the wild. Francis Macomber is dressed in “the same sort of safari clothes… except that his were new” (Hemingway 6).” The reader finds out very soon though that Macomber, at least in the ways of his wife, is a “coward” (6). Hemingway reveals this after the reader begins to like Macomber so the reader becomes worried and anxious to find out what happen to the likable Macomber. The reader grows more sympathetic to Macomber when Hemingway shows that Margot “kiss[es] [Wilson] on the mouth” right after the lion incident (17). The reader wants Macomber to succeed even more now because of the way his wife treats him. Hemingway is able to control the reader’s emotions by delaying the way information is gained. The reader finally is happy for Macomber when he faces the buffalo and ”his mouth [is] dry again, but it was excitement, not fear” (27). Hemingway built up so much suspense that is was a relief when Macomber faced his fears and went after the buffalo. It almost made the reader proud like a parent to see this scared boy turn into a man.
In The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber, Ernest Hemingway chooses to portray his characters in a manner very different from that of most writers - through their actions and the thoughts of other characters. He seldom narrates their true personalities, but instead, very publicly mentions their outer, personal appearances, generously leaving it to the reader to extrapolate the key traits that define the characters. Throughout the story, Wilson is depicted as very judgmental, as his thoughts often encompass his derogatory beliefs about Macomber and his wife, Margaret, and upon witnessing the incident with the lion, Wilson immediately consigns Macomber as a “four-letter man” and “a coward”, looking at the entire situation as “something shameful” (Hemingway 8, 15). Wilson serves as a mere bystander among all the action; nevertheless, his hypercritical nature creates and propels the emotions of the other, more dynamic characters. Macomber, on the other hand, is a very dynamic character who constantly changes throughout the story, going from “running wildly in panic” to escape the lion to embracing his fear and willing to “‘try another lion’” (17, 25). Even Wilson admits that “yesterday [Macomber’s] scared sick and today he’s a ruddy fire eater” (25). Macomber feels “wholly without fear” and with “definite elation”, feelings that were perhaps perpetuated by the anger incited as a result of Margaret and Wilson’s little rendezvous (24). Margaret also notices the “change in Francis Macomber” and is afraid of his newfound security (26). Both Margaret and Francis are well aware of the fact that neither of them would leave each other because “Margot was too beautiful for Macomber to divorce her and Macomber had too much money for Margot ever to leave him”, which reveals that neither of the characters particularly cares about having a happy and successful marriage, but rather one that satisfies their whims (18). Margaret’s melodramatic nature is characterized by her constant sulking, and when she shoots Macomber, we, as readers, are left to wonder whether the death was murder or accident. We shall never know.
In the short story "The Short and Happy Life of Francis Macomber", Hemingway gives the reader much in depth on the characters. Hemingway portrays the main character, Francis Macomber, as a sort of "cowardice" man, when he had a not so pleasant incident with his first encounter with a lion. In the story when the lion faces Francis he flees and bolts away from it. Even though he ran away from the lion the native boys "carried [him] to his tent from the edge of the camp in triumph on the arms and shoulders of the cook, the personal boys, the skinner, and the porters" (Hemingway 5). At the beginning of the story, the author gets us to believe that Francis is a heroic man and that he is filled with courage. When in fact he was just leading the reader astray from what Francis really was. This just gave me more information on how Hemingway works as an author and how he can easily manipulate the reader's thought process on what actually happened in his stories. The way Hemingway reveals information about a certain character shows how much he admires that character. Thought this short story, Hemingway shows sympathy but not to the victim Francis, but instead to Wilson the safari guide. He shows sympathy to Wilson because he admires the way that he is in command of his own life and he lives it his way.
I think we were told to do a post and then comment on other posts. Is this the place to do that? If it is then I would like to say that I like what Rebecca said about how the reader comes in as if they were a stranger meeting the characters for the first time. The thought that Hemingway shows sympathy is interesting. It never even crossed my mind.
