'Hemingway’s The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber Essay\r'

' The three characters in Hemingway’s The niggling Happy Life of Francis Macomber form a triplicity in which the relationships are not crown from the beginning. The plot of the short twaddle is not very complicate: during a safari, the rich and handome Francis Macomber proves to be a co harbor when he runs off s simple machineed while hunt down the lion he had wounded. In fact, the attribute of ‘coward’ is given(p) to him, indirectly, by his wife Margot and by Wilson, the hunter who accompanies them on the expedition.\r\nThe whole story thus revolves around the cleanup of the lion, an act which dupems to be the ultimate proof of manhood, and, which constitutes thence a immense attraction to women. The setting and the place setting of the story- the safari in the uncivilisederness of Africa- seem to fixate also the plot: Hemingway chooses for his characters two Americans with a great wealth and cordial stand, who are supposed to be very civilized, and exposes in fact their instinctual sort, which seems to have kept its wild nature.\r\nFrancis Macomber and Robert Wilson ‘fight’, by proving their courage in the hunt, for the ‘female’ who will instinctually choose the lovesomeer of the two. The fact that the behavior of wild animals and that of humans have a green pattern is emphasized by Hemingway careful note of the lion’s ‘feelings’ while he is being hunted by the two men. Thus, a clear connection is established between men and the wild animals:\r\nâ€Å"Macomber had not thought how the lion felt as he got out of the car. He only knew his hands were shaking and as he walked away from the car it was almost impossible for him to make his legs move.”(Hemingway, 8)\r\nThus, afterwardward Macomber’s failure in the hunt of the lion, Margot kisses the ‘winner’, Wilson, and wholly ignores her economise, and her behavior seems to be the exact pattern of the creatures in the wilderness. Further much, the very night after Macomber’s defeat, she goes to rump with Wilson, without even stressful to dissimulate in bird-scarer of her husband. The courage to kill and to reckon death is interpreted here as the main criteria for manhood: â€Å" care gone like an operation. Some involvement else grew in its place. Main thing a man had. Made him into a man. Women knew it too. No bloody idolatry.”(Hemingway, 12)\r\nThe marriage between Francis and Margot had been nothing more than a profit adequate business affair, him having the money and she the beauty. As it is hinted, these interests are the only things that kept them together still. some(prenominal) of them seem to be sure these ties are strong enough to secure against a break-up. However, after having imbed out about his wife’s betrayal, Macomber’s instinctive nature seems to be awakened: he discovers the exhilaration that the hunt and th e sidesplittings produce in him, and his fear is completely gone. Still, Margot is not pleased by her husband’s success, as one would expect.\r\nShe sooner feels threatened, and tries to becloud it by resuming her contemptuous attitude towards him: â€Å"’You’ve gotten atrociously brave, awfully suddenly,’ his wife said contemptuously, but her contempt was not secure. She was very afraid of something.”(Hemingway, 11) Thus, Margot ‘rewards’ the braveness of her husband by killing him while he was fighting the bull, apparently trying to aim at the beast. However, it is obvious that she kills him intentionally, first of all, because of her distant behavior before the send off, and also because of the logic of events.\r\nAs Hemingway hints, ‘she was afraid of something’ and it can plainly be seen that that something was the fact that Macomber might leave her for her betrayal, right away that he undercoat his self-assura nce and his manliness again. This is exactly what Wilson alludes at after the ‘accident’: â€Å"’That was a pretty thing to do,’ he said in a toneless voice. ‘He would have left you too.’”(Hemingway, 14)\r\nShe thus kills her husband to ward off the danger of having him leave her. This is proven by her strong emotions during the bull hunt, in which Macomber finally shows his braveness: her heart is white with fear and probably contrasting feelings. At first she seems to congratulate again the winner, this time her husband:\r\nâ€Å"’In the car Macomber’s wife sit very white-faced. ‘You were marvelous, darling,’ she said to Macomber. ‘What a ride.’”(Hemingway, 13) Nonetheless, her admiration curtly turns into the fear that her husband will desert her: â€Å"Her face was white and she looked ill.” Again, the fact that Margot kills her husband on dissolve coheres with the rest of her instinctive behavior: although the main soil of the killing seems to be his fortune or her social stand which she might lose, it may be that her murder is again instinctive, in the sense that she is afraid of losing the now desirable man, because of his courage. She prefers shooting him, again cohering with the hunt.\r\nHer ‘hysterical’ squall over the dead body of her husband do not manage to convince us of her honor or her pain at the loss: she rather mourns him either because she needs to act in calculate of the other hunters, or because she has to give up the hoagie she had been looking for. The way in which she changes her mind after Macomber’s success, and she says that their hunting is by no inwardness a heroic act, clearly demonstrates that she feels trapped, again manifesting her instinctual nature. At the end of the story, she herself is defeated by Wilson, who plainly lets her see that he knows the truth, and seems to enjoy the feeling of being able to submit her to his will, and have her beg: â€Å"That’s better, ‘Wilson said. ‘ ravish is much better. Now I’ll stop.’(Hemingway, 14)\r\nThe meanings of Hemingway’s story are thus very complex, as he analyzes the instinctual relationships between men and women, and other instincts, such as that of killing and hunting or of possessing and dominating.\r\nWorks Cited:\r\nHemingway, Ernest. The actualize Short Stories. New York: Scribner Paperback Fiction, 1998\r\n'