Talk:The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber

Untitled
This great short story is analized quite poorly, not even one word of Mrs. Macomber's adultery, which is a crucial part of the short story. Better have someone who is truly devoted to Ernest clean up this article

A group of Wikipedia administrators are at work revising Wikipedia_talk:No original research. Better have a look. --Wetman 07:57, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. there's nothing but a bunch of fancy analysis in here. almost nothing about the story.


 * And now everything is about the story. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for original analysis. It can however report analysis from a notable source. 81.178.97.3 21:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The essence of The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber is courage
This is totally wrong, the essence is the relationship between a man and a woman, who has the power in the relationship, and when that power equilibrium is disturbed, the consequences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.134.213.226 (talk) 18:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Why revert my edits?
User:EeepEeep: Reverting all my work on this article to your last version, without so much as even an edit summary is pretty rude. Are you asserting ownership? Discuss here on the talk page. Many of my edits are direct quotes from the work itself, and the rest is just as valid as anything else the article contains, that is unsourced. Quotes from the work need no source cite-- the work itself is the source. I'm going to revert it back. I'd appreciate it if you'd make changes one at a time, give your argument here, and (preferably) get some input from other people. Seeking consensus, I will not of course, stand against the opinion of the crowd. But you're not the crowd. Thanks S  B Harris 02:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, there's no option to leave a comment when doing a rollback, but the reasons ought to be obvious. Your edits added nothing to the page, it read more like a review than a plot summary, and contained numerous speculative comments about things that aren't in the text.  Since I didn't write any of the text on this page I can't understand why you'd think I was asserting ownership.  Don't take it personally, take it for what it is - reversion of edits that didn't add anything and violated wikipedia guidelines. EeepEeep (talk) 03:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason "rollback" has no option for adding an edit diff summary, is that it was and is designed as a tool to fight vandalism, not to remove added quotations from a work, and other good faith edits. You misuse the tool and complain that it's not doing what you'd like. That my edits have added "nothing" to the article may be your personal opinion, but I do not share it, and I'd like some input from other editors on the matter before this happens. Thus, I'm going to revert your "rollback" one more time (that's 2R for me, but if you do it again, it's 3R for you). Meanwhile, I invite comment from other editors on this matter. And by the way, Wilson's opinion that he has seen Macomber "come of age" but late, long after his 21st birthday, is not a speculative comment, but is asserted by the text of the story I quoted, and you removed (it's far more directly supported than the idea that Wilson has slept with Margo, which the text never explicitly says). Do you not think Macomber's coming of age is important, considering the massive volume of work Hemingway wrote on the matter of coming of age (most of the Nick Adams stories)? And to this particular work, as well? I also point out that the Wiki article as it stands (and to which you keep reverting) contains some rather silly passages which aren't supported by the text, either. "Wilson begins to fire at the beast as well, but it refuses to die." That is where the WP article, as it stands, leaves things-- with an animal that refuses to die. You like this as a "plot summary"? The buffalo does actually die, you know. The manner and timing of its death might actually mean something literarily, too; but we'd have to describe them first, would we not? S  B Harris 03:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, Wikilawyering and Tendentious editing. Great way to encourage discussion and consensus.  You're taking this far too personally and putting words in my mouth.  I didn't "complain that it's not doing what [I'd] like" or any such.  I considered your edits vandalism as they were (and are) it's more of a review than a summary, and therefore completely unconstructive.  These kinds of edits are common among articles describing literary works; they are summarily removed in most cases.  FYI the 3RR only refers to a 24 hour period, so you're at 2 while I'm at 1.
 * I'm not a fan of the current summary, but yours is no improvement. I don't like the bit about the beast refusing to die either, which is clearly not an encyclopedic description.  Of course your summary contains many instances of overly florid prose as well.  I didn't really have the inclination to fix it up at the time as for the most part it's unsalvageable, so just reverting it seemed the proper thing to do.  The current version is a far better baseline for improving the article, and we should work from that.
 * For one thing, the style employed in your edits is terrible. There are too many quotes, particularly inline quotes where it isn't clear if it's from the text or your own emphasis.  Also it's far to long for a summary of a story that's only a few pages long to begin with.
