Category:
Customize My Settings Edit My Profile Search Forums Main Page Forum Help Login To The Forums
Author
Message Text For:
Plague Dogs
Navigation:

bdibuz

Senior Member
Date Posted: Sep/07/2006 3:17 PM
Email Thread
By Richard Adams, the author of Watership Down.

Reply
Top
Bottom
Next
Previous

emma s

Member
Date Posted: Sep/18/2006 5:01 PM
Email Thread View Profile
I am so shocked. I can't believe that anyone would try to drown a dog! That is terrible. I am not really a dog person, but I still felt like hurting the person who was drownig him. It's murder! Dogs are still living even if they aren't as intelligent as us. I'm smarter than alot of people, but i don't go around trying to murder them. I almost cried. the dog was trying so hard to stay alive, and they just let it go under. I am really mad about that. This book really seems like a good book, and I am really looking forward to learning more about it
Emma

Reply
Top
Bottom
Next
Previous

shelby d

Member
Date Posted: Sep/18/2006 7:00 PM
Email Thread View Profile
Sorry, I would have posted sooner, but my library didn't have the book, and I had to get it through inter-library loan.

I have read up to page 25:

I enjoy the way Richard Adams portrays animals. He does not try to make them into humans. Instead, he gives them they're own way of thinking, while accenting the ways they are similar to humans, so that the reader can identify with the characters. The best example of this is when Rowf says that it is his duty to go in the 'metal water'. He obviously dislikes it and knows that it shouldn't be happening, but he endures it anyway. This shows the characteristic loyalty in dogs. In this case, the loyalty is actually detrimental to Rowf becuase it nearly caused him to not leave when staying would have killed him. This was also a great example of internal struggle. The author had him speaking out loud the whole time, so the reader could understand what he was gtrying to decide. Rowf's belief that he should do what the humans wanted him to do was combated by his dislike of nearly drowning. During his decision-making Snitter tries to convince him that the 'whitecoats' are not actually real masters becuase he had one and knows what they are supposed to be like. Although Snitter meant well Rowf seems like someone who has a very strong pride and he probably dislikes being reminded that he has never had a master while Snitter has. This would cause him to desregard what Snitter said

The author told the author about a lot of things that the dogs didn't know about. This did two things. It often gave the reader more sympathy for the dogs becuase you knew that there wasn't a good reason for these bad things to happen to them. It also took away some the reader's ability to understand what the dogs were thinking. The reader knows what is happening, so they can't do a very good job of understanding the dogs confusion.

Replying to Emma:

They weren't actually trying to drown him, they were just seeing how long he could last swimming in the water.

I agree with Emma when she said that the humans were stupid to think that they have the right to murder 'lesser' cratures. Humans have a serious superiority complex. I disagree with the common interpretation of this line:

Genesis 1:28

"Be masters over the fish and birds and all animals"

Some people would say that gives us the ability to do things like this, but I don't. I believe that it means that we have the duty to protect them when they can't protect themselves. I think it refers to the relationship a seeing eye dog has with its owner. The owner gives it food and shelter, and it helps its owner in return.

 Message edited by: shelby d on 09/18/2006 20:24:51

Reply
Top
Bottom
Next
Previous

emma s

Member
Date Posted: Sep/18/2006 7:13 PM
Email Thread View Profile
I agree with Shelby. I do like the way that the author pertrays the animals. When authors try to make animals think like humans it defeats the purpose. Like I said in my earlier post Dogs aren't as smart as humans are so when authors try to make them that way, I feel that the book looses its sense of reality. i also like the way that he makes them identifiable to the reader. dogs don't speak english, but he still makes it easy for people who do speak english to understand


Reply
Top
Bottom
Next
Previous

shelby d

Member
Date Posted: Sep/20/2006 9:55 PM
Email Thread View Profile
Snitter continues to remined of Fiver, a character from Watership Down. They are both unstable, and require a protecter, either Hazel or Rowf. They are both wery important to their groups. Fiver becuase he has prophetic visions, and Snitter because of his knowlege of humans and general inteligence. Snitter is a very good match for Rowf, because Rowf's first instinct is to attack. Snitter, on the other hand, is much more itellectual and tends to think things through. I think that so far Snitter has proved to be more useful than Rowf, but I believe that Rowf will continue to become more useful. Right now it seems as if Richard Adams has not introduced Rowf's talent.

