How is buck portrayed

Throughout the story, Buck has multiple masters, one that provokes a dramatic change in the novel is John Thornton. This is exemplified by the fact that in this sentence, there are only intangible words such as love and genuine passion. To London, these are mere abstractions that are independent to the physical change brought about in Buck.

In effect, these feelings of love, and the warm affection he receives from his companions, human, and dog, do not have any bearing on his survivability in the Arctic. However, London instilled a strong personality that is difficult, nigh impossible to change through emotional connection. London illustrates that Buck prioritizes nature more than even the only human that ever showed him affection he could understand. Buck has great dedication and remarkable for Thornton, yet still, he unleashes his true identity simply through exposure to wilderness.

Many could argue that this was in order to enact revenge on those that killed his closest friend, yet, when specifically analyzing the word carcasses it does not have connotations connected to revenge.

Rather this word engages the reader in feelings of primordial carnage, the true nature of Buck, the wild savage wolf, is able to escape free from the shackles domestication.

Although this can be taken as revenge on the life of Thornton, the emphasis on the killing changes the argument once more to the fact that London is allowing Buck to take hold of his most primitive urges.

London celebrates the fact that reward comes in the way of those who conquer their fears, in a very similar way, Buck attained pride from conquering and the freedom to unclothe his the wild and savageness that is stored within him. Heredity is more important than the way Buck was treated and it was only a matter of time as well as hardship that allowed him to pursue this side of him.

The Call of the Wild utilizes the development of Buck from tame house-dog to fierce wolf pack leader to describe the effects of naturalism and how its effect is felt much stronger than the effects of the comfort and preferential treatment he receives. They are in need of strong sled dogs as the snowy routes are not accessible by vehicles. By using anthropomorphism in The Call of the Wild, Jack London allows the reader to realize that humans and animals have traits capable of being both cultured and wild.

Also, this device allows the reader to make the connection between people and animals. He is reduced to nothing, beaten and kicked and forced to pull sleds through the Canadian wilderness.

This experience, though, far from destroying him, makes him stronger, and he wins back his kingdom—or rather, he wins a new kingdom, a wild one that better suits his true destiny as a wild animal. The Call of the Wild is, as its title suggests, a celebration of wildness, of primitive life, and even of savagery. But these obstacles, London indicates, are to be rejoiced in rather than avoided: life is ultimately a long struggle for mastery, and the greatest dogs or men , the Bucks of the world, will always seek out struggles in order to prove their greatness.

Thus, when Buck goes from being a moral, civilized pet to a fierce, bloodthirsty, violent wolf-dog, we are glad rather than shocked, because we know that he is fulfilling his highest -possible destiny.

But during filming last year, the director's wife, Jessica Steele-Sanders, scoured Petfinder for a household pet and found a St. Bernard and shepherd mix in Kansas — named, appropriately, Buckley. The way his face looked, the way his eyes looked. The filmmakers had a star that could make appearances on the set and at premieres. The Sanders family even formally shortened their new pet's name to match the book's hero.

Telling the story with a computer-generated dog allowed "Call of the Wild" to be told from Buck's point of view.