Call of the Wild - Death in a Dogs Eye

In the novel I felt a little discomforted whenever Buck killed anything not because there was blood, but because he held no respect for other dogs and freely took their lives.  I wondered why this may be so significant in the novel and have came to realize that the canine world is not as disproving about killing than the human one.

When Bucks sled is attacked by rogue dogs Buck and the other dogs jump to defend themselves from their attackers.  That would be normal in any normal persons life too, one would not just submit in a one on one confrontation with someone that is unarmed and homeless.  However Buck just sort of went at those dogs and killed them in cold blood.  Some of them could have been spared, such as the dog with the bleeding leg (19).  However the troop pursued it and killed it even though it was nearly defenseless, a cold decision for mans best friend.  I think that this coldness towards death could be caused by a logical process in a limited mindset.  If an enemy approaches, ensure that the enemy comes out on bottom, and stays there.  Dogs obviously have a smaller brain than humans, but the thinking process is almost the same.  Only humans show empathy and forgiveness, where dogs can only detect threats.  I don't know if you've thought a significant amount about this topic but I think that in some ways dogs are like machines in this way.  Dogs like to chase balls, ergo a ball in the owners hand will result in a wagging of the tail.  Such prossesing can be easily put together by programmers with any robot.  If x happens, display y result in response to x.

However dogs are not necessarily machines.  Dogs also have a key role of self preservation and are able to bond with other beings.  That's why Buck was able to become such good friends with Mr. Thornton, is because dogs are able to trust in what they know is good for them.  Machines thus far have been unable to freely trust what has not been programmed, everything is acquainted or an enemy, but no friends.  Dogs are also able to learn about their owners from growth in their bonds of trust, such happens between Thornton and Buck, and be able to pull through things impossible before through encouragement in each other.  That is something that I think will always pertain to something of flesh and blood.

Call of the Wild - People vs. Dogs

In Call of the Wild we got to see and examine both humans and dogs alike in such a manner we could easily compare and contrast them.  I would like to bring up some of the traits in dogs discovered from the novel that could be related to those in humans.

To kick things off we've got individualism.  The descriptions of the dogs in Buck's team were by far the best I've ever read of, and did an excellent job of explaining them.  "Dub, an awkward blunderer who was always getting caught, was punished for Buck's misdeed." (21)  London improves the traits in these animals by applying them to situations.  So Dub is pretty stupid when he ever attempts to steal food, and Spitz is more of the silent assassin type, which a lot is unknown but is very good at what he does.  The traits in these dogs can easily be related to characters in the book, with early-on ignorant Buck being like his family at home, whom knew very little about the gold rush, and the dog Dave could be related to John Thorton, both being wise and not acting unless nessesary.  However showing these traits may have been difficult, as the only way for dogs to communicate at all are through their actions.

Another thing London displays in the dogs is willpower.  Some dogs like Buck and Spitz are simply stronger than others and are willing to do more for their cause.  Spitz was one of the most important dogs to have when the sleigh was attacked by mutts.  He charged right in and got bloody, while Curly on the other hand stayed out of the fight.  While with the family going towards the gold rush, the remainder of Buck's teammates eroded away until very few of them were left, very few still had the will to go on.  I think that may be one of the reasons for Buck to stand out, is that he tried so hard at everything he did, regardless of the outcome.  The best example of this is pulling the weight in El Dorado with Thorton, where bets were riding on how hard Buck would try.

One thing I failed to find in the novel were any sorts of goals for the dogs other than to survive and please their masters.  I think that the idea of working together made the groups of dogs into a sort of collectivist group, where together they can accomplish fulfilling their masters needs.  However the dogs did have desires.  They always wanted food, and so they became envious of the chow other dogs had and stole it.  Spitz desired to fight others of his kind, and so he charged in and battled.  In the end though Buck really wanted his world to end and to be reborn after the mourning of John Thorton.  And so he collected himself and answered  the Call of the Wild. to begin a new life.

Call of the Wild - The Call

I would like to give a few ideas and opinions about the Call that Buck so vividly yeilds to at the end of the book, because I had a little difficulty understanding what it meant.

For my first idea, I thought that the Call represented nature in a way, where Buck eventually reverts to his primitive instincts and becomes more savage.  In a way, he really starts to look out for number one.  I think this may be the most powerful representation of the Call, because it only occurs in the end of the book, and it is hard to find any sort of reference before he is with the old man John Thorton, around page 65.  I'm curious about why he heard the Call here rather than in other situations like when he was in the dog fight club or when he was a part  of the family's sled team.  I think that it may have been because in the end Buck went on a small journey by himself through the woods, for the purpose of exploring and thinking and taking in the world around him.  In a way it's kind of like when you go on a walk by yourself through the woods, you notice more of nature because you have no task, and you are able to think clearly because there are no distractions.  For those reasons the Call would be much more powerful and easy to reach Buck than if it were to try earlier on.