The fears that the dogs have gained from the research center intrest me. They may be sad, but they are also amazingly realistic. The fear of white coats that they got because of there association of scientests with lab coats shows how thurough the author was. This fear has been both helpful and detrimentral. It kept them away from some humans who wanted to hurt them, but it also kept them away from the shopkeepeer and assistants, who only wanted to find them a home.

I wonder if the author will tell more about the two dogs pasts. So far the story has only come in bits and pieces, which are scatterd thruogh. We haven't heard almost anything about Rowf's, except that he had never had a master. Snitter's we have heard a little more ababout because he is often mentioning his master. The dogs' wish for a master is in a continuing internal conflict with their fear of whitecoats, which has been transferred to all humans. I don't think the story will be truly resolved until Rowf and Snitter find a master.

Reply
Top
Bottom
Next
Previous

shelby d

Member
Date Posted: Sep/25/2006 7:38 PM
Email Thread View Profile
I am on page 75:

Against my predictions, the men from the animal testing facility are trying to get Rowf and Snitter back. I thought that the author would leave that part behind and instead focus on what will happent to the main characters in the outside world. I guess that the continuing incorporation of the men into the story was indicated by the amount of time the author spends characterizing them. The element of pursuit will change the dynamic of the story dramatically, especially if the reader can follow both the chase and the flight. It adds an degree of suspense to the story, and might be useful to keep readers interesting. I think this is needed at this point because the author keeps going on tangents that describe things in numerous repetetive ways. These are getting increasingly boring. If I weren't reading this for school, I would probably skim or even skip these parts. The problem is that they don't add anything to the plot, which gives the reader no incentive to read it.

I dislike how Richard Adams hasn't added anyone else to Rowf and Snitter's group. One thing I enjoyed emensely in Watership Down was how he portrayed the dynamics and leadership of a group. So far this hasn't come up at all in Plague Dogs. I hope he adds more characters soon because it would be nice to see more contrasting opinions. It would also allow us to see the problems and events through the eyes of someone who hasn't been mentally and emotionally by the whitecoats. Point of view is something that is interesting in this book. It switches and because it is done in third person, the author can do this fluidly. It is especially interesting to be able to see Snitter's madness through two POVs. First the reader is introduced to it through Rowfs thoughts, and he thinks it a little annoyin. Snitter however, is filled with despair. He is forced to wonder wether the madness will end or if he will be plagued by illusions. The scene I refer to in that, on pages 68-69, is particularly touching. It also desplays his wish for a master that is always pleasant.

Reply
Top
Bottom
Next
Previous

shelby d

Member
Date Posted: Sep/28/2006 8:15 PM
Email Thread View Profile
Emma where are you?

Finaly we have met someone else! His name is Tod, and he is a wild fox. I am not sure that it has stated that in the book yet, but it is mentioned in the note at the begining of the book. I think that under his influence, they will stay alive a lot longer then they would have otherwise. He grew up in the wild, so he understands how to fend for himself. I am not entirely sure why he chose to stay with them, ewhen they obviously weren't' very good at living in the outside world. I think it was because they are bigger and stronger than him, and therefore are better suited to catching larger things, like sheep. I think that the first scene you see him in is a good indication of his character. In that scene he was trying to convince Rowf not to kill him for stealing their meat. He convinced Rowf and Snitter that they needed him to survive, and although I believe this is true I think that Tod would have said it even if it wasn't to save his own skin. Snitter was the first to be convinced. I think he was intelligent and humble enough to realize that the diferences between their previous life and their current one to realize that they would need help to adjust. I do not think his promise to help them had anything to do with why he stayed. He seems like the kind of animal who's promise doesn't mean anything. This could be a facade though, and maybe he just doesn't want to admit how soft-hearted he is.

We continue to hear about the 'whitecoats'. They are not actively searching for them because they are woried about what the public would think if they knew that their dogs were getting loose. This is good, because it will give Rowf and Snitter more time to get away. The dogs have not even tried to go much further so far, and I am not sure if they will later. At the end of the chapter, the author forshadowed that the search for Rowf and Snitter would be hard. This makes me think that the chase will have a lot of near misses, which would be especialy frustrating.