 * Examples of speculation and original research: "The story makes clear that she has strayed before, but her husband lacks sufficient courage to end their marriage. Instead he endures the humiliation." "An important passage in the story occurs in the moments just before Francis and Wilson go into the bush after the buffalo."  "Francis' new "happy life" as an unafraid man has been an exceedingly short one, lasting only hours." "Wilson's first words to Mrs. Macomber show that he thinks she has killed her husband on purpose, in order to avoid losing control of him, and perhaps to avoid being divorced by him."
 * So I think we can agree that the best action now is to remove your edits again and start making improvements to the the current summary. If there's any bits of your review that aren't speculation or original research and add something to the summary then add them!  That's what collaboration's all about! EeepEeep (talk) 07:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In my view many of the Hemingway articles can be improved. That the story is short and thus doesn't deserve a long article isn't an argument that applies to Hemingway. I'm sure with some digging, SBHarris can find sources, or other editors can find sources. Simply place a fact tag after the questionable material, or look for sources to add. We all have rollback privileges, (I assume), and I would not define SBHarris' edits as vandalism, nor would I rollback here. I'm at work today, but will look for sources for the story and place them in the references section as soon as I have time. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Analysis of the type that Sbharris wants to present are fine if properly cited and in a separate section. Clearly they do not belong in the plot summary. In my experience most editors consider "replacing the summary with a book report" edits as a form of vandalism.  But it's a minor point.  I serious doubt Sbharris would be less upset if I'd reverted each edit individually.  On a related note, can all editors please try to use preview rather than doing multiple edits of the same piece of text?  It makes collaboration extremely difficult. EeepEeep (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Generally a plot summary doesn't require citations. The critical analysis does. I do preview, and tend to make multiple edits if necessary. Certainly if you don't like that, I'm happy to step away from this piece. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 04:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody said anything about putting citations in the plot summary. And a quick glance at the edit history should make it clear who doesn't know how to use preview. EeepEeep (talk) 09:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that a plot summary generally doesn't need citations, but critical analysis does. Having said that, it's impossible to summarize a plot very much without some analysis, because by definition, that's what "summary" involves. If you don't do some analysis you are left with simply reprinting the entire story. For example, Wilson to Margo: ''' "That was a pretty thing to do," he said in a toneless voice. "He would have left you too." ''' Now, the meaning of this is: Wilson is accusing Margo of killing Francis on purpose, to avoid him leaving her. Critics disagree on whether she does this, but no critic disagrees that Wilson thinks she did this, and why he thinks so. What I don't understand, is how you think this is some novel interpretation of my own. Francis certainly understands Wilson well enough! Perhaps English is not your first language? (If not, why are you editing English short stories?) I will agree with you that some of my other comments should have been put in the criticism section, with a tag on them till I can find the critic who's said the same thing. But there's nothing novel or original in what I've said about this story, I assure you. S B Harris 06:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again you managed to misinterpret everything I said. I'm trying to assume good faith here, but it really seems like you're being intentionally obtuse.  If you think that "it's impossible to summarize a plot very much without some analysis" then you shouldn't be writing summaries.  By definition, a summary has NO analysis in it.  If you want to add an analysis section with proper citations by well known critics and everything, then go for it.  Bu analyses are by definition subjective, so including this type of material in the summary is original research if uncited and undue weight if it is cited.  For example, you say "no critic disagrees that Wilson thinks she did this," but this is actually a hotly contested point among critics. EeepEeep (talk) 09:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, actually, it isn't. Name ONE critic who contests that Wilson thinks Margo murdered her husband. Critics may think she did or didn't but none of them have any doubts about what Wilson thinks, since Wilson says what he thinks, plainly enough. Whether the critics side with Wilson and dislike Margo (Carlos Baker, Virgil Hutton), or whether they side with Margo and consider Wilson a manipulator and hypocrite (Nina Baym and the feminists) no critic questions that Wilson accuses Margo of murder. Why else does she say “Stop it” over and over, if not to make him stop accusing her of murder? What else can Wilson mean when he asks Margo immediately after the death: “Why didn’t you poison him?” Do you think he’s joking? This is not a rhetorical question-- please answer. Also, critic Warren Beck and Hemingway’s major biographers Jeffrey Meyers and Jackson Benson both discuss the