In his short story, “The Short and Happy Life of Francis Macomber,” Ernest Hemingway begins the tale with the statement that Macomber, Wilson, and Margot are “all sitting under the double green fly of the dining tent pretending that nothing had happened” (Hemingway 5). This small detail sets the stage for the general attitude toward Macomber’s actions. According to his wife, Margot, his actions have been less than courageous, and Wilson’s have been more admireable. For example, after the incident, Hemingway describes Margot as looking at both Macomber and Wilson “as though she had never seen them before” (6). In Macomber’s case, Margot is thoroughly embarrassed by her husband’s behavior in the hunting field, which Hemingway portrays through Margot’s allusions to she and Macomber’s red faces (6). However, Margot takes a different approach toward Wilson. She even goes so far as to say that she “want[s] so to see [him] perform again” and that he was “lovely” that morning when he saved Macomber from the lion (9). This drastic change that Hemingway makes from her husband to Wilson not only helps characterize the men, but also helps characterize Margot. Her judgment and treatment of the men makes her seem to the reader to be a shallow, unloving woman who cares little for her husband. This idea is presented, most obviously, in her actions the night after killing the lion. While not said directly in the text, Hemingway makes it clear to the reader that Margot has had some sort of physical relationship with Wilson, which characterizes her as this shallow woman previously dicussed.
Emily, do you think that Hemingway wanted the reader to think Margot killed her husband or not? As in do you think Margot killed Francis? Oh and I like what you said about Margot! :)
Ernest Hemingway introduces us to Francis Macomber in an ever so vivid way. We are given the depiction of a man that does not have the ability to stand on his own two feet. Who demonstrates to be easily shaken, but undeniably well off. Hemingway later describes Macomber to be a “very tall, very well built [man] if you do not mind that length of bone,dark , [with] hair cropped like an oarsman, rather thin-lipped and considered handsome”(Hemingway 21). This being the physical description of Macomber clashes with the actions of Macomber himself. In The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber we get a realization of the character trough the courses of events that take place. Hemingway takes us on a characteristic roller coaster by first putting into the readers mind an automatic perception of Macomber. As the characteristic roller coaster moves into action, we are given a better understanding of Macomber. First his interaction with his wife Margot, who has no respect for him, and the only thing keeping her around is his money. Classifying her as a gold digger, Second, the actions of his wife with Robert Wilson (them sleeping together) which lead to the overall change in the characterization of Macomber. And last Macomber’s personal perception of his life. These Three factors are the main point in the characterization of Francis Macomber. A man who was given the depiction to be weak, but later has a change of heart that changes his overall characteristic view.
Hemingway has a distinct way of throwing the reader into his short stories. When this is done the reader is submerged into conversations that are missing major components, but with this technique the reader can pick up on the characters development and how they function in the situations they are placed in. Also Hemingway uses the opinions of characters to develop thoughts of other characters. Just within a few pages of reading one can conclude that Robert Wilson is a smart man, but he is also very business orientated. Through the eyes of Francis Robert was a cold heart business man who after sleeping with his wife seemed to be the same man, he felt no guilt or remorse, and it was simply the price of taking women to the safari. The next character is Margaret Macomber; she is a domineering woman throughout the entire story. Wilson said that her face was so perfect she is expected to be stupid, " but she wasn't stupid, Wilson thought, no, not stupid" (Hemingway 8). Margaret was cunning and power hungry. And through the eyes of Robert Wilson she was simply a predator looking for her next meal, and once he husband gained his courage and was at her level he had to be dealt with. The reader could also see that through Margaret’s facade, she loved that her husband was weak; she would always have the upper hand on him. But when he changed, she felt threatened by the thought of someone becoming better than her; if her husband was to gain courage then her crown would be taken away. Last we have Francis Macomber. He was a handsome man with a wife and money to survive a lifetime, but his courage was nowhere to be found. He lacked the one thing to make him a complete man, and through the eyes of his wife, he was a coward and that was the way she wanted him to be. In many ways Francis received the short end of the stick; his wife is cheating, and she guilt’s him for his downsides. But when he gains the upper and feels the power he has received, it is all taken away.