Reply
Top
Bottom
Next
Previous

emma s

Member
Date Posted: Sep/30/2006 7:08 PM
Email Thread View Profile
I disagree with Shelby. Although I haven't read watership down, I like how it was only the two characters. I like books where it focuses on only a couple of people. I am disapointed with the fox. for some reason, I don't like him. I agree with how she thinks it wants to stay with them because they are bigger and better, but for some reason, I get this vibe that he is going to turn out to be not very nice. Call it a sixth sense, but i really don't think that he will help them in the overall plot. From past experience of reading, I think that characters introduced in the middle of the book usually don't turn out so good. For example in Harry Potter (sorry for relating this to Harry Potter Shelby) it is easy to tell who are the good characters (Harry, Hagrid). When we get to the shopping sceen, Harry meets Draco, who doesn't seem mean or nice. Its characters like this who make me nervous. I may be wrong about Tod, but I have a feeling he is not good.

I also wonder what happened in the dogs pasts. I think that this also will have a role later on in the story. I think that something will happen and one of the dogs will remeber something and panic.

Besides my disagreement with Shelbs veiws of the number of characters, I agree with everything else whole heartedly.

Emma

Reply
Top
Bottom
Next
Previous

emma s

Member
Date Posted: Oct/01/2006 8:30 PM
Email Thread View Profile
I feel bad for Rolwf. I don't think that dogs should have to serve humans who do terrible things to them. Snitter is right to say that they don't have to serve the "whitecoats" I will not restate humans should not torture dogs because I have already ranted about that.

My suspisions are growing deeper about Tod. he seems very iffy. (made-up word) he seems so untrustworthy. I really don't like the way that he talks. I know that that isn't relevant, but I don't like the way he talks. It bugs me.

I really hope that the whitecoats don't catch the dogs. I wonder if they would do anything to Tod if they caught him. I hope that no one dies. (no more dead dogs)

Emma

Reply
Top
Bottom
Next
Previous

shelby d

Member
Date Posted: Oct/02/2006 6:29 PM
Email Thread View Profile
I am on page 130:

The differences between Rowf and Snitter are frequently indicated. In the section I just read both of them try to convince the other they have to do something because they have no hope of hiding from the whitecoats forever. What interests me is that their plan is entirely different. Snitter tries to come up with a plan to succeed in evading the whitecoats, preferably by leaving the area. I think this was meant to highlight Snitter's intelligence by showing how he was able to plan for the future. Rowf, on the other side, decided that he should go back to the whitecoats. This incident showed to things. Rowf was shown in this to be extremely loyal, although his loyalty was misplaced. He thought that he was supposed to follow the whitecoats, and so he decided to return to them, evem though it might result in his death. I believe that if Snitter and the Tod earn his loyalty and use it wisely, it will unite the group. The second thing the reader could learn from this occurance is in relation to the Tod. If you pay attention it indicates that it was actually the Tod who stopped Rowf from going to the whitecoats, not Snitter. This makesme think that, contrary to Emma's beliefs, the Tod is actually going to end up being helpful. It also shows off his cunning because instead of telling Rowf how he waswrong, like Snitter tried to, he instead told Rowf how he had helped them by getting them away from the farmer. It shows that he was able to recognize Rowf's pride and knew how to play it to keep him from leaving.

I also liked the creation story that Rowf told. One thing I enjoyed immensely in Watership Down was his stories of El-hrairah.(sp?) It was nice to see a remnant of that in this book. I think that this story, other then the fact that the creator was a dog, seemed more like a creation myth for all species, not just dogs. In fact it showed dogs in an almost negative light, following humans whom they portrayed as horrible. This could also be seen in a good light, as showing the loyalty that is characteristic in dogs. I also love the way they gave a reason for why dogs dislike cats.

Reply to Emma:

I am less worried about the whitecoats catching them than I am about the farmers shooting them. The farmer would shoot them immediatly, giving them no chance to escape. Also, the farmers are more motivated to catch them. The dogs are eating the farmers sheep and they would want to get rid of the threat, but the whitecoats are not welcoming the prospect of claiming responsibility for the dogs, and therefore the dead sheep. If the farmers find the dogs, and therefore the Tod to, I believe that they would shoot him because he is also a danger to their livestock. I don't thinkk the whitecoats would care enough to do something to him.

