April
11th, 2012
[Stephen
Crane: A Dark Brown Dog]
11b4
111150 Ho InHee
When
first hearing the word ‘naturalism’, I thought of something pure, serene, and
clear. It may sound ignorant and stupid, but frankly, the term associated with
the word ‘nature’ or the brand name ‘naturalist’ (which is a Korean brand best
known for its eco-friendly philosophy). So I felt very ‘enlightened’ when I
learned about the naturalism.
Thinking
about it, it is natural, or reasonable, for the philosophy of naturalism to take
place through 1880 to 1940. It was mostly the age of Imperialism; Great Powers
were taking advantage of colonies. The outbreak of world’s two biggest wars (WWⅠ
and WWⅡ) was in this time period. Numerous other wars, both big and small,
broke out throughout the world. But ironically, late 19th century to
early 20th century was also when many drastic social changes
occurred. People fought for their rights. Racism, the rich-poor gap,
prostitution, corruption…… All these became an issue that people struggled
with.
What
I noticed was, most of the naturalist writers I know-William Golding, Jack
London, Wharton Edith, and Stephen Crane-encountered the ironical (or
hypocritical) side of the society in some way. Some participated in a war and
saw darkness and dysfunctions of human mind. Some travelled around the world
and saw ‘the other half’s life.’ Whatever their personal experience was, they
all encountered some problems of the society. The thin veneer of ‘civilization
didn’t seem so reasonable for these people. Taking control of other countries
with the justification of ‘civilizing the uncivilized’, the top minority
engrossing public’s wealth, and heinous crimes sweeping in the hidden part of
society-all these social situations were just proving how nonsense this
civilization was. For them, like the family in A Dark Brown Dog, civilization was just a thin cover that could
gift-wrap the seething desire and brutality.
I
personally thought that A Dark Brown Dog,
despite the title, was mainly focused on the child. The story opens with a
white boy trotting a dog along the street. The boy does some violence to his
dark brown dog. He beats the dog, kicks it, and drags it up the stairs. The
dog, adjusted to this routine, hides and crouches. As the story reaches its
end, the violence grows more and more unbearable with the appearance of the boy’s
father. The father, who has despised the dog since before, returns home drunk.
Then he puts violence on the dog. He ‘knocks
the dog down with a heavy coffee-pot’, and ‘throws the dog out of the window’. At first, the boy hides under
the table to keep him safe. But as the father’s violence goes way beyond, ‘the child, uttering loud cries, comes valiantly
forth like a knight’. Eventually, the father throws the dog out, and the
dog crashes on the floor five stories below.
One
of the main factors that made the story incomprehensible for me was the
inconsistency in the actions of the boy. We see the boy’s ‘unaffected’ violence
on his dark brown dog. Both the boy and the dog seem to be very familiar with
this injurer-victim relationship. At the end of the story, ironically, ‘the child in the room far above bursts
into a long, dirgelike cry, and toddles hastily out of the room’ when the dog is slew by his father. If Stephen Crane
wanted to emphasize hidden evil inside the human and the thin veneer disguising
the evil with hypocrisy, like most other stories with naturalistic theme, why
couldn’t he make the boy assimilated to his father’s violence? Why did he have to
make the father be dazed by liquor? Was this setting all for the story’s
probability? Who, or what, represents ‘nature’ the best in the story? The
father, the boy, or the dog? Clearly, the boy appears the most unsettled and
vulnerable among three main characters of the story. He acts on his primitive
instinct when he beats the dog. Or even, this violence can be a learned action
acquired by his family. Either way, child’s violence itself barely does any
threat to the dog and the dog endures it. But the story gets different when the
assailant becomes the father. The father indiscriminately throws things at the
dog. He kicks the dog and throws things to it until the child makes loud and violent objections. This
violence continues until it causes the dog’s death. This sophisticated man who
has lived longer in civilized world uses more violent and inhumane ways of
beating the dog. So who represents basic human nature the better?
This question could give an answer to the debate we had
in the class: how can be naturalist literature distinguished from literature
with simple pessimistic view? Truly, naturalists had exerted themselves to see
through hidden human nature under the veneer of civilization. Consequently they
found the black-hearted inside of humans. The naturalist literature, there,
often issues the contradiction between evil of human nature and civilization
disguising it. They don’t all simply view human as fundamentally depraved. While
the former story, [A Burning Fire],
conspicuously emphasized human’s craving for life and indiscriminating effort
to achieve such thing, [A Dark Brown Dog]
focused more on civilization. The more one is exposed to civilization the more he/she
learns ruthless and cruel from it, like ‘conformity’ as social psychologists
call it. Though the father, a civilized man, ruins one poor life, the child
stays there mourning over the dog’s death. This last line of the story draws a
certain difference between pessimism and naturalism, as we find the boy seated by the body of his dark-brown
friend.
This story was so hard >:(
{Comments}
Jeong YunJo: First of all, I'm sorry I was pecky with the grammar crap. I agree with what you said about the Naturalist authors pointing out the problems with the society of those times. During the discussion today, something like 'domestic violence' came to the issue. Was this one of the problems? I'm not sure. Anyways great work!
Sol Kim: I think you got the point of the "thin cover" of civilization, and I somewhat agree. But personally I think you don't have to view it so negatively, though some naturalists writer have done, since the civilization is also what the nature had given with the human instincts. Anyway, that's my opinion, so just consider them ㅎㅎ.
I could see that your ideas are not built yet; I mean, you don't really know what you want to write (I was like that too, frankly, 20 minutes me too short ㅜㅜ). So it would be much better if you get some organization and more ideas when you revise your essay. In other words, I'd like to see a clear point on what you want to talk about, cause now I see a scatter of ideas.
I couldn't read some of Sol's comments.... yet I tried to!