Hi guys! Today is the last day for initial responses to the first prompts. I see that some of you are already commenting on other people's posts. Let's save those comments until after everyone has a chance to put up their responses (i.e. tomorrow). That way we will (hopefully) read every one's and be fully informed as we make conversation.
In "The Short Happy life of Francis Macomber," Hemingway clearly reveals the characterization of Francis Macomber by his actions and by the choices he makes. Hemingway portrays Francis's character as the story developes. We first see Francis Macomber described as a "tall, very well built man" who also "kept himself fit, was good at court games, and had a number of big game fishing records"( Hemingway 6). This description gives us the imagery that he is a big, strong guy, who can take his own weight, but Hemingway also wrote that " [Francis's] were new"(6) talking about his safari cloths, which reveals that unlike Wolson, Francis, would stay in the car instead of pursuing his target on foot. After the lion is wounded by Francis, he begins to come up with many excuses not to confront the lion. he even says that, "I'm just scared, you know" (15). We are revealed how low Francis has sunk when he sat in the back seat on way back instead of the front, where he sat prior to the encounter. The effect of Francis's cowardness reaches its climax when Margot leans over and kisses Wolson on the mouth. This forshadows us that she will cheat on Francis, which she does. She even calls him a coward. It not only shows his cowardice, but also shows how defeated he is.
He starts off by revealing a hidden tension between the characters within this story, but does not initially tell the events that caused it. The reader's only hint as to what happened is the mention of a lion. This leads the reader to wonder why the characters are acting the way they are. This tension is shown when Mrs. Macomber claims, “Let's not talk about the lion” (Hemingway 6), and shortly after when Mrs. Macomber begins to cry (Hemingway 7). One tactic he uses in order to help the reader understand these characters is the way he uses each character's thought process. He does not have just one person he focuses on as the main character, but includes the thought process for all of them. From the ideas and opinions the characters conceive, the reader can assume certain feelings towards the characters. Mrs. Macomber's intentions towards Mr. Wilson are shown early on, especially after the death of the lion. When Francis and Wilson came back to the car, she “leaned forward over the low seat and kissed [Mr. Wilson] on his mouth” (Hemingway 17). This tells the reader that Margot has a large concern for pride and dignity, which her husband showed a lack thereof. She saw her husband publicly display himself as a coward and she feels betrayed. Not only did he humiliate himself, but he humiliated her. As a result of this she throws herself to this man she hardly knows in spite of Francis. From this one incident the reader can see that Francis is undoubtedly a coward, Wilson isn't afraid to ruin a marriage, and Margot is willing to cheat (and later murder her husband). All of these characters seem to have something sinful about them and each of them commit to doing the wrong thing.
Initial responses end.
Comments are open. :)
Hey, Mrs. Fougerousse! I am back and here’s my first initial post. Oh, and just a reminder that I will be absent again from July 25-July 30. Thanks a bunch!
In “The Short and Happy Life of Francis Macomber,” Hemingway’s technique of indirect presentation gives us great insight into the characters. First of all, the short story is told in the third-person point of view. This allows the reader the witness the events in an objective manner. This also calls for some ambiguity because we can’t always see into the minds and thoughts of every character. For instance, although motive was established throughout the story, the narrator does not say for certain that Margaret intentionally killed Macomber. Her innocence or guilt is left up to the reader to decide. Hemingway also develops his characters through their interactions with one another. For example, Margaret and Macomber’s marriage is not one based off of love and affection, but beauty and wealth. Their personalities are vividly shown in the line “Margot was too beautiful for Macomber to leave her and Macomber had too much money for Margot to ever leave him” (Hemingway 18). Macomber is constantly teased and tormented by wife, yet he is so enraptured by her beauty that he overlooks her brazen attitude and indiscretions. It is inferred that Wilson was not the first man Margaret had an affair with. This is shown when Macomber confronts her saying, “You said if we made this trip that there would be none of that. You promised” (Hemingway 19). However, his cowardice quickly fades and he is confronted with a new-found bravery. On the next hunt for buffalo, he “had no fear, only hatred for Wilson” and finds a “wild unreasonable happiness” to which he has never known before” (22, 25). It can be assumed that this changed attitude would have carried over to his marriage as Wilson remarks that Macomber “would have left [Margaret]” had she not shot him (28). Overall, Hemingway develops his characters through their interactions with one another as well as the third-person narrative.
