The contrast between the human and the dog is startling. The former makes decisions that only a human could, having no primary goal – survival. The latter deems survival as goal number one. Nothing else matters – staying warm and fed are the cornerstone elements of the dog’s existence.
The man approaches the nature of Yukon with the ignorance that only a man could allow himself. A man that is blinded by ambition and superfluous emotions that lose significance immediately when the physical life is at stake. Initially, the human does not deem nature a worthy adversary because, according to the author “he was without imagination.” Initially, he disregards entirely the advice of the old man not to traverse Yukon during immense frosts. He is convinced that the journey will be a challenge but nothing that a real man could not handle. He never considered “his frailty as a creature of temperature, and upon man’s frailty in general.” Only when he starts experiencing direct consequences of low temperatures, he starts experiencing an inkling of a doubt. Only when he is in a severe predicament with hands numb and resources for setting up fires gone, he acknowledges finally that his audacious venture was a stupid mistake. “The man was shocked. It was as though he had just heard his own sentence of death… You were right, old hoss, you were right.” Being completely unprepared to face his vulnerability and mortality (“, he goes on to commit even sillier deeds such as running in vain and attempting to kill the dog to have some of its warmth. The man pays for the ignorance and for the overestimation of his forces against those of nature.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"To Build a Fire Naturalism".
The dog is a very curious character in the respect that he can never be considered a companion of the human in this story. He is only a servant, or, rather, a slave who follows one mission only – survive another day. “There was no keen intimacy between the dog and the man. The one was the toil slave of the other, and the only caresses it had ever receive were the caresses of the whiplash and of harsh and menacing throat sounds that threatened the whiplash.” The dog clearly sticks around with the human for two purposes: the human is the provider of the food and fire (subsequently warmth that is so needed in the cold wilderness). In this strange relationship, it is a dog that ends up using a human for egotistic purpose of survival rather than vice versa. The dog is much more receptive of the surroundings and has far better abilities when it comes to evaluating weather. The dog has a much better connection to the nature. Still, it follows the human for as long as he lives to ensure that at least part of the way is done with occasional warming up sessions by the fire and, hopefully, some nutrition, however insignificant. The dog has no feelings of attachment to the human and does not hesitate to continue on its way in search of other providers that would help it survive the cold and hunger.
The contrast between the perceptions of these living entities is staggering. One is oblivious to the danger and believes in the invincibility despite all odds. Another respects nature far more and sticks with the delusional human, because of the will to leave. The take is a perfect illustration for the law of the jungle. Those who do not rely on instinct perish imminently. In such difficult situations, there is no place for attachment and devotion. There is only an instinct that drives the creature to certain decision that have nothing to do with the old known friendship between human and the first animal he allegedly managed to tame. The dog, which is closer to nature, understands the surroundings better, but the human, the slave of the human mind, is biased and blinded by the illusion of one’s might that is non-existent under the circumstances of no civilization.