Also, Draco was introduced in the very begining of the book, before even Ron and Hermione, and Ron and Hermione did not turn out to be bad.

Reply
Top
Bottom
Next
Previous

emma s

Member
Date Posted: Oct/02/2006 7:22 PM
Email Thread View Profile
O.K. so I was wrong about Tod, but the book still isn’t over yet. I know that Tod stopped Rolf from essentially comiting suicide, I still don’t think that he is very good. I think that he has something to do with this and he is trying to earn the dogs trust. I know that this isn’t the perfect proof to my theory, but on the books cover Rolf an Snitter are on the cover, and Tod is on the back. If Tod was good, the ilistrator might have put him on the front cover.

I agree with Shelby that Rolfs loyalty was misplaced, but I don’t think that it is his fault. He was taught that he was supposed to be loyal to humans, but he was never taught when to be loyal to them. For example: Rolf still thinks that he should be loyal to people who are terrible to him. This shows how we, as humans, take a lot of things for granted. It hasn’t occurred to most people that dogs could stop serving us, or even being pets. We think that because we are more intelegent than dogs that we have the right to push them around. I am very resentful about this because dogs aren’t just at our disposal. Dogs are living things and should be treated with respect. The whitecoats have not treated the dogs with respect, and I think that they should ( and hopefully will) be punished.

Shelby, how can you be more worried about the farmers than the whitecoats? The dogs have three fates one to be shot, two to be tortured and probably killed and three freedom. I am more concerened about the whitecoats because they will catch the dogs, and torture them to death. Being shot would be better as terrible as it seems.

~Emma~


Reply
Top
Bottom
Next
Previous

emma s

Member
Date Posted: Oct/03/2006 7:50 PM
Email Thread View Profile
O.K. I am having mixed feelings about which people to be worried about. I think that the farmers are very vicious also, but the whitecoats are bad too, so I don’t really know what to think. Shelby, do you have any views on the matter?

O.K. I am officially wrong about Tod. Would you like a written apology, or a signed document? I admit it I WAS WRONG. I said it. Tod seems nice after all, and he really was nice to both of the dogs.

I was getting very nervice when Rowf and Snitter got separated. I had a terrible feeling in my gut that something terrible was going to happen. Then the car came and felt like screaming at Snitter not to go in the car. Don’t do it. But, sure enough he went in the car. I was angry. The person was lulling Snitter into a false sense of security, and then striking. GRRR. This book makes me very mad some times.

I cannot believe that Snitter got shot. It so evil. I can’t believe they did that. Snitter was trying to get out of the cat, and they just shot him. Then poor Snitter thought that it was his fault that everything was “blasted” I was really interested with his past though. He thought that whitecoats were nice, but now he thinks that most of them are mean. When I say whitecoats, I mean vets. The vets were always nice to him, so I’m guessing that that was why he trusted the mean whitecoats at first. I am still reading about his past, so I am not sure how he got the bad whitecoats.

I was so glad when the two dogs found each other. I was very tense when they weren’t
Together, so naturally I was extremely relieved when they found each other. My nerves were rushing because I thought that Snitter was going to be dead, so when he was alive I felt like singing a chorus of Alleluia.

I thought the conversation on pg. 144 was very very boring. They just kept going on and on about what to do, and they really didn’t get much accomplished because they were half drunk. I don’t really like conversations involving drunken people.

~Emma~

Please post Shelby!




