Very Intentional

[Teelyn]

---

ELee wrote
If she were a cool, calculating killer, why not play Wilsons game and come back with some witty verbal parry to his insinuations? No, Margot will pay...

---

Exactly! Now, Wilson is definitely the type, but not Margot.

[fanuzzir]

---

Teelyn wrote:
Wilson didn't like Macomber's openness- talking about feelings and ideas that Wilson claimed one shouldn't discuss. Wilson didn't like Macomber's cowardice nor Macomber's role in his marriage e.g. Wilson- the morning after sleeping with Margot, prodes Macomber "Why not order her to stay in camp?" I think Wilson began to like the possibilities of what Macomber was becoming due to the buffalo hunt, but as he often thought "You most certainly could not tell a damned thing about an American."




Great great comments: the unraveling of the machismo bond between men. On the one hand it's a classic triagne, with Margot in the middle, and on the other, there are two men who never liked each other, who had no reason to like each other, and now realize that they don't have to like each other. The hunting bond just evaporates like the morning after dew. That's an incredible scene over breakfast, everyone, the most economical destruction of a threesome I've ever seen. Thanks so much for widening the terms of discussion beyond Margot--clearly Hemingway wants us to focus on her but there's also a vile male relationship that shouldn't go untouched.

[ziki]

---

Teelyn wrote:
Hemingway's Margot seemed to lead a very shallow life, which was alright since Macomber was also a shallow man. But if he had time to grow, he might have dared to expect more from life, and from her. She knows she has little to offer besides beauty. Even Wilson knows it "That was a pretty thing to do. He would have left you too." To go as far as to kill her husband because his budding strength shows up her weakness was a serious thing for her. And her reaction tells me that it wasn't planned- impulsive actions like murder usually don't leave normal people unchanged.

---

I think I see this theme of shortlived female beauty as a recurrent theme in Hemingway's work. It appears clearly in different forms in Sun Also Rises (both Brett and Frances) to name some example. It magnetizes men into the orbit of a woman and holds them there for a while and then it seems like the woman lives a very dubious existence after that stage. In EH's life his third wife was not content with it and as it appears he was not able to handle the independent working woman even if he actually looked for an equal partner and was not content with a traditional domestic life. The love affair beyond the infatuation seems to be an impossible business in H's writing.

However, I guess many men easily recognize themselves in the pernicious situations with women that Hemingway describes.

ziki

[ziki]

---

ELee wrote: I think her hysteria at the end indicated how much over the edge she had thrown herself. If she were a cool, calculating killer, why not play Wilsons game and come back with some witty verbal parry to his insinuations?

---

Again the "iceberg" comes into focus here. What if her subconsious was the part that acted. No one says this was a planned situation. There was no time to plan. Life happens. Sometimes awfully quickly. Not everything is just black and white, there are shades of grey inbetween. You wrote your post about leaves and shades....same here.

Things "just happen" in life...but they happen for a reason we assign to it. How aware you are about the reason is another story.

Sure she could have aimed at the animal...but she killed her husband!
Hysteria seems to me to be the integral part of the picture of women that H. paints.
And that is OK, too, because he didn't live to witness the feminists, 70-ies and the resulting confusion genders inbetween.

ziki

[ziki]

---

Teelyn wrote:

---

ELee wrote
If she were a cool, calculating killer, why not play Wilsons game and come back with some witty verbal parry to his insinuations? No, Margot will pay...

---

Exactly! Now, Wilson is definitely the type, but not Margot.

---

Right, women will always try to nail the men!

ziki

[fanuzzir]

I'm starting to get very uncomfortable with the theme of the wife as a killer-castrator. I'm seeing that Hemingway had some big problem here with female beauty, with women's sexulity, and made them both as devastatingly injurious to a man as they could be (she belittles him and cheats on him in the same day). Then she finished the job at 50 yards. I'm starting to see this story less than about a relationship, like "Hills like White Elephants," and more about some primal female urge. After all, the short story shows the primal male urge to kill animals.

[bentley]

---

fanuzzir wrote:
I'm starting to get very uncomfortable with the theme of the wife as a killer-castrator. I'm seeing that Hemingway had some big problem here with female beauty, with women's sexulity, and made them both as devastatingly injurious to a man as they could be (she belittles him and cheats on him in the same day). Then she finished the job at 50 yards. I'm starting to see this story less than about a relationship, like "Hills like White Elephants," and more about some primal female urge. After all, the short story shows the primal male urge to kill animals.

---

I agree...I see some very base animalistic tendencies and responses in this story. Nobody was that endearing.