story and accept that Wilson thinks Francis did it on purpose (whether she actually did or didn’t-—the point is what Wilson thinks, as that is the point I summarize). There really isn’t any critical debate on this point at all, but feel free to name names and give cites. It’s rather silly to cite something which is obvious on the face of it, but have at it, if you must. And I'll add some if I must, but Hemingway's meaning is pretty plain to adult native speakers of English. Finally, you’re also totally wrong about summary/synopsis and should think through the matter of objective and subjective, when doing work like this. Yes, I know Wikipedia's policies themselves are sometimes confused, but that's not my problem, rather that of Wikipedia (nobody writes an original article without at least some original work-- it's impossible). There is nothing about the definition of summary which excludes analysis, and in fact you cannot do a summary of a short story without analysis (and understanding). A computer cannot provide a short summary of a story, because this involves the analytic function of deciding which bits are important enough to include and which are not. That requires understanding, and ultimately, judgment. Your average high school student cannot summarize this story, and for a very good reason. Such judgment is one of the reasons why you and I are arguing; the only odd thing is that you apparently think your point of view about this summary doesn’t represent a “judgment,” but that mine does! I note that it is especially difficult to summarize a story by Hemingway which is both complex and already boiled down to only essentials, in the Hemingway style. This leaves endless questions. Is the Shakespeare quote important enough to mention in a summary, including its source and speaker (a fool)? What about great fearless white-hunter Wilson’s not wanting to hunt buffalo with Macomber in thick cover? How about the fact that fearless Wilson carries a “damned cannon” (a .505 Gibbs) but leaves Macomber with a .30-’06 for buffalo? Do we note that Wilson steps aside and leaves Macomber in the animal’s path? Do we mention that Margo has a 6.5 Mannlicher? If it is not important in the story, why does Hemminway, who knew his firearms, mention these weapons so specifically? What about Francis’ speech that suggests Margo has had affairs before, and Wilson’s own estimation also that she has, and that her husband knows and has had to deal with them? Important or not? What about Wilson’s judgment that Margo is “enameled in that American female cruelty?” You seem to have the answers here, as you’ve left these things out. You’ve reverted me when I’ve tried to add them. Very well, what is your logic? S  B Harris 00:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The Sbharris summary should be restored. If he doesn't restore himself, then I will. The summary, as he wrote it, perfectly summarizes the short Hemingway story. It's necessary to provide a good summary (which it is) to set off the criticism section. As "The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber" is considered Hemingway's best short story, by critics and Hemingway, there is quite a bit of criticism to add. I have sources to make a start, but will wait until the summary section has been resolved. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

 * I've added references. Everything I've read backs up the version Sbharris wrote, which is also much better written than the current version. I started to try to meld the two, but decided it was pointless, as Sbharris has made the necessary edits to improve the article. Now it's simply a matter of providing sources. I'd suggest the entire Sbharris version be reinstated. I'm happy to add sources. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems like you're not reading my comments or trying to understand my concerns. Analysis does not belong in the plot summary.  It doesn't matter if Sbharris' analysis is confirmed by something you read.  You're free to start an analysis section if you want.  Please make an effort to understand wikipedia policy. EeepEeep (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand the policy. Civility is one of the five pillars, as is consensus. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm all for civility and consensus, which is why I find your and Sbharris' behavior so baffling. But a consensus to ignore WP:OR would still violate wikipedia policy, no?
 * I've expressed my concerns; you, Sbharris, or any other editor is free to comment here or edit the article as they see fit. If Sbharris feels strongly that the material he added is appropriate, the best course of action is to address the concerns I raised and re-add it, rather than expressing indignation and making personal attacks. EeepEeep (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You tell me to understand wikipedia policies, which I consider an attack. In turn I ask you to be civil, which I assume you consider an attack. I've added references. I'm working on the analysis section, yet you remove my cites even as I'm adding more! SbHarris' version does not constitute original research, but it is uncited. Have you looked to for sources for this article? That's always a good beginning. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't remove any cites, I just followed wikipedia guidelines and put one at the end of the paragraph rather than one on each sentence. And I'm genuinely interested if it's a direct quote or not.  I find it hard to see how anyone could interpret that as an accusation.  It's part of collaboration.  If you were being civil and assuming good faith you'd just answer the question.