deva_dangerously: I really enjoyed reading your post; you mentioned many small, yet significant details from the story that had never even crossed my mind but are noteworthy of explaining. After reading this, I realized that Hemingway does chooses his words economically, and each word, each sentence, each paragraph plays a major role in disclosing the incident. Instead of flatly telling us, the readers, what had occurred, which, like you stated, would not be as interesting, he chooses to use various stylistic techniques to add dimension to the plot. It helps us to better understand the tension circulating among the different characters of the story, and by including snippets of conversations, we are given an inside view into the thoughts of the characters.
Comment Zoew: I thought your initial response to be very insightful in the way you were able to put the characters in very distinct frames of mind. I believe, though, it is very difficult to describe a character’s personality by just saying one aspect of the personality. The human mind is too complex to be able to say one phrase and have it completely describe the person. The main personality I am speaking of is Robert Wilson. I believe a large part of his personality was very business like, but other traits were exhibited in the work. When Francis Macomber is murdered by his wife, Wilson shows he is not all about business when he asks, “Why didn’t you poison him?” (Hemingway 28). This shows that he really was intrigued by what Margot Macomber did. If it was all about business Wilson would not have said a word, because he was going to get paid anyway. He was willing to let Mrs. Macomber know that he knew it was murder just to see what she would say. This is why I do not believe Robert Wilson can just be viewed as a businessman.
Comment to Sarah: You pointed things out in your post that didn't quite connect with me while I was reading the story, and I love that you drew attention to those points. All of your references were great at pinpointing the major events that cause the reader to form such a strong opinion of Margot. I highly agree with your answer of how the characterization is achieved and how it adds to our understanding of the character (in this case, the characterization of Margot and the allusion to her plans of revenge). If the characterization had been done through candid comments by her husband and Wilson, her character would not have been as definite and strong as it is with the reader being able to "see Margot at play in her revenge, her regret in marrying Macomber, and how she uses Wilson to make her husband miserable and ashamed."
@ Madelyn
that is a very astute observation. I did not get that Hemmingway gives his readers a preconcieved impression of each character, and than uses flashback to force us to view the character in a different light htne we would had he told the story chronologically.
First, I’d like to respond to Aneres: I, for one, did not ever get the impression that Margot killed Macomber. As I read the responses to this prompt I kept reading this, however, and I even asked Kyle about it, and he never got that impression either. So, no, I don’t think Hemingway meant to make it seem like Margot killed her husband. If someone would like to point out where they got that impression, I would be greatly appreciate it so I can more clearly understand what’s going on in the story. I would also like to respond to Paige’s post: Until you pointed it out, I hadn’t noticed the way Hemingway throws the reader into sudden action and narration, but I now that you point it out, I see that it is a really good technique to get the reader into the story immediately. I like the way Hemingway slowly divulges information, as well, so as to make the short story more of a “page turner,” if you will. You also characterized Margot as cunning and power-hungry. While, in my initial response to the prompt, I characterized her as a shallow type of woman who would cheat on her husband simply because of his cowardice, I see where you get “cunning and power-hungry.” This description of Margot paints a new side to her deeds, which I can see as a more complete picture than just “shallow.”
P.S. Who's Aneres? Just curious :) some of these names aren't very obvious as to who they are.
Zach M., I like your method of describing how Hemingway develops his characters with the two and three step methods. I think I did the same kind of thing when I talked about the introduction of the characters and how they are then developed by going back in time and developing in a kind of backwards way. I didn't pick up at all on Margot killing Francis but I can certainly see how I would miss a hidden meaning in a work by a master such as Hemingway. I was wondering if you could give me your perspective and how you came to that conclusion.
Madelyn- Over all I loved the method you used to write your post. It gave me a completely different outlook on what Hemingway was actually thinking. I only have one question for you. Do you think that Hemingway wanted the reader to feel sympathy for Francis, or do you think that he wanted the reader to feel as the poacher, who witnessed him cower in fear when approached by the lion, felt?