Another think that the Call could represent is the idea of revenge.  I'm not sure if you thought of it this way but I think that when Buck went on his minor journey alone through the woods he seemed a little, edgy.  When the Call occurred on his trek, he reminisced about how he was taken from his home, though he hardly remembered it.  When he arrived back at camp with John Thorton and the rest of the party dead, he grieved and tried to control his emotions for several days.  Finally, he went and killed all the Yeehats who massacred his party, the final step from his grieving.  Though subtle, I think that this mean of using the Call would serve as a darker moral to the story, making it revenge or honor, perhaps even the value of an individual.

Finally, I think that the Call could represent his true home with the wolves.  On pages early on in the novel (because I can't find it) Buck is described as a large saint Bernard which was really given free roam of his owners estate.  My question is: Why would the Call of some wolves apply to him?  I really had a hard time coming up with a conclusion, but it seems as though it has more to do with the inside of an animal than what breed they are.  I.e. Buck has been a sled dog, fought off terrible mutts, battled in an arena, crated up and thrown around, and pulled a thousand pounds one hundred yards by himself.  These experiences are what make him more equipped for the wild than any other dog, it makes him stand out.  Because he stood out so much, it made him a very easy picture for the wolves to find and desire in their family.

Call of the Wild - Why Ban It

After I read Call of the Wild I was more than shocked when I came to realizing it was a banned book.  I found it to be a masterpiece, a dark one, but a masterpiece nonetheless.  I would like to discuss a few of my ideas as to why it should not be a banned book.

First off there is the violence in the novel between both man and animal.  Though it was something one needed to muscle through, the fighting between Buck and the other dogs when he was captured was merely something of the times of the Klondike Gold Rush.  In a way it's like censoring the truth, like censoring Anne Frank's Journal from 5th graders because it has Nazis in it.  Buck becoming a sled dog and having to fight off the other mutts who come for the food of his new owners is another scene where dog-vs-dog really would have happened.  And though it was bloody and violent with a hack and slash sort of manner, it's really no different than Touching Spirit Bear where a boy gets mauled by a bear which represents respect, and yet Call of the Wild is the book that gets banned.  In the end however, Buck goes on a rampage and kills all the indians.  I believe that this section of the story could be compared to Fallen Angels by Walter Dean Meyers where the group of soldiers kill hundreds of Vietnamese soldiers in a sort of last stand.  Both books feature group killings at one time without a real moral to it in particular, however Fallen Angels was something I had the privilege of reading in my elementary school classroom.

Another point one could find to ban it is because of how it represents people of that era.  The indians (hatchees, yathats, yeehats or something like that) massacred the small group of which Buck traveled with without a real purpose that is clear to the reader and makes native Americans look different in a persons eye whom has experienced the novel.  However the book is indeed fiction, so the indians could be compared to any other sort of group that may represent a historical group, like maybe the Russian-styled Skeleton Gang in the Alex Rider Series, which desired to nuke the world.  Yet the Alex Rider series is endorsed as an excellent story for young readers because it makes them love reading.  What is this?  So if you begin to gain some sort of emotional attachment to a story it automatically becomes O.K. to just allow anyone to read?  Then again, would they censor the Giving Tree because it made people cry, or Moonfall because it was such an intense thriller it would cause people's heart rates to spike to extreme levels.  I believe that Call of the Wild should be supported because it gives a clear, accurate example as to how the Klondike Rush period was without pointing any fingers directly at any ethnic groups or races.

American Psycho - Why it was Banned

I know it appears obvious why this book has been banned.  Tons of language, sex, violence and gore.  It's really a book that is meant to make the reader sick.  I would like to discuss the reasons why this book is banned and if it should remain unavailable to high school students (since college students can read whatever they want).

For my first point, lets state some things that are not obvious to the reader right off the bat and require a bit of looking into.  I think that one point that is often overlooked is that it takes place in the present age.  Having a book set up in the present era is not necessarily a problem, but implementing foul language and violence that does not necessarily occur in a large city could indeed degrade common society today.  For example: Bateman's apartment.  It is so neat, clean, organized, classy.  I can easily picture it as a popular location for a modern person to be growing up.  However as the events and murders occur, I find it to become more of a twisted place that really represents Bateman.  Good looking on the outside, but has a horrifying history.  I've never really thought about these concepts before I reflected on what ties the book had to modern society.

Another point would be because of the name brands used in the book.  I looked up some of the examples he used for tailored suits (Marquinn'e) and wines (Chteau Margaux) and found them to be real companies and quite expensive.  Also there was the art that was hung in his appartment which (I forget if it was his assistant or a prostitute) who asked about what it was.  It turned out to be one of Ruben Verdu's (a Spanish sculptor) few paintings he produced.  I think that name brands Bateman himself mentions like Coke or his Earl Grey tea want the book to be censored from youth to hide their assosiation with the film.  For example if I saw a man who loved to eat at McDonalds, and then went into a mall and killed everyone, I would care to look for that specific McDonalds and mall out of curiosity more than any other building like it.

