Skip to main content

In The Call of the Wild, Buck wanted to be the leader and didn't always do what Spitz wanted. What was the result of this?

Buck fights and kills Spitz and takes over as lead sled dog.


Spitz is the leader of the sled dog team, and Buck grows to hate him. He refuses to give in to Spitz, eventually killing him and taking his place as the leader.


One day, Buck sees Spitz fighting Curly.  The brutality of the fight upsets Buck.  Once Spitz attacks the dog, all of the others attack her too with no mercy.



So that was the way. No fair play. Once down, that was the end of you. Well, he would see to it that he never went down. Spitz ran out his tongue and laughed again, and from that moment Buck hated him with a bitter and deathless hatred. (Ch. 2)



Buck is determined not to go down.  He is learning the ways of the wild, and the Law of Club and Fang.  Basically, that means that whoever is strongest is in charge.  The humans have the club, and the dogs have the fang.


Spitz knows that Buck is a “dangerous rival” and is careful of him, always showing aggression toward him and never letting his guard down.  Buck also does not back down.  A conflict between the two of them is inevitable, and they both know that when they fight it will be a fight to the death. François and Perrault know this too, but François believes that Buck is the fiercer one.



There was no hope for him. Buck was inexorable. Mercy was a thing reserved for gentler climes. He manoeuvred for the final rush. The circle had tightened till he could feel the breaths of the huskies on his flanks. (Ch. 3)



Buck takes Spitz’s place as lead dog when it is time to strap everyone in.  The men are surprised. Perrault tried to make Sol-leks lead dog, but Buck wouldn’t have it.  It was his spot.  He earned it.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more