# Editing Internet Texts/Women in Hemingway's fiction/Margaret Macomber

Out of all Hemingway’s female characters, Margaret Macomber from “The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber” is most probably the least likely to evoke empathy in readers. In this short story, set in Africa, Hemingway explores the themes of courage and masculinity by presenting a wealthy American couple on a safari which tragically ends in Francis Macomber’s death. The ambiguous ending scene, which leaves readers with the question whether his death was an accident or a cold-blooded murder, serves as the basis for either reviling Margaret as a “deadly” woman or defending her against such accusations.
One of the first things we learn about Margot is her exceptional beauty:
   She was an extremely handsome and well-kept woman of the beauty and social position which had, five years before, commanded five thousand dollars as the price of endorsing, with photographs, a beauty product which she had never used”.
Appearance is, in fact, her most significant value, if not the only one. It is also the reason why she is married to Francis: “Margot was too beautiful for Macomber to divorce her and Macomber had too much money for Margot ever to leave him”. Although their marriage is mutually beneficial, it is definitely not an idyllic one. This is evident in one of their conversations which certainly does not resemble those of happily married couples: “You are a bitch”, he says. “Well, you’re a coward”, she replies. It is not enough to say that they do not love each other, Margot actually despises her husband for his cowardice. Francis also does not hold his wife in high esteem because of her infidelity.
We may assume that it were not only her affairs which contributed to the failure of their marriage, but also Macomber’s spinelessness. Hemingway presents him as the exact opposite of his code hero as he is neither courageous nor honourable. In their marriage Margot is the one who wields authority. She dominates and, consequently, emasculates Francis who cannot control or even oppose his wife. She does not even try to conceal her affairs because she knows she will not suffer the consequences:
   “You think that I’ll take anything.” “I know you will, sweet.” “Well, I won’t.” “Please, darling, let’s not talk. I’m so very sleepy”.
Critics agree on Margot’s viciousness. According to Baker, she is “really and literally deadly” and “[e]asily the most unscrupulous of Hemingway’s fictional females” who “covets her husband’s money but values even more her power over him”. Fiedler argues that “[w]hen Hemingway’s bitches are Americans, they are hopeless and unmitigated bitches.” Similarly, Wilson believes that Margot is one of the “American bitches of the most soul-destroying sort”.
Margot appears to be a perfect example of Hemingway’s “deadly” women. Contrary to Brett, she shows no remorse for her acts and seems to have no positive traits which makes it virtually impossible to justify her behaviour. Instead, throughout the narrative she provides us with many proofs of her cruelty. Even though she has been unfaithful to her husband before and probably even felt contempt for him, Francis’s public display of cowardice is a turning point in their relationship. Francis may have not had the courage to kill the lion, but, after all, he behaved in a way most sane people would while faced with a predator. Margot, however, is in no way empathetic or supportive of her husband, but rather disdains him. What is more, she adds to his shame when she humiliates him by kissing the hunter. Not only that, Margot dares to sleep with Wilson right next to her husband’s tent.
   “There wasn’t going to be any of that. You promised there wouldn’t be.” “Well, there is now,” she said sweetly. “You said if we made this trip that there would be none of that. You promised.” “Yes, darling. That’s the way I meant it to be. But the trip was spoiled yesterday. We don’t have to talk about it, do we?”.
Furthermore, Wilson’s presentation of Margot reinforces readers’ negative perception of the character. He sees her as a femme fatale, a beautiful but destructive and domineering woman and says that she is one of “the hardest in the world; the hardest, the cruellest, the most predatory and the most attractive and their men have softened or gone to pieces nervously as they have hardened”. his is, however, his general view of American women which may indicate that his presentation of Margot is biased, influenced by his prejudices and stereotypes. Despite the story being narrated by a third person omniscient narrator, we are frequently given insights into Wilson’s mind and his thoughts. Some critics call attention to Wilson’s subjectivity and, therefore, unreliability so as to defend Margot. They claim that since we see her from Wilson’s perspective, we are made to believe in her evilness. Still, Margaret’s treatment of Francis and her statements seem to serve as ample evidence of her callousness.
