tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1393767047761198934.post3513650966590686579..comments2014-07-09T00:29:40.725-04:00Comments on Reading the Extreme in World Adventure Narratives: The Endurance is a full-on characterjashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04174652571648541889noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1393767047761198934.post-65331627875559598112013-05-02T08:14:20.202-04:002013-05-02T08:14:20.202-04:00I think you raise some excellent questions. I want...I think you raise some excellent questions. I wanted to talk about the final point you raise, about the effect these relationships with non-human tools would have on the expedition, in terms of the dog sled teams. I'm sure I'm not the only one who was very distressed at this scene in the text. The leaders of the sled teams were reluctant to follow orders, because "there was a deep emotional attachment involved" (105). Yet they came to understand that killing the dogs was necessary for the ultimate survival of the expedition. I'm tempted to liken this moment to Touching the Void, Into Thin Air, or any other instance of human team leaders being left behind when they only would have hindered the survival of their team members. It certainly seems the dog team leaders felt just as much of a bond with their dogs as they did to their human companions, if not an even stronger one. So, what effect does this bond have on the expedition? When Shackleton first suggests killing the dogs, unrest and a temptation to disobey spreads through the group. Some (like Greenstreet and Macklin) are almost mutinous. The emotions of the team leaders after the teams are killed are not delved into in great detail, but because the order came at a time when many members of the expedition were already questioning Shackleton's leadership, it seems this command to kill such emotionally significant non-human players only added fuel to the fire. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18146437335794972624noreply@blogger.com