I have to say that it is a little of both. I think that the reader is greatly influenced by how Wilson and the others feel in the beginning because it is all we have to form our opinions. However, as the story progresses I do see how we start feeling sympathy for Macomber, especially as we learn more and more about his situation. Although I have to say that as I learned more and more about his situation I didn't feel sympathy as much as I felt pity and a little disgust, at least up until the character change.
Emily && Kyle:
I have to disagree with the two of you. I do believe Hemingway wanted the reader to believe that Margot committed premeditated murder without directing stating so. Taking a closer look at the small details, we can see that Francis Macomber’s death was indeed a crime of opportunity. The first and most obvious motive established is money. Macomber may not have been the most attractive man, but he “had too much money for Margot to ever leave him” (Hemingway 18). Now money alone may not have provided enough reason to believe Margot intentionally killed her husband, but combined with the status of their marital status, a serious case can be made. The reader has concrete knowledge that Margot had an affair with Wilson and Hemingway drops clues that this was not the first time. Kyle, right as Margot enters the tent after sleeping with Wilson confronts her by saying, “You said if we made this trip that there would be none of that. You promised” (19). Margot’s response further solidifies the reader’s belief that this was a habitual thing for her by saying “that’s the way she meant it to be, but the trip was spoiled [for her] yesterday” (19). This conversation highlights Margot’s infidelity and Francis’ lack of self-esteem as a root problem in their marriage. It also shows us that the safari was Margot’s idea. What better place to rid yourself of a husband than in Africa on a hunt and hope for an accident? She is the one that encourages him to put himself in these positions and demands that she go with him. After Macomber is dead, Wilson tells her that “[Macomber] would have left her too” (28). It was clear to even Wilson that Macomber had found “a wild unreasonable happiness” and might have finally mustered up enough courage to leave Margot. All of these clues combined establish more than enough motive to believe that Margot intentionally killed her husband.
This is just what I got out of the text, Emily and Kyle. I’d love to hear to how you two interpreted it though!
Kyle, I thought that was an interesting point you made when you referred to how the Margot and Wilson remained relatively unchanged and Francis was the only one to progress. However, I somewhat disagree because it appeared to be that Francis progressed like you said in a positive way since he overcame his fear, but his wife, Margot, sort of digressed. She went from being polite and kind to being a cheater and murderer. She betrayed and killed her husband. Therefore, I definitely believe she changed in the story. Wilson, however, seems like he doesn't change at all. He just stands by and watches as the Macomber's relationship falls apart.
Zoe, I love how you showed the different angles of Wilson’s view of women around during the hunt. I also have to agree with Kali on disagreeing with Kyle and Emily. I believe that the murder was premeditated. As Kali states we are given hard evidence of Margot’s affair and that she won’t leave him because of him money and status, we also know that he will not leave her. So it would seem to make sense that if he dies in a “tragic hunting accident” then all is fine and politically correct. It would make sense to me. Although I can see where you two are coming from. With the conversation between Margot and Wilson on page 28, Margot’s response to the death seems buyable however Wilson see’s through it.
Kali, Annalise, and whoever else is on their side: I do agree that Margot certainly did not make her case of innocence very believable, what with her affair with Wilson and her daily rejection of her husband, but I do not think that this directly leads to her guilt in his death. She was not the one who gored her husband through with a buffalo's horns. A wife is perfectly capable of cheating on her husband without murdering him. True, he was in a different mental and emotional state at the time of his death, but that was his doing. Kali, you yourself implied that Margot and Macomber had just recently in the story acquired the confidence to leave each other. If this statement is true, which I think it is, then why "premeditatively" kill your husband? Why not just leave him?
