|
|
Post by shelbygraham on Jun 3, 2024 0:53:12 GMT
I was interested in the comparison/contrast between the man and the dog; specifically, the way in which they think and make decisions. The dog is led simply by instinct: "It merely obeyed the commands that arose from the deepest part of its being" (London, 69). The dog is not interested or even capable of searching for meaning and reasoning, only what should and should not be done. The man also does not look for meaning, but this trait leads to his detriment, while the same trait in the dog preserves its life. While traversing, the man focuses almost entirely on the temperature and the dog's only concern is the life-threatening risk they are taking. It isn't until the man is nearing death that he sees the real danger he's in. Does anyone else see or agree with this observation?
|
|
|
|
Post by connorswauger on Jun 5, 2024 3:36:42 GMT
In my reading, i actually understood the dog being included to mirror that man in his effort to survive. The man and the dog stood on equal ground in this sense because both of them are trying to escape the very strong possibility of death. Against nature, even the man is reduced to his most basic instincts. It kind of seems like the short story is building a case for all living this, animals alike, all experience this urge to survive as their top motive.
|
|
|
|
Post by shelbygraham on Jun 5, 2024 13:41:52 GMT
It's true, they were on common ground, with their focus and purpose set on survival alone. I still think there was a somewhat difference in their instincts, maybe? But that's probably because animals and humans don't think exactly alike. Yes, I can see how the short story is showing all have a basic need and striving for survival!
|
|
