It was a Dog Because It Never Resisted

It was a Dog Because It Never Resisted

A Dark, Brown Dog

     One of the fundamental ideas of naturalism is that the nature is indifferent. It is, in the same time, powerful, and greatly “superior” to humans since humans’ lives are determined by the nature in naturalistic views. Naturalists view humans as just a part of the absolute nature, thus humans are not so much different from animals, insects, and so on. The two stories carry this characteristic well enough.

     In To Build a Fire, when the protagonist stands on the verge of death, he tries to cut the dog open in order to gain its warmth. In A Dark, Brown Dog, the family shows savagery toward a poor, weak dog; the father “held a carnival with the cooking utensils-the furniture and his wife.” He even throws the dog out the window. Here the savagery of humans is revealed-the “civilization” doesn’t work in these stories. Both stories concentrate on how humans are just a segment of the nature by “joking off” civilization. Savagery-one of the instincts the nature had given-was what revealed or portrayed under the cover of civilization.

     However, a question can come up at this moment: so what? It can be plausible, that humans are a mere part of the absolute nature. But like what the doctor in La Peste by Camus said, “People don’t give up.” The pastor in La Peste stressed in his speech about how God had created and planned everything in order, and so that the plague is part of his plan so the people should not deny. But the doctor criticized him, that no matter what people know about who plans their lives, people never give up-even if they think they did, they live their lives with hope at least in some parts. Naturalism can be criticized in the same way also.

Comments

Soyeon Min: It was interesting that you compared the story with an outside text, La Peste. However, to a reader who had not read La Peste, the last paragraph was a little hard to understand. I think your writing could be better if you could include some brief explanations about the plot and context of La Peste so that the reader can better understand. Also, I did not quite get the part you mentioned about “predetermined destiny.” Why is “predetermined destiny” and “god’s will” relevant to naturalism? I think you have a brilliant idea and your essay would be better if you could better elaborate.

But I liked your writing anyways.

Yunjo Jeong: (He commented on several grammatical mistakes and commented right beside the text. Those comments except the grammatical checks are the below ones.)

I see, but don’t they also distinguish between humankind and nature?

So, civilization is losing its function even in “civilized” nations of the world. Is it?

Great here, but can you also explain why the dog did not resist to any violence incurred upon him?

Well I never read this one.