Sure, Thornton's death could suggest that being primitive is incompatible with love. The case most certainly could be made that once Thornton is gone, any remaining love in Bucks' life is also completely gone; therefore, he is able to embrace "The Call of the Wild." I just don't agree that being primitive and having love are mutually exclusive. I think that a reader could argue that Buck didn't lose any love with the death of...
Sure, Thornton's death could suggest that being primitive is incompatible with love. The case most certainly could be made that once Thornton is gone, any remaining love in Bucks' life is also completely gone; therefore, he is able to embrace "The Call of the Wild." I just don't agree that being primitive and having love are mutually exclusive. I think that a reader could argue that Buck didn't lose any love with the death of Thorton. Instead Buck transferred those feelings from humans to his nature surroundings and his pack. That's not weird, there are plenty of human examples of people that found more peace/love/comfort among nature than they did around people. Chris McCandless would be one. I might be able to make a case for Thoreau and other Transcendental/Romantic authors and artists too.
As for Buck having to choose certain characteristics over others, yes Buck absolutely had to do that. But it always depended on the situation. Buck had to be submissive when dealing with the man in the red sweater. Buck had to be dominant with his pack. Buck could choose to be "softer" and more loving with Thornton. Buck would choose his characteristics based on his situation.
No comments:
Post a Comment