This is both the name of the short story and the name of the main character in the story. Stolpestad works for the police. We follow him on the job one day, a day that closely resembles any other mediocre day of his life. Something happens though. He’s asked to put a seriously injured dog down, by a mother and her son. The way he kills the dog and his non-emotional reaction to the situation, raises questions about stagnation, indifference and emotional absence in the lives of humans around us. His life is degrading. A thing you notice almost immediately is the narrative view. It’s written in second person, present tense, and this gives the effect as if it was Stolpestad himself telling the story. When referring to himself as ‘you’, it has an effect equal to the story being told in third person. When using ‘one’, the impression of that this is how a situation is, and would be to anyone who was in his place. Also, there are traits that imply that the short story is written in spoken language and this contributes to the impression that Stoplestad is telling the story himself. Mentioning the different stores and shops Stolpestad has to pass, the narrator inflicts the story with a great deal of triviality. This can also be applied to Stoplestads life, because the narrator is character-bound and we follow Stolpestad through the narrator. Also, the setting is described as a dull and unimaginative place, nothing is in development and everything is unnecessary and needless to all the people. The dying dog is symbol of Stolpestads current life situation. The dog only moves very little throughout the whole story, which also applies to Stoplestads life. Stolpestad doesn’t make any considerable development throughout the story, even though he has the chance to do so, in the process of killing the dog. The whole situation with the dog is absurd. The most obvious thing to do in the situation would be to call a veterinarian to kill the dog. The mother rejects this...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document