 * If you and Sbharris want to add this material, then it's up to you to provide cites. As I'm sure you're aware, a synthesis of cited materials may still be considered original research.  I won't remove it since I'm tired of being bitten while I'm just trying to improve wikipedia, but it's very likely that another editor will. EeepEeep (talk) 23:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you added the "Analyisis" section. I will now clean-up to format accordingly. Of course I know about synthesis. What am I synthesizing? Have I not been providing cites? What else have have I done wrong? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're clearly being disingenuous and I no longer have the patience for this. If you're ever interested in a productive discussion about the material in this article, let me know. EeepEeep (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Analysis
The analysis section consists of one sentence? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's pretty weak, but some editors feel strongly that this material belongs, so I expect they'll expand the section. If not it'll probably get removed soon. EeepEeep (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do not accuse me of adding a direct quotation to a wikipedia article as you have done here. The source is available on the web and appropriately linked. Have a read, and feel free to add even more! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Reformatting & other progress
I've reformatted the sections according to WP:NOVSTY and added a short story infobox. Waiting to hear whether I can use the image I uploaded earlier today, or whether I should upload a different image of Hem in Africa from the JFK Library. This article has promise but needs a little work. Would still like to see the longer plot summary reinstated, but am leaving this for now. Will return in a few days. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Lynn
Interestingly, Lynn has yet another view on Macomber. He agrees with the assessment of the flat-eyed, redfaced (literally bloodyminded) Wilson as embodiment of the British empire, good at blowing the heads off animals and doing whatever he needs to do to control the world, however it has to be done. His .505 is his symbol of overkill, as we said. But Lynn believes EH thinks of Margot as simply pure feminine instinct, much like the unfairly-hated wife in Kilimanjaro, who even that character recognizes is not at fault for a marriage that does not work. If she'd wanted Francis dead she'd have let the buffalo do it. She responds to the manly-man Wilson, but can't help herself, inasmuch as Francis has about as much manhood as Jake Barnes, when the story begins. Lynn observes that Margot begins the tale by indicating her preference for a gin drink named for a boring tool (Wilson's drink) rather than the squishy yellow one that Francis is going to have. She says she needs it. :) That's clear. And she gets it, but EH views that as simply the way woman are. In Lynn's view Hemingway is split between the Francis personna he's afraid he has, and the Wilson one that he wants (but also fears), and who is due the tributes paid him. Wilson does indeed say all the bad things about Margot, but on the other hand, he's a controlling bastard, too, and they may not be true. An excised paragraph from The Green Hills of Africa EH says almost exactly the same thing about his idea that you become a man when you lose all fear (and he also decides that his father has been a coward for killing himself), but Francis' death may simply be the accident that it seems to be (of course Wilson will use it against Margo). The real EH was pissed off at the time that his Havana girlfriend at the time (Jane Mason) had gone to Africa and been snapped up by a white hunter (not Percival, a guy named Cooper), but his statements about Margo being a bitch in later years may not be trustable. At the time he wrote the story, he didn't feel so disparagingly toward women (even American women) as he later came to feel. S B Harris 05:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This is all good stuff. I won't get to back to this article in the near future, but you should add it in the themes section if you have time. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Philip Percival
Hi. I was wondering if it makes sense to add a reference to Philip Percival, and Hemingway's 1934 Safari (pictured in the article)? Maybe also a reference to Bror Blixen? I was reading that Wilson was modeled after the two of them, mostly Percival. I couldn't figure out a good place to add this to the article though. Anyone have any suggestions? It is also interesting that one of Percival's proteges, Sydney Downey, worked with the crew of the movie, "The Macomber Affair," when they were filming it, but maybe that's too trivial to mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macomberaffair (talk • contribs) 13:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This page needs considerable expansion. Thanks for the suggestions. Feel free to add anything yourself. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Adaptations
"The Short Happy Life of Frances Maccomber" was adapted into a radio play on an episode of NBC University Theater. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.229.254 (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 08:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)