My final point is just stating the obvious.  It made me feel queezy.  On the outside it really lives up to what critics who posted negatively on the story said.  A "sick and twisted tale" which "brings shame upon Americans" and "is meant to make you gag. (Bookreview.com and the NBCC)  The extent Ellis went on the violence seems very overpowering at times, such as when the girl becomes a meal for a rat, and distracts the reader from paying attention to any sort of comprehension as to why he is doing it besides him going insane, and therefore would require analysis.  In a way the critics were right, it is indeed a sick, monster of literature which I wouldn't allow on my High School shelves.  But for a College Library there would be at least one or two of this available at all times because I know the college students would appreciate it for what it is: literature, not a blood fest.

American Psycho - The Roles of Others

Reading through American Psycho I found that all of the characters had strange emotional ties to Patrick Bateman, such as his colleagues at work and the prostitutes he would pick up.

I found that his accomplices at work shared a lot of his more "professional" traits.  I.e. they were very scrupulous about what they did and what they knew, while also acting in a very careless nature of not to work but to compete with one another.  I found this to be very suspicious because the criminal investigator is nothing like Patrick Bateman, but is still quite professional.  I think that the company alone is causing all of this unrest within these people and sort of mutating them from being people like the detective.  This could be caused by excessive stress (like when we stop caring about school as we gradually get closer to the end of the year), business competition, or perhaps they are naturally spoiled individuals.  I wonder if they act the same as Bateman at home, but only hide it more effectively than Bateman can do.

On to the women Bateman would pick up: they really showed a lot of diversity.  Some of them would be very easy to succumb to alcohol before their character could be properly understood, so we'll just call those "liverwurst" for those with a worse liver.  However there were some like Bateman's aid, who showed real intelligence, and could be recognized as "Clean".  One common thing between the clean and the liverwurst is that they are generally afraid of Bateman in the terms of welfare.  They all seem somewhat suspicious as to what he is doing, even while intoxicated, and sometimes ascertain a little common sense to feel repulsed at what Bateman requests of them.  So the women in Bateman's life have a go-to suspicion about what he may be up to, but for some odd reason they all have some sort of attraction to him, possibly because he tries to be perfect in every way possible, and comes rather close.

The odd event at the end of the book where Bateman realizes that none of what he did actually happened really did a good job of explaining many more characters, such as Bateman's lawyer who acknowledges Bateman but does so in such a concerned manner that eventually he leaves the area because Bateman's period of post-insanity is becoming insanity in his reality.  The men of society besides those who work at P&P are normal by today's standards, and are much more sensitive to the work that the employees at P&P does.  They also show what I saw as a more professional stature, where they were the only ones drinking at the party to have a good time than to show prowess over another co-worker.

American Psycho - Lying to one's self

I would like to discuss the character of Bateman because his personality (I found) is hard to understand.

In the beginning of the book, before we really know anything about him, we can understand that he is an organized, stately individual who has a good head on his shoulders.  He knows how to make friends (even though it won't be for good reasons) and knows exacly what he needs to do in order to become more and more successful in his life, be it work, women, or general knowhow.  He does know a shocking amount about music and art, but surprisingly it is not really shown that he knows a lot about his work.  He often meets up with his co-workers to discuss somewhat to completely unrelated topics usually around women or power, and whenever he is at work he often loafs around and tells his aid excuses as to why he can see no visitors.  I think of this personality as his "working self".

However at night when he has left his workplace he transforms into a completely different person.  here we see someone cold blooded, who kills as though he has "a need" (upon killing the hobo and his dog) to kill in order to maintain the standards of how people can be viewed.  At work he is a king, a respectable figure.  At home he is a terrorist and a criminal.  This personality maintains his organization in some degrees, like planning out how to get his co-worker drunk so that he wont understand that Bateman wants to smash an axe in his head.  Bateman also has everything cleaned afterwards.  Removing bits of flesh from his suits, taking bloody sheets to the laundromat, covering up objects he doesn't want limbs and blood on.  Although he does become quite reckless, like when he chases the prostitute (I forgot her name) naked and kills her with a chainsaw outside of his room, which I found to be unique because he performs most of his murders in his home.  I see this form of him as his "hyde self".

The inner self I saw in Bateman was hard to directly locate in the novel because we see so much of his working self and his hyde self in his daily life.  Only when he understands what he is doing do we see his "Inner self" where he shows passion, concern and loyalty.  He warns his aid that he might hurt her when she stops by his condo, and spills all the beans to his lawyer in an act of protecting society from himself.  In many ways this personality of Bateman was what humans today posses, where we care about our friends and co-workers, and if we do something wrong we confess it.  I believe that the aspects that made him human were hidden behind his professionalism at work and his violent joy at home.  Noting how he is single and has nobody he can constantly go home to and trust.