Although Shackleton is preparing the men for the winter when all the animals will go away, he is refusing "too much food" for the seamen to eat. He feels that by eating little portions, it will prepare them for the Winter. I feel like this is torture, yet workable. If the seamen eat a decent amount of food, it might hold them from hunger longer; however, the seamen will be in for a surprise when Winter comes and they are even hungrier because their body became accustomed to how much food they were eating. It's a win-lose situation. Also, when Shackleton orders the killing of dogs for food, it almost disgusts me. Dogs
are animals, but for some people dogs are friends or a part of the family; they're tamed, loyal, helpful in the sense of smell and are keen. They're animals that society has accepted greatly and domestically in which shouldn't be killed for food. Why wouldn't Shackleton kill seals over dogs? The seamen were losing their friend to put food in their stomachs which seems harsh and disgusting. I don't think I would be able to do this and it sounds like the seamen are doubting their boss.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Thinking on this is reminding me of the idea of the homeostasis thermostat the Doctor taught us about. Shackleton is manually resetting the thermostat to levels where the men would be able to survive in once the conditions reached a much more threatening level. That is to ensure that at least all Men survive and no one has to be sacrificed as the dogs who were a living part of the voyage as well. It communicates the types of sacrifices that would be taken if deemed necessary, by the tyrant Shackleton. I'm kidding he's no tyrant!
ReplyDeleteWhile I completely agree with you about how horrible it was to kill the dogs for food, I can kind of understand why Shackleton would order this. At this point Shackleton could have seen some motivation diminish because the men were not able to deal with the harsh conditions they faced. By killing the dogs instead of using the seals for food, it was basically forcing the men to have to deal with something they were so adverse to. This could have helped them, for lack of a better term, to "toughen up" and be more readily able to deal with current and future obstacles.
ReplyDelete