Considering that the man has a son to raise in such conditions, the sight of another human being is the last thing he wants to see. This is especially true in pages 46-49 in the word version of the story. They enter a house to find a multitude of people all naked, cold and scared. He first instinct was to get his son out of there. He had no idea what these peoples' intentions even though they did seem desperate.
Now, i was wondering how the man would have reacted if his he had no son. How would he have reacted if it was only him against the world? Firstly, I don't think he would have been so kind and defensive in situations like these. All he has to loose is his own life and no one else's. So, he would probably take advantage of these people by searching if they have anything of value and then leave. Now, if he were to find himself with people of his own standard (or even higher), he would probably just run for it like he did with his son.
I notice that there are many forms of individualism in this story and in the general world they are living in. The kind the boy and the man are having is trying to isolate themselves completely from any other human contact in fear that something might happen. The type the people in the house had was a little more open since they had absolutely nothing and would have to rely on someone that passed by. The last one I noticed was that of the people outside the house just before the man and the son left running. This type of individualism is more of a "gang" if you will. They depend on each other and probably share everything equally in order stay alive as a one. It's far more efficient but when it comes to conflict decision making, they will have to be very flexible with their peers in order to survive and stay together.
"Will they kill us papa?"(47.) just so happens to be the very evidence that this kid knows well the world they live in. He is still innocent but knows what to look out for and what to expect. Either he has found that out for himself, or his father has trained him over time to know what might happen and how to rect to it. This is a vital element to survive in any world either alone or in a group.
I disagree with Andre's ideas, because if I would have been in that situation, I wouldn't take advantage of the people in the house. I'll rather try to foment the creation of a collective identity, a group. This is the most logic thing to do in such situations because it is way better to form a travel group in order to survive rather than just stealing everything and then to deal with everything by myself. They say humans are sociable in nature, so is the most logical and natural thing to do. Think of the benefits... You could carry more stuff and is more than obvious that a bunch of hands work better than just 2. In conclusion, I think that the main character wouldn't have done the same if he din't have the kid, but on the other hand he would have probably tried to organize this people in order to make his journey easier.
ReplyDeleteWhen I commented this matter to Andres, he said that thinking it again my solution sounded "more practical", but as they say, we can't be sure of what are we going to do on certain situations unless we are there.