It is, however, the ending scene which arouses critics’ interest. The ambiguity of Macomber’s shooting resulted in numerous conflicting interpretations and the division of critics as well as readers into the ones who condemn Margot as a murderer driven by fear or hatred and the ones who believe her innocent and trying to save her husband. It is an indisputable fact that Margaret shoots and kills Francis, but Hemingway leaves the question open as to whether his death was an accident or a murder.
One of the most frequently mentioned reasons for why she would want her husband dead is fear. In the story Margot is presented as a domineering woman who has power over her husband since he is too weak to stand up to her, not to mention leaving her. Knowing that gives her a sense of security and allows her to enjoy her comfortable, affluent life.
As well as being driven by fear, she may also be driven by her lust for power. She might have shot Macomber purposefully in order to preserve her control over him. She clearly resents his courage and confidence and is not willing to see him dominating their relationship. By being the one who ends her husband’s life, Margot regains her authority. Furthermore, Hemingway presents the Macombers as a couple corrupted by money. Margot does not love her husband, but his money which is the reason why she married him in the first place. His death would make her a rich widow and, in addition, she would not have to put up with her vapid, cowardly husband which looks like a perfect scenario for her.
What is more, she seems to relish her husband’s failures for they confirm her dominance. Therefore, when Francis displays bravery which signals his change into a real man, Margot feels threatened and “contemptuously” says, “You’ve gotten awfully brave, awfully suddenly”, but, as we are informed, “her contempt was not secure. She was very afraid of something”.
Nevertheless, not all critics are convinced of Margaret’s killer instincts. It is often claimed that one’s judgement of the final scene is influenced by one’s view of Wilson. The hunter is the exact opposite of Macomber. Manly, fearless and living by his rules, Wilson appears to be the embodiment of Hemingway’s code hero. Unfortunately, he is not as perfect as some would like to believe and his immorality cannot be overlooked. He does not scruple when he has a chance to sleep with one of his client’s wife and after he spends a night with Margot, he has no compunction: “Well, why doesn’t he keep his wife where she belongs? What does he think I am, a bloody plaster saint? Let him keep her where she belongs. It’s his own fault”. Finally, he is willing to cover up a murder.
Wilson’s dubious morality led some critics to doubt his credibility and his comments on the shooting which affect the readers’ perception of Margot. Indeed, he is the one who suggests that Macomber’s initiation into manhood “probably meant the end of cuckoldry” and after Francis’s death he tells Margaret, “he would have left you too”. He arouses readers’ suspicions and presents Margot as the one who has reasons for killing her husband by equating his death with the end of her prosperous life. As Johnston argues, “It is Wilson who firmly plants the murder motive in the reader’s mind.” and he does have his own motives for doing so. He makes Margot believe that she is a murderer because of “his own need for a defense, and for some leverage on this woman”. After the buffalo hunt, Wilson unwisely admits to Margaret that chasing game from a car is illegal and says, “I’d lose my licence for one thing. (…) I’d be out of business.” He makes himself vulnerable and, as Macomber notices, is at Margot’s mercy since “[n]ow she has something on [him]”. Therefore, one may assume that he simply blackmails her and agrees to cover up the murder so as not to lose his job. Wilson, at first sight an honourable man with defined values and rules, is the character with whom readers are familiarised as they are given many insights into his thoughts and, consequently, the one in whom they place confidence. Hence, when Wilson asks Margot, “Why didn’t you poison him? That’s what they do in England.”, explicitly indicating that she killed Macomber on purpose, regardless of whether he himself believes in it, readers may be tempted to take his statement at face value and agree with it uncritically.
There are also other ways in which Margot’s innocence may be argued. According to Baym, the omniscient narrator’s statement that she “had shot at the buffalo” is an undeniable proof that she attempted to save her husband and there is “no basis for dismissing [it] as unreliable one”.