[ziki]

My impression is that in the "white elephants" there is still a dance of the male and female, still some attempt at caring about each other, however much out of synch.

(Death is present indirectly and only in the third element, they may kill something they created together, it doesn't have to be the possible fetus, can be also a feeling of togetherness, something is ending....we do not know what that will mean).

Even in Snows of Kilimajaro there still exists a communication of sorts between the couple even if disjointed. He admits his false attitude at least to himself, he tries to show it openly to her, too but she clings to her own image of love. (Death here comes to the man and the relationship, naturally, by chance by carelessness, they didn't care enough about each other.)

In Macombe it's lethal. It's pure fear, cold control, and calculation and dependence, tactical play. (Death is caused [intentionaly of unintentionally]-no matter. They can't come out of the connection alive, unharmed.)

A woman has the same killing ability as a man but it can show in a more convoluted manner. In man is is overt (as in Wilson's and Macombe's hunting) in women it is covert and in that respect it is very discomforting, yes. Unpredictable.

ziki

Message Edited by ziki on 02-20-200711:39 PM

[LeuschenN]

In The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber, Francis’ death is usually just defined as “accidental or intentional.” However, I believe that it was neither, it was pure instinct. Francis’ is a reactionary because of his new found courage. Margot, sensing the end of her time, much like the Lion, prepared herself to do what was necessary to maintain trampy life style she had come to enjoy. Label it how you want, but realize that there can’t be complete summation of the action in either the word accidental or intentional.

[kaipustc]

In the story The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber, I think that the wife intentionally killed Macomber. The lion in the story represents Mrs. Macomber’s control over Francis. The bull is filled with hate and anger, which is a parallel between Francis and the bull, with eyes and blood rushing. I knew she was going to kill him when she said she thought he got real brave all of the sudden because then she feared she would not be able to control him anymore. She only stayed in the relationship so she could control him enough to get money out of him. I though her position behind her husband with a gun in the end was a dead give away that the bull was going to come out and she would be able to shoot at Francis. Mrs. Macomber was hoping the bull would charge out like the lion did. And, Mrs. Macomber got her wish and succeeded in the perfect murder.

[Hartranft_T]

I believe in "The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber", Margot defintiely intentionally killed her husband. It couldn't have been pure instinct and it certainly didnt' just happen. Margot was an overcontrolling wife and nobody liked her and the only reason she stuck around was becuase her husband Francis was very wealthy and she used him for his money. She even cheated on him. She had no intentions of staying with him excpet for his money. As soon as i read she was standing there with the gun and he turned around and waved at her and then she didn't wave back i knew that he was a dead man walking. i think she just got fed up with the fact that he had overcome her adn he wasn't going to let her bully him around anymore she feared not having control and so in turn she murdered him in dead cold blood. It was most definitely intentional!

[HoldcroftA]

How does "The Short Happy Life of Francis McCumber" show how Hemingway viewed American men and women?

[ajanak08]

Hemingway uses TSHLOFM as a way giving his opinion about American men and women during his time. Francis Macbomer's wife is unfaithful to him, and feels she can manipulate her husband. Hemingway's disdain for women is shown through Francis' wife's actions throughout the story. The character of Francis Macomber shows Hemingway's belief that American men often were cowards in the face of real danger. When faced with his first lion on the safari, Macomber panics and admits his fear.

[mpierson]

I think that “The Short and Happy Life of Francis Macomber” reflects some of Hemingway’s opinions of men and women. This story casts American men in an unflattering light. They are not men because they are cowards and they have been made cowards by all of the privileges they have been afforded. American women all practice “bitchery”. They want only the manliest men and men with a lot of money. Overall this story does not express an overwhelming faith in mankind.

[Gajewski_J]

---

ELee wrote:
Question: Was it accidental or intentional?

---

I believe that the killing of Francis Macomber, ending his short and happy life, was not intentional, but rather accidental. Many people argue that Margot Macomber, Francis’ wife, intentionally kills Francis because he is becoming too brave and will leave her to go hunting for other younger and more beautiful women. Although, I believe that if she really did feel this way then she could have simply let the buffalo kill him, because from her viewpoint it appears as if Francis’ death is imminent on account of the charging buffalo. Letting the buffalo kill Francis would have allowed her hands to be blood-free. In regards to Margot actually shooting the gun, I believe she shot it because she wanted to regain some of her psychological advantage over Francis. Ever since Francis successfully shot the first buffalo she has lost her edge over Francis. If she were to successfully shoot the charging buffalo from that range, then she could hold it over Francis’ head that she saved his skin from impending death, also denying Francis’ chances of killing the buffalo himself.