Kali, great point on how the innocence or guilt of Margaret is left up to the reader. I didn’t even consider about Margaret’s innocence, because I was too busy thinking about how she was such a money grabber and was abusing Francis’s cowardice. Even though I agree with your point that the characters are developed in their interaction with one another, I also think that Wilson’s interpretations of Francis and Margaret are good accurate characterizations. After the lion incident and he insults Francis and receives and apology, he thought, “He was all ready to break it off quickly and neatly and here the beggar was apologizing after he had just insulted him” (8). The way the word beggar was used to describe Francis, I thought it represented how Francis had no control of his own life, but dependent on his wife that abused him and didn’t love him. He also seems to have some insight on Margaret’s personality as well. He thinks that, “They are the hardest in the world; the hardest, the cruelest, the most predatory and the most attractive…” (9). He seems to realize that Margaret has control over Francis and that she dictates him like the hunter hunting its prey. So I believe that Wilson’s thoughts are a method Hemingway uses in order to portray his characters.
I agree with Emily's response to the question, that Margot was a shallow woman, interested only in her own benefits. But do you think that there was a reason for the way she was? If something perhaps happened in her past to make her so selfish and uncaring of her husband. We know that she married him for his money, but do you think that there might have been some love for him in the beginning and if so, what happened to it?
Maddy i feel the same way, but i felt as the story went on, it got to the point where i felt obliged to feel sorry for Macomber. I am thankful that you answered my question though.
Emily:
It's simple..if your spouse "accidentally" dies you inherit all of his/her money. After all, that IS why she married him in the first place.
And Sarah:
Personally, I don't believe that she loved him in the beginning. I don't believe that either of them loved each other actually. It is my personal belief that this marriage was based on convenience: He acquired a beautiful wife and she acquired wealth.
Sarah I like how you have drawn up the character of Margot. When I was reading the story i never stopped to think that Hemingway was building up her character that early in the story. I guess it sometimes takes the observation of someone else to show a greater understanding of what is happening.
Kali: You bring up a great point - if Macomber dies, then Margaret is free to do whatever she wishes, even if it means gaining access to Macomber's bank account. This ultimately establishes a motive for her. Like you mentioned, she never loved Macomber; it was a business deal that benefited both parties. Therefore, I believe her crying at the end of the story was a mere ruse to fool others into thinking that the death was an accident.
Kyle:
I really liked your analysis on Hemingway's use of imagery as a method of characterization. I liked how you connected the players physical attributes to their personalities. This idea ties into mine and preeti's comment about Hemingway's economic use of words. Every word contributes to the characterization.
Further more, I completely agree that Margot had a motive. Not just an economic, but an emotional one. Her life was all about her independence and dominance. A threat on that was in her mind a threat on her life, and therefore adequate justification for murdering her husband.
Hemingway develops his characters by describing the character’s actions and thoughts and ultimately giving the reader the opportunity to develop their own conclusion about the characters. Hemingway describes Francis Macomber a number of times, but mainly before and after the lion hunt, where he showed great change. Hemingway shows Francis Macomber’s great change by describing his cowardice during the lion hunt, but then describing his bravery during the buffalo hunt. When the lion started to charge Macomber, Hemingway said, “The next thing he knew he was running; running wildly, in panic in the open” (17). Hemingway describes Macomber’s actions when confronted by the lion to let the reader draw the conclusion of his massive cowardice. When the buffalo retreated into the bush, Macomber eagerly said, “Can we go in after him now?”(25). Hemingway used Macomber’s dialogue to show the reader that he has lost his cowardice and is now eager for the hunt. Margaret is negatively described by her actions when Margaret left the tent for two hours with the simple excuse, “I just went out to get a breath of air” (18). Hemingway uses Margaret’s decision to cheat on her husband to characterize her as unfaithful and as a woman who is only interested in money and not love by saying, “Macomber had too much money for Margot ever to leave him” (18). Wilson is simply described as a man who kills anything for business. When Margaret asked, “You do kill anything, don’t you?” and he replied, “Simply anything”(9,9).
Psinghal: I like how you said that we, as readers, will never know if Margaret shot Macomber on purpose or if it was just an accident. Margaret did seem shaken up after she shot Macomber, but that could just be a cover so it did not seem that she murdered Macomber. At first, I believed that Margaret shot him on purpose but after she started crying and freaking out, I began to wonder if it was indeed an accident.
Post a Comment