Finally, Margot may not be a loving wife, but her viciousness and infidelity do not make her a murderer. We can never find out whether she was capable of killing her husband. In addition, she has reasons for saving Francis. After all, he provided her with a comfortable life, was her source of wealth and status. The fact that she despised him, but did not leave him may suggest that she was not ready to become independent and self-reliant.
All things considered, it seems impossible to settle the dispute as to whether Margaret killed her husband by accident or on purpose. The story does seem to provide the reader with a basis for assuming that Margot is capable of committing a murder, yet does not exclude the possibility of a more positive reading of the character. The fact that we see her mostly from Wilson’s perspective who is a womanizer with dubious morality and a stereotypical view on American women must be considered as well. Margot undeniably is a callous woman who looks down on her husband, but it is not enough to assume she is a murderer. In addition, by presenting Francis as an utter coward who changes into a confident man, Hemingway may be suggesting that Margaret’s metamorphosis is possible as well. Once again it turns out that Hemingway’s female character so easily labelled as “deadly” may be analysed in a completely different way as even in Margot’s case, the one who seems to serve as a perfect epitomisation of the “deadly” type, there is room for a more sympathetic reading.

# References

* ↑ Hemingway, Ernest. [1938] 1993. “The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber”, in: Ernest Hemingway, The First Forty-Nine Stories. London: Arrow Books, 3-35.
* ↑ Hemingway, Ernest. [1938] 1993. “The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber”, in: Ernest Hemingway, The First Forty-Nine Stories. London: Arrow Books, 3-35.
* ↑ Hemingway, Ernest. [1938] 1993. “The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber”, in: Ernest Hemingway, The First Forty-Nine Stories. London: Arrow Books, 3-35.
* ↑ Hemingway, Ernest. [1938] 1993. “The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber”, in: Ernest Hemingway, The First Forty-Nine Stories. London: Arrow Books, 3-35.
* ↑ Baker, Carlos. 1956. Hemingway, the Writer as Artist. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
* ↑ Fiedler, Leslie A. [1960] 2003. Love and Death in the American Novel. Champaign: Dalkey Archive Press.
* ↑ Wilson, Edmund. 1939. “Hemingway: Gauge of Morale”, in: Harold Bloom (ed.), 2005. Ernest Hemingway. Philadelphia: Chelsea House Publishers, 7-23.
* ↑ Hemingway, Ernest. [1938] 1993. “The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber”, in: Ernest Hemingway, The First Forty-Nine Stories. London: Arrow Books, 3-35.
* ↑ Hemingway, Ernest. [1938] 1993. “The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber”, in: Ernest Hemingway, The First Forty-Nine Stories. London: Arrow Books, 3-35.
* ↑ Hemingway, Ernest. [1938] 1993. “The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber”, in: Ernest Hemingway, The First Forty-Nine Stories. London: Arrow Books, 3-35.
* ↑ Hemingway, Ernest. [1938] 1993. “The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber”, in: Ernest Hemingway, The First Forty-Nine Stories. London: Arrow Books, 3-35.
* ↑ Hemingway, Ernest. [1938] 1993. “The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber”, in: Ernest Hemingway, The First Forty-Nine Stories. London: Arrow Books, 3-35.
* ↑ Johnston, K.G. 1983. “In Defense of the Unhappy Margot Macomber”, The Hemingway Review 2, 2: 44-47.
* ↑ Hemingway, Ernest. [1938] 1993. “The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber”, in: Ernest Hemingway, The First Forty-Nine Stories. London: Arrow Books, 3-35.
* ↑ Hemingway, Ernest. [1938] 1993. “The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber”, in: Ernest Hemingway, The First Forty-Nine Stories. London: Arrow Books, 3-35.
* ↑ Hemingway, Ernest. [1938] 1993. “The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber”, in: Ernest Hemingway, The First Forty-Nine Stories. London: Arrow Books, 3-35.
* ↑ Baym, Nina. 1992. “‘Actually, I Felt Sorry for the Lion’: Reading Hemingway’s ‘The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber’”, in: Nina Baym (ed.), Feminism and American Literary History: Essays. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 71-80.