 Message edited by: emma s on 10/03/2006 19:56:01

Reply
Top
Bottom
Next
Previous

emma s

Member
Date Posted: Oct/04/2006 8:00 PM
Email Thread View Profile
Overall, I really enjoyed reading this book.
I really liked Snitter’s views about the clouds; I thought that they were very funny. From a dog’s point of view, I guess that clouds looked like flying sheep. I really am not sad about the Tod dying. I know that it sounds mean, but I really didn’t like him that much. I’m not happy about him dying, I am just not said. I don’t think that he had a big contribution to the book, but the dogs did have a harder time without him.
While I was reading this book, I got very mad at the press. They edited Snitters head so that people wouldn’t feel sorry for him which is really lying in a way. I can’t believe that everyone was afraid of the dogs. They never meant to hurt anyone. Everyone was terrified that they had the bubotonic Plague, even though they didn’t. Poor Snitter was practically going mad by the end of the book. I thought that it was amusing that the Dogs thought that they were dead because everything worked out perfectly and that they lived happily ever after.
I am glad that Richard Adams didn’t just end the book with nothing to think about. There was a huge twist when we found out about why the dogs were in the testing facilities. I am very confused and don’t really know what to think. For the whole book Richard made us think that the whitecoats were mean and evil, but he did hint that they weren’t abusing the dogs. There was a part in the book where Snitter was remembering how the whitecoats told him that he was doing something good, and remembering how nice they were. When I first read this I thought that they were lulling the dogs into a false sense of security, so this made me even madder at them. The whole book I was thinking how mean and nasty these people were, but now I realize that this was all for a good cause. They were trying to find remedies to a sickness that a little girl had. I am really confused. I think that it is O.K. to do these tests on the dogs. I don’t really like that the dogs are getting hurt, but I want all the people to get better. I feel that it is O.K. to do these things to the dogs, as long as they don’t abuse this privilege. The people actually were being nice to the dogs and not wanting to hurt the dogs but they did to help humanity. I know that animal rights activists would want to do the tests on humans, but I would say that that is almost hypocritical. If their whole point is to prove that animals have rights like us, then they are lessoning the humans and making them bellow humans. In a way I can see both sides of the fight, but I still stick to what I said before. I wish that the Dogs were able to communicate with us humans so they could tell us if they were willing to help us. I think that Rolf and Snitter would both be willing to do what they did if they knew what they were doing. Rolf had said earlier that he would go back to them because he was supposed to be loyal to humans. I think that he was right for the wrong reasons. I think that they should have gone back because they wanted to help NOT because they felt they should have to be loyal to humans. I hope that Shelby agrees with my views.

This book was very interesting to read, and keeps the reader interested. I especially liked how Richard Adams was not biased about anything and let the reader develop his/her views, and get them to think

Please post!

Emma



 Message edited by: emma s on 10/04/2006 20:23:54

Reply
Top
Bottom
Next
Previous

shelby d

Member
Date Posted: Oct/04/2006 9:28 PM
Email Thread View Profile
I have finished the book!!!!

I am interested on how Richard Adams portrays humans. We talked a lot about how he portrays the animals, but we forgot about humans. At the begining, he portrays them negatively. He shows all the motives people have that usually aren't bettering the community. He shows how people often forget their morals and focus instead on individual gain. This is shown with the people at the reasearch center, when they do not warn farmers because they think it might cause trouble for them. It is also demonstrated when Digby Driver focuses not on informing the public, but on selling more copies of the newspaper and coming up with a good story. This is not even for the good of the company but rather in hope of his own promotion. Digby Driver's portrayel of the dogs made them more enemies then they might have had otherewise. However, Snitter's owner would not have recognized him if it were not for Digby's article. This shows that actions that seem simply good or bad at first often have deeper implications. While the dogs plight was intensified by the articles they also caused more people to think about their situation. This prompted a review of the research center, which cannot be a bad thing.

Digby Driver is an especially interesting character because of how he grows during the course of the story. The author starts off by portraying him as a person who doesn't think about or care how his actions will impact other people. At the end of the book he is offering to take care of someone who was hurt in a car accident. This drastic transformation occurs mainly after he discovers that Snitter's master is still alive. I wonder what about this situation called him to action, other than that it was a good story. It is possible he disliked the fact that Annie Mossity lied to him, or perhaps he felt sorry for the dogs. The second is unlikely because he showed no compassion to them earlier. This character is also intriguing because he was amazingly observant of human nature. Often when he was interviewing someone the text would include his thoughts. These thoughts revealed that he understood how to use human nature to his own advantage.

Reply to Emma:

Your wrong about what is happening with the whitecoats. Yes, some of the experements might be testing cures for the girls diseases, but others, like the isolated monkey, Rowf's test, or Snitter's test, would not realy help anyone directly. I suppose Rowf's test could help people develop steroids to improve indurance, but I don't think that is neccessary. I do agree with you that he is good at getting us to think. In this book he allowed us to look at a lot of people's views on the matter, so that we could develop our own.

Reply
Top
Bottom
Next
Previous
Navigation:

Copyright © 1999-2000 fuseTalk